KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,247
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 22, 2016 14:53:08 GMT -5
When you're talking a S/N of over 120 dB, a few dB either way really isn't significant. And, to be honest, neither are most of those performance numbers.... like frequency response and THD. All of the higher end DACs are very quiet, very flat, and have very low distortion. However, most people find that, at a subtle level, Sabre DACs all have a somewhat distinctive sound. (They tend to emphasize detail.... so you either find them "wonderfully detailed" or "etched and slightly grainy".) How much you notice this depends on the implementation, the content you play, and the rest of your equipment. (In many situations, the difference may not be audible at all... but, when it is, this is the character it tends to assume.) Whether you consider this to be a virtue or a flaw depends on your personal preference (I'm not saying they sound bad). However, we find that Sabre DACs tend to sound somewhat other than purely neutral, and we prefer a sound that is as neutral as possible. This is the reason that we don't use Sabre DACs. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 22, 2016 14:58:57 GMT -5
So where can I PURCHASE this huge list of MQA-encoded titles? Actually, there are two separate questions here..... The first is whether all those titles have been "fully processed", or just "converted into MQA" for streaming. Are we talking about a full remastering, with the flaws of the original encoding carefully repaired? Or are we talking about being bulk processed through the CODEC, resulting in slightly smaller files, and what some people claim is "a more pleasant sound"? The second question is, quite literally, where can I PURCHASE my own copies of all that music, in MQA format, as discs or downloadable files? I keep hearing things like this, yet, when I do a web search on "MQA content", what I get back is a very short list of a few really obscure titles. Which stores have those MQA titles for sale? As I've said before, I'll be interested when there are actually new albums being produced in this format that I care about, and that sound noticeably better..... Or when some of my old favorites are remastered in it - and actually sound noticeably better than the previous version. I literally have yet to see a SINGLE MQA title that I care to own. I believe that OnkyoMusic has about two dozen actual albums - but they're all REALLY obscure. I've also heard that there are some other vendors who have a few. However..... I just went to Amazon and did a search on MQA. I found a few players that support it, and, of course, the Meridian DACs. But, when I looked for actual content to listen to, all I could find was exactly ONE album of Mozart Concertos that I could STREAM. NO CDs; NO downloads; zilch... zip... nada... As for the MQA content availability "issue", the entire catalog (yeah, the whole thing) of Warner has already been converted to MQA. By next spring both Universal and Sony are going to follow so hang in there folks because you're going for a ride!  Source: www.wifihifi.ca/content/index/page?pid=4891 |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 22, 2016 15:24:51 GMT -5
When you're talking a S/N of over 120 dB, a few dB either way really isn't significant. And, to be honest, neither are most of those performance numbers.... like frequency response and THD. All of the higher end DACs are very quiet, very flat, and have very low distortion. However, most people find that, at a subtle level, Sabre DACs all have a somewhat distinctive sound. (They tend to emphasize detail.... so you either find them "wonderfully detailed" or "etched and slightly grainy".) How much you notice this depends on the implementation, the content you play, and the rest of your equipment. (In many situations, the difference may not be audible at all... but, when it is, this is the character it tends to assume.) Whether you consider this to be a virtue or a flaw depends on your personal preference (I'm not saying they sound bad). However, we find that Sabre DACs tend to sound somewhat other than purely neutral, and we prefer a sound that is as neutral as possible. This is the reason that we don't use Sabre DACs. The neutrality depends entirely on the implementation IMO. The Wyred4Sound DAC-1 is a little on the bright side, whereas the Eastern Electric MiniMax DAC is a little on the warm side, but the Wyred4Sound DAC- 2 is uncolored, and so is my Eastern Electric MiniMax DAC Supreme (again, IMO). FYI, some guy on another forum that I frequent has told me the XPA-2 sounds grainy. He din't want to believe me when I replied to him that it doesn't sound anywhere near grainy in my system at least to my own ears, after which he decided to start flaming me.  |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Nov 22, 2016 15:37:41 GMT -5
Keith, you bring up my constant response to my friend Bill who's constantly buying DSDs and other high-bit-rate Digital Audio: remastering matters way more than the high-bit-rate. There are a lot of CDs floating around out there which have extremely poor mastering. Properly remastered into the CD Redbook 44.1kHz/16bit format, they are wildly better than simply transcribing the poor masters into a high-bit-rate format. Now, geven an extremely good mastering, I'd be willing to sit down and listen to various digital audio formats to see if I or any normal human could hear the difference. It's possible that the CD 44.1kHz/16bit format may not be ~quite~ good enough. It's hard to imaging that the 96kHz/24bit format wouldn't be. There is an interesting analog to consider with Human Visual Acuity. Prima Facie, the new 4K Video formats don't make sense because the angular resolution capability of the human eye isn't good enough to see the extra resolution offered by 4K over HD 1080 (for most seating positions). But aliasing effects are visible in HD 1080 which aren't in 4K. I'm not sure that there's any similar effect in audio, but it's worth thinking about. Perhaps the interference patterns between two tones? But again, remastering crappy masterings is worth way more. After I got my new Legacy Focus SE speakers I definitely noticed a bunch of recordings — some long-time favorites — that no longer sounded good because the speakers were "too good". So I've gone on a buying spree looking for REMASTERED versions of various recordings. Casey |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Nov 22, 2016 16:07:22 GMT -5
When you're talking a S/N of over 120 dB, a few dB either way really isn't significant. I hope it was clear that I am of the same opinion, which implies that the DAC chips n XMC-1 is good enough. (y) (and most everything else apart Dirace being limited to 48 kHz and the lack few minor functions such as DoP support). |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 22, 2016 16:10:53 GMT -5
Keith, you bring up my constant response to my friend Bill who's constantly buying DSDs and other high-bit-rate Digital Audio: remastering matters way more than the high-bit-rate. There are a lot of CDs floating around out there which have extremely poor mastering. Properly remastered into the CD Redbook 44.1kHz/16bit format, they are wildly better than simply transcribing the poor masters into a high-bit-rate format. Now, geven an extremely good mastering, I'd be willing to sit down and listen to various digital audio formats to see if I or any normal human could hear the difference. It's possible that the CD 44.1kHz/16bit format may not be ~quite~ good enough. It's hard to imaging that the 96kHz/24bit format wouldn't be. There is an interesting analog to consider with Human Visual Acuity. Prima Facie, the new 4K Video formats don't make sense because the angular resolution capability of the human eye isn't good enough to see the extra resolution offered by 4K over HD 1080 (for most seating positions). But aliasing effects are visible in HD 1080 which aren't in 4K. I'm not sure that there's any similar effect in audio, but it's worth thinking about. Perhaps the interference patterns between two tones? But again, remastering crappy masterings is worth way more. After I got my new Legacy Focus SE speakers I definitely noticed a bunch of recordings — some long-time favorites — that no longer sounded good because the speakers were "too good". So I've gone on a buying spree looking for REMASTERED versions of various recordings. Casey Similarly, un-remastering crappy remasterings is worth way more also. So it swings both ways, and... it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.  |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,247
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 22, 2016 16:21:46 GMT -5
I'm afraid I'd still have to disagree with you slightly about the Sabres... although I would emphasize that I'm talking about very subtle differences. I've owned several Sabre DACs, incuding a Wyred4Sound DAC2 (the original version), a smaller Wyred4Sound uDAC, an AudioLab M-DAC, a dragonfly, an 0DAC, and a few other Sabre DACs. All of them exhibited to some degree what I would characterize as slightly exaggerated detail. When I compared the Wyred4Sound and the Audiolab to our Emotiva DC-1, using a recording with well-recorded wire brush cymbals, the details seemed more emphasized on both Sabre DACs. (I was using a pair of our Stealth 8 monitors - which are quite revealing of high-frequency conte3nt and detail.) If I'd been asked to guess, I would have assumed that the Sabres boosted the upper treble, which emphasizes details. However, in actual fact, all three are very flat - far past the point where any differences in frequency response should reasonably be audible. (I consider it analogous to looking at your carpet using a halogen light and an LED flashlight; both may be white, but the LED light tends to make dust and lint more visible.) My best guess is that it's some sort of difference in how the digital filters they've chosen affect the time response..... It almost seems to be the audible equivalent of what you get when you apply "sharpening" in Photoshop - it often sounds very good, but sometimes it seems overdone and artificial. (Since I tend to think of it that way, it may bias the way I experience it.... however, I've had several people who disliked the sound of one or another of the Sabre DACs I've owned describe them as "grainy".) It may also be that it is implementation dependent - especially if you use external filters instead of those include internally in the Sabres - but it's held true to some degree for all of the Sabre DACs that I've heard. In any case, several of the folks here expressed the same opinion, and most of us here have always preferred the sound of other DAC chips, which is why we don't currently use the Sabres. When you're talking a S/N of over 120 dB, a few dB either way really isn't significant. And, to be honest, neither are most of those performance numbers.... like frequency response and THD. All of the higher end DACs are very quiet, very flat, and have very low distortion. However, most people find that, at a subtle level, Sabre DACs all have a somewhat distinctive sound. (They tend to emphasize detail.... so you either find them "wonderfully detailed" or "etched and slightly grainy".) How much you notice this depends on the implementation, the content you play, and the rest of your equipment. (In many situations, the difference may not be audible at all... but, when it is, this is the character it tends to assume.) Whether you consider this to be a virtue or a flaw depends on your personal preference (I'm not saying they sound bad). However, we find that Sabre DACs tend to sound somewhat other than purely neutral, and we prefer a sound that is as neutral as possible. This is the reason that we don't use Sabre DACs. The neutrality depends entirely on the implementation IMO. The Wyred4Sound DAC-1 is a little on the bright side, whereas the Eastern Electric MiniMax DAC is a little on the warm side, but the Wyred4Sound DAC- 2 is uncolored, and so is my Eastern Electric MiniMax DAC Supreme (again, IMO). FYI, some guy on another forum that I frequent has told me the XPA-2 sounds grainy. He din't want to believe me when I replied to him that it doesn't sound anywhere near grainy in my system at least to my own ears, after which he decided to start flaming me. |
|
|
|
Post by creimes on Nov 22, 2016 16:24:23 GMT -5
TI all the way I'm afraid I'd still have to disagree with you slightly about the Sabres... although I would emphasize that I'm talking about very subtle differences. I've owned several Sabre DACs, incuding a Wyred4Sound DAC2 (the original version), a smaller Wyred4Sound uDAC, an AudioLab M-DAC, a dragonfly, an 0DAC, and a few other Sabre DACs. All of them exhibited to some degree what I would characterize as slightly exaggerated detail. When I compared the Wyred4Sound and the Audiolab to our Emotiva DC-1, using a recording with well-recorded wire brush cymbals, the details seemed more emphasized on both Sabre DACs. (I was using a pair of our Stealth 8 monitors - which are quite revealing of high-frequency conte3nt and detail.) If I'd been asked to guess, I would have assumed that the Sabres boosted the upper treble, which emphasizes details. However, in actual fact, all three are very flat - far past the point where any differences in frequency response should reasonably be audible. (I consider it analogous to looking at your carpet using a halogen light and an LED flashlight; both may be white, but the LED light tends to make dust and lint more visible.) My best guess is that it's some sort of difference in how the digital filters they've chosen affect the time response..... It almost seems to be the audible equivalent of what you get when you apply "sharpening" in Photoshop - it often sounds very good, but sometimes it seems overdone and artificial. (Since I tend to think of it that way, it may bias the way I experience it.... however, I've had several people who disliked the sound of one or another of the Sabre DACs I've owned describe them as "grainy".) It may also be that it is implementation dependent - especially if you use external filters instead of those include internally in the Sabres - but it's held true to some degree for all of the Sabre DACs that I've heard. In any case, several of the folks here expressed the same opinion, and most of us here have always preferred the sound of other DAC chips, which is why we don't currently use the Sabres. The neutrality depends entirely on the implementation IMO. The Wyred4Sound DAC-1 is a little on the bright side, whereas the Eastern Electric MiniMax DAC is a little on the warm side, but the Wyred4Sound DAC- 2 is uncolored, and so is my Eastern Electric MiniMax DAC Supreme (again, IMO). FYI, some guy on another forum that I frequent has told me the XPA-2 sounds grainy. He din't want to believe me when I replied to him that it doesn't sound anywhere near grainy in my system at least to my own ears, after which he decided to start flaming me. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,247
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 22, 2016 16:46:24 GMT -5
I'll have to admit that I'm still unclear on the technical details of how an automated process can actually determine what ADC was used to make the original conversion, what flaws it may have introduced, and how best to reverse engineer and eliminate them. Note that THIS is the promise I've heard for "full up MQA processing". When I hear claims like that I'm reminded of certain image processing plugins that you can buy for Photoshop...... Several of them are absolutely positively going to make every picture look good, correct any existing color flaws, and not mess anything up in the process. Personally, while I've seen a few that do an excellent job on average, I've never seen one that lived up to the claims. Also note that this is FAR different than the claim of offering better compression, with better sound quality, than other competing streaming CODECs. Also, to be honest, and quite cynical, I've read reviews where reviewers insisted that they heard distinct improvements with MQA processing on certain content. However, I've always gotten the impression that this was content that was carefully hand-chosen and hand-processed.... and not that it had simply been "run through the automated encoder". To me there's a big step between sending a dozen hand picked tracks to a reviewer and offering me "improved" copies of my dozen favorite CDs to compare to the originals. I also seem to recall a few quotes (from their representatives) like: "We're not the quality police; we're going to assume that the copy the studio gives us is the best available copy". Are they now saying that they ARE going to verify the actual quality of the original and vouch for it? I'm not even sure what they're actually promising any more... and that's part of the problem. As I've already said, when I start seeing newly "MQA remastered" copies of albums that I care about, or new albums in that format that clearly sound better than in other formats, THEN I'll consider investing in hardware. I've heard this same sort of promises about SACD, then about DVD-A..... and I'm quite glad that I DIDN'T invest a lot of money in hardware to support those formats. I'm NOT saying that they can't do it. I'm just saying that I'll believe it when I see it - and hear it. So, again, where CAN I buy MQA copies of those Warner albums..... I'm sure there are at least a few of them that I might be interested in. (Considering how often remasters of some albums are issued - I find it surprising that we haven't seen any yet.) So where can I PURCHASE this huge list of MQA-encoded titles? Actually, there are two separate questions here..... The first is whether all those titles have been "fully processed", or just "converted into MQA" for streaming. Are we talking about a full remastering, with the flaws of the original encoding carefully repaired? Or are we talking about being bulk processed through the CODEC, resulting in slightly smaller files, and what some people claim is "a more pleasant sound"? The second question is, quite literally, where can I PURCHASE my own copies of all that music, in MQA format, as discs or downloadable files? I keep hearing things like this, yet, when I do a web search on "MQA content", what I get back is a very short list of a few really obscure titles. Which stores have those MQA titles for sale? As I've said before, I'll be interested when there are actually new albums being produced in this format that I care about, and that sound noticeably better..... Or when some of my old favorites are remastered in it - and actually sound noticeably better than the previous version. I literally have yet to see a SINGLE MQA title that I care to own. I believe that OnkyoMusic has about two dozen actual albums - but they're all REALLY obscure. I've also heard that there are some other vendors who have a few. However..... I just went to Amazon and did a search on MQA. I found a few players that support it, and, of course, the Meridian DACs. But, when I looked for actual content to listen to, all I could find was exactly ONE album of Mozart Concertos that I could STREAM. NO CDs; NO downloads; zilch... zip... nada... Source: www.wifihifi.ca/content/index/page?pid=4891 |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Nov 22, 2016 17:22:11 GMT -5
Okay, I definitely don't know anything about MQA, or MP3, or any other digital audio encoding format for that part. I'm a Computer Guy and I understand Algorithms in general, and when faced with a problem, I do the research then on the subject area to see what I can offer. And in this case, I'm not even doing that. Instead, I'd like to take a step back from the edge a bit and ask:
Why are we even concerned with Lossy Compression Encodings any more? Storage and Bandwidth are more than adequate to cope with even high-resolution, non-lossy formats. So why invest the effort to try to develop a new one? What resource are we saving that's so precious to justify the effort?
Again, just curious, not trying to offer judgement.
Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by hosko on Nov 23, 2016 0:05:32 GMT -5
Why are we even concerned with Lossy Compression Encodings any more? Storage and Bandwidth are more than adequate to cope with even high-resolution, non-lossy formats. So why invest the effort to try to develop a new one? What resource are we saving that's so precious to justify the effort? If you have a data cap on your mobile device and you want to stream music to it over the internet a lossless codec is going to smash through your data cap. So you want a lossy codec which has the best performance and lowest size. Remove the data cap and I'm with you just use lossless however telcos don't seem to want to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 23, 2016 0:18:56 GMT -5
I'll have to admit that I'm still unclear on the technical details of how an automated process can actually determine what ADC was used to make the original conversion, what flaws it may have introduced, and how best to reverse engineer and eliminate them. Note that THIS is the promise I've heard for "full up MQA processing". When I hear claims like that I'm reminded of certain image processing plugins that you can buy for Photoshop...... Several of them are absolutely positively going to make every picture look good, correct any existing color flaws, and not mess anything up in the process. Personally, while I've seen a few that do an excellent job on average, I've never seen one that lived up to the claims. Also note that this is FAR different than the claim of offering better compression, with better sound quality, than other competing streaming CODECs. Also, to be honest, and quite cynical, I've read reviews where reviewers insisted that they heard distinct improvements with MQA processing on certain content. However, I've always gotten the impression that this was content that was carefully hand-chosen and hand-processed.... and not that it had simply been "run through the automated encoder". To me there's a big step between sending a dozen hand picked tracks to a reviewer and offering me "improved" copies of my dozen favorite CDs to compare to the originals. I also seem to recall a few quotes (from their representatives) like: "We're not the quality police; we're going to assume that the copy the studio gives us is the best available copy". Are they now saying that they ARE going to verify the actual quality of the original and vouch for it? I'm not even sure what they're actually promising any more... and that's part of the problem. As I've already said, when I start seeing newly "MQA remastered" copies of albums that I care about, or new albums in that format that clearly sound better than in other formats, THEN I'll consider investing in hardware. I've heard this same sort of promises about SACD, then about DVD-A..... and I'm quite glad that I DIDN'T invest a lot of money in hardware to support those formats. I'm NOT saying that they can't do it. I'm just saying that I'll believe it when I see it - and hear it. So, again, where CAN I buy MQA copies of those Warner albums..... I'm sure there are at least a few of them that I might be interested in. (Considering how often remasters of some albums are issued - I find it surprising that we haven't seen any yet.) Automated signal analysis and fingerprinting are complex subjects, but aside from this, a lot has been answered in the Q&A article linked below. For example, see 16b, 18, 20, 27, 30, 32, and 33. www.computeraudiophile.com/content/694-comprehensive-q-mqa-s-bob-stuart |
|
|
|
Post by mdanderson on Nov 23, 2016 0:48:21 GMT -5
I certainly like your post bonzo. I have an Oppo 105 and love it for mc music. I would also like to see 7.1 analog unbalanced outs for amps with no balanced inputs. Well unfortunately that makes only 2 of us, and I apologize now for being very cynical about it. I'm sorry if I brought you down to my lowly level in this thread, but no one else appears to feel the same way. On the contrary, don't be surprised if you get called out on the table for being antiquated, old fashioned, out of touch, feeble, or for pity sake ---- an @$$ for agreeing with me. Nobody else here seems to think an "end all of processors" should be everything, they just want top of the line "some things." For them it needs lots of fully balanced channels, Dirac Unison (of which I don't recall seeing any confirmation one way or another so some people may be waiting for nothing), 8 HDMI inputs, one balanced input, and sound good. Done deal. So the way I see it, from the XMC-1, it's a step up in some area's, and a step backwards in others. Plain and simple; because regardless of why, that's exactly what it currently is, and nobody can argue that. And just as plain and simple, as I've said many times, I just feel that's not the way it should be. JMHO. So I thought the idea of a beefed up "seamless" exterior module might be a good compromise that others might like (Emotiva already has an analog module but it lacks video, HDMI, and the seamless factor), and since the XMR-1 is still very much in development, an integration/implementation that might be doable/feasible. (Only Emotiva could answer that, but as of now we've gotten nothing as to whether they've even given it a thought). I guess the over all idea was to help save money on the "basic" XMR-1 for the people who love it being minimalistic, but then also give the people that want it all the opportunity to make it that way with seamless integration. But alas, I guess it wasn't a good thought. So for me, I'll be sticking with the XMC-1 Gen 3 (or quite possibly going elsewhere) when the time comes to upgrade. As it is, the RMC-1 is just not for me, plain and simple. Thanks Bonzo for the additional input. I am certainly considering the XMC-1 and was wondering how the dacs in the XMC-1 compare to the dacs in the Oppo 105. I would settle for a XMC-1 Gen 1 as long as it has 7.1 analog inputs. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Nov 23, 2016 9:35:33 GMT -5
Thanks Bonzo for the additional input. I am certainly considering the XMC-1 and was wondering how the dacs in the XMC-1 compare to the dacs in the Oppo 105. I would settle for a XMC-1 Gen 1 as long as it has 7.1 analog inputs. The short answer is that they do sound "different." I've not heard either actually, but there are myriads of posts here from others who have reported the differences. The hard part is that "different" doesn't necessarily mean better. For each person that prefers the XMC-1 sound I think you will find another who prefers the Oppo, and vice versa. There are some others who prefer one over the other depending on the specific music being listened to. There is no clear winner for sure. And that's part of the reason I prefer the option to be able to use both (which the RMC-1 does not allow for if wanting to listen to multi-channel SACD or DVD-A discs). I totally understand the folks who have gone the Oppo 103 - XMC-1 (or 103 - DAC - XMC-1) route. It cuts costs, sounds great to many, and fits the bill for many also. Awesome. However, for various reasons, I have simply made a choice not to go that route. Not better or worse, just different. I will be waiting for the new upcoming Oppo 205 (or what ever they call it) presuming the price will stay in the range of old (like $1200-$1300, not $3000). |
|
|
|
Post by rhale64 on Nov 23, 2016 9:42:14 GMT -5
That would work if not going with Atmos or DTSx. I don't think any companies are going to put out a uhd player with height channel analog outs. I could be wrong. But it does sound like they will only do the bed channels. If Oppos new high end player comes out with height channel outs it would be great.
And I have heard both the dacs in the xmc1 and owned the 105. They both sound good for different reasons. I however don't think the ess dacs sound etched. I think they sound real. But very dynamic. The bb dacs in the xmc1 sound a bit more laid back and smoother.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,247
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 23, 2016 10:56:18 GMT -5
Yes, I've read that article, and it covers a lot of ground..... but it still leaves me with a few "areas of concern". First, as you said, it skims over the actual technical details. (What they're claiming is complicated, and seems likely to be very difficult to achieve, which does make me want to know how they've succeeded in actually doing it. I really would like to know how they can tell the difference between "bad temporal blur" caused by the recording process, and similar characteristics that are actually there in the original, and how they can reduce or eliminate the one without messing up the other. And, if they explain to me how they did it, I'm going to be a lot more likely to believe their claims) To go back to my analogy, there are dozens of plugins for Photoshop that purport to do the same thing for digital PICTURES that they're promising MQA will do for digital AUDIO. In a digital image, if the color is slightly off, you can usually detect that by noticing and correcting for a non-neutral tint in the neutral areas. (You look at some areas that are "obviously" supposed to be white, grey, or black, note where they aren't neutral, and correct the color of the entire picture by the amount of error you detect there.) You can also detect "out of focus error" by analyzing the frequency content of a fourier transform of the image. However, when you analyze the overall results of the entire process, it turns out that the automated corrections, while they are occasionally impressively BETTER, and are frequently at least a slight improvement, sometimes they are slightly wrong, and occasionally they're really bad. In short, they're great for processing large batches of pictures, but really need a human review and "tweaking" to be really good. (Think of the pictures you had developed back when people still used film. Those old Kodak machines did a great job with your prints - except when they didn't.) In the MQA article they claim that their automated system does a very good job, but then concede that "some albums get the white glove treatment and others don't". Well, to put it bluntly, I want to know if the few tracks that have received glowing reviews were processed using the same "automated bulk process" that "the entire Warner catalog" was converted with, or if they were given that "special white glove treatment".... which obviously isn't going to help tracks on which it wasn't used. I might also suggest a comparison to "colorizing" movies..... where some few movies have turned out very well after careful manual colorizing, but the results with many others, probably done using more automated systems, were kind of sad. Again, maybe their automatic system really does a great job, or maybe studios really will pay the requisite fees to get the deluxe processing done on all my favorite albums, but I'm still waiting to see. Second, and it's really part of the same concern, they seem to be promising a lot of DIFFERENT things. They're obviously HOPING to take over the entire workflow of the entire production industry. But they're acknowledging that this is somewhat unlikely, and promising that, even if it doesn't happen, they can still deliver significant improvements in specific areas. To me, the problem is that they're making so many different promises, in so many different areas, that they're becoming difficult to keep track of - and, again, we haven't seen proof on most of them yet. Finally, to put it VERY bluntly, everything they've presented so far is slightly ambiguous, and doesn't constitute actual proof of their claims. They've sent some reviewers a few dozen files that apparently sounded very good. HOWEVER, we have no point of comparison. We don't know if their process is truly doing something unique, or if those tracks could have been re-mastered to sound equally good using other standard "remastering techniques". (Please note that, in this case, I'm going to be "anti-cynical". If they're really got an AUTOMATED filter/process that can improve the sound of a lot of what's already out there, and do so for a lot less cost that paying an engineer to re-master those tracks manually, then it's a good thing and I'm all for it.... and it should be a good product. Likewise, if they can deliver even slightly better streaming content, with lower bandwidth utilization, then that's also a useful and commercially viable product.) However, I very distinctly recall how SACD was going to be "the last chance to get it right".... and then DVD-A.... and, more recently, high-res audio on Blu-Ray (which seems pretty darned good on the few that exist)... But, back to our perspective here at Emotiva..... adding MQA to a hardware product like a DAC entails paying licensing fees, and involving the boys at MQA in the design of your product, both of which add cost and time to the product development cycle. So, whether we consider adding it to our products in the future is going to depend on whether MQA becomes popular enough, and enough customers express a willingness to pay extra for it as a feature, that it justifies the extra cost and effort of adding it to our products. (As the saying goes... we are market driven.) However, so far, whether MQA is wildly successful, or fizzles entirely, or succeeds in some areas but not others, seems to be an open question. I'm inclined to look at their separate promises... separately. If their streaming CODEC really works better than PCM, then I'll be looking for it to be used by the next streaming service I subscribe to. But I'm only going to pay extra for a DAC that supports it if it actually makes the files that I play through my DAC sound better. (And, yes, if they're going to ask me to buy yet another copy of my favorite album, then that will be an obstacle they'll have to overcome.) Note that this will also play out differently if you use mostly streaming services - in which case you might choose to look at it as simply "a premium streaming option that requires a custom player". I'll have to admit that I'm still unclear on the technical details of how an automated process can actually determine what ADC was used to make the original conversion, what flaws it may have introduced, and how best to reverse engineer and eliminate them. Note that THIS is the promise I've heard for "full up MQA processing". When I hear claims like that I'm reminded of certain image processing plugins that you can buy for Photoshop...... Several of them are absolutely positively going to make every picture look good, correct any existing color flaws, and not mess anything up in the process. Personally, while I've seen a few that do an excellent job on average, I've never seen one that lived up to the claims. Also note that this is FAR different than the claim of offering better compression, with better sound quality, than other competing streaming CODECs. Also, to be honest, and quite cynical, I've read reviews where reviewers insisted that they heard distinct improvements with MQA processing on certain content. However, I've always gotten the impression that this was content that was carefully hand-chosen and hand-processed.... and not that it had simply been "run through the automated encoder". To me there's a big step between sending a dozen hand picked tracks to a reviewer and offering me "improved" copies of my dozen favorite CDs to compare to the originals. I also seem to recall a few quotes (from their representatives) like: "We're not the quality police; we're going to assume that the copy the studio gives us is the best available copy". Are they now saying that they ARE going to verify the actual quality of the original and vouch for it? I'm not even sure what they're actually promising any more... and that's part of the problem. As I've already said, when I start seeing newly "MQA remastered" copies of albums that I care about, or new albums in that format that clearly sound better than in other formats, THEN I'll consider investing in hardware. I've heard this same sort of promises about SACD, then about DVD-A..... and I'm quite glad that I DIDN'T invest a lot of money in hardware to support those formats. I'm NOT saying that they can't do it. I'm just saying that I'll believe it when I see it - and hear it. So, again, where CAN I buy MQA copies of those Warner albums..... I'm sure there are at least a few of them that I might be interested in. (Considering how often remasters of some albums are issued - I find it surprising that we haven't seen any yet.) Automated signal analysis and fingerprinting are complex subjects, but aside from this, a lot has been answered in the Q&A article linked below. For example, see 16b, 18, 20, 27, 30, 32, and 33. www.computeraudiophile.com/content/694-comprehensive-q-mqa-s-bob-stuart |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,247
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 23, 2016 11:14:05 GMT -5
Note that the latest claims seem to be that MQA actually makes your content sound BETTER than it did before. Of course that begs the question of whether it's "fixing problems with the original" or simply "adding pleasant coloration" - or a little of both. It also remains to be seen how the overall end result compares. (If they can deliver something at 24/48 that actually sounds BETTER than the original at 24/192 then they'll have something.) I would also add that I feel very differently about streaming content than I do about discs and files. With actual "physical content" I want my copy to be absolutely accurate. But, with streaming content, which I don't get to keep anyway, I'll be perfectly happy with "sounds good". (If you can post-process my files to sound better, then give me the original and let ME run the post-process when I play them, so I can turn it off if I change my mind.) Yeah, I'm paranoid, and I'm worried that the MQA version might sound "superficially better" but I won't be able to go back if I change my mind later. Sort of like how a high-rate MP3 file might sound good on my portable headphones but, when I listen to it later at home, I end up wishing I'd bought the 24/192k PCM version instead. I've often heard audio devices, or speakers, that impressed me at first, but I later found annoying or fatiguing....... (Obviously this doesn't happen with streaming, where you don't get to keep it anyway....) I know I keep harping on this analogy.... but, have you ever used "sharpening" in Photoshop? When you first discover this feature, and you find that it can "save" out of focus pictures, it's wildly cool. Then you learn that adding just a little bit of the process can make even regular pictures "pop" more, and it's even cooler. And you start using it on all your pictures. Then you find that the setting you use depends on how big the picture is, and what viewing distance you want to optimize it for. However, eventually you usually find that processed pictures look slightly unnatural. And you start using it less, and not turning it up as high as you used to. (At which point you really hope you saved your original so you can go back to it...) (And, yes, we all know that ALL music is heavily processed anyway, so the term "original" is sort of loaded.....) Why are we even concerned with Lossy Compression Encodings any more? Storage and Bandwidth are more than adequate to cope with even high-resolution, non-lossy formats. So why invest the effort to try to develop a new one? What resource are we saving that's so precious to justify the effort? If you have a data cap on your mobile device and you want to stream music to it over the internet a lossless codec is going to smash through your data cap. So you want a lossy codec which has the best performance and lowest size. Remove the data cap and I'm with you just use lossless however telcos don't seem to want to do that. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,247
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 23, 2016 11:23:09 GMT -5
The BOTTOM LINE on MQA.
I just wanted to clarify something here... since we've drifted off into a discussion of merits and expectations of MQA.
The features we include in our products are determined largely by customer demand.
So, regardless of what I, or anyone else, believes or expects.....
If MQA is wildly successful, and a lot of customers consider it to be a useful and valuable feature, then we'll seriously consider adding it to our products.
And, if it fails to catch on, then we probably won't.
(And, as for whether that will happen or not, we'll all just have to wait and see.)
We would rather spend the time and effort on features that are valuable to our customers now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Nov 23, 2016 11:57:44 GMT -5
Why are we even concerned with Lossy Compression Encodings any more? Storage and Bandwidth are more than adequate to cope with even high-resolution, non-lossy formats. So why invest the effort to try to develop a new one? What resource are we saving that's so precious to justify the effort? If you have a data cap on your mobile device and you want to stream music to it over the internet a lossless codec is going to smash through your data cap. So you want a lossy codec which has the best performance and lowest size. Remove the data cap and I'm with you just use lossless however telcos don't seem to want to do that. This still doesn't make business/engineering sense to me and i'st fighting upstream against the direction of bandwidth availability/cost. And for the phone example, it's typically being used in a noisy environment, so any added fidelity wouldn't be perceivable. The cost of deploying a new CoDec imposes a big hurdle and there should be a Really Big to justify it. I'm just trying to see the case for this. Maybe if it had the same quality for half the bandwidth/storage ... but even that's only a maybe. Casey |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Nov 23, 2016 12:03:30 GMT -5
The features we include in our products are determined largely by customer demand. ... We would rather spend the time and effort on features that are valuable to our customers now. Well, tongue firmly in cheek, I "demand" streaming over Ethernet so I can get rid of my aging Logitech Squeezebox Touch ... But seriously, I'm really looking forward to what you guys are cooking up and will be happy to purchase it when it's available. Have a great Thanksgiving and rest of the Holiday Season. Stay warm and "keep your powder dry" as the saying goes. Casey |
|
The ES9018 has 2 dB more DNR than the AKM 4497. In measuring accuracy of a DAC the DNR is still going to be the most important spec.Not clear what you mean with more but for non DAC mono setup, AK4497 has 2 dB better DNR
