KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by KeithL on May 5, 2021 10:38:56 GMT -5
VERY interesting video. I've been following the writings of Dr. Mark Waldrep a.k.a Dr AIX and his concern that MQA is yet another smoke and mirrors audio snake oil. Going back to 1st principles and looking at how getting the very best out of the recording has always been his objective. Once music became digital the possibility for degradation of the bit pattern became a bone of contention. But fundamentally if the data doesn't change from recording to playback the sonic quality is down to the DAC and analog signal path. From Mark's independent Hi-Res challenge it is very apparent that the vast majority of people, audio enthusiasts/members of this message board included can't tell the difference between music recorded in "high definition" versus 44.1kHz CD Red Book spec. For some listeners their equipment just can't reproduce the bandwidth all along the signal path. Heck, even the "high definition" version of Paul Simon's Graceland is a mixture where the vocals and instruments recorded in South Africa was sampled at 44.1 kHz and the 192kHz material added in the USA. MQA is a black box proprietary system of signal processing that does change the original material and does not recreate the original. Before you all pile on and educate me, take some time to understand what MQA is doing and have a cup of tea and watch this www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRjsu9-VzncThen you'll understand why I won't buy any gear that carries the MQA license fee.
|
|
|
|
Post by repeetavx on May 7, 2021 0:50:41 GMT -5
After reading my comment I see that I wasn't clear. My source for my Tidal was my HTPC through HDMI. I fed the XMC-1 different data rates by setting them in my windows settings. The rest of my comments stand. I do understand that their is no setting in the XMC-1 for data rates. It will decode natively any rate sent to it within its range.
Interestingly as I increased the data rate, the treble became less harsh (expected). What I didn't expect was that the bass would become more defined also.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilburthegoose on May 7, 2021 14:37:22 GMT -5
repeetavx - what did you use to unfold the MQA? Does your PC have a sound card that does MQA decoding?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by KeithL on May 7, 2021 15:41:38 GMT -5
When you up-sample a digital audio stream extra samples are calculated to "fill in the space between the real samples". These extra samples don't contain any extra information - but they do alter the way the DAC processes the information which is present.
(Technically the information in the original samples is used to calculate all new samples at the new sample rate.)
This process includes some filtering... which introduces slight differences in sound. There are many different programs that are capable of doing this... Many of them offer different options which can have a significant effect on the final sound... And, even at their default options, or when set the same, many of them sound slightly different.
And, of course, when you configure your computer to up-sample, you are using its built-in software and its default options. (Some "serious audiophiles" insist that Windows and Apple both do a poor job of up-sampling internally... but it's always seemed to work acceptably to me.)
If you want to experiment with this sort of thing then it's easy to do so with digital audio files.
Simply choose WASAPI mode (or bit-perfect mode on an Apple) - which will play each file at its native sample rate... Then use software to up-sample your audio files before playing them.
This allows you to make different copies of the same song, at different sample rates, and listen to them one after the other. Just remember that EACH conversion is going to alter the file in ways that might be audible. (So, if you convert a 96k file to 44k, expect it to sound a tiny bit different; and expect another change if you convert the 44k version back to 96k.) (This is easy to do with files but not so easy with streaming content.)
And, on top of this, it is possible that the XMC-1 itself might sound slightly different when playing different sample rates... (Although, to be honest, those differences would be small, so I'm inclined to think you're hearing results of the upsampling proces s itself.)
NOTE that some of the more complex filters it offers require a LOT of available processing power to use.
After reading my comment I see that I wasn't clear. My source for my Tidal was my HTPC through HDMI. I fed the XMC-1 different data rates by setting them in my windows settings. The rest of my comments stand. I do understand that their is no setting in the XMC-1 for data rates. It will decode natively any rate sent to it within its range. Interestingly as I increased the data rate, the treble became less harsh (expected). What I didn't expect was that the bass would become more defined also. |
|
|
|
Post by repeetavx on May 8, 2021 11:50:03 GMT -5
repeetavx - what did you use to unfold the MQA? Does your PC have a sound card that does MQA decoding? I wasn't decoding MQA at all. I just thought that the raw MQA encoding sounded superior to standard encodings without unpacking them. I abandoned the quest because I found that finding the MQA content I was looking for required too much effort. Too many clicks to get the the MQA version of the song after I had searched for it. That and I retired and I didn't feel like spending money for a music service while Amazon music was included with my "prime". My comments were mostly about the slight difference in filters at the different bit rates. |
|
|
|
Post by wilburthegoose on May 9, 2021 8:27:10 GMT -5
Just guessing, but I've found that "raw" MQA < uncompressed FLAC.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on May 9, 2021 13:15:45 GMT -5
I try to never forget there are no digital sounds made by real acoustic musical instruments, the human voice or in nature.
It all starts with analog, and despite the convenience and cost advantages of digital, no amount of sampling, resampling, upsampling or whatever perfectly reproduces the original analog waveform.
And the more processing the further from the truth.
Maybe "close enough" but never 100%.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on May 9, 2021 13:26:55 GMT -5
I try to never forget there are no digital sounds made by real acoustic musical instruments, the human voice or in nature. It all starts with analog, and despite the convenience and cost advantages of digital, no amount of sampling, resampling, upsampling or whatever perfectly reproduces the original analog waveform. And the more processing the further from the truth. Maybe "close enough" but never 100%. Just my 2 cents. I must be in church! Preach it brother Bil! ❤️🎶🎶🎶❤️ |
|
|
|
Post by Cogito on May 9, 2021 13:56:31 GMT -5
I try to never forget there are no digital sounds made by real acoustic musical instruments, the human voice or in nature. It all starts with analog, and despite the convenience and cost advantages of digital, no amount of sampling, resampling, upsampling or whatever perfectly reproduces the original analog waveform. And the more processing the further from the truth. Maybe "close enough" but never 100%. Just my 2 cents. Are you suggesting that analog mediums "perfectly reproduces the original analog waveform"? I assert that the typical analog mediums change far more of the original waveforms than do digital mediums. Basic electromechanical limitations are a *bleep*. You know, high THD, mechanical resonances, wow & flutter, limited dynamic range, RIAA equalization, acoustic feedback, wear & tear. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on May 9, 2021 13:58:33 GMT -5
No, just that digital has drawbacks too.
Per @keithl "fill in the space between the real samples"?
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on May 9, 2021 15:05:29 GMT -5
Just to update my post in this thread, I very much enjoy most of the MQA remastered music coming from this digital side of my system.
|
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on May 11, 2021 20:35:31 GMT -5
It looks like Tidal is coming with a new subscription plan called Hi fi plus that will include MQA and inmersive sound (currently included in the hifi plan. Hopefully the “new” regular HiFi plan will go down in price
|
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on May 13, 2021 9:29:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by JKCashin on May 17, 2021 15:37:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jtomme65 on Nov 8, 2021 10:04:10 GMT -5
We have at least a few users here who want MQA really badly. (We've already said that we aren't going to consider it unless there's significant interest.) So, please tell us, how much would you be willing to pay to see MQA added as a feature in the next Emotiva DAC or pre/pro you buy? I would rather have a two channel preamp without ANY Dac. Then I can pick the dac I want and change out as I feel like it. IF there was a two channel preamp with Emotiva quality at the $1099 price point, I would jump. |
|
I've been following the writings of Dr. Mark Waldrep a.k.a Dr AIX and his concern that MQA is yet another smoke and mirrors audio snake oil. Going back to 1st principles and looking at how getting the very best out of the recording has always been his objective. Once music became digital the possibility for degradation of the bit pattern became a bone of contention. But fundamentally if the data doesn't change from recording to playback the sonic quality is down to the DAC and analog signal path.
