MQA vs HiRez: an apples-to-apples comparison - FINAL

[esldude]

8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

I listened one time to each of them. Please notice that I am not familiar to Hires comparisons and that I hardly listen to Hires.

I listened in the sequence B - A - C so my descriptions go like that as well. They are relative to each other.

 

Don't read when you want to apply the test.

 

------------------------------------------------

B.

Piano sounds hazy. In aftermath (after listening to the other two) I added "is lacking" to it.

Highs OK (referring to the "ticking" on the cymbals).

Sounds inside out. Hollow. No proper attack on the nylon strings of the guitar.

Cello doesn't sound right either.

Cymbals at the end not right. Sound dirty (China cymbals).

 

A.

Sounds much clearer which is readily noticeable on the guitar. Lively.

There's more vibrato in the bass (cello ?) audible. OK, in B I didn't hear any of that.

The ride on the cymbals now sound realistic (mind the "ticking" I mentioned at B).

All sounds normal. Piano still sounds confused though. Piano is also less annoyingly (!) present.

In the end this presentation is more "sleepy". At 5 minutes or so I really wanted it to be over. Long winded.

More normal cymbals at the end.

 

C.

More play in the guitar. Individual strokes or two subsequent fingers audible. Catchy !

Again better cymbal rides. Best piano !

Suddenly piano and guitar play together (there's even a small part in the beginning when both play the exact same notes together).

More dynamics in the guitar.

Piano plays well with all. Bass is less disturbingly present.

Best cymbals at the end.

------------------------------------------------

 

To me it is clear that this coincidental sequence went from worst to best. This is a danger in itself because I could have gotten used to matters.

I started with B so I would not be subject to Mani's ideas of pitfalls, if any.

 

With B I was annoyed all over. Logically, to me, this should indicate Hires. The chance would be minimal that the Hires was done well and I don't recall to be annoyed of Redbook ever (or hardly).

 

A surprisingly went from a "much better !" (and seriously different than B) to a falling asleep mode. I don't know why, but I lost interest. I don't think this was because I listened to the song for the second time. The last minute went like "oh, there are these cymbals again, it must be finished now". Because Hires and MQA were determined by the paragraph above here and under here, this should be the Redbook.

 

C, in comparison to A completely woke me up. The "catchy !" I noted tells me that this should be the MQA because it is a property of MQA. I tried to hear grain in the cymbal rides, also in the cymbals at the end, but I did not hear that. So this could be a reason I am wrong. Otoh, I did not hear graininess in the others as well but I also did not put my focus to it (I did with C because I started to get the idea C had to be MQA).

 

------------------------------------------------

 

So B is the strange duck. Anyone would denote that MQA for this reason. It very well can be, if the MQA was executed wrongly.

In aftermath : I don't think that Mani would have put up a failed MQA to begin with. He would have chosen a properly done one. This should definitely rule out B as MQA.

 

A and C are quite alike which is my general consensus about Redbook vs MQA, and then merely to the sense that Redbook is 100% fine with me (and my whole system focuses on it). Apart from a handful exceptions, MQA also sounds fine to me, to the sense it never disturbs. This makes A and C both candidates for MQA as well as Redbook. However, most of the time when I play an MQA for a first time, while I am used to the Redbook all of my life, the MQA is more catching. You get involved more. This with the notice that it is not so that MQA sounds better per se. And because I was right into the music suddenly with C, I'd have to dedicate that the MQA. This leaves A as the Hires.

 

------------------------------------------------

 

Most probably, when I' have chosen an other sequence, the judgment would have been totally different.

My judgment that MQA is C is heavily based and biased towards the catchiness MQA usually implies. This is super dangerous to hang on to.

I never am disturbed by Redbook, though here I was on B, so this is why B is not the Redbook. Super dangerous again. And of course, completely contra-dictionary to what everybody else would claim. I mean, were it about the comparison with Hires;

Hires I am usually disturbed with because, well, they have usually been done wrong. But was that so in this case ? So again super dangerous to hang on to that. 

So why was everything so wrong in B then ? was it because I heard that as the first one ? was it because it is the Redbook and Redbook can't be any good ? was it because it is the MQA and MQA can't be any good ?

 

Why did I hear more "guitar string" resolution in C ? is that because it is the real Hires and MQA would not be able to reproduce that ? was it because it is the Redbook and it articulates more because of less resolution ?

 

Blahblahblahblah. Is there also a prize for having all wrong ?

 

Peter

It appears that everyone else so far is in agreement about which are best.  You, avta, and I had different results.  So either all three of us are wrong and they are right.  Or one of us is right and no one else is.  Why am I not surprised? Well because so far that is 3 in agreement, and 3 with other ideas.  

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

You, avta, and I had different results.

 

I didn't know that he counts as well. LOL.

 

From you :

 

Quote

B sounds a bit artificially airy, and soft imaging.  C is missing some low end, and has unnatural hardness on the upper mids.

 

We can well say that we judged this the same. My "bass less disturbingly present" from C would be the same thing, and with some digging in my head one would find that I did not like the bass in any of them. The hardness in the upper mids (in C) would be equivalent to my "string/fingers separation" I readily noticed in C. Now if that 'd be the Redbook, we're all over and done with it. Haha.

 

But it is funny to see that the three who agree (I just read back on all) have very different reasons to bombard the MQA to the letter (A, B, C) what they/we did. Everybody is (obviously ?) negative about it, while I am positive. So the outcome could be disappointing again : maybe a majority picks the proper MQA but for reasons without consensus.

 

I wish the Hires hadn't been there. I mean, it won't go into my mind that MQA will outperform Hires if only the Hires has been done properly.

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

I listened one time to each of them. Please notice that I am not familiar to Hires comparisons and that I hardly listen to Hires.

I listened in the sequence B - A - C so my descriptions go like that as well. They are relative to each other.

 

Don't read when you want to apply the test.

 

------------------------------------------------

B.

Piano sounds hazy. In aftermath (after listening to the other two) I added "is lacking" to it.

Highs OK (referring to the "ticking" on the cymbals).

Sounds inside out. Hollow. No proper attack on the nylon strings of the guitar.

Cello doesn't sound right either.

Cymbals at the end not right. Sound dirty (China cymbals).

 

A.

Sounds much clearer which is readily noticeable on the guitar. Lively.

There's more vibrato in the bass (cello ?) audible. OK, in B I didn't hear any of that.

The ride on the cymbals now sound realistic (mind the "ticking" I mentioned at B).

All sounds normal. Piano still sounds confused though. Piano is also less annoyingly (!) present.

In the end this presentation is more "sleepy". At 5 minutes or so I really wanted it to be over. Long winded.

More normal cymbals at the end.

 

C.

More play in the guitar. Individual strokes or two subsequent fingers audible. Catchy !

Again better cymbal rides. Best piano !

Suddenly piano and guitar play together (there's even a small part in the beginning when both play the exact same notes together).

More dynamics in the guitar.

Piano plays well with all. Bass is less disturbingly present.

Best cymbals at the end.

------------------------------------------------

 

To me it is clear that this coincidental sequence went from worst to best. This is a danger in itself because I could have gotten used to matters.

I started with B so I would not be subject to Mani's ideas of pitfalls, if any.

 

With B I was annoyed all over. Logically, to me, this should indicate Hires. The chance would be minimal that the Hires was done well and I don't recall to be annoyed of Redbook ever (or hardly).

 

A surprisingly went from a "much better !" (and seriously different than B) to a falling asleep mode. I don't know why, but I lost interest. I don't think this was because I listened to the song for the second time. The last minute went like "oh, there are these cymbals again, it must be finished now". Because Hires and MQA were determined by the paragraph above here and under here, this should be the Redbook.

 

C, in comparison to A completely woke me up. The "catchy !" I noted tells me that this should be the MQA because it is a property of MQA. I tried to hear grain in the cymbal rides, also in the cymbals at the end, but I did not hear that. So this could be a reason I am wrong. Otoh, I did not hear graininess in the others as well but I also did not put my focus to it (I did with C because I started to get the idea C had to be MQA).

 

------------------------------------------------

 

So B is the strange duck. Anyone would denote that MQA for this reason. It very well can be, if the MQA was executed wrongly.

In aftermath : I don't think that Mani would have put up a failed MQA to begin with. He would have chosen a properly done one. This should definitely rule out B as MQA.

 

A and C are quite alike which is my general consensus about Redbook vs MQA, and then merely to the sense that Redbook is 100% fine with me (and my whole system focuses on it). Apart from a handful exceptions, MQA also sounds fine to me, to the sense it never disturbs. This makes A and C both candidates for MQA as well as Redbook. However, most of the time when I play an MQA for a first time, while I am used to the Redbook all of my life, the MQA is more catching. You get involved more. This with the notice that it is not so that MQA sounds better per se. And because I was right into the music suddenly with C, I'd have to dedicate that the MQA. This leaves A as the Hires.

 

------------------------------------------------

 

Most probably, when I' have chosen an other sequence, the judgment would have been totally different.

My judgment that MQA is C is heavily based and biased towards the catchiness MQA usually implies. This is super dangerous to hang on to.

I never am disturbed by Redbook, though here I was on B, so this is why B is not the Redbook. Super dangerous again. And of course, completely contra-dictionary to what everybody else would claim. I mean, were it about the comparison with Hires;

Hires I am usually disturbed with because, well, they have usually been done wrong. But was that so in this case ? So again super dangerous to hang on to that. 

So why was everything so wrong in B then ? was it because I heard that as the first one ? was it because it is the Redbook and Redbook can't be any good ? was it because it is the MQA and MQA can't be any good ?

 

Why did I hear more "guitar string" resolution in C ? is that because it is the real Hires and MQA would not be able to reproduce that ? was it because it is the Redbook and it articulates more because of less resolution ?

 

Blahblahblahblah. Is there also a prize for having all wrong ?

 

Peter

Agree with you and the only one I like is C. I'm guessing its MQA. 

[Le Concombre Masqué]

52 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I didn't know that he counts as well. LOL.

 

From you :

 

 

We can well say that we judged this the same. My "bass less disturbingly present" from C would be the same thing, and with some digging in my head one would find that I did not like the bass in any of them. The hardness in the upper mids (in C) would be equivalent to my "string/fingers separation" I readily noticed in C. Now if that 'd be the Redbook, we're all over and done with it. Haha.

 

But it is funny to see that the three who agree (I just read back on all) have very different reasons to bombard the MQA to the letter (A, B, C) what they/we did. Everybody is (obviously ?) negative about it, while I am positive. So the outcome could be disappointing again : maybe a majority picks the proper MQA but for reasons without consensus.

 

I wish the Hires hadn't been there. I mean, it won't go into my mind that MQA will outperform Hires if only the Hires has been done properly.

what do you mean "only the Hires has been done properly"? It's supposed to be the original master, isn't it ?

 

OTOH...

Makes me think of toning in photography where plain b&w would be the source and then added either cool blue or warm sepia toning could be preferred.
Of course plain b&w goes trough stages (negative development, burn & dodge... and their digital equivalent) but one can imagine that the plain b&w stage is designed with the further toning step in mind. I'm not a big fan of toning but it happens that, starting with a colour digital photo,  I sometimes go overboard at colour stage because I know I want the final picture to be B&W and weird colours processed through filters often produce richer grey values...

The issue with obscure MQA age recordings is that we can't rule out sponsored bias : that the plain master stage (hires = colour stage before b&w or plain b&w before toning in the above photo analogies)  is purposely designed with flaws to be corrected by toning or colour to b&w stage, that is MQA or RB dithering as of audio.

I don't think this applies to this test but maybe to the Chopin sonata of test II...

[Arpiben]

My preferences  are C > B >> A.

Better cymbals perception with C.

 

As a side note, I am having more differences with null test than expected. Need to double check &/or wait for results' disclosure.

[manisandher]

@PeterSt, thanks for the detailed description of what you're hearing. I'm assuming your ears are no longer stuffed?

 

4 hours ago, PeterSt said:

This leaves A as the Hires.

 

I think you mean "A as redbook", to be consistent with your detailed description.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

10 minutes ago, Arpiben said:

As a side note, I am having more differences with null test than expected. Need to double check &/or wait for results' disclosure.

 

If you're doing analysis, you'll identify the redbook track immediately. Nulling the other two, you should get what I showed in the OP. (Let me know if you're not.) I'll link the original hires (for a limited time only) when I reveal the results, probably some time tomorrow. You'll then be able to null the captures with the original.

 

Mani.

[esldude]

52 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

If you're doing analysis, you'll identify the redbook track immediately. Nulling the other two, you should get what I showed in the OP. (Let me know if you're not.) I'll link the original hires (for a limited time only) when I reveal the results, probably some time tomorrow. You'll then be able to null the captures with the original.

 

Mani.

The two non-redbook files are off a few samples. One needs shifting 3 samples for best nulling. The redbook file lines up with one of the others with no adjustment. 

[PeterSt]

 

 

59 minutes ago, manisandher said:

I think you mean "A as redbook", to be consistent with your detailed description.

 

Yes, of course. Good catch !!

 

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

This makes A and C both candidates for MQA as well as Redbook. However, most of the time when I play an MQA for a first time, while I am used to the Redbook all of my life, the MQA is more catching. You get involved more. This with the notice that it is not so that MQA sounds better per se. And because I was right into the music suddenly with C, I'd have to dedicate that the MQA. This leaves A as the Hires Redbook.

 

Sorry for this stupid typo-like mistake.

[PeterSt]

Off topic alert (kind of).

 

3 hours ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

what do you mean "only the Hires has been done properly"? It's supposed to be the original master, isn't it ?

 

from :

 

Quote

 it won't go into my mind that MQA will outperform Hires if only the Hires has been done properly.

 

Assumed that the MQA came from the same master, yes, you could say indeed "it's supposed to be the original master" (assumed that the master is not even higher resolution like 192). But the times I saw people randomly come up with a "good hires" where I would agree, is still on a very very low count. This always goes audibly first and checking with spectrogram etc. confirms.

 

[Le Concombre Masqué]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

Off topic alert (kind of).

 

 

from :

 

 

Assumed that the MQA came from the same master, yes, you could say indeed "it's supposed to be the original master" (assumed that the master is not even higher resolution like 192). But the times I saw people randomly come up with a "good hires" where I would agree, is still on a very very low count. This always goes audibly first and checking with spectrogram etc. confirms.

 

off topic ?

 

we can't rule out sponsored bias with obscure MQA age recordings of very poor musical interest ; that is : sold outputs that are not designed to be optimum sounding at the hires stage 

 

I provided an analogy with photography a few posts above

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

we can't rule out sponsored bias with obscure MQA age recordings of very poor musical interest

 

Nah, that goes too far (thinking) for me.

 

 

This is still in my playlist from last night. This (to me) shows how superb MQA can be, and how you can be put both feet back on the ground when after that you revert to Redbook again. Mind you, the last two tracks are from Zuma. Never mind from my youth, still a superbly sounding (Redbook) album. But not if you just heard Peace Trail in MQA. And again, this is not about it being Hires originally (which I don't even have). So hearing Zuma right after Peace Trail MQA, is a bummer.

 

[PeterSt]

10 minutes ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

I provided an analogy with photography a few posts above

 

OK ...

 

6 hours ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

 I'm not a big fan of toning but it happens that, starting with a colour digital photo,  I sometimes go overboard at colour stage because I know I want the final picture to be B&W and weird colours processed through filters often produce richer grey values...

 

I understand. I make something like 10K photos per year myself and do quite some "events" (like festivities). One thing I learned fairly soon from digital : I don't have the time for post processing, so I don't and anticipate on that. It makes the skill more difficult and also more valuable.

 

When the Kodak DCS 14 or whatever was its name came out, I was thrilled. I was thrilled because it lacked an AA filter. "That's the way to go !" was my thinking. But I refrained because of the moire examples in shirts and also in trees and tiled roofs etc. So I never got one.

... Until beginning of this year when I found that a lacking AA filter became hot again, and it's not there in the Sony A7r III I by now own and that a 100% crop at a whopping 42MP really is the best that ever happened to me.

Moire ? I never saw it yet but possibly I avoid it by nature.

 

Mind you please, for me it happened the other way around. First there was NOS DACs in audio, then it would seem that no AA in digital photography would give the similar experience to me as how NOS (no filter anywhere) brought me, then I started developing NOS with filters which don't ring at all (that's AA as such), and then, today, I am back at the photography. Well, I don't know how loud to shout at e.g. you "go for that !!!" because it is visible. No subjectivity at play anywhere.

 

Possibly as the only one I started developing with MQA with all this in mind. It just 100% fits my own ideas about it. So it is not that someone talked me into MQA. Instead I talked myself into it and got it done. But this is also how I am stil 100% neutral on it.

I actually don't care and once in a while run into an MQA and if I am pleased with it, it keeps on playing. If not, I'll find the Redbook counterpart and play that instead. It is only that it never happened yet.

 

PS: with the 100% crop zooming possibilities of such a system camera (at least with mentioned Sony) you can see that even at an aperture of 12+ whatever, you never have more than 1 mm of focus. Also not at 10m distance. Never. Even more so not at 200m and a 400mm zoom. My Canon's (+L) never showed me that. They are one blurry mess (finding out after 20+ years - mweh).

 

Any more photography analogy to deal with ?

[Le Concombre Masqué]

58 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

OK ...

 

 

I understand. I make something like 10K photos per year myself and do quite some "events" (like festivities). One thing I learned fairly soon from digital : I don't have the time for post processing, so I don't and anticipate on that. It makes the skill more difficult and also more valuable.

 

When the Kodak DCS 14 or whatever was its name came out, I was thrilled. I was thrilled because it lacked an AA filter. "That's the way to go !" was my thinking. But I refrained because of the moire examples in shirts and also in trees and tiled roofs etc. So I never got one.

... Until beginning of this year when I found that a lacking AA filter became hot again, and it's not there in the Sony A7r III I by now own and that a 100% crop at a whopping 42MP really is the best that ever happened to me.

Moire ? I never saw it yet but possibly I avoid it by nature.

 

Mind you please, for me it happened the other way around. First there was NOS DACs in audio, then it would seem that no AA in digital photography would give the similar experience to me as how NOS (no filter anywhere) brought me, then I started developing NOS with filters which don't ring at all (that's AA as such), and then, today, I am back at the photography. Well, I don't know how loud to shout at e.g. you "go for that !!!" because it is visible. No subjectivity at play anywhere.

 

Possibly as the only one I started developing with MQA with all this in mind. It just 100% fits my own ideas about it. So it is not that someone talked me into MQA. Instead I talked myself into it and got it done. But this is also how I am stil 100% neutral on it.

I actually don't care and once in a while run into an MQA and if I am pleased with it, it keeps on playing. If not, I'll find the Redbook counterpart and play that instead. It is only that it never happened yet.

 

PS: with the 100% crop zooming possibilities of such a system camera (at least with mentioned Sony) you can see that even at an aperture of 12+ whatever, you never have more than 1 mm of focus. Also not at 10m distance. Never. Even more so not at 200m and a 400mm zoom. My Canon's (+L) never showed me that. They are one blurry mess (finding out after 20+ years - mweh).

 

Any more photography analogy to deal with ?

I wonder how debating 1 mm of focus only @ 12+ vs motion blur would compare with audio... MQA would be tripode or going hand held? After all, they claim something like focus reconstruction, don't they? or were they inspired by DxO that qualifies lenses' defaults and correct them in post processing?

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

After all, they claim something like focus reconstruction, don't they? or were they inspired by DxO that qualifies lenses' defaults and correct them in post processing?

 

Haha, good one.

Still, I was thinking along the same lines this morning; How convenient would it be to use (visible) photography as a lead to think similar of audio. Again, I started out with it the other way around (wanted to have the lacking filters in audio to be there in digital photos), so why not. Once you believe in such a thing ... (one can next make up anything around it, which is impossible to check in the first place (because now it is au-di-o)).

 

Maybe we must listen to MQA through a photo lens. 

OK, two.

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

Haha, good one.

Still, I was thinking along the same lines this morning; How convenient would it be to use (visible) photography as a lead to think similar of audio. Again, I started out with it the other way around (wanted to have the lacking filters in audio to be there in digital photos), so why not. Once you believe in such a thing ... (one can next make up anything around it, which is impossible to check in the first place (because now it is au-di-o)).

 

Maybe we must listen to MQA through a photo lens. 

OK, two.

 

Well actually the concepts, math and implementations of deblurring do come from the imaging world where they have been used for decades. I've come from a background where we have used 3D imaging and deblurring in an astrophotography/satellite based as well as microscopy imaging. The technology really really works. Apropos to 44.1k recordings, its possible to do sub-pixel imaging -- been done for decades.

 

One example from satellite/astronomy imaging is the use of a laser to image the atmosphere and develop a 3D deconvolution kernel for subsequent photographs. Additionally we take a 3D focus image stack (images at a series of focal points) and then deconvolve at the focal plane. This is especially useful in 3D microscopy. In audio think multisensor imaging e.g. sonar including stereo imaging.

 

These analyses tend to be done in the frequency domain which is why I think audio folks aren't as familiar.

 

Photography: I have a Sony A7rIII also  DXO yes very solid, also Lightroom -- so removing sensor nonlinearities as well as sharpening is done millions of times every day.

 

Let me go further with this analogy: No reason to combine the input deconvolution with the output deconvolution as MQA does, and no reason to use an alternate file format. Like DXO simply apply a deconvolution spatial/temporal sharpening filter to the ADC output or source file -> save the sharpened file to disc, and for distribution.  In photography we use a printer profile and apply to the image before being sent to the printer. Same for audio, let the software apply a filter appropriate for the particular DAC.

 

Peter, no doubt you could preprocess an audio file to deblur, whether the source be 44.1k -> DXD or MQA, or even MP3!

That has nothing to do with what you want XXHE to do to the deblurred source file

 

Does sharpening/deblurring work? Yes

Is MQA the best way to do it: No.

Is MQA unique in its ability to do temporal deblurring -- No!

[PeterSt]

@jabbr, Nice post. I am a bit surprised by this.

Did I miss these kind of posts all the time ? or did I (or @Le Concombre Masqué) perhaps trigger you posting this ?

 

Maybe an avalanche of anti-jabbr posts will now occur, but I like it. Thanks. 

[jabbr]

21 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

@jabbr, Nice post. I am a bit surprised by this.

Did I miss these kind of posts all the time ? or did I (or @Le Concombre Masqué) perhaps trigger you posting this ?

 

I’ve been posting about deconvolution for awhile in various places. I think not everyone is of the opinion that “deblurring” music files that have already had significant electronic post processing would be valuable.

 

I do think that algorithms to sharpen/expand  the soundstage are very possible and exist but this is probably in the “DSP” section.

 

Yes your mention of anti-aliasing filters or lack there of in the Sony A7riii as well as DXO did trigger this post because this is an example that many folks here can see and use and hence understand.

 

Quote

Maybe an avalanche of anti-jabbr posts will now occur, but I like it. Thanks. 

 

Oh no! I didn’t invent deconvolution but have used it professionally — it was a section of my graduate thesis — so happy to defend (I already did !!! ha ha — it was more controversial in the late 1980s)

[audiventory]

On 10/24/2018 at 5:17 PM, manisandher said:

I can't imagine there's any appetite for yet another hires/MQA comparison

 

We can't compare "what is better losless and lossy formats" (MQA is lossy, as far as I know).

 

Because conclusion is technically obvious: lossless is better.

 

We can't just discuss "losses are audible or not". Because there is need proper test results. And tested equipment and conditions makes sound. So we can't make general conclusions for every audio system.

[fas42]

Without reading the thread, on a first, only partial listen to the samples - B is the "best", then A, then C. This was judged by the life and sparkle in the guitar plucking, C was relatively lifeless.

 

How this translates to the format, I wouldn't guess.

[fas42]

Now reading back, I'm quite amused - Paul's ears match mine; but Peter totally disagrees with me ... c'est la vie

[Le Concombre Masqué]

19 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Nah, that goes too far (thinking) for me.

 

 

This is still in my playlist from last night. This (to me) shows how superb MQA can be, and how you can be put both feet back on the ground when after that you revert to Redbook again. Mind you, the last two tracks are from Zuma. Never mind from my youth, still a superbly sounding (Redbook) album. But not if you just heard Peace Trail in MQA. And again, this is not about it being Hires originally (which I don't even have). So hearing Zuma right after Peace Trail MQA, is a bummer.

 

do yourself a favour and get Zuma 24/192 ; sounds great IMO.

 

What, in your highly regarded opinion, makes redbook often more desirable than hires?

I think I dig what you feel : with CD source I'm confident listening will be pleasurable, rounded edges palatable, while I'm not that sure with 192.

But in my system there's a difference coming from its capacity : can't play 192 with my favorite HQP filter, ext2, and I resort to xtr2s and it's hit & miss that 192 will be > to 96 or RB.

I read in one of your posts that you suspect that often hires is not the native master; then an explanation would be that the treatment/dithering is designed to make it sound different and thus possibly worse, in the line of some so called audiophile masterings that would ie rise HF to sound different. This can obviously be true of analog tape turned 24/192 ; but with digital recordings, and I think this is one here, why 24/96 shouldn't be native and RB technically more desirable? I'm puzzled

In this test I liked not only LF extension but, more over, that the double bass goes low dry, that is faster cleaner transients (in my vocabulary, that you can enlighten) and this is what makes hires desirable IMO (unless I goofed and B is not hires  and am advocating MQA !)

[PeterSt]

48 minutes ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

I think I dig what you feel : with CD source I'm confident listening will be pleasurable, rounded edges palatable, while I'm not that sure with 192.

 

Maybe it is hard to believe for you, but when I was as far as reading the text above (not a word further) I had my answer ready :

 

Probably my filtering, which is a means of transferring the sound to some other SQ level, is doing something which in Hires has not been done (because it is hires already and the filtering is about reconstruction of the band limited signal as such) ... and now can not be done any more by my filtering.

And then I read on, and you said quite the same (with a very different filter, but alas).

 

Although this is an answer, it is also too far out in my own view. Hires just should sound the best, if the hardware is running at the same frequency everywhere, which is so in my case (I always output at 705600 or 768000, depending on the base).

 

1 hour ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

I read in one of your posts that you suspect that often hires is not the native master;

 

This is not exactly what I am saying. What I mean is : the Hires made available is most often faked. It is not real hires. It is either or upsampled or it is hires done in an awful way (like tape with so much noise that nothing above 12KHz is there anyway *and* denoisers have been applied which only make it (far) worse). Examples of fame which come to mind : King Crimson - In the court of the Crimson King, or Bill Evans with Waltz for Debby. This, while both are of nothing less than superb quality if you only get hold of the correct Redbook (which is quite a task for either, especially the Bill Evans).

An other category would be the wrong downmixes with the good example of Dire Straits - Brother in Arms. I forgot whether it is the DVD or the SACD (but likely the DVD) which just lacks a couple of channels. Hires is OK, but "mix" is obviously failed.

Similar with the pile of existing quadraphonic recordings, like from earlier Grand Funk (yes, that old quadraphony already is). Many, many exist, but AFAIK all with the wrong downmix. Or this :

 

 

I have been working on downmixing some Grand Funk original myself, but it is obviously impossible because the headroom is lacking. So with 4ch we need to get rid of 6dB while no 6dB headroom (which is half of the available digital headroom) is available. Solution : compress it, or leave out two channels. But normally thinking of the former : now you'll have Hires in a way poorer incarnation. Thus, real hires all right, but the original recording which was mastered for stereo, just utilizes the full headroom. You wouldn't see that on the spectrograph readily, but this time on the DR figure. Plus 6dB is really a lot to "compress out".

All DVD 5.1 which is available in Hires Stereo has been subject to this. I think it was at this forum (maybe 8 years ago) that someone who mastered for DVD in some department, always got the order to give that now (IIRC) 9dB of extra headroom but they never did it for various (logical) reasons. And so we ended up with hires DVD 5.1's which utilized all the headroom, never suitable for downmixing again.

 

FYI : I have a huge pile (think 1000++) of whatever so-called downmixes from DVD which I all had prior to the existence of HDTracks. HDTracks, one by one as we are used from them, put these up, spread over many years (but now they ran out on that pile I already had for many years). They were *all* fake (I still have them) and 100% exactly the same as those put up by HDTracks. And notice that I even talked on the phone with the person who created them and admitted they were a quickie, back at the time. They are official though, unlike what I thought at first. They are NOT suitable for MQA, which is why we see different masters for MQA so often.

Or what about the former producer of Turtle Records over here in Holland, who en public thought he was having fun with the audience with his : hahaha hohoho when someone asks to dig up the master tapes I have no time for that, obviously *if* I know where they are in the first place, so we upsample them and the customer is happy. Ha !! 

It's plainly outrageous.

Btw, Chris C. witnessed that too.

 

The one subject to this thread is also doubtful to these eyes. Straight to 48KHz for this track throughout ?? How ? where ? what exactly ?

 

 

 

This is Hires. 06-Bandit from Neil Young - Greendale DVDA (96).

 

1 hour ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

I'm puzzled 

In this test

 

So that could be justified.

 

Want to have a fair chance on genuine Hires ? then look at DVDA 192. This won't exist in multi channel (IIRC this just does not fit on the DVD) and not really many of it exist. But those existing are always the real thing that I have seen.

 

Regards,

Peter

 

[manisandher]

18 hours ago, audiventory said:

(MQA is lossy, as far as I know).

 

If (and it's a massive 'if') MQA does what they claim it does, I think 'corrected' is a more accurate term than 'lossy'.

 

18 hours ago, audiventory said:

Because conclusion is technically obvious: lossless is better.

 

The hires should therefore sound "obviously" better than the MQA. In which case it should be possible to identify which is the MQA. Care to tell us which of the samples sounds "obviously" inferior to you? (Understanding of course that we can't generalise your subjective thoughts to everyone else.)

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

The one subject to this thread is also doubtful to these eyes. Straight to 48KHz for this track throughout ?? How ? where ? what exactly ?

 

 

Here's my analysis of the original hires (with no gain applied):

 

 

What troubles you about this?

 

(If I apply 60dB gain, I get something closer to yours. But is this in any way meaningful?)

 

Mani.