MQA is Vaporware

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, soxr said:

Unless off course some of the secret MQA data also contains audio via dithering, so the "apparant" dynamic range can be a little bit higher, just like correctly dithered CD can do more than 96dB dynamic range.

 

All is relative. Our DAC really shows 23.x bits of resolvement which is without dither. So with dither it will do 26 or so ?

I dream about other things. 

IOW this voodoo should be counted out. And when *then* nice comparisons can be made with DACs and MQA improves etc., then add the dither to let outperform MQA. Not some vague other way around.

 

 

[mansr]

1 hour ago, soxr said:

I own the Metrum Adagio, an R2R NOS DAC, but that's an exception as it's not a chip DAC but using custom built modules by Metrum. Adagio does true 24 bit SNR just like some overpriced MSB dac's. But no delta-sigma is going to cut it and reach 24 bit SNR in a chip.

No DAC of any design can reach true 24-bit SNR. It is physically impossible.

[AJ Soundfield]

Why settle for a lousy 24 bits when you can get 32 bits of "resolution", from what appears to be a tabletop speaker system no less! https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/28/samsung-32-bit-speakers/

Samsung is a respected brand, so what their ads say must be believed

[esldude]

2 hours ago, soxr said:

 

 

I own the Metrum Adagio, an R2R NOS DAC, but that's an exception as it's not a chip DAC but using custom built modules by Metrum. Adagio does true 24 bit SNR just like some overpriced MSB dac's. But no delta-sigma is going to cut it and reach 24 bit SNR in a chip.
 

 

http://www.metrum-acoustics.com/Specs_Adagio.html

 

The -155 db noise floor  relative to 2 v rms  seems very unlikely as does the true 24 bit SNR.  Anyone have any confirmation of those numbers, and how they were measured?

 

Yet they only claim THD down -84 db.  Not particularly great.  So they don't have spurious free dynamic range of 24 bits.

[soxr]

Someone sent me this link:
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdlmp7zpXLM

 

An interview with none other than Bob Stuart, at the time of DVD vs Blu-ray/HD-DVD, where he debunks the need for super formats and high-res, and also states:

 

"We support DVD Audio. But the most important thing I think we have to do, is to produce the sound from CD, which is so good, and so exquisite, that the difference to high resolution is very small."

 

He also states "CD is good enough for 95% of the people" and laughs at audiophiles and their private recordings / special audiophile versions of the same recording.

 

So why did Bob make a 180 degree turn?

[esldude]

24 minutes ago, soxr said:

Someone sent me this link:
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdlmp7zpXLM

 

 

Read more  

Two different people and you are getting them mixed up.

 

There is Robert Stuart.  Pretty smart cookie.

 

There is Business Bob Stuart who does interviews with audiophile mags and such.

 

The above was Robert.  His ideas, usually very sensible ones, are in some of his earlier papers.  Compare that with interviews where he throws in with highly ridiculous ideas (read some of his interviews with Robert Harley), and you will find him contradicting the research results of Robert.

 

So the reason for the 180 degree turn.  I think he saw this cartoon.

 

 

 

[asdf1000]

1 hour ago, soxr said:

the sound from CD, which is so good, and so exquisite, that the difference to high resolution is very small."

 

This made me chuckle. And this interview was 2014, when MQA was already in development and he chose to say those words?

 

[crenca]

On 7/2/2017 at 1:54 PM, semente said:

Andrew Jones

...My approach is to set a design goal for the measured performance, meet this as close as possible, then evaluate the result by listening, but ONLY once I believe I have met the initial design objective. Then I try and honestly evaluate the result, and if (when……) I hear something wrong I go back and see if I can correlate this to the measurements. Maybe I was too enthusiastic in my evaluation of having met my target. Maybe my target is just wrong. I go back and make changes based on the re-evaluation, then re-listen. But I am always cross referring to the measurements.

DC

What shortcomings or limitations are there as to what one can measure versus what can hear?

AJ

I am not implying that we can measure everything that we hear. But we can measure a lot so we can shorten the design process. We can also however hear a lot of what isn't actually there! We can be easily misled in our hearing evaluation and attribute things that don't really exist. With too many variables during the design process we can also become confused. So we have to be as careful in our listening as we have to be in our measuring.

 

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue30/andrew_jones.htm

 

 

This made me think about "High End" or "Audiophiledom" vs. High Fidelity.  We have a significant portion of this industry that could not exist (i.e. cables in analog, magical bit manipulators in digital) without this "...easily misled in our hearing evaluation and attribute things that don't really exist".  Oh well, money makes the world go around...

[Rt66indierock]

On 7/2/2017 at 1:36 AM, PeterSt said:

About the being of this thread : So it is July; how many MQA albums are on Tidal now, you reckon ?

 

A little over 3,000.

[miguelito]

10 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 

10 hours ago, crenca said:

This made me think about "High End" or "Audiophiledom" vs. High Fidelity.  We have a significant portion of this industry that could not exist (i.e. cables in analog, magical bit manipulators in digital) without this "...easily misled in our hearing evaluation and attribute things that don't really exist".  Oh well, money makes the world go around...

I actually have to admit I don't generally know what it is that I like in a sound once you get to a certain level. For me is how deeply I get pulled into the music. I must also admit that when I hear a system that is "highly resolving" I often find them not doing it for me. 

 

One time I visited Jonathan Carr in Tokyo. It was many years ago. He played some records, and after a few hours I sort of felt in trance, confused, almost sleepy. The experience was so wonderful and relaxing, and the music frankly not what was up my alley at the time, but it was wonderful and it made me look up and purchase those tunes afterwards.

 

Edit: JC is the head designer of Lyra cartridges. The playback system included the Connosieur air dielectric preamp, 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, miguelito said:

 

I actually have to admit I don't generally know what it is that I like in a sound once you get to a certain level. For me is how deeply I get pulled into the music. I must also admit that when I hear a system that is "highly resolving" I often find them not doing it for me. 

 

One time I visited Jonathan Carr in Tokyo. It was many years ago. He played some records, and after a few hours I sort of felt in trance, confused, almost sleepy. The experience was so wonderful and relaxing, and the music frankly not what was up my alley at the time, but it was wonderful and it made me look up and purchase those tunes afterwards.

 

Edit: JC is the head designer of Lyra cartridges. The playback system included the Connosieur air dielectric preamp, 

 

A good description of something approaching, or achieving "convincing" sound. "Highly resolving" may be when the system over-emphasises fine detail, rather than allowing it to blend it in in a 'natural' fashion, as for live acoustic music.

 

It's a quality that one can live with for any length of time, because it doesn't demand of the senses to respond - you can "turn your back to it", and it still sounds "wonderful", heard out of the corner of one's ears ...

[asdf1000]

39 minutes ago, fas42 said:

It's a quality that one can live with for any length of time, because it doesn't demand of the senses to respond - you can "turn your back to it", and it still sounds "wonderful", heard out of the corner of one's ears ...

 

Very nicely put. I don't have this talent with words. We all search for different things and that's fantastic but this is what I look for.

[Sal1950]

23 hours ago, miguelito said:

 

I actually have to admit I don't generally know what it is that I like in a sound once you get to a certain level. For me is how deeply I get pulled into the music. I must also admit that when I hear a system that is "highly resolving" I often find them not doing it for me. 

 

One time I visited Jonathan Carr in Tokyo. It was many years ago. He played some records, and after a few hours I sort of felt in trance, confused, almost sleepy. The experience was so wonderful and relaxing, and the music frankly not what was up my alley at the time, but it was wonderful and it made me look up and purchase those tunes afterwards.

Very reminiscent of a situation listening to a system that rounds off the details with pleasant distortions and subtractions. Usually these defaults can be easily measured and their manipulations away from accuracy and transparency can be fully understood.

All very acceptable if your goal is "sounds good to me", not so much if your interested in High Fidelity.

[ShawnC]

6 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

 

All very acceptable if your goal is "sounds good to me", not so much if your interested in High Fidelity.

What?

 

 

 

 

[miguelito]

25 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Very reminiscent of a situation listening to a system that rounds off the details with pleasant distortions and subtractions. Usually these defaults can be easily measured and their manipulations away from accuracy and transparency can be fully understood.

All very acceptable if your goal is "sounds good to me", not so much if your interested in High Fidelity.

My system is extremely distorting. It sounds like music to me.

 

It might be that there's more to sound than THD and frequency response, maybe?

[Sal1950]

19 minutes ago, ShawnC said:

What?

 

 

 

 

Is there some part of High Fidelity you don't understand?

[ShawnC]

29 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Is there some part of High Fidelity you don't understand?

After that quote, all of it. 

[esldude]

44 minutes ago, ShawnC said:

What?

 

 

 

 

In case it was a real question.

There is this myth accepted in much of the audiophile world.  What sounds better to you is automatically of higher fidelity.  What sounds less good to you is automatically lower fidelity. 

 

Yet this is not always true.  It is where people confuse preferences with fidelity. 

 

Sal is merely saying he prefers fidelity as a base to start with.  Some number of audiophiles actually don't while maintaining they do.  There is no right or wrong with preferences and everyone should listen to the type of sound they prefer and enjoy whether their preference is for higher fidelity or pleasing coloration.

 

Colorations have a way of leading you away form the truth and into blind allies if you make the mistake of thinking they are better fidelity. 

[ShawnC]

So then, what is the definition of High Fidelity.  Lets start there, is it accuracy within measurements? How about price, I hope not.  Is it accuracy within the playback chain.  Does someone have a list of Companies that make only High Fidelity products?  That would save everyone here some time.  Plus we would all have the same sounding system. Your room may cause the High Fidelity products to sound like shit but at least you have the right components to start with.

 

I think the choice of words gets confusing.  I have a 2 channel stereo setup and a multi channel set up.  It sounds great to me.  My friends love it and they bring over there source material to listen through it.  So its nice but I guess not High Fidelity.  That's ok with me. 

[asdf1000]

24 minutes ago, ShawnC said:

its nice but I guess not High Fidelity

Don't be silly now, the Tritons are well and truely HF ! ;-)

Fantastic speakers. I had their big brother (T1's) until I recently had to move to a small apartment. I could have easily lived with the Fives though. Sorry for going off topic. I don't see a Triton owner around here that often lol. Much respect.

[Teresa]

8 hours ago, miguelito said:

...It might be that there's more to sound than THD and frequency response, maybe?

 

Correct!

 

7 hours ago, esldude said:

...There is this myth accepted in much of the audiophile world.  What sounds better to you is automatically of higher fidelity.  What sounds less good to you is automatically lower fidelity...

 

It's no myth, it's true for those who occasionally listen to live acoustic music.

• What sounds better is what sounds more lifelike.
• What sounds worse is what sounds less lifelike and more like a recording.
• And what sounds the worst of all is that which sounds sterile and cold.

Specifications will not reveal these, you have to actually listen with music you enjoy.

 

If one has never listened to real musical instruments or real human voices in a good sounding performance space then one may be enticed to prefer an artificially colored presentation. However, if one has and does go to live acoustic performances, one can only move closer to realism not further away.

 

1 hour ago, ShawnC said:

So then, what is the definition of High Fidelity...

 

Thus the definition of High Fidelity is that which gets you closer to the real thing IMHO.

[AJ Soundfield]

8 hours ago, miguelito said:

It might be that there's more to sound than THD and frequency response, maybe?

With electro-acoustic reproduction systems, why don't you tell us what that may be?

 

Nice setup btw

[Sal1950]

9 hours ago, miguelito said:

My system is extremely distorting. It sounds like music to me.

If you believe your system to be "extremely distorting" why not take measures to remove the distortion?

If the recording of a musical event is later distorted it has to sound less musical than the original event, no?

I don't follow your logic or reasoning.

[AJ Soundfield]

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

If one has never listened to real musical instruments or real human voices in a good sounding performance space then one may be enticed to prefer an artificially colored presentation. However, if one has and does go to live acoustic performances, one can only move closer to realism not further away.

Teresa, at the over one dozen audio shows I've exhibited at, I would guesstimate less the 25% (or much less) ask for classical, jazz etc acoustic music. The vast majority use electronic type music as their reference.

If you look at the MQA catalog, is mainly pop music. Yes there is classical and jazz etc too, but on Tidal it's overwhelmingly non acoustic. WTH do we need Jay-Z in MQA for?

 

Regarding measurements vs listening, this is a false dichotomy. Everyone listens. Not all have the ability to comprehend measurements and measuring. We can't all be Usain Bolt or Einstein, no matter how much we dream.

The true dichotomy is those who can measure and those who can't.

That's why many audiophile systems sound so terrible to all but them. "Claims" about subjective fantasy are non confirmable. Measurements are.

There are several members (out of over 100) in my local audio club with near 7 figure systems. 3 with Avantgarde Trios alone (2 XDs).

Excluding myself, by far the best sound in the club is a gent with a DIY OB horn system, with extensive DSP and measurements. It's not even close. The guys who spend 6 figures on bling with batting a eye shake their heads in disbelief at how much better it sounds than their...because they have no clue how to measure. It's the exact same at audio shows with thousands of systems. Folks who lack the chops to comprehend electro-acoustic reproduction and measure have terrible sounds in their rooms.

But inside their heads, its a totally different story, since it all sounds great to them. Just ask 'em ;-)

 

These are the same folks raving about MQA.

[miguelito]

2 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

With electro-acoustic reproduction systems, why don't you tell us what that may be?

Well, for example speaker dynamic range, jitter (in case of digital), phase response, ringing, frequency response vs signal amplitude, speaker dispersion, room reflections, room modes, speaker integration (through the crossover frequencies - phase in particular), RT60 in the room... And that's just right off the top of my head...