[bigshot]

Isn't that what the whole rest of Head-Fi is for?

 

[Glmoneydawg]

I'd really appreciate it if someone could create a separate thread for all generic analog vs digital gaseous releasing so that every other thread won't be stinked up about by people launching completely unspecified ad hominem attacks questioning the prevailing rational movement since the Renaissance, and the very reason this sub forum exists.

In order to elicit as much caricature and exaggerated rhetoric as possible, please name the thread "Dark Ages vs Tron" and move all general scientific nay saying, flat world hypothesizing, and blind attacks to this thread.

Point taken.I wasn't trying to stir the pot lol.I like digital and analog if it lets me listen to music.I was hoping to read that mqa was the next great medium.I am starting to wonder if the resolution floor of recordings is the limiting factor now..i certainly hope thats not the case.

 

[Strangelove424]

Resolution or sample rate really aren't a limiting factor. People have trouble telling noise floors lower than 12bit, and two samples can reproduce any sound wave. That means We simply don't need any more data to reconstruct all the audible parts of music. You don't hear 1/0s, you hear the dac's reconstruction of it, which in analog terms in the same as analog, or perhaps better since digital does not need continuous data, i.e. the exact waveform to be reproduced.

Regarding MQA being the savior of anything, please read previous pages in this thread where exploits of their huckstering ways have been documented and discussed fully. They provide no better of a product than high res FLAC, and have big stakes in the business side of things where controlling an industry with a proprietary codec means you are the cat's meow. The problems with MQA are deeper than the problems with regular high res audio. Much deeper. If people want to waste their money with high res FLAC that it's their problem, but MQA is a different and far more dangerous kind of evil that I will continue to warn audiophiles of any kind of ilk to stay away from.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

Resolution or sample rate really aren't a limiting factor. People have trouble telling noise floors lower than 12bit, and two samples can reproduce any sound wave. That means We simply don't need any more data to reconstruct all the audible parts of music. You don't hear 1/0s, you hear the dac's reconstruction of it, which in analog terms in the same as analog, or perhaps better since digital does not need continuous data, i.e. the exact waveform to be reproduced.

Regarding MQA being the savior of anything, please read previous pages in this thread where exploits of their huckstering ways have been documented and discussed fully. They provide no better of a product than high res FLAC, and have big stakes in the business side of things where controlling an industry with a proprietary codec means you are the cat's meow. The problems with MQA are deeper than the problems with regular high res audio. Much deeper. If people want to waste their money with high res FLAC that it's their problem, but MQA is a different and far more dangerous kind of evil that I will continue to warn audiophiles of any kind of ilk to stay away from.

Even magaznes that have previously heaped praise on meridians stuff appear to be back peddling on this one.What i was questioning was whether the resolution floor of the actual recording process itself is the next part of the chain that needs to be upped...is the playback system ahead of or equal to the recording process ability to extract detail from the artists work?

 

[Glmoneydawg]

I learned a valuable lesson when I was a teenager... What my mom didn't know couldn't get me in trouble. That realization helped me make the transition from being a kid to being a man and making decisions for myself. In audio the realization that it was a waste to spend money to preserve sound that I couldn't hear was another epiphany for me.

I focus on improving sound I can hear. I don't lay in bed worrying that I might be missing out on sound that I can't hear in a direct A/B line level matched comparison.

C'mon now....not even a little worried?

 

[Strangelove424]

Even magaznes that have previously heaped praise on meridians stuff appear to be back peddling on this one.What i was questioning was whether the resolution floor of the actual recording process itself is the next part of the chain that needs to be upped...is the playback system ahead of or equal to the recording process ability to extract detail from the artists work?

Playback is same as or better. You have the ability to buy the same reference class equipment they do. Which are typically quite competitive in price as well. But audiophiles rarely go that route for aesthetics and sound signature reasons, finding flat gear somewhat boring sounding (and I don't really blame them). In that case, even the very expensive audiophile gear has a pleasing coloration to it, and each manufacturer aims for their own signature to keep a client base and branding. EQ can bridge the gap, however.

Regarding analog vs digital recording techniques, you can do everything with digital that you can with analog, the question is knowing how. Mics are just transducers like reverse speakers, so the focus here becomes what medium you're recording to, and what benefits it brings. The only benefit tape ever brought to the table over digital was subjectively pleasing distortion, which many DSP emulate in millions of different ways. There's also soft clipping at peak I suppose, but if you're even a semi-decent recording engineer you won't be clipping, and need that safety net. On the other hand, digital's increased clarity, ease in EQing without adding distortion to the signal path, multiplicity of DSP, and cost effectiveness easily outweigh tape's benefits. And I won't even begin to touch the long term issues with storing tape, or any analog format.

Back to Meridian, however, I'm glad to hear the press is turning against them. Meridian is a sham operation, and when the dust settles people will want to be on the right side of things. Musicians and audio press ought to be thinking about long term implications before they put their name to something like that.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

Playback is same as or better. You have the ability to buy the same reference class equipment they do. Which are typically quite competitive in price as well. But audiophiles rarely go that route for aesthetics and sound signature reasons, finding flat gear somewhat boring sounding (and I don't really blame them). In that case, even the very expensive audiophile gear has a pleasing coloration to it, and each manufacturer aims for their own signature to keep a client base and branding. EQ can bridge the gap, however.

Regarding analog vs digital recording techniques, you can do everything with digital that you can with analog, the question is knowing how. Mics are just transducers like reverse speakers, so the focus here becomes what medium you're recording to, and what benefits it brings. The only benefit tape ever brought to the table over digital was subjectively pleasing distortion, which many DSP emulate in millions of different ways. There's also soft clipping at peak I suppose, but if you're even a semi-decent recording engineer you won't be clipping, and need that safety net. On the other hand, digital's increased clarity, ease in EQing without adding distortion to the signal path, multiplicity of DSP, and cost effectiveness easily outweigh tape's benefits. And I won't even begin to touch the long term issues with storing tape, or any analog format.

Back to Meridian, however, I'm glad to hear the press is turning against them. Meridian is a sham operation, and when the dust settles people will want to be on the right side of things. Musicians and audio press ought to be thinking about long term implications before they put their name to something like that.

With Sony,Universal and warners listed as share holders it sounds like a recipe for world domination... not cool.

 

[Strangelove424]

Yep, if those kinds of media giants are working together on something it rarely is for the benefit of the consumer. There's plenty of ways for them to distribute high res music that would not involve the use of a proprietary decoder in both hardware and software. If MQA's dog is high res streaming, manufacturer/studio/developer licensing agreements is the tail that wags it.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

Yep, if those kinds of media giants are working together on something it rarely is for the benefit of the consumer. There's plenty of ways for them to distribute high res music that would not involve the use of a proprietary decoder in both hardware and software. If MQA's dog is high res streaming, manufacturer/studio/developer licensing agreements is the tail that wags it.

Sony messed up in the 70's not liscencing beta video...inferior vhs took over....I haven't seen them make the same mistake since.Not much goes on in consumer electronics now that doesn't benefit the big guys.Its sad for the consumer...some of the little guys have a genuine interest in advancing our hobbies with monetary considerations being secondary ish.

 

[bigshot]

C'mon now....not even a little worried?

Nope. I have concrete ideas about improvements I’d like to tackle. I don’t have time to worry about smoke and mirrors. I think that’s for folks who really have no clue how stuff works

 

[Glmoneydawg]

Nope. I have concrete ideas about improvements I’d like to tackle. I don’t have time to worry about smoke and mirrors. I think that’s for folks who really have no clue how stuff works

Sounds like a pretty solid attitude to apply to a lot of things.

 

[castleofargh]

the limitations are in transducers, both recording and playback ones. and of course there are the transducers we were born with, which are way more limited than what most audiophiles chose to believe. transducers are inferior to digital media by a few orders of magnitude. seeking improved sound in new digital formats is such a waste of time and money.
the big names clearly want special formats because then they own something more than just the artist, and they know they can make money from it, if only by trying to sell twice the same stuff in a different packaging. but if I had to bet the main reason why some big names look into MQA, I'd go the opportunity for them to bring back a small form of DRM while pretending that nothing is going on.
there is everything to hate about MQA as a consumer IMO. and how inaudible ringing from fairly low amplitude signals at 24khz or above is being treated, that's really the least of our concerns.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

glad to hear you say transducers are the limiting factor....there is always room for improvement at some point in the chain.I have watched for 45 years as consumer electronics has evolved to the point where we no longer own physical copies of our media and mqa appears to be an even tighter squeeze on that trend.

 

[bigshot]

The room is a limiting factor as well with speakers.

 

[Sterling2]

glad to hear you say transducers are the limiting factor....there is always room for improvement at some point in the chain.I have watched for 45 years as consumer electronics has evolved to the point where we no longer own physical copies of our media and mqa appears to be an even tighter squeeze on that trend.

I kind of thought it was like Burger King where you can have it your way. My preference is music from recording artists and compositions that attract me while listening to new music on iTunes. When I hear something I like I usually have a few choices about how I might enjoy the piece again: AAC download, Hi-Res download, CD, Vinyl, SACD, or even multi-channel SACD. But, since AAC is hard to distinguish from "higher resolution" and I get the AACs for about $.99 to $1.29 per song, it's a no brainer to get AAC. These files do seem to sound better with the ESS DAC in my OPPO Player than from my 19 year old DAC in my pre/pro. Thing is, listening to AAC files of music recorded back in the 50's and early 60's on the OPPO's DAC sometimes reveal the not so expert engineering of those songs.