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

[PeterSt]

15 minutes ago, manisandher said:

I mean, what on earth is the point of sampling at 384 when there's nothing but noise above 44.1 kHz?

 

The unnecessity to filter which is the explicit thought of 2L (they told me by telephone 10 years or so ago).

 

17 minutes ago, manisandher said:

Oh, and that faint line lies exactly on 44.1 kHz (!).

 

Looks odd to me after all. Something now is wrong. Including the rising slope beyond that point.

[manisandher]

Just now, PeterSt said:

Looks odd to me after all. Something now is wrong. Including the rising slope beyond that point.

 

Exactly.

 

Looks like an original 88.2 'upsampled' to 352.8. But why???

 

Mani.

[randyhat]

19 hours ago, audiventory said:

So, I prefer don't discuss, what sample sound better for me. Because my opinion and ears are subjective and unstable, result depend on number of variables and say a bit for general conclusions. Even for my own. It is not careful approach to serious claims.

 

I guess we are not participants in the same hobby.  During my 50+ years enjoying performing and listening to music the ONLY criteria of any substance that I ever applied to the quality of the listening experience was what sounds better. Within the context of a hobby that is fundamentally about listening, how is it possible (and why would it be desirable) to be so dismissive of listening impressions.  We are eating our own...

[davide256]

10 minutes ago, randyhat said:

 

I guess we are not participants in the same hobby.  During my 50+ years enjoying performing and listening to music the ONLY criteria of any substance that I ever applied to the quality of the listening experience was what sounds better. Within the context of a hobby that is fundamentally about listening, how is it possible (and why would it be desirable) to be so dismissive of listening impressions.  We are eating our own...

There is a group here that is dismissive of trained listeners vs measurement. Many of them have excellent degrees and technical credentials. But few have the ability to demonstrate any credentials as a trained listener... I often wish that existed for credentialing as technical knowledge does not imply listening skills. I suspect

many of those opining measurement over listener evaluation could not make it through a respected music degree program.

[audiventory]

21 minutes ago, randyhat said:

I guess we are not participants in the same hobby.  During my 50+ years enjoying performing and listening to music the ONLY criteria of any substance that I ever applied to the quality of the listening experience was what sounds better.

 

I'm musician (40 years already) and music lover. But I'm engineer simultaneously. Each time when I state something, I should have safe evidence. Accurate and proper tests that based on big numbers of trials and have detailed protocols are safe evidence enough (accounting its conditions, of course). Big numbers and blind sample perception allow to reduce brain and psychological bias.

 

[jabbr]

40 minutes ago, randyhat said:

 

I guess we are not participants in the same hobby.  During my 50+ years enjoying performing and listening to music the ONLY criteria of any substance that I ever applied to the quality of the listening experience was what sounds better. Within the context of a hobby that is fundamentally about listening, how is it possible (and why would it be desirable) to be so dismissive of listening impressions.  We are eating our own...

 

No listening impressions are clearly what is the ultimate factor ... the problem is that it’s impossible to derive an accurate conclusion about two technologies such as MQA vs HiRez by listening only to a selected few samples. That’s why there are so many different filters in DSP software packages such as Izotope and available in playback packages such as HQPlayer & A+. The point is that the conclusions obtained by listening to a few tracks are not generalizable.

 

How about this: suppose someone demonstrated 10 tracks to you comparing MP3 vs PCM 24/192 and suppose you couldn’t tell a difference ... could you reasonably conclude that MP3 equals HiRez?

[Le Concombre Masqué]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

Here's the spectrum/spectrograph for 2L's BEETHOVEN Op. 74 Harp Poco Adagio - Allegro in 24/384352.8:

 

 

Yes, there's definitely music >22.05 kHz, so a good case for hires perhaps. But this could be captured easily with an 88.2 sample rate. I mean, what on earth is the point of sampling at 384352.8 when there's nothing but noise above 44.1 kHz?

 

Oh, and that faint line lies exactly on 44.1 kHz (!).

 

Mani.

uh uh what's the point? 2 things :

1. recording at extremely high rates ; I'm too old to be concerned by extreme HF, I provided measurements of actual concert halls rolling off drastically above 5K etc ; but I think it helps reconstruct fast transients ; probably recording @ 96 is good enough though

2. delivering at recording or mixing rate, that is not introducing a deterioration for the sake of adapting the source to lower standards. However, as I suggested a few posts above, flat transfer might not be the ideal and some might dislike hires when it lacks mastering 100% while dithering to RB or manipulating to MQA is introducing some kind of mastering, not of the eQ or compression kind, oK, but at least a choice of hardware, software, filters etc CHOSEN at some point to make the result (RB or MQA) sound eventually more tasteful (to some ears) without regards with technology limitations

 

[randyhat]

18 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

 

18 minutes ago, jabbr said:

How about this: suppose someone demonstrated 10 tracks to you comparing MP3 vs PCM 24/192 and suppose you couldn’t tell a difference ... could you reasonably conclude that MP3 equals HiRez?

  If I couldn't tell the difference what would it matter which is "best".  All components in my listening chain are lossy yet somehow I am able to enjoy the listening experience.

[Rt66indierock]

4 hours ago, Miska said:

 

I have a lot of good hires from highresaudio.com, nativedsd.com and 2L (and some from HDtracks too).

 

RedBook is always compromised and stuffed, and needs a lot of careful DSP massaging to get it fixed and something proper out of it.

 

By definition, you must not artificially band limit the source. And with RedBook, pretty much anything else than solo piano you end up band limiting. And you irrevocably destroy part of the sound.

 

MQA in turn is screwed up in so many technical ways and has a lot of other unwanted features. But if someone likes to listen to a distortion generator called MQA, I don't have problem with it. But I just avoid it.

 

Just my opinion...

 

The music I'm willing to travel 350+ miles to see live is almost never available in anything but CD.

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, randyhat said:

 

  If I couldn't tell the difference what would it matter which is "best".  All components in my listening chain are lossy yet somehow I am able to enjoy the listening experience.

 

If you don’t notice a difference it doesn’t matter but that’s not my point.

 

1) Just because 10 tracks don’t show a difference doesn’t mean that a different 10,000 tracks won’t 

2) No not all the components in your listening chain need be lossy

 

In any case for me any potential benefit of MQA is overwhelmingly outweighed by the proprietariness of the format so it’s a nonstarter. I’m happy with a CD if that’s what the performer gives me or 24/96 or 192 or DSD if that’s what the performer gives me. That’s offtopic for this thread ...

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, randyhat said:

 

I guess we are not participants in the same hobby.  During my 50+ years enjoying performing and listening to music the ONLY criteria of any substance that I ever applied to the quality of the listening experience was what sounds better. Within the context of a hobby that is fundamentally about listening, how is it possible (and why would it be desirable) to be so dismissive of listening impressions.  We are eating our own...

 

The question then is how easily I can trick your listening impressions.

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, davide256 said:

There is a group here that is dismissive of trained listeners vs measurement. Many of them have excellent degrees and technical credentials. But few have the ability to demonstrate any credentials as a trained listener... I often wish that existed for credentialing as technical knowledge does not imply listening skills. I suspect

many of those opining measurement over listener evaluation could not make it through a respected music degree program.

That group may be dismissive of people who think they are trained listeners. I was taught audio and spent 15 years moonlighting as consultant in the broadcasting industry (radio). My view is if people weren't paying you for your listening skills over a period time maybe you haven't demonstrated the necessary skills to be a trained listener.  

[Miska]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Looks odd to me after all. Something now is wrong. Including the rising slope beyond that point.

 

The noise slope is typical and you can see start of it on most 192/24 recordings. It is just the SDM ADC's noise slope.

 

Usually you can find low level spurious tone around 30 - 35 kHz which is SMPS switching frequency.

 

The 44.1k line is probably word clock used to synchronize converters leaking at low level to the ADC.

[Miska]

4 hours ago, manisandher said:

Which instrument has energy right up to 96 kHz (!)?

 

https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/11.htm

https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/13.htm

 

Important thing to note is that sampling rate should be high enough so that any instrument content has spectrum fallen below the background noise level by Nyquist frequency of the sampling rate. This avoids adverse effects of band limiting.

 

For making wide bandwidth recordings, you also need wide bandwidth microphones. The best I'm aware is this:

http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/product/product.cfm/3.1000400

Some more info, including recordings made with it:

http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/report/reports.cfm?top=1&id=12

 

2L uses DPA microphones (ex B&K), like:

https://www.dpamicrophones.com/ddicate/4007-omnidirectional-microphone

which reach up to 50 kHz. There used to be hard-core variant of these with 130V phantom power, many use those ones.

 

Sennheiser has 8000-series which has ones going a bit higher:

https://en-fi.sennheiser.com/recording-condenser-microphone-onmi-directional-guitar-acoustic-bass-brass-mkh-8020

And also:

https://en-fi.sennheiser.com/studio-condenser-microphone-digital-recording-systems-mkh-800-p48

 

[manisandher]

23 minutes ago, Miska said:

The 44.1k line is probably word clock used to synchronize converters leaking at low level to the ADC.

 

Looks like the 88.2 sample-rate Nyquist line to me. Take a look at a close up of one of the peaks:

 

 

Surely that's clear imaging right there?

 

Mani.

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

No listening impressions are clearly what is the ultimate factor ... the problem is that it’s impossible to derive an accurate conclusion about two technologies such as MQA vs HiRez by listening only to a selected few samples. That’s why there are so many different filters in DSP software packages such as Izotope and available in playback packages such as HQPlayer & A+. The point is that the conclusions obtained by listening to a few tracks are not generalizable.

 

How about this: suppose someone demonstrated 10 tracks to you comparing MP3 vs PCM 24/192 and suppose you couldn’t tell a difference ... could you reasonably conclude that MP3 equals HiRez?

 

You are correct. I did a test last year with the Portland State Chamber Choir's The Doors of Heaven recorded by John Atkinson. Seven tracks. The listeners were Portland State alumni who liked the Chamber Choir. They listened to Mp3, Apple iTunes, CD and a 24/88.2 FLAC. They preferred the iTunes version.  I could draw no conclusions from this test other than the lossy formats showed how good they could be.

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

They preferred the iTunes version.  I could draw no conclusions from this test other than the lossy formats showed how good they could be.

 

Or maybe everyone is so used to iTunes/lossy that it has become the ultimate reference and nothing else sounds as good.

[GUTB]

I didn't read this thread. I listened to each track ONCE. Let's see how audio memory works.

 

Sample A - Lack of micro-details...because it's re-encoded?

 

Sample B - Lo-res trash.

 

Sample C - More forward, stronger dynamics / attack. More dimensional. Unless audio memory is fooling me I want to say this version is superior to A.

 

Overall there is a lack of detail and a flatness which may be because of the track being re-recorded.

[Miska]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

Looks like the 88.2 sample-rate Nyquist line to me. Take a look at a close up of one of the peaks:

 

 

Surely that's clear imaging right there?

 

I'd say it is nulls of the PCM decimation filter...

 

[manisandher]

16 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Overall there is a lack of detail and a flatness which may be because of the track being re-recorded.

 

The track was NOT 're-recorded', it was captured digitally. The hires WAV capture nulls perfectly with the original hires FLAC. You will NOT hear a difference between the original hires FLAC and the hires WAV capture... unless your software player sounds different when playing FLAC vs. WAV (which it really shouldn't, if it's worth its salt).

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

2 minutes ago, Miska said:

I'd say it is nulls of the PCM decimation filter...

 

And this? (2L's Haydn String Quartet in D Op 76 No 5 - Finale - Presto - DXD):

 

 

What a total mess! And this from 2L!

 

Mani.

[Rt66indierock]

37 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Or maybe everyone is so used to iTunes/lossy that it has become the ultimate reference and nothing else sounds as good.

 

You raise an excellent point but the iTunes version was mastered differently according to John Atkinson.  People may just like that mastering better. Not something I can dig too deeply into without accusations of bias especially in the case of MQA.

[Le Concombre Masqué]

30 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

And this? (2L's Haydn String Quartet in D Op 76 No 5 - Finale - Presto - DXD):

 

 

What a total mess! And this from 2L!

 

Mani.

what's your point? is it supposed to become better once degraded to MQA? For a while in this thread I don't dig what you and, ie, Peter are inferring ; that is that it would exist a mythical original source from which a naughty badly done hires  and a mighty, blessed, mqa would be derived.

As of the recording in this thread, from what we can google (Avatar's Studio C equipment...), it seems to have been recorded 24/96 and thus your inferred mythical original source is hires

[manisandher]

3 minutes ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

what's your point?

 

On 10/30/2018 at 7:04 AM, manisandher said:

I'm still totally done with all hires. It seems to me that if you can't get properly done hires from ECM/Qobuz, then you're not likely to get it from anywhere.

 

Let me know if you're still confused and I'll see if I can state it any more simply for you.

 

Mani.

[Ralf11]

listening impressions done right are the only std. for a consumer

 

listening impressions conflated with confirmation bias should be dismissed