MQA is Vaporware

[R1200CL]

3 hours ago, Paul R said:

Hi-Res Music is from the RIAA, is put on Music, and as far as I know, is only for North America. 

 

The new Hi-Res MUSIC logo (below), developed by 2B Communications Inc., was designed to identify those high resolution recordings that are available from digital music retailers in the U.S., Canada, and Europe for commercial downloads or streaming. The logo has been specifically designed to complement the Hi-Res AUDIO logo that is currently licensed by the Japan Audio Society for use on compatible consumer electronics devices.

 

https://www.riaa.com/high-resolution-audio-initiative-gets-major-boost-with-new-hi-res-music-logo-and-branding-materials-for-digital-retailers/

[R1200CL]

6 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Although to be more fair to engineers, a good number of them are being ordered to do this by the record labels they work for.

 

Let’s hope this guideline is followed 

https://www.grammy.com/sites/com/files/recommendations_for_hires_music_production_09_28_18.pdf

 

[Paul R]

55 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Historically speaking, true high resolution has meant 24/88.2 or higher.

 

Well, in 1982, 16/44.1K was absolutely high resolution, and the promise was perfect sound forever. We all know how that worked out, but - there are still significant numbers of people today who will tell you that 16/44.1 is *it*, and it just doesn't get any better. Some people have the same opinion concerning vinyl. Or Reel to Reel tape.

 

As Chris pointed out, the skill of the person making the recording and mastering the final product seems to count a heck of a lot more than actual resolution, or technique, or equipment, or even the software. My personal opinion is that technically, the best sounding recordings of the past few years came from 24/192K recordings. Such as the title from Soundkeeper Recordings below. If it were only available in MQA, I would buy it without any hesitation at all. 

 

Today, I would possibly say DSD/DXD recordings technically have the best sound. So to me, that is probably the bar for "high resolution." 

 

It's kind of an individual thing though. The "best sounding recordings" to me are more often good recordings of music I really love, and I don't care all that much about the format. Well, except I will choose the format that sounds the best to me in regards to an individual recording, be it MP3 or Quad DSD. 

 

-Paul 

[Paul R]

56 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

 

The new Hi-Res MUSIC logo (below), developed by 2B Communications Inc., was designed to identify those high resolution recordings that are available from digital music retailers in the U.S., Canada, and Europe for commercial downloads or streaming. The logo has been specifically designed to complement the Hi-Res AUDIO logo that is currently licensed by the Japan Audio Society for use on compatible consumer electronics devices.

 

https://www.riaa.com/high-resolution-audio-initiative-gets-major-boost-with-new-hi-res-music-logo-and-branding-materials-for-digital-retailers/

 

That is the one I was referring to, from 2015. It specifies 20/48K as the bar for "Hi-Res Music." I do not think they have updated it in the intervening four years. 

 

Yours,

Paul 

 

[KeenObserver]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

This is what you said:

 

If that's not implying that Pro Tools can't do high-res, I don't know what would, nor what you could possibly be intending to say. Perhaps you should just put that shovel down before the hole you're in gets any deeper.

 

What?  You don't TRUST Lee?

[Lee Scoggins]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

This is what you said:

 

If that's not implying that Pro Tools can't do high-res, I don't know what would, nor what you could possibly be intending to say. Perhaps you should just put that shovel down before the hole you're in gets any deeper.

 

Typo on my part. It should say "midrez on Pro Tools."  

[Lee Scoggins]

2 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Well, in 1982, 16/44.1K was absolutely high resolution, and the promise was perfect sound forever. We all know how that worked out, but - there are still significant numbers of people today who will tell you that 16/44.1 is *it*, and it just doesn't get any better. Some people have the same opinion concerning vinyl. Or Reel to Reel tape.

 

As Chris pointed out, the skill of the person making the recording and mastering the final product seems to count a heck of a lot more than actual resolution, or technique, or equipment, or even the software. My personal opinion is that technically, the best sounding recordings of the past few years came from 24/192K recordings. Such as the title from Soundkeeper Recordings below. If it were only available in MQA, I would buy it without any hesitation at all. 

 

Today, I would possibly say DSD/DXD recordings technically have the best sound. So to me, that is probably the bar for "high resolution." 

 

It's kind of an individual thing though. The "best sounding recordings" to me are more often good recordings of music I really love, and I don't care all that much about the format. Well, except I will choose the format that sounds the best to me in regards to an individual recording, be it MP3 or Quad DSD. 

 

-Paul 

 

When we were doing the early dvd-audio recordings at Chesky in the mid-90s, 24/88 was considered hirez and it was really 24/96 back then and you only had Chesky's ironically-named "Super Audio Discs" and Classic Records "DAD" discs that would play on existing DVD players to output a 24/96 signal.

[Sonicularity]

2 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Well, in 1982, 16/44.1K was absolutely high resolution, and the promise was perfect sound forever. We all know how that worked out, but - there are still significant numbers of people today who will tell you that 16/44.1 is *it*, and it just doesn't get any better. Some people have the same opinion concerning vinyl. Or Reel to Reel tape.

 

 

 

I don't see how 16/44.1 can be compared to vinyl or reel-to-reel when it comes to fidelity.  You are conflating inferior audio formats to rational people with a format that can be audibly transparent for playback of the recording.  You can't get better than transparent, but that does not mean that every Redbook product was made without flaws, only that there is no reason to believe it could not sound identical to any supposedly superior HiRes format.

 

 

[Lee Scoggins]

37 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

I don't see how 16/44.1 can be compared to vinyl or reel-to-reel when it comes to fidelity.  You are conflating inferior audio formats to rational people with a format that can be audibly transparent for playback of the recording.  You can't get better than transparent, but that does not mean that every Redbook product was made without flaws, only that there is no reason to believe it could not sound identical to any supposedly superior HiRes format.

 

 

 

A vinyl record can hold a 50khz signal which translates to 100khz sampling rate.  So vinyl is roughly around DVD-Audio quality which is what I usually hear as well.  Reel to reel is higher fidelity at 15 ips and still higher at 30 ips.  Analog tape is capable of truly outstanding fidelity.  

 

Redbook can sound great with a great recording and a great mastering.  But given the same recording on hirez and great mastering it will sound better still.

[Sonicularity]

5 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

A vinyl record can hold a 50khz signal which translates to 100khz sampling rate.  So vinyl is roughly around DVD-Audio quality which is what I usually hear as well.  Reel to reel is higher fidelity at 15 ips and still higher at 30 ips.  Analog tape is capable of truly outstanding fidelity.  

 

Redbook can sound great with a great recording and a great mastering.  But given the same recording on hirez and great mastering it will sound better still.

 

Why would any human care about 50kHz or 100kHz?  I have not seen any reliable evidence to suggest what you claim about HiRes being better.   I did say rational people, my bad.

[Lee Scoggins]

Just now, Sonicularity said:

 

Why would any human care about 50kHz or 100kHz?  I have not seen any reliable evidence to suggest what you claim about HiRes being better.   I did say rational people, my bad.

 

There are several AES studies that found people could hear the improvements of hirez music.  The sonic advantages are pretty obvious to me.

[Paul R]

48 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

I don't see how 16/44.1 can be compared to vinyl or reel-to-reel when it comes to fidelity.  You are conflating inferior audio formats to rational people with a format that can be audibly transparent for playback of the recording.  You can't get better than transparent, but that does not mean that every Redbook product was made without flaws, only that there is no reason to believe it could not sound identical to any supposedly superior HiRes format.

 

 

 

Lee answered that very well I think.  So, you are one of those people who believe Redbook format is *it*?

 

Great example.

 

-Paul 

 

[Sonicularity]

9 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

There are several AES studies that found people could hear the improvements of hirez music.  The sonic advantages are pretty obvious to me.

 

Let's see these and we can create a new topic for discussion.  You still have not provided any reliable evidence.  

[Sonicularity]

13 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Lee answered that very well I think.  So, you are one of those people who believe Redbook format is *it*?

 

Great example.

 

-Paul 

 

 

I hope that it is not it.  I don't think we will get anything for stereo playback with music released to date that would sound superior.  As a format, it is not as practical today.  It is capable of being audibly transparent.

[Lee Scoggins]

21 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

Let's see these and we can create a new topic for discussion.  You still have not provided any reliable evidence.  

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257068631_Sampling_Rate_Discrimination_441_kHz_vs_882_kHz

[Lee Scoggins]

This one speaks to how sound engineers prefer higher bit rates:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257068576_Subjective_Evaluation_of_MP3_Compression_for_Different_Musical_Genres

[Lee Scoggins]

Meta-study:

 

http://www.aes.org/press/?ID=362

[Lee Scoggins]

Study showing non-musicians can hear the difference.

 

https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conferences/?elib=19650

[Paul R]

25 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

I hope that it is not it.  I don't think we will get anything for stereo playback with music released to date that would sound superior.  As a format, it is not as practical today.  It is capable of being audibly transparent.

 

You are confusing me here - you say that you can't do better than transparent, and that Redbook format is (capable of being) transparent. As a format, it seems eminently practical, just about every player- hardware, software, or hybrid, can play it back perfectly today. Further, it is easy to stream with the amount of bandwidth we enjoy in the first world today. I think that means you ae happy with Redbook and see no need to to make a basic/fundamental improvement on it's sonic properties.

 

I also think you said that you see no advantage to hi-res recordings today, but also think that there is something better than Redbook. Kind of contradictory, but probably I just do not see where you are coming from exactly. 

 

For proof, please just search this forum for high res discussions - you will find an enormous number of references, discussions, tutorials -  even math proofs - much more than anyone could reasonably expect. Lots of silliness too, even from me. What may make sense in sound theory, may be utterly impractical in practice. And vice versa. 

 

And please remember, you are not paying anyone here to come up with proofs for you. Most people are here for a bit of fun, not to do scholar level research. That so many people are wiling to share is a testament of how much they care about our hobby, and how friendly they are. There are real people behind those electrons, most of whom are really worth getting to know. 

 

Still, it comes down to most people prefer the sound of high resolution recordings and playback over red book. Many prefer vinyl, tape, multi-channel, or specific forms of digital playback like SD Cards.  Most with good reasons and personal experience to back it up. 

 

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Perception of formats through headphones.

 

https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?elib=18228

[Lee Scoggins]

50 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

Why would any human care about 50kHz or 100kHz? 

 

Don't confuse audible range with sampling rate.  The latter has to do with resolution and that impacts the 20-20khz audible range.  Hirez also allows for better filters in digital.

[rickca]

I thought this thread was about MQA.

[Sonicularity]

18 minutes ago, rickca said:

I thought this thread was about MQA.

 

I agree.

 

@Lee Scoggins Choose the one you feel best provides evidence that HiRes is audibly superior to Redbook and we can move the discussion into a separate thread.

[Paul R]

That is a heck of an interesting paper - especially the rates that audio lovers and musicians identified high resolution audio against CD. I would love to see that same testing repeated on a larger scale, and with a control group. 

 

The headphone amplifier is also really interesting, as it seems aimed more at exact level matching and reproducibility than anything else. I hope Dennis takes a look at that thing... 

Brüel & Kjær ZE0769-004

 

(And with MQA thrown in the mix. )

-Paul 

 

[KeenObserver]

53 minutes ago, rickca said:

I thought this thread was about MQA.

 

I suspect that there are some people that would like to see it diverted to another subject.

Exposing the truth about MQA upsets them.