Jump to content
IGNORED

Thoughts on a Method to Compare MQA and Non-MQA Files


Jud

Recommended Posts

I don't have Roon, so can't say.  I'm sure others may have suggestions.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Jud said:

Second comparison, decode the MQA file to its "full resolution" (using the Bluesound decoder if you have it - any other suggested methods, @mansr or @Miska?), save as a digital file using one of the available software virtual sound cards, then run it through the DeltaWave mixdown-comparison-save process.

The virtual sound card would be used together with some MQA-enabled player like A+ or the Tidal app. The Bluesound decoder (with my front-end) takes files as input and outputs files. Another possibility, for those who have the requisite hardware, is to play the MQA file with A+/Tidal through a device with digital output and capture that.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Aren't you inherently losing the imaging information by reducing to a single channel?

 

That would seem to be a major flaw in the approach.

 

Some, but plenty remains. There's soundstage height and depth, coherence, size, and vertical location of (one half of) each instrument and/or vocalist....  In fact I find such comparisons often turn on these very characteristics.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

nea.gif.986009c0ab359105c5b41c6661ecf352.gif

 

 

😁

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Some, but plenty remains. There's soundstage height and depth, coherence, size, and vertical location of (one half of) each instrument and/or vocalist....  In fact I find such comparisons often turn on these very characteristics.

 

 Sorry Jud, but with this one I have to agree with Lee.

We need 3 versions as you mentioned , the original high res file, the non Decoded MQA, and the decoded MQA version. These should be made available via the PM system to prevent abuse or excessive demands by other than interested forum members , and the listening results tabulated.

 

Soundstage HEIGHT from a MQA recording ? :o

 Very few recordings exhibit a good illusion of height, and those that do are highly unlikely to be available from MQA. (" The Storm" from a Hybrid Chesky SACD is a good example, and even then your gear needs to be way above average to demonstrate this properly .) 

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Sorry Jud, but with this one I have to agree with Lee.

We need 3 versions as you mentioned , the original high res file, the non Decoded MQA, and the decoded MQA version. These should be made available via the PM system to prevent abuse or excessive demands by other than interested forum members , and the listening results tabulated.

 

I side with the Beatles on this point. They never even bothered to listen to stereo mixes. Nor did Brian Wilson.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 Sorry Jud, but with this one I have to agree with Lee.

We need 3 versions as you mentioned , the original high res file, the non Decoded MQA, and the decoded MQA version. These should be made available via the PM system to prevent abuse or excessive demands by other than interested forum members , and the listening results tabulated.

 

Hi Alex - If you have a look at what I laid out, I actually mention not only those 3, but a 4th, a Redbook version to match the resolution of the non-decoded MQA.  Whether people want to tabulate results is up to them.

 

Quote

Soundstage HEIGHT from a MQA recording ? :o

 Very few recordings exhibit a good illusion of height, and those that do are highly unlikely to be available from MQA. (" The Storm" from a Hybrid Chesky SACD is a good example, and even then your gear needs to be way above average to demonstrate this properly .) 

 

My gear must be way above average.  Must be the USB DAC!  ;) 

 

Edit: For example, listen to the Steve Hoffman-mastered DCC gold CD of Pet Sounds.  Tremendous soundstage height from a mono recording.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 Which recordings from them exhibit a good illusion of HEIGHT ?  :D

 Even Frank's speakers won't disappear with them.;)

 

 P.S.

Using Jud's methodology is almost certainly going to markedly decrease member participation due to it's complexity, when we need as high a member participation as possible with a clear dislike of the MQA versions

made obvious.

 

That's why I mentioned Brian Wilson. See Jud's comment above.

 

P.S. I disagree with you on member participation. The better our information is the better our participation will be. It makes it easier to show how gullible the press was in promoting MQA. 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jud said:

Hi Alex - If you have a look at what I laid out, I actually mention not only those 3, but a 4th, a Redbook version to match the resolution of the non-decoded MQA.  Whether people want to tabulate results is up to them.

 

Jud

Yes, it would be nice to have the Redbook version too, but it's getting way too complex.

 These clowns have not been stopped by a few indepth technical reports of MQA failings.

The record companies need to see that many people have heard and don't like what MQA is doing to their favourite material ,and that their reported findings have been widely read by not only members of large Audio forums, but seen by many other casual readers of these forums. Your methodology will go over the head of most members of the general public, and I doubt that it will be as revealing as listening directly via a highly revealing system.

 Please explain how it is possible to get HEIGHT information from a Mono recording.

My expectation is that with a high quality system that there should be ONLY a rock solid, non diffused , fixed centre image at a height set by the speaker transducers.

Only differences in phase information can result in the illusion of Height, Width and Depth, unless the brain is doing it's own interpretation based on how personal experience says it should sound.

Quote

My gear must be way above average.  Must be the USB DAC! 

Perhaps it's despite the USB DAC ? :P

 

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

P.S. I disagree with you on member participation. The better our information is the better our participation will be. It makes it easier to show how gullible the press was in promoting MQA. 

 

 The record companies and the proponents of MQA have shown that they don't give a shit about accurate technical analyses 

demonstrating it's failings.

 The vast majority of consumers do NOT read the Audio press. In fact , I doubt that even most members of this forum subscribe to such publications any more.

 

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 The record companies and the proponents of MQA have shown that they don't give a shit about accurate technical analyses 

demonstrating it's failings.

 The vast majority of consumers do NOT read the Audio press. In fact , I doubt that even most members of this forum subscribe to such publications.

 

 

That the people supporting MQA don't care is not a major concern.  They aren't my intended audience.  If they can be beat on til they give up or MQA Ltd goes out of business I'm fine with that. The general public will never know MQA was a new audio format. 

 

If MQA has to to be battled in the mainstream I want to bury anyone claiming the technical analysis is wrong with what is now hundreds of pages of documentation. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

That the people supporting MQA don't care is not a major concern.  They aren't my intended audience.  If they can be beat on til they give up or MQA Ltd goes out of business I'm fine with that. The general public will never know MQA was a new audio format. 

 

If MQA has to to be battled in the mainstream I want to bury anyone claiming the technical analysis is wrong with what is now hundreds of pages of documentation. 

While I agree 100% with your sentiments, I believe that the demise of MQA can NOW only come down to lack of public support after it's widespread introduction.  Many companies are jumping aboard providing support for it for fear of losing sales, even though they may believe it's not needed, and it is a backwards step.

The only thing that the record companies understand is the bottom line.

 Let's hope that they get their greedy fingers burned !

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jud said:

For example, listen to the Steve Hoffman-mastered DCC gold CD of Pet Sounds.  Tremendous soundstage height from a mono recording.

Hi Jud

 To me, it just shows it's age when listening via Headphones, but it is of historical importance. (Beach Boys -Pet Sounds (DCC GZS-1035) Perhaps you meant a DUAL MONO recording ?

I much prefer the album shown, which shows just how good their material COULD have sounded if they did the same with Telarc .

 

Kind Regards

Alex

 

P.S.

The later reissue of the Papa Doo Run Run album doesn't sound as good . CD -70501is better.

California Project.jpg

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
3 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Please explain how it is possible to get HEIGHT information from a Mono recording.

 

The same way you do from a stereo recording without having another pair of speakers at ceiling level - as you mentioned, phase (due to recording mic placement or added effects); and also speaker-room interactions.

 

But speaker-room interactions should give similar soundstage height on virtually all recordings, and that's not the case (for example, on Tom Waits' very industrial version of the Disney chestnut Heigh Ho, it's quite squashed) so I think a fair amount of it at least on my system is due to recording mic placement or effects.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, sandyk said:

The record companies need to see that many people have heard and don't like what MQA is doing to their favourite material ,and that their reported findings have been widely read by not only members of large Audio forums, but seen by many other casual readers of these forums. Your methodology will go over the head of most members of the general public, and I doubt that it will be as revealing as listening directly via a highly revealing system.

 

It *is* listening directly to both, rather than listening to one while trying to remember another.

 

I agree with what you say about the procedure being more fuss than the vast majority of people want to go to.  But I wasn't after "easy," I was after "What will eliminate most variables from the comparison other than the absolute sound quality of the MQA versions (encoded and decoded) versus the mathematically lossless versions (Redbook and hi res)?"  And I agree fewer people will mean less of an impression on the MQA folks, and though I regret that, I can't help it, since as I say, I wasn't formulating this process to appeal to the greatest number of people.

 

I am hoping community-minded folks will make reasonable length (say 30 seconds) samples of tracks available for testing in the various resolutions needed, to eliminate some of the fuss and bother for the rest.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

It *is* listening directly to both, rather than listening to one while trying to remember another.

 

I agree with what you say about the procedure being more fuss than the vast majority of people want to go to.  But I wasn't after "easy," I was after "What will eliminate most variables from the comparison other than the absolute sound quality of the MQA versions (encoded and decoded) versus the mathematically lossless versions (Redbook and hi res)?"  And I agree fewer people will mean less of an impression on the MQA folks, and though I regret that, I can't help it, since as I say, I wasn't formulating this process to appeal to the greatest number of people.

 

I am hoping community-minded folks will make reasonable length (say 30 seconds) samples of tracks available for testing in the various resolutions needed, to eliminate some of the fuss and bother for the rest.

 

I believe there is an AES standard or research that suggests a certain number of seconds is good for aural.memory.  Maybe you could break tracks into short cuts that are played sequentially...?

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Jud said:

The same way you do from a stereo recording without having another pair of speakers at ceiling level - as you mentioned, phase (due to recording mic placement or added effects); and also speaker-room interactions.

Jud

 I am not sure that we are on the same page.:$

 A pure MONO recording as with very early recordings was made using a single microphone and is  played back these days through 2 front speakers, so there should be identical information going into both speakers with no height ,depth or width information, just a stable central image if the electronics and speakers are well matched..

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Jud

 I am not sure that we are on the same page.:$

 A pure MONO recording as with very early recordings was made using a single microphone and is  played back these days through 2 front speakers, so there should be identical information going into both speakers with no height ,depth or width information, just a central image .

 

That might well be the case, but I know it wasn't with the Beatles mono recordings, and I'm fairly certain it wasn't with Pet Sounds.  I also wonder whether it was the case (my guess is no) on the Phil Spector mono recordings I have.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

That might well be the case, but I know it wasn't with the Beatles mono recordings, and I'm fairly certain it wasn't with Pet Sounds.  I also wonder whether it was the case (my guess is no) on the Phil Spector mono recordings I have.

 Jud

 I have attached a screen grab from Sound Forge 9 of the track Sloop John B from the DCC recording.

 There are only very minor differences in the stats for both channels too.

 At a quick look I am unable to see any differences between channels when zooming in on the waveforms either.

Alex

Sloop John B.jpg

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

That might well be the case, but I know it wasn't with the Beatles mono recordings, and I'm fairly certain it wasn't with Pet Sounds.  I also wonder whether it was the case (my guess is no) on the Phil Spector mono recordings I have.

 

Both of you guys are probably speaking true, but I admit, I don't know how you can have depth or height with just a mono recording. Would not any such artifacts be only from the speaker or speakers? 

 

I do not listen to very many monoral recordings, and when I do they sound clear and center placed to me, no real soundstage such as with stereo, just more like a phantom center channel. 

 

-Paul 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...