R1200CL Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 I wonder if streaming of SACD is realistic to think ever will happen ? Link to comment
firedog Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 1 hour ago, R1200CL said: I wonder if streaming of SACD is realistic to think ever will happen ? It's been done on a limited basis. No reason it can't be done. The bandwith is about the same as for a 176 or 192/24 file, and those are streamed without issue. The only real issue is that there isn't enough interest in DSD to make it worth it for the streaming services. Even Qobuz doesn't stock DSD; they have plenty of albums in 24/96 or 24/192 in the catalog whose origin is DSD, yet they only contract to stream the PCM version of the album. Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 On 12/29/2020 at 5:17 AM, botrytis said: Here is what a REAL Scientific paper looks like. Since we are discussing audio, is this publication within the frames of a scientific paper ? https://www.willhowie.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/wh.3Daudio.sample_rate.discrimination.v1.7.pdf As an example. This document probably isn’t. Read the comments/discussion. https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=2 The guy beneath in the video has an interesting comment. If we trust Bob Stuart and Peter Craven saying our auditory system has a time resolution of 7 µs, which would need a sample rate of 141 kHz or better, it certainly make sense to use 24/192. Video gives a good explanation. (I haven’t watched part 2 yet😀) I just wish BS had stopped there, and didn’t invent the origami. 😀 Link to comment
Fast and Bulbous Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 Meanwhile..... "Neil Young sells song rights in '$150m' deal" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55557633 R1200CL 1 Link to comment
lucretius Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 5 hours ago, FredericV said: Files on Tidal were just HTTP in the past, and HTTPS these days. Both rely on the TCP part of TCP/IP. As TCP uses checksums and retransmissions, it guarantees a bitperfect pipe. There is no need for MQA. For cybercriminals there would be zero gain to mess with flac files in Tidal's CDN, so we are very sure no MITM is going to take place, so rest assured that HTTPS combined with TCP provides the technical features which guarantee the file is not being changed during transmission. Doing MITM on HTTPS is much harder and while technically not impossible if you have the skills, not worth the effort. It's much easier to look at player logs to see which URL's are being fetched, or to use an open source Tidal API. Basically when you control and endpoint, all the MITM efforts become pointless. So to conclude: our existing network protocols guarantee the files are being transmitted bitperfect already, without the need for MQA. I suspected this was the case with respect to transmission between Tidal and end user. OTOH, what I was saying is that MQA authentication provides assurance that Tidal doesn't alter the files or streams before leaving their control, although I cannot think of a reason why Tidal would do this. mQa is dead! Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 49 minutes ago, firedog said: No reason it can't be done. I was expecting DRM ? Link to comment
Popular Post UkPhil Posted January 6, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 6, 2021 13 minutes ago, Fast and Bulbous said: Meanwhile..... "Neil Young sells song rights in '$150m' deal" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55557633 I am assuming he still owns the master recordings though, he just won’t get royalties if they use his music in the latest toilet roll advert 😊 lucretius, Solstice380, The Computer Audiophile and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment
firedog Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 8 minutes ago, R1200CL said: I was expecting DRM ? Not sure what you mean. SACD's are protected in the sense that SACD players are licensed to output an analog stream, not the direct digital output they read off the disc. But SACDs are a physical medium, streaming would mean streaming the DSD-digital file the SACD is made from, not the SACD itself. No DRM or copy protection issues, just regular licensing issues like any digital version of the music we listen to. Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Cebolla Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 On 1/5/2021 at 6:47 AM, lucretius said: It's more than a flag. There is an actual check of bits - bit checksum. However, as I have posted before: Only the 0-22.05/24 kHz frequency range encoded in the first 13-15 most significant bits is authenticated. The 8 least significant bits (of a 24 bit file), which also include the encoding for the 22.05/24 - 44.1/48 kHz frequency range, do not affect authentication and thus can be altered and the "blue light" will remain on. Bob Stuart has already admitted this. Further, @FredericVhas tested and confirmed this: 27 minutes ago, lucretius said: I suspected this was the case with respect to transmission between Tidal and end user. OTOH, what I was saying is that MQA authentication provides assurance that Tidal doesn't alter the files or streams before leaving their control, although I cannot think of a reason why Tidal would do this. So much for the assurance, then! We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us. -- Jo Cox Link to comment
Popular Post botrytis Posted January 6, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 6, 2021 2 hours ago, R1200CL said: Since we are discussing audio, is this publication within the frames of a scientific paper ? https://www.willhowie.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/wh.3Daudio.sample_rate.discrimination.v1.7.pdf As an example. This document probably isn’t. Read the comments/discussion. https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=2 The guy beneath in the video has an interesting comment. If we trust Bob Stuart and Peter Craven saying our auditory system has a time resolution of 7 µs, which would need a sample rate of 141 kHz or better, it certainly make sense to use 24/192. Video gives a good explanation. (I haven’t watched part 2 yet😀) I just wish BS had stopped there, and didn’t invent the origami. 😀 Hans is clueless, unfortunately, and just hawks the same conspiracy theories that BS does without actually doing any work. Looks like he is reading off a script. People need to do research and actually prove what people are saying not just repeat lies. This seems to be the issue with Audio, more snake oil salesmen involved than actual snakes. Thuaveta and yahooboy 1 1 Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
Solstice380 Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 19 minutes ago, botrytis said: People need to do research and actually prove what people are saying not just repeat lies. This seems to be the issue with Audio, more snake oil salesmen involved than actual snakes. Just like politics! I guess that makes MQA more of a political issue than a technical improvement idea. 🤪 https://audiophilestyle.com/profile/21384-solstice380/?tab=field_core_pfield_3 Link to comment
botrytis Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 52 minutes ago, Solstice380 said: Just like politics! I guess that makes MQA more of a political issue than a technical improvement idea. 🤪 Exactly. The Computer Audiophile 1 Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
UkPhil Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 Re reading @Archimago article from 2018, this part even though hypothetical may now be echoing what’s happening since the replacement of 16bit PCM files with MQA versions on the Tidal platform by Warners with more to come allegedly from Universal and Sony. “Imagine a world where MQA is wildly successful and the only new digital releases from the major labels are in MQA. You can stream MQA, you can buy the MQA files, and even CDs are MQA-CD (“Buy those unaffected CDs before they all become MQA-CD remasters!”) The unsuspecting music lover who has never come across a critical article on MQA might be impressed initially that these are supposedly “hi-res” 24/48 MQA files or told that the 16/44.1 MQA-CD contains some secret sauce that makes it sound amazing. Initially, the sound quality might be okay on all the equipment he/she owns. But over time, the encoding system starts to degrade the sound of the undecoded data. At some point, what if the undecoded file becomes something like only 10-bits resolution unless it’s played back through an MQA certified device?” Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted January 6, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 6, 2021 5 hours ago, R1200CL said: Since we are discussing audio, is this publication within the frames of a scientific paper ? https://www.willhowie.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/wh.3Daudio.sample_rate.discrimination.v1.7.pdf As an example. This document probably isn’t. Read the comments/discussion. https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=2 The guy beneath in the video has an interesting comment. If we trust Bob Stuart and Peter Craven saying our auditory system has a time resolution of 7 µs, which would need a sample rate of 141 kHz or better, it certainly make sense to use 24/192. Video gives a good explanation. (I haven’t watched part 2 yet😀) I just wish BS had stopped there, and didn’t invent the origami. 😀 Careful with Hans B. The dude is even afraid to show us a picture of what his soundroom looks like in his videos. Remember that the temporal resolution of audio is NOT "quantised at the sample rate" to simply say 7μs = 141kHz! Bit depth has a greater role as an exponential function. So even if we accept that human hearing has a capacity to detect down to 7μs, a basic 16/44.1 PCM signal already has a temporal resolution in the picosecond range. If you want to see the way this is calculated, check out this Kahrs & Brandenburg textbook from back in 1998. The "time uncertainty" is 110ps for CD resolution already even though frequency response is limited to 22.05kHz. (Note that the text has a typo with CD resolution as "44.1 MHz".) You'll see the same result from Mans' calculations on his article here for an even better look at the numbers and formula. I wrote about some of this in that it's unclear what "blurring" in the context of MQA was supposed to mean back in 2018... Unless MQA presents exactly what the "problem" is (which it has not in years!), this all appears to be yet another fear/uncertainty/doubt claim meant to impress upon consumers in order to sell something the consumer does not need. Addendum: As for the Howie link, as you can see, it was rejected from publication. Just a quick look at the text shows that it is a very small trial of 10 subjects, uses a 9-speaker multichannel system, and the text seems to confound what could all have been frequency related issues from the 48kHz vs. 384kHz sampling rates and doesn't discuss things like intermodulation distortion from speaker playback or how the ADC/DAC treat the signals (eg. what do the filters on the ADC and DAC side look like???). A bit of a mess it seems... MikeyFresh, botrytis, UkPhil and 6 others 7 2 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 @Archimago Could you post also be interpreted as there isn’t a need for hires ? I thought we needed 24/192 in order to be within those 7μs, but you’re saying we don’t or ? Link to comment
Popular Post JoeWhip Posted January 6, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 6, 2021 Hans the audio evangelist. When I see anyone that claims to be any sort of evangelist, I just have to ignore them completely. botrytis and Solstice380 2 Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted January 6, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 6, 2021 24 minutes ago, R1200CL said: @Archimago Could you post also be interpreted as there isn’t a need for hires ? I thought we needed 24/192 in order to be within those 7μs, but you’re saying we don’t or ? Again,read this: https://troll-audio.com/articles/time-resolution-of-digital-audio/ The time resolution of even Redbook is far beyond 7 microseconds, by orders of magnitude. You put too much faith in "BS". He may be a great engineer, but pretty much everything he says in relation to MQA IS BS. lucretius and botrytis 1 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 1 hour ago, UkPhil said: “Imagine a world where MQA is wildly successful and the only new digital releases from the major labels are in MQA. You can stream MQA, you can buy the MQA files, and even CDs are MQA-CD (“Buy those unaffected CDs before they all become MQA-CD remasters!”) The unsuspecting music lover who has never come across a critical article on MQA might be impressed initially that these are supposedly “hi-res” 24/48 MQA files or told that the 16/44.1 MQA-CD contains some secret sauce that makes it sound amazing. Initially, the sound quality might be okay on all the equipment he/she owns. But over time, the encoding system starts to degrade the sound of the undecoded data. At some point, what if the undecoded file becomes something like only 10-bits resolution unless it’s played back through an MQA certified device?” I was just recommended this Peter, Paul, and Mary album. I feel bad for people who only have Tidal and no access to the Pure PCM on Qobuz. UkPhil 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted January 6, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 6, 2021 5 hours ago, Fast and Bulbous said: Meanwhile..... "Neil Young sells song rights in '$150m' deal" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55557633 Again (like with Bob Dylan) he's selling the music publishing rights, not rights to the recordings, or how his recorded music sounds. lucretius, MikeyFresh, UkPhil and 1 other 4 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted January 6, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 6, 2021 35 minutes ago, R1200CL said: @Archimago Could you post also be interpreted as there isn’t a need for hires ? I thought we needed 24/192 in order to be within those 7μs, but you’re saying we don’t or ? Yes on 3 levels the "need" for hi-res audio is questionable: 1. Academically in the sense that there has not been good evidence of >22.05kHz frequency response being beneficial for music enjoyment. Oohashi and his research over the years claim that there are brain changes but we can question that research as well. (I discussed the Oohashi "Hypersonic Effect" here.) Notice that the Howie article brings up Oohashi in his references. 2. Empirically there is no evidence of significance to hi-res audio; at least among "real world" listeners. I found no difference back in the day between 16-bit vs. 24-bit. Mark Waldrep's recent blind test of real hi-res samples found no meaningful difference. Even the Reiss meta-analysis from 2016 was not all that impressive IMO (discussed briefly here). 3. Practically, there is little actual music out there even "worthy" of being called hi-res. Discussed at length here. So with all those issues questioning why we even need hi-res to begin with, what is the point of pseudo/quasi-hi-res MQA with all its annoyances and controversies!? R1200CL, lucretius, UkPhil and 1 other 1 1 2 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted January 6, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 6, 2021 1 minute ago, Archimago said: Yes on 3 levels the "need" for hi-res audio is questionable: 1. Academically in the sense that there has not been good evidence of >22.05kHz frequency response being beneficial for music enjoyment. Oohashi and his research over the years claim that there are brain changes but we can question that research as well. (I discussed the Oohashi "Hypersonic Effect" here.) Notice that the Howie article brings up Oohashi in his references. 2. Empirically there is no evidence of significance to hi-res audio; at least among "real world" listeners. I found no difference back in the day between 16-bit vs. 24-bit. Mark Waldrep's recent blind test of real hi-res samples found no meaningful difference. Even the Reiss meta-analysis from 2016 was not all that impressive IMO (discussed briefly here). 3. Practically, there is little actual music out there even "worthy" of being called hi-res. Discussed at length here. So with all those issues questioning why we even need hi-res to begin with, what is the point of pseudo/quasi-hi-res MQA!? I think we should also make a distinction between high resolution as a delivery format and as an archival and working format. Professionals needs high resolution in the studios. botrytis, UkPhil, Solstice380 and 1 other 4 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post R1200CL Posted January 6, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 6, 2021 17 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I feel bad for people who only have Tidal Yes we get magical 24/88.2 hires direct from Roon decoder 😀 botrytis and lucretius 2 Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 Hans Beekhuyzen video and information about MQA is 5 to 6 years old. He may have a different view today. And I think he is able to admit errors. In part 2 he says MQA sounds quite good, and he stats he know how to listen to pre ringing, jitter etc. I’m looking forward what he has to say about this latest redbok MQA format. As he claims to study this MQA topic a lot, I hope he read this tread or at least Archimango’s blog. (And @mansr website as well). With Hans claimed knowledge about MQA, I think he will loose some credibility if he doesn’t post something about Warner’s latest stunt. Link to comment
Thuaveta Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 1 hour ago, R1200CL said: I think he will loose some credibility i don't believe such a thing is possible... lucretius 1 Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted January 6, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 6, 2021 1 hour ago, R1200CL said: Hans Beekhuyzen video and information about MQA is 5 to 6 years old. He may have a different view today. And I think he is able to admit errors. In part 2 he says MQA sounds quite good, and he stats he know how to listen to pre ringing, jitter etc. I’m looking forward what he has to say about this latest redbok MQA format. As he claims to study this MQA topic a lot, I hope he read this tread or at least Archimango’s blog. (And @mansr website as well). With Hans claimed knowledge about MQA, I think he will loose some credibility if he doesn’t post something about Warner’s latest stunt. Hans seems like a nice guy and a sincere one, but he's either ignorant or a fraud. He can "state" whatever he wants about what he can hear. It's all based on sighted listening, so it means nothing in terms of what's actually there or what others will hear. It's only meaningful in context of his own expectation biases. I'd bet money he'd fail a non-sighted testing of his ability to hear small differences in pre-ringing, jitter, etc. that he claims to hear. Most audiophiles claim to hear these things, but they never test themselves to find out if they actually can. When I've seen tests actually conducted blinded, many audiophiles can't hear things like small amounts of jitter, or they may actually prefer the sound of the worse performing item. With most components these days we are talking about infintesimal amounts of things like jitter. I'm not saying there aren't better sounding and worse sounding components, but such reviews don't tell you much about which one is which and the explanations they give of the source of that difference are nothing more than speculation in most cases. Beyond that his technical understanding is clearly limited. He just parrots what he reads. He consistently tells his audience about how good the latest "flavor of the month" item sounds. And the more expensive, more hyped item is pretty much always better. He produced a lovely video explaining the "third unfold" in MQA, which unfortunately for him, doesn't exist. His seemingly knowledgeable explanations are often factually incorrect on technical matters. He doesn't actually know what he is talking about. If you are interested only in someones sighted, subjective impressions and you like his style, by all means subscibe to his video service. If you find your taste in components matches his, then I guess he might be a good guide for you. Just mentally delete all his supposed explanations of how things work. Thuaveta, lucretius, botrytis and 3 others 6 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now