|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Aug 9, 2016 10:31:10 GMT -5
...1) From what I'm reading, the reviewer felt that the MQA files actually sounded better than the 24/192k originals. (This makes me nervous because I would hope that they would reproduce the originals exactly - at best; it reminds me of how some people think "tubes sound better".) However, he preferred how the 24/192k PCM files sounded when played on one DAC over how the MQA files sounded on another. (This seems to suggest that the differences between two high-end DACs are more audible than the differences between PCM and MQA.) (Alternately, it suggests that switching between MQA and PCM is equivalent to switching between various filters of a single DAC - one tends to prefer this or that filter with this or that song.) This may not be a discrepancy, Keith - the filters of the DACs are still in play. Different filters = different sound (especially with high bitrate streams). 2) Giving it all the benefit of the doubt, I tend to suspect what the reviewer hints at.... Which is that the biggest difference is the MASTERING (remember that every "MQA processed" file has been "remastered and repaired"). For better or worse, this makes it impossible to separate the effects of the various parts of "the process"... Please note that I am all in favor of a good quality re-mastering of an album that offers us a better quality version to listen to. This makes sense. Despite the value (or lack thereof) of MQA technology, the quality of the copy is going to always be limited by the quality of the original. You can't polish a turd... 4) I'm not at all convinced that it's possible to produce something that I will be able to audibly distinguish (for the better) from something like 24/192k PCM. And, as the reviewer said, while I'm sure Tidal will be very excited if they can get something that is indistinguishable from a 192k stream in a 44k pipe, I personally don't care very much. (Every album I own will fit on one $200 USB hard drive - at 16/44k, or at 24/192k PCM, or at 44k MQA..... ) But once again, you're speculating on something that you haven't actually heard. Speculation in the absence of evidence is never a sound practice. 5) I'll add that the specific filters used in a DAC are audibly very important, so it doesn't surprise me that their "MQA filter" in a given DAC sounds different than others (and possibly better). However, that's really a separate issue (but, if they've managed to help a given manufacturer to improve the design of their DAC, I'm all for that too). Back to No. 1 again - I agree. So if it works, it works. Having not heard it, I don't know (nor do you). Whether or not one is "excited about it" is irrelevant. I'm eager to hear a demo. Then I'll decide. Cordially - Boom |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 9, 2016 11:02:28 GMT -5
No... I'm sorry, but you are incorrect...... Here's what the CODEC does - starting with an original (or an original that's already been "improved" and remastered) .... MQA first DISCARDS the very high frequency very low amplitude portion of the content (which is deemed to contain only "inaudible ultrasonic noise" - which is a fair claim). They then separate the (presumably audible) high frequency portion of the content that differentiates the high-res original from what would be contained in a 44k original. THIS extracted "difference information" is then compressed LOSSLESSLY. They then take this losslessly compressed difference information and store it back in the original signal by writing it over some more content that is considered to be "useless". Of course, as with any good quality perceptual compression CODEC, the idea is that everything that is discarded is "stuff you can't hear anyway". Therefore, to sum up the "entire process" (according to their claims): They first improve/repair the master itself to produce a better sounding "new original". They then compress that new version using their new CODEC, which makes it smaller by discarding some useless information, but without audibly making it sound worse. You can then play this on a non-MQA system, and it will still sound as good as a "normal" version. Or you can play it on a DAC that is "MQA certified" - which will decode the extra information, and which will also have had its design tweaked to sound good. (And, as a result, it should sound as good as their "improved original"... at least within the limitations of the DAC you're using.) In this context, the PCM format is both a container and a storage format. They have created an overall "container system" where regular PCM players will play the PCM file and essentially ignore the extra MQA information... but an MQA player will extract that information and use it to improve the quality of the PCM "basic signal" by replacing the difference information that was previously extracted. This may seem complicated... but it is quite similar to the way in which HDCD audio, or Dolby TrueHD audio, are stored and reconstructed. (Although, in TrueHD, all of the actual information is stored losslessly.) ***
HOWEVER, to clarify things, while some PARTS of the MQA encoding process are lossless, the OVERALL process is lossy, but, as with any good quality perceptual lossy CODEC, the goal is for the losses to be inaudible. (They are claiming to both improve the original before encoding it, and improve the DAC used to play it back, with the "net result" of an overall improvement from the original.) Beyond that, I personally consider their term "origami" to be misleading, since it suggests to most people that "by unfolding the encoded file you get back the exact original content" - which is NOT strictly true. (It is simply a way to tap dance around using the term "lossy" - which many people, and especially audiophiles, usually equate with "low quality".) Please note that I'm not at all suggesting that it doesn't sound good. (I haven't heard it, so I have no opinion there.) However, since at best a CODEC can do is to store something without damaging it, any actual improvement in sound would logically have to be due to their "re-mastering" of the original or their tweaking of the DAC. (Unfortunately, they have deliberately made it difficult to separate those individual parts of the process...) Well, MQA is saying it's lossless format and it's PCM, hence able to be decoded by none MQA DACs. I am showing you links proving it and not being dogmatic about it. "MP3 brings you just 10% of what was recorded in the studio. Everything else is lost to fit the music into a conveniently small file. MQA brings you the missing 90% – the full, rich experience – without any loss of convenience. It’s truly a revolution in audio."  www.mqa.co.uk/customer/how-it-worksFrom the man himself Huh? CODEC is more of an abbreviation than an acronym... and it stands for COder DECoder - which is precisely what "an end to end encode/decode scheme is". The terms "file format" and "container" are more or less synonymous, although there's some overlap with "data formats"...... For example, PCM is a data format (bits on a wire) but you can store those bits directly into a WAV file. In the video world, some containers always contain a certain video format, while others can contain one of several different ones. I'll have to admit that I find the whole use of the term "origami" to be both brilliant, misleading, and somewhat annoying. In origami, you take a piece of paper and fold it into a figure - usually without cutting or gluing it. Their use of the term is clearly intended to suggest that you can "unfold" their encoded format and "get back the original piece of paper"..... Since they also avoid using the term LOSSY, and even use the term lossless in certain parts of their description, they are clearly trying very hard to AVOID stating the truth... which is that MQA is a LOSSY format. The reality is that some of the original content, where they're quite sure there's nothing that matters, is DISCARDED. Some of the content, which constitutes the difference between high-res and ordinary content is also removed, losslessly compressed, and then saved by overwriting some more "useless content". (So that overwritten content is also discarded.) When you play back without decoding, you are simply playing the normal content. When you decode, you are extracting the extra stuff they "stashed", decoding it, and putting it back where it belongs. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 9, 2016 11:29:38 GMT -5
The one thing where we do need to be careful is in our definition of "an original". For example, let's say you took a picture of something using a 1952 vintage Nikon 210mm F1.2 lens (I made that particular one up). And you have an original negative of that photo. And you also know an awful lot about the flaws of that particular lens - or even have one you can analyze. Well, in that case, you actually CAN "polish the turd". If you analyze that particular lens, and find that it distorts the image in certain specific ways, you can reverse that process. By doing so (if you do it well), you will actually be able to make a "re-mastered negative" that IS "better than the original". (More specifically, it will be closer to a perfect rendition of the original scene than the original negative was. Or, to say it another way, you will have "retroactively improved" that lens in the context of that picture.) The MQA folks are claiming to do exactly that - by applying specific corrections to "repair" flaws in the original mastering process. Basically, they're claiming three main parts to their process: 1) fix the original to make it better 2) get that new improved version to the DAC without messing it up 3) improve the DAC so it does a better job of rendering their improved original Personally, I find the idea that they may end up producing truly improved "re-masters" to be significant. I have no interest in the second part, because I don't think there was significant improvement to be had there (unless bandwidth is an issue for you). And the third part is somewhat ill defined (because a really good "non-MQA tweaked DAC" might end up sounding better than a not-so-good MQA-tweaked DAC). And, while it makes sense from a business perspective, I don't like the way they're doing their best to tie it all into a single monolithic process. (I might be very interested in buying some of those "better re-masters" - but ONLY if I DON'T have to buy an MQA DAC to play them on. If you can produce a better-sounding master, and it happens to be at 384k... just give me that file and let me play it on MY favorite DAC. The fact that you can squeeze it into a smaller - but proprietary - file format doesn't especially interest me. In fact, using a proprietary format that everyone has to pay to license will count as a significant "down-side" to me. ) ...1) From what I'm reading, the reviewer felt that the MQA files actually sounded better than the 24/192k originals. (This makes me nervous because I would hope that they would reproduce the originals exactly - at best; it reminds me of how some people think "tubes sound better".) However, he preferred how the 24/192k PCM files sounded when played on one DAC over how the MQA files sounded on another. (This seems to suggest that the differences between two high-end DACs are more audible than the differences between PCM and MQA.) (Alternately, it suggests that switching between MQA and PCM is equivalent to switching between various filters of a single DAC - one tends to prefer this or that filter with this or that song.) This may not be a discrepancy, Keith - the filters of the DACs are still in play. Different filters = different sound (especially with high bitrate streams). 2) Giving it all the benefit of the doubt, I tend to suspect what the reviewer hints at.... Which is that the biggest difference is the MASTERING (remember that every "MQA processed" file has been "remastered and repaired"). For better or worse, this makes it impossible to separate the effects of the various parts of "the process"... Please note that I am all in favor of a good quality re-mastering of an album that offers us a better quality version to listen to. This makes sense. Despite the value (or lack thereof) of MQA technology, the quality of the copy is going to always be limited by the quality of the original. You can't polish a turd... 4) I'm not at all convinced that it's possible to produce something that I will be able to audibly distinguish (for the better) from something like 24/192k PCM. And, as the reviewer said, while I'm sure Tidal will be very excited if they can get something that is indistinguishable from a 192k stream in a 44k pipe, I personally don't care very much. (Every album I own will fit on one $200 USB hard drive - at 16/44k, or at 24/192k PCM, or at 44k MQA..... ) But once again, you're speculating on something that you haven't actually heard. Speculation in the absence of evidence is never a sound practice. 5) I'll add that the specific filters used in a DAC are audibly very important, so it doesn't surprise me that their "MQA filter" in a given DAC sounds different than others (and possibly better). However, that's really a separate issue (but, if they've managed to help a given manufacturer to improve the design of their DAC, I'm all for that too). Back to No. 1 again - I agree. So if it works, it works. Having not heard it, I don't know (nor do you). Whether or not one is "excited about it" is irrelevant. I'm eager to hear a demo. Then I'll decide. Cordially - Boom |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Aug 9, 2016 12:03:26 GMT -5
Hi Keith -
Meridian CLAIMS that they can improve the content of the original file. I can see how this is theoretically possible, but only if one has full (and I mean FULL) data on how the original was recorded.
If I know that the recording was done with two omni microphones of X brand & model, and that the mics were placed at Y positions in a studio of Z dimensions, and that the mixing console was a Sony X-a model, the tape recorder was a Revox Y-a model, and the tape was Ampex Z-a, then (and only then) can I begin correcting.
How many recordings have that metadata?
|
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Aug 9, 2016 12:24:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Wideawake on Aug 9, 2016 12:54:29 GMT -5
Basically, they're claiming three main parts to their process: 1) fix the original to make it better 2) get that new improved version to the DAC without messing it up 3) improve the DAC so it does a better job of rendering their improved original To fix the original (correcting for lens aberrations, as your analogy aptly states), I would imagine that they would require profiles for all equipment used, both for hardware and software, in order to correct for "known" aberrations. In addition to all the hardware used, such as mics, guitar amps and pickups, recording consoles and such, they would also need profiles for DAWs, plugins/VSTs, etc. They would also have to know the exact signal path that each channel signal took, including channel returns, and the order of the DSP chains and filters used, since each will contribute their "defects" and it is important to know where in the chain a particular defect was introduced in order to back it out. This is a tall order, to say the least. I'm not aware of any technology that can retroactively clean up in this fashion. That doesn't mean that it does not exist or that the MQA folks have not been able to develop it. I'm just saying that if this is what they claim to be able to do then they deserve to become a market success in one form or the other. But, I was wondering that if they can truly create better masters by cleaning up the audio signal then why not put the remastered track back into a 24/192 PCM track? Why all these shenanigans with folding the MQA into the signal and such. Most DACs play PCM just fine so why not just provide a "better" or remastered PCM track and be done with it? They can also offer lossless compression for future use. They can charge the labels to remaster their originals and leave the rest of the industry alone to work as it always has. Everyone is happy. Am I missing some critical points with what I have stated above? |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Aug 9, 2016 12:55:16 GMT -5
Well, I guess MQA and their videos are incorrect...  No... I'm sorry, but you are incorrect...... Here's what the CODEC does - starting with an original (or an original that's already been "improved" and remastered) .... MQA first DISCARDS the very high frequency very low amplitude portion of the content (which is deemed to contain only "inaudible ultrasonic noise" - which is a fair claim). They then separate the (presumably audible) high frequency portion of the content that differentiates the high-res original from what would be contained in a 44k original. THIS extracted "difference information" is then compressed LOSSLESSLY. They then take this losslessly compressed difference information and store it back in the original signal by writing it over some more content that is considered to be "useless". Of course, as with any good quality perceptual compression CODEC, the idea is that everything that is discarded is "stuff you can't hear anyway". Therefore, to sum up the "entire process" (according to their claims): They first improve/repair the master itself to produce a better sounding "new original". They then compress that new version using their new CODEC, which makes it smaller by discarding some useless information, but without audibly making it sound worse. You can then play this on a non-MQA system, and it will still sound as good as a "normal" version. Or you can play it on a DAC that is "MQA certified" - which will decode the extra information, and which will also have had its design tweaked to sound good. (And, as a result, it should sound as good as their "improved original"... at least within the limitations of the DAC you're using.) In this context, the PCM format is both a container and a storage format. They have created an overall "container system" where regular PCM players will play the PCM file and essentially ignore the extra MQA information... but an MQA player will extract that information and use it to improve the quality of the PCM "basic signal" by replacing the difference information that was previously extracted. This may seem complicated... but it is quite similar to the way in which HDCD audio, or Dolby TrueHD audio, are stored and reconstructed. (Although, in TrueHD, all of the actual information is stored losslessly.) ***
HOWEVER, to clarify things, while some PARTS of the MQA encoding process are lossless, the OVERALL process is lossy, but, as with any good quality perceptual lossy CODEC, the goal is for the losses to be inaudible. (They are claiming to both improve the original before encoding it, and improve the DAC used to play it back, with the "net result" of an overall improvement from the original.) Beyond that, I personally consider their term "origami" to be misleading, since it suggests to most people that "by unfolding the encoded file you get back the exact original content" - which is NOT strictly true. (It is simply a way to tap dance around using the term "lossy" - which many people, and especially audiophiles, usually equate with "low quality".) Please note that I'm not at all suggesting that it doesn't sound good. (I haven't heard it, so I have no opinion there.) However, since at best a CODEC can do is to store something without damaging it, any actual improvement in sound would logically have to be due to their "re-mastering" of the original or their tweaking of the DAC. (Unfortunately, they have deliberately made it difficult to separate those individual parts of the process...) Well, MQA is saying it's lossless format and it's PCM, hence able to be decoded by none MQA DACs. I am showing you links proving it and not being dogmatic about it. "MP3 brings you just 10% of what was recorded in the studio. Everything else is lost to fit the music into a conveniently small file. MQA brings you the missing 90% – the full, rich experience – without any loss of convenience. It’s truly a revolution in audio." www.mqa.co.uk/customer/how-it-worksFrom the man himself |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Aug 9, 2016 13:32:35 GMT -5
No... I'm sorry, but you are incorrect...... Here's what the CODEC does - starting with an original (or an original that's already been "improved" and remastered) .... MQA first DISCARDS the very high frequency very low amplitude portion of the content (which is deemed to contain only "inaudible ultrasonic noise" - which is a fair claim). They then separate the (presumably audible) high frequency portion of the content that differentiates the high-res original from what would be contained in a 44k original. THIS extracted "difference information" is then compressed LOSSLESSLY. They then take this losslessly compressed difference information and store it back in the original signal by writing it over some more content that is considered to be "useless". Of course, as with any good quality perceptual compression CODEC, the idea is that everything that is discarded is "stuff you can't hear anyway". Therefore, to sum up the "entire process" (according to their claims): They first improve/repair the master itself to produce a better sounding "new original". They then compress that new version using their new CODEC, which makes it smaller by discarding some useless information, but without audibly making it sound worse. You can then play this on a non-MQA system, and it will still sound as good as a "normal" version. Or you can play it on a DAC that is "MQA certified" - which will decode the extra information, and which will also have had its design tweaked to sound good. (And, as a result, it should sound as good as their "improved original"... at least within the limitations of the DAC you're using.) In this context, the PCM format is both a container and a storage format. They have created an overall "container system" where regular PCM players will play the PCM file and essentially ignore the extra MQA information... but an MQA player will extract that information and use it to improve the quality of the PCM "basic signal" by replacing the difference information that was previously extracted. This may seem complicated... but it is quite similar to the way in which HDCD audio, or Dolby TrueHD audio, are stored and reconstructed. (Although, in TrueHD, all of the actual information is stored losslessly.) ***
HOWEVER, to clarify things, while some PARTS of the MQA encoding process are lossless, the OVERALL process is lossy, but, as with any good quality perceptual lossy CODEC, the goal is for the losses to be inaudible. (They are claiming to both improve the original before encoding it, and improve the DAC used to play it back, with the "net result" of an overall improvement from the original.) Beyond that, I personally consider their term "origami" to be misleading, since it suggests to most people that "by unfolding the encoded file you get back the exact original content" - which is NOT strictly true. (It is simply a way to tap dance around using the term "lossy" - which many people, and especially audiophiles, usually equate with "low quality".) Please note that I'm not at all suggesting that it doesn't sound good. (I haven't heard it, so I have no opinion there.) However, since at best a CODEC can do is to store something without damaging it, any actual improvement in sound would logically have to be due to their "re-mastering" of the original or their tweaking of the DAC. (Unfortunately, they have deliberately made it difficult to separate those individual parts of the process...) Well, MQA is saying it's lossless format and it's PCM, hence able to be decoded by none MQA DACs. I am showing you links proving it and not being dogmatic about it. "MP3 brings you just 10% of what was recorded in the studio. Everything else is lost to fit the music into a conveniently small file. MQA brings you the missing 90% – the full, rich experience – without any loss of convenience. It’s truly a revolution in audio." www.mqa.co.uk/customer/how-it-worksFrom the man himself The bits that are discarded from the PCM stream in order to make room for the encoder's encapsulated data are bits that are located at least 3 bits (18.06 dB) below the mean noise floor of the actual signal. So if played back without the decoder, these bits have zero impact on audibility because, at normal listening levels, humans can't for the life of them hear stuff that's been buried 18 dB below the natural background noise of a recording. As a direct result from this, the loss that occurs has to be sought totally elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Wideawake on Aug 9, 2016 14:06:24 GMT -5
The bits that are discarded from the PCM stream in order to make room for the encoder's encapsulated data are bits that are located at least 3 bits (18.06 dB) below the mean noise floor of the actual signal. So if played back without the decoder, these bits have zero impact on audibility because, at normal listening levels, humans can't for the life of them hear stuff that's been buried 18 dB below the natural background noise of a recording. As a direct result from this, the loss that occurs has to be sought totally elsewhere. I don't know the technical details of their implementation but 18dbs only gives them 3 bits to play with. Don't think that would be sufficient. |
|
|
|
Post by chaosrv on Aug 9, 2016 14:25:34 GMT -5
Assuming most engineers or those involved in the mastering process know what they are doing (I am not saying they need to be "good" at it just know what they are doing) wouldn't they already take the flaws in the mastering process - various pieces of hardware and/or software and work around those limitations to get the effect they desired in the first place?
If X component adds a Y coloring or distortion then they might already be adjusting Z component to counteract the issue.
If this is done and then MQA steps in to "fix" the problem it is going to alter the the sound that was originally intended. It may sound better more pleasing and it may sound worse less pleasing.
To me, it won't be a "better" copy, just a different copy.
As for lossy/lossless, I'm staying out of that part.
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Aug 9, 2016 14:32:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Aug 9, 2016 14:51:17 GMT -5
"Audio origami" is an apt term, yves - Thanks for it! |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Aug 9, 2016 14:52:14 GMT -5
"Audio origami" is an apt term, yves - Thanks for it! "Audigami." |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Aug 9, 2016 14:54:35 GMT -5
yves weren't you arguing for audibility of ultrasonic noise and all kinds of other stuff a while back? But now somebody says 3 bits less and its inaudible and you are sold?
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Aug 9, 2016 14:56:21 GMT -5
He isn't "sold." He wants to hear it (like I do).
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Aug 9, 2016 15:06:59 GMT -5
Assuming most engineers or those involved in the mastering process know what they are doing (I am not saying they need to be "good" at it just know what they are doing) wouldn't they already take the flaws in the mastering process - various pieces of hardware and/or software and work around those limitations to get the effect they desired in the first place? If X component adds a Y coloring or distortion then they might already be adjusting Z component to counteract the issue. If this is done and then MQA steps in to "fix" the problem it is going to alter the the sound that was originally intended. It may sound better more pleasing and it may sound worse less pleasing. To me, it won't be a "better" copy, just a different copy. As for lossy/lossless, I'm staying out of that part. Audio engineers or those involved in the mastering process do not know all that much of what they are doing. That's just because they are not neuroscientists nor experienced psychoacousticians, therefore they are in no position to lecture on the science of how humans perceive sounds, and, as a matter of true fact, real psychoacousticians are IMO generally more modest about what they think they know about psychoacoustics than most audio engineers are.  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Aug 9, 2016 15:18:56 GMT -5
Audio engineers are not humble? SURELY you Jest!!! LOL
(Yes, I do jest - and quit calling me Shirley!)
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Aug 9, 2016 15:25:27 GMT -5
yves weren't you arguing for audibility of ultrasonic noise and all kinds of other stuff a while back? But now somebody says 3 bits less and its inaudible and you are sold? You can do the test. Just record some low level background noise, make some changes to it at 18 dB below the noise level by using your preferred audio editing software, listen for yourself how ridiculously far you have to crank it before you start to hear the changes, and then finally accept the absolute correctness of the claim that, at this listening level, a near full-scale music signal would cause much more than just a little permanent ear damage. |
|
|
|
Post by chaosrv on Aug 9, 2016 15:33:02 GMT -5
While I don't disagree with you, I am unsure how a neuroscientist or psychoacoustician has any impact during the studio (re)mastering process. A certain sound was desired. X introduced a distortion so Z was adjusted to compensate. The sound they wanted to hear in the studio was achieved. We are only talking about the artist/engineer's ears in the studio. It isn't even a matter of sounding good or better but what they heard during the mastering process. If MQA is a (new) way to "fix X" but MQA doesn't adjust Z since Z wasn't an actual flaw or limitation then it won't be as accurate as the original recording. It may be better or it may be worse, that isn't the point. It will still be "different." MQA might be the greatest thing to hit digital audio in a long while, I am not discounting that. I just take issue with the "better" claim. If they are remastering the original then it isn't better or worse for that matter, it is merely different. Audio engineers or those involved in the mastering process do not know all that much of what they are doing. That's just because they are not neuroscientists nor experienced psychoacousticians, therefore they are in no position to lecture on the science of how humans perceive sounds, and, as a matter of true fact, real psychoacousticians are IMO generally more modest about what they think they know about psychoacoustics than most audio engineers are. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Aug 9, 2016 15:48:34 GMT -5
While I don't disagree with you, I am unsure how a neuroscientist or psychoacoustician has any impact during the studio (re)mastering process. A certain sound was desired. X introduced a distortion so Z was adjusted to compensate. The sound they wanted to hear in the studio was achieved. We are only talking about the artist/engineer's ears in the studio. It isn't even a matter of sounding good or better but what they heard during the mastering process. If MQA is a (new) way to "fix X" but MQA doesn't adjust Z since Z wasn't an actual flaw or limitation then it won't be as accurate as the original recording. It may be better or it may be worse, that isn't the point. It will still be "different." MQA might be the greatest thing to hit digital audio in a long while, I am not discounting that. I just take issue with the "better" claim. If they are remastering the original then it isn't better or worse for that matter, it is merely different. Audio engineers or those involved in the mastering process do not know all that much of what they are doing. That's just because they are not neuroscientists nor experienced psychoacousticians, therefore they are in no position to lecture on the science of how humans perceive sounds, and, as a matter of true fact, real psychoacousticians are IMO generally more modest about what they think they know about psychoacoustics than most audio engineers are. MQA at the studio uses measurements to confirm that flaws exist in the ADC or mastering, and that correction methods yield an improvement in accuracy. If the accuracy is improved, then logically it makes sense that "it will still be different". |
|
