Popular Post Jud Posted March 18, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted March 18, 2019 Some of the comments in the enormous MQA "vaporware" thread, including some of mine, discuss listening comparisons of MQA versus hi res or Redbook. Some recent listening tests I've done, together with my reading in the academic literature, indicate to me that memory, even short term memory, doesn't do the best job of accurately preserving the details of the way things sound. I wanted a way to listen to two tracks *simultaneously*, avoiding any loss in accuracy due to memory. @pkane2001 has done a wonderful job of building a tool that allows such simultaneous comparisons (and much more besides), called DeltaWave Comparator ( https://deltaw.org/ ). The method I'll be suggesting uses two of DeltaWave's many capabilities. - DeltaWave allows you to select two tracks for simultaneous comparison, mixing each stereo track down to mono, then assigning one track to the left channel and one to the right channel. I believe (though I haven't had a chance to test yet) that the newest version of the software allows the reference to be either the left or the right channel, a key point. - DeltaWave also allows you to save this left-right comparison as a WAV file. The general comparison method is to select an MQA track and non-MQA equivalent, then save two WAV files from the DeltaWave left-right comparison, one with the MQA track on the left, one with it on the right. I'm going to suggest some ideas regarding playing these files back with Audirvana+ or HQPlayer. Now what about matching file resolutions, since MQA first shows up as lower resolution, then is "unfolded" and treated as higher resolution by software and DAC? I would suggest two different comparisons here, particularly since MQA claims its processing won't harm the sound with non-MQA-enabled DACs/software: First comparison, treat the MQA file as an ordinary file of Redbook or whatever other lower resolution it's packaged as, which is very easy - the process of mixing down the stereo file to mono in DeltaWave will accomplish this on its own. 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. We've now got a matrix of 4 comparisons to save as WAV files - left reference and right reference for both original MQA resolution and unfolded resolution. We're going to add one more variable, which will not increase the number of saved files, but will increase the total number of comparisons to 8. Each of the saved files should be played back in two ways with A+ or HQP: (1) using no upsampling with MQA-enabled DACs/software, or upsampling filters as close as possible to MQA's for non-MQA-enabled DACs/software, and (2) using upsampling filters that will minimize any distortion from content in the low ultrasonic range. @mansr, can you suggest A+ Sox filter settings for each of these, and @Miska, can you suggest which HQP filters might be chosen for each? Thus for each track we'd have the following comparisons: left and right for each of the original and "unfolded" MQA resolutions, played back with MQA-type and normal filtering. To blind the comparison, choose random order playback of the 4 files (which I know is available in A+, but don't recall regarding HQP). If your preference for left or right turns out to have switched depending on whether that channel was playing the MQA track, then you like MQA or non-MQA better, depending on your choice. (Edit: Or perhaps the mastering is different, and you like one mastering better than the other.) If your choice remains in the same channel, then whatever preference you might have between MQA and non-MQA was less than the difference between your left and right ears, or your left and right speakers as positioned in your listening room. If your choice switches, but at random, then you're not hearing enough of a distinction between MQA and non-MQA to make an audible difference to you. A couple of notes regarding use of DeltaWave for these comparisons: - If you want to avoid your choices being biased by what you see in DeltaWave's analysis of the files before playback, then turn off the various ways to view the file comparisons in DeltaWave's settings. - Since it is likely the MQA file will have used minimum phase filters during ADC, and the regular versions may have been done with linear phase filters, I would suggest turning off phase drift correction in DeltaWave. This is a fair amount to go through for each comparison of an MQA and non-MQA track, and not everyone may have the means to decode MQA files. For this reason, I'd like to request that those who do have such means make 30-second snippets of non-MQA and MQA tracks (non-decoded and decoded) available for the purpose of testing by others on request. One set of files I'd be interested in having such samples of if available, since they've been discussed by a few people in the "vaporware" thread, would be a track or two of Peter McGrath's. That's (finally) it, everyone! Feel free to discuss, dispute, or otherwise here or in the "vaporware" thread. ipeverywhere, Paul R, pkane2001 and 1 other 2 2 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
Paul R Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 Nice methodology. I have an A+ license, but not sure it is for the current version. Do you have any suggestions how to do this say with Roon? -Paul Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
Jud Posted March 18, 2019 Author Share Posted March 18, 2019 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
Lee Scoggins Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 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. Link to comment
mansr Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 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. Jud 1 Link to comment
Jud Posted March 18, 2019 Author Share Posted March 18, 2019 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. Lee Scoggins 1 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
PeterSt Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 Lush^3-e Lush^2 Blaxius^2.5 Ethernet^3 HDMI^2 XLR^2 XXHighEnd (developer) Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer) Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer) Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier) Link to comment
Jud Posted March 18, 2019 Author Share Posted March 18, 2019 30 minutes ago, PeterSt said: 😁 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
sandyk Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 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 ? 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 .) Lee Scoggins 1 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
Rt66indierock Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 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
Popular Post sandyk Posted March 18, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted March 18, 2019 13 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said: I side with the Beatles on this point. They never even bothered to listen to stereo mixes. Nor did Brian Wilson. Which recordings from them exhibit a good illusion of HEIGHT ? 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. MetalNuts and esldude 2 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
Jud Posted March 18, 2019 Author Share Posted March 18, 2019 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 ? 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
Rt66indierock Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 1 hour ago, sandyk said: Which recordings from them exhibit a good illusion of HEIGHT ? 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
sandyk Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 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 ? 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
sandyk Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 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. Teresa 1 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
Rt66indierock Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 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. Teresa 1 Link to comment
sandyk Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 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 ! Teresa 1 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
sandyk Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 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. 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
Jud Posted March 19, 2019 Author Share Posted March 19, 2019 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. Teresa 1 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
Jud Posted March 19, 2019 Author Share Posted March 19, 2019 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
Lee Scoggins Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 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
sandyk Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 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
Jud Posted March 19, 2019 Author Share Posted March 19, 2019 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
sandyk Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 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 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
Paul R Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 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 sandyk 1 Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein 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