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

[sandyk]

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 .) 

[sandyk]

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.

[sandyk]

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

[sandyk]

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.

 

[sandyk]

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 !

[sandyk]

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.

[sandyk]

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..

[sandyk]

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

[sandyk]

7 hours ago, Jud said:

Note that neither this nor reverberation requires different information from left and right channels, i.e., mono will serve just as well as stereo to give these sorts of height cues.

 

Don't forget too, that most speakers have the tweeter(s) and LF driver at different heights on the baffle. 

The listening position should also normally be arranged so that the ears are at a similar height to that of the HF drivers for best results.