MQA - CD

[danadam]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

This is a decent clock:

https://www.muquans.com/index.php/products/mclock

On wheels? Not audiophile enough. Needs some antivibration stands.

[GUTB]

 

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

In CD production, there are two places where timing matters:

• The ADC during recording, tape transfer, or whatever.
• Creation of the master stamper.

Everything in between is just manipulating digital data, which is an exact process. Moreover, the stamper need only be good enough. If the jitter specs are met, any CD player will be able to extract the data perfectly. Improvements beyond that will do nothing at all.

[Ralf11]

but, you can see how a company is able to lead the technologically in-astute astray

 

of course it doesn't matter - consumer fraud is ok if the consumer has $$

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

but, you can see how a company is able to lead the technologically in-astute astray

 

of course it doesn't matter - consumer fraud is ok if the consumer has $$

Fools and their money.

[Ralf11]

In this specific case, I don't think you can say they are or would be fools.  How many people would know the critical points for clock accuracy?

 

MEs, accountants, MDs, Lawyers, etc. - all are highly trained in certain areas but not in that, yet all are representative of the group that might spend $$$ on HiFi

[GUTB]

So why does it sound better?

 

Also, the developer of UHQCD (Memory-Tech) partnered with a university for the project and conducted a blind test composed of students and Memory-Tech employees. The "regular" listener test group scored 50%, so failed. The smaller group of "golden ears" — trained listeners — scored 75%, or a high degree of certainty of identifying UHQCD vs CD. Now let’s admit that the test population is pretty small...I think there were only 4 in the golden ear group. From my own listening I detected a difference, some tracks more than others, but I thought the difference was small but still noticeable. 

[Rt66indierock]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

In this specific case, I don't think you can say they are or would be fools.  How many people would know the critical points for clock accuracy?

 

MEs, accountants, MDs, Lawyers, etc. - all are highly trained in certain areas but not in that, yet all are representative of the group that might spend $$$ on HiFi

 

This accountant would and does know. The knowledge isn't that uncommon.

[Hugo9000]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

This is a decent clock:

https://www.muquans.com/index.php/products/mclock

That robot isn't nearly as cute as this one:

 

 

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

In this specific case, I don't think you can say they are or would be fools.  How many people would know the critical points for clock accuracy?

 

MEs, accountants, MDs, Lawyers, etc. - all are highly trained in certain areas but not in that, yet all are representative of the group that might spend $$$ on HiFi

If people in those professions had half as much knowledge of engineering as the average engineer has of theirs, there would be no problem. I have no trouble spotting scams, be they medical, financial, or legal in nature. If not, I'd be chugging homoeopathic pills while consulting my astrologer before seeing the chiropractor, and paying for it all with an unexpected windfall from a Nigerian prince.

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, GUTB said:

The smaller group of "golden ears" — trained listeners — scored 75%, or a high degree of certainty of identifying UHQCD vs CD. Now let’s admit that the test population is pretty small...I think there were only 4 in the golden ear group.

That's not even close to statistically significant.

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

UHQCD media which greatly improves the signal performance of the CD media itself and apparently includes a new mastering format as well

 

I listened to UHQCD sampler that included both a UHQCD and CD versions of the same tracks. Overall I found improvement in UHQCD to be small but noticeable. Mind you I have a mid-fi tubed CDP, people with better CD setups may find more of an obvious difference.

 

ok, GUTB - here is some editing for you:

 

I have two samplers on UHQCD media.  They claim it greatly improves the signal performance of the CD media itself.  Of course, it apparently includes a new mastering format also which may well account for any SQ differences.

 

I did a listening comparison to I listened to the UHQCD sampler vs. CD versions of the same tracks. Overall I found improvement in UHQCD to be small but noticeable.  Mind you, I have a mid-fi tubed CDP, and people with better CD setups may find more of an obvious difference.  I did/did not do blind comparisons, and did <xx> trials.

 

---------

 

See how adding just a few words gives more information and cuts down or eliminates any criticism?

 

If there is any, you can just say "Yes, I understand the need for more rigorous testing, but as the differences were so small (not to mention the different masterings) I didn't spend any time on it."

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

That's not even close to statistically significant.

 

Even if it were statistically significant, who cares? No one here actually plays CDs anymore.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

Even if it were statistically significant, who cares? No one here actually plays CDs anymore.

These discs are primarily marketed in Japan where, apparently, physical media is still a thing. Also, Alex can probably hear the difference in a 3rd generation rip sent to Mars and back, as long as the power supplies are sufficiently linear.

[firedog]

8 hours ago, mansr said:

Why bother? Playback is still governed by whatever quartz oscillator is in the CD player.

I have a couple of those K2HD that sound very good, but I just chalk it up to the remastering.

[GUTB]

Let me introduce you guys to this great XRCD24:

 

 

I've been trying out some of these Elusive Disc XRCD re-issues. This Decca release is a very high quality orchestra recording -- exceptional even. Very high dynamic range, very obviously a analog transfer. Definitely the best orchestral classical CD I have. I also went on Discogs and found the old Decca LP so I'll be able to compare them. I don't think there's normal CDs that sound this good.

[firedog]

15 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Let me introduce you guys to this great XRCD24:

 

 

I've been trying out some of these Elusive Disc XRCD re-issues. This Decca release is a very high quality orchestra recording -- exceptional even. Very high dynamic range, very obviously a analog transfer. Definitely the best orchestral classical CD I have. I also went on Discogs and found the old Decca LP so I'll be able to compare them. I don't think there's normal CDs that sound this good.

Didn't have this one, am now listening to the regular CD version on Tidal. Even listened to like that it's obviously a good performance and good recording. 

[Miska]

12 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I do hope you realize that a Rubidium clock is the cheapest, most common atomic clock made.

 

Funny part is that most of those reference clocks are typically 10 MHz and have typically bad phase noise performance, but good long term absolute frequency accuracy. Former being more important for audio while latter being less important. This 10 Mhz clock in turn means that the frequency needs to be converted to the needed audio master clock frequency (something like 22.5792 MHz or 24.576 MHz) using DPLL which doesn't help on the phase noise performance either...

 

For audio best clocks are traditional low phase-noise crystal oscillators, like the Crystek CCHD-957 I personally use, and available directly at the correct frequency (like 22.5792 and 24.576 MHz needed for DSD512).

 

[Miska]

Regarding MQA CD, it probably cuts the base band word length down to 12 - 14 bit range to have couple of bits to encode higher frequencies. And I wouldn't be surprised if it uses even more roll-off for the upper band to have less to encode there....

 

[STC]

Two pages and I received no notification at all.  

[PeterSt]

4 hours ago, wdw said:

10 hours ago, mansr said:

These discs are primarily marketed in Japan where, apparently, physical media is still a thing. Also, Alex can probably hear the difference in a 3rd generation rip sent to Mars and back, as long as the power supplies are sufficiently linear.

 

Mansr,

don’t know why you are posting like this and on an almost 24/7 timeline but this post is simply belligerent.

 

Because @The Computer Audiophilewants his forum down the drain.

 

4 hours ago, wdw said:

you have an inappropriate anger that should be censored.

 

I suppose belittling is the future here.

[GUTB]

I'm having trouble with trying to rip these MQA CDs. I'm using EAC, and the rips seem succesful, but Roon only MQA authenticates 2 out of the 8 tracks which suggests something is breaking in the rip process. I tried both compressed and uncompressed ripping. There's no accurip entries for these discs so I can't use that feature, not that it should make much or any realistic difference...maybe I need to make a full disc image copy or something?

[Brinkman Ship]

Just now, GUTB said:

I'm having trouble with trying to rip these MQA CDs. I'm using EAC, and the rips seem succesful, but Roon only MQA authenticates 2 out of the 8 tracks which suggests something is breaking in the rip process. I tried both compressed and uncompressed ripping. There's no accurip entries for these discs so I can't use that feature, not that it should make much or any realistic difference...maybe I need to make a full disc image copy or something?

Roon MQA identification is wonky. it is not ready for primetime.

[Miska]

16 hours ago, GUTB said:

I'm having trouble with trying to rip these MQA CDs. I'm using EAC, and the rips seem succesful, but Roon only MQA authenticates 2 out of the 8 tracks which suggests something is breaking in the rip process. I tried both compressed and uncompressed ripping. There's no accurip entries for these discs so I can't use that feature, not that it should make much or any realistic difference...maybe I need to make a full disc image copy or something?

 

Probably MQA's decoder code is a bit buggy...

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Miska said:

Probably MQA's decoder code is a bit buggy...

More than a bit. It would be interesting to run a fuzzer against it.