[castleofargh]

may I point out that multi channel speakers and the resulting position cues have nothing to do with MQA?

 

[bigshot]

may I point out that multi channel speakers and the resulting position cues have nothing to do with MQA?

If it did, MQA might actually sound better!

I just created a new thread for multichannel discussion.

 

[jagwap]

may I point out that multi channel speakers and the resulting position cues have nothing to do with MQA?

That is not strictly true: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...ggtMAE&usg=AFQjCNGBBMbPVC-aUEx8edNJqtrdOrL6_Q

 

[Brahmsian]

1. Can you provide any evidence from that study which supports the claim of an "important advantage in it's quality of reproduction"?

2. You don't seem to realise that instead of demonstrating that SACD is better than CD, what you're actually demonstrating is the severe limits of what you "can think of". That's why science exists and why this forum exists; we're looking for and discussing the facts about sound, not the limits of what you personally "can think of"!!

G

If you're arguing that all personal opinions are forbidden on this thread, then you should take a better look at your own posts. Simply omitting the "I think" or "in my opinion" doesn't make every statement you have made objective. Again, nice try, but in the end you shoot yourself down with your own argument.

But in fact what's ironic about your argument is this: SACD really is objectively and demonstrably superior to CD in most if not in all ways. The SACD even includes the redbook version within it. Now the argument that people can't actually hear how good SACD really is is a different argument (although another false one according to some research).

 

[pinnahertz]

That is not strictly true: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...ggtMAE&usg=AFQjCNGBBMbPVC-aUEx8edNJqtrdOrL6_Q

"When I asked Jurewicz if I could hook up three Mytek Brooklyns to get 5.1-channel MQA playback,... he said that it should be possible, but that as yet there were no multichannel MQA recordings."

So, nobody has done it, and there are no recordings available to play even if they had. That makes it only a possibility, but not a true reality.

Multichannel/5.1 mp3 is also a possibility, but it doesn't exist, so not reality either. Multichannel Edison wax cylinders are also a possibility, but don't exist in reality either.

And now, back to reality....

 

[bigshot]

Now the argument that people can't actually hear how good SACD really is is a different argument (although another false one according to some research).

Link to research please!

 

[gregorio]

[1] If you're arguing that all personal opinions are forbidden on this thread, then you should take a better look at your own posts. Simply omitting the "I think" or "in my opinion" doesn't make every statement you have made objective. Again, nice try, but in the end you shoot yourself down with your own argument.
[2] SACD really is objectively and demonstrably superior to CD in most if not in all ways.
[2a] Now the argument that people can't actually hear how good SACD really is is a different argument.

1. No, I am saying that if you make or repeat a claim, then here in the Sound Science forum if you can't support that claim with any reliable evidence, the claim can/will be treated as utter audiophile marketing nonsense and the poster of that nonsense viewed as ignorant, a sap, a troll or a shill. I asked a simple question, completely in line with science and the whole point of this sub-forum; can you quote any evidence from the cited study which supports the claim? Your response was not even to try and support your repeated claim but instead you attempted to divert from this requirement by attacking the questioner (me). What's the most obvious conclusion?

2. If point #1 wasn't damning enough, off you go with another, different unsupported claim?! If you'd said "in your opinion" SACD is superior, we could have ignored it or explained why your opinion was misguided but instead, you chose to present your false information as fact ... Why? Again, what's the most obvious conclusion?
2a. It is a different argument but it's the same as; can people actually hear how bad SACD really is?

If you want to continue your SACD thing, no problem but, support your claims with reliable evidence and do it in a new/different thread as it's off topic for this thread.

G

 

[Brahmsian]

1. No, I am saying that if you make or repeat a claim, then here in the Sound Science forum if you can't support that claim with any reliable evidence, the claim can/will be treated as utter audiophile marketing nonsense and the poster of that nonsense viewed as ignorant, a sap, a troll or a shill. I asked a simple question, completely in line with science and the whole point of this sub-forum; can you quote any evidence from the cited study which supports the claim? Your response was not even to try and support your repeated claim but instead you attempted to divert from this requirement by attacking the questioner (me). What's the most obvious conclusion?

2. If point #1 wasn't damning enough, off you go with another, different unsupported claim?! If you'd said "in your opinion" SACD is superior, we could have ignored it or explained why your opinion was misguided but instead, you chose to present your false information as fact ... Why? Again, what's the most obvious conclusion?
2a. It is a different argument but it's the same as; can people actually hear how bad SACD really is?

If you want to continue your SACD thing, no problem but, support your claims with reliable evidence and do it in a new/different thread as it's off topic for this thread.

G

I see that you made no counter argument for why SACD isn't better than CD or why it might be worse. Contrary to what you may think, I don't consider myself an audio expert, so have nothing to be putting on airs about on this topic. I am very much interested in learning. In that spirit, I am honestly interested in your argument for why SACD is not an advance on CD. This argument is not really off topic since with MQA we're partly talking about hi-res audio. I would like to point out that I linked to an article in phys.org on a scientific study indicating that people can indeed hear the difference high resolution makes. But you're right that this SACD discussion is off topic in so far as hi-res is not what MQA is primarily about, so if you offer a counter argument I promise to read it and let it stand so we can get back to MQA.

 

[Brahmsian]

Link to research please!

This Science Daily page provides information on where you can locate the study in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160627214255.htm

It doesn't mention SACD specifically; it's about high resolution in general: "People can hear the difference in high resolution audio, study finds." Let me know if you think SACD doesn't qualify as high resolution audio.

By the way, to a certain extent, hi-res is incidental to MQA, which only claims to be a superb technology for distributing it. As I understand it, one can access high resolution audio from just about any device since the higher resolution information is folded into a standard resolution. The MQA-enabled DAC is in charge of unfolding it. I already ordered my MQA Meridian Explorer 2, so I'll probably have more to say later.

As to why I say that hi-res is incidental to MQA, note the following from the MQA website:

 

[bigshot]

Has anyone read this study? Just from the summary, it raises a few questions. With training subjects could determine the difference 60% of the time. That isn't much beyond random. And how many of the test subjects were trainable to recognize it 60% of the time? Did they just find one person whose ears happened to ring with ultrasonic frequencies? I know there are people who are more sensitive to the squeal of fluorescent lights, but that isn't an advantage. The real question is if the upper frequencies make the music sound better., not if certain people can perceive high frequency sound pressure.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I am honestly interested in your argument for why SACD is not an advance on CD.
[2] I would like to point out that I linked to an article in phys.org on a scientific study indicating that people can indeed hear the difference high resolution makes.

1. Why 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Conversion is Unsuitable for High-Quality Applications - Vanderkooy and Lipshitz (2001, AES).
2. It wasn't a study, it was a cherry picked meta-analysis. A study would have been convincing but they avoided an actual study because I'm sure they're aware it wouldn't have given the result the sponsors of the paper wanted, guess who they were!

Has anyone read this study? Just from the summary, it raises a few questions.

Yes, it's a mess, not least because parts of the conclusion seem to be from a different paper, as they are not related to the evidence presented in the rest of the paper! I'm not sure how it even got through peer review, although the AES can be a bit dodgy that way sometimes and I'm sure the paper's author also being the Vice-Chair of the AES' Publications Policy Committee is just purely coincidental! I think it's been discussed here before, I seem to remember a thread dedicated to it sometime last year.

G

 

[castleofargh]

@Brahmsian
the argument that MQA can be assimilated to anything vaguely highres related is a terrible logical shortcut. discussing SACD still has nothing to do with this, I stand by my previous post. the sample rate is magnitudes above MQA, the encoding and decoding process are mighty different and SACD at least with real SACD DACs doesn't turn back into PCM before going to analog. they're entirely different formats. and if you start looking at special audible properties of PCM in resolutions like 24/96 to validate MQA, you would first need to demonstrate that MQA manipulation of the signal isn't losing whatever may or may not make highres better subjectively.
I don't see how you can defend that constant fishing and display of confirmation bias. MQA is MQA and the uncompressed MQA is PCM pure and simple, so if you wish to argue about variables, at least stick to PCM as it's the only relevant format for MQA.

I'm tempted to invent a new format pushing MQA principles one step further: dynamic resolution not important if not audible, encoding high frequencies for time blablah, saving so much bandwidth for streaming. it would have them all. I would call it AAC encoding and it would go up to 96khz(any similarity with an existing AAC format is purely accidental...).

 

[bigshot]

If they say that their process improves the sound of acoustic cylinder and shellac recordings, then it can't be better because of the higher bitrate. Acoustic recordings have limited frequency response and a very low signal to noise level. High bitrate audio would only improve the noise, not the music. If what they claim is true and it does restore pre-electrical recordings, MQA must be doing some sort of signal processing. It's a filter, not a format.

 

[castleofargh]

but that's the thing, MQA wishes to be everything at every step from recording to the inside of the DAC in your house. at some point if they had it their way, we'd have the artist eat at MQA restaurants and then play on MQA instruments with MQA approved mics and rooms.
and from the all show(some stuff they only talked about doing), to simply taking random PCM masters and only applying the encoding process without anything else, in any case you still have a MQA file and no idea what was really done to it.

 

[gregorio]

but that's the thing, MQA wishes to be everything at every step from recording to the inside of the DAC in your house.

IMO, this is the most confusing area of MQA's marketing strategy. Firstly, it's the area they've elaborated on the least and Secondly, the implication of MQA involvement in the whole recording chain is both nonsensical and unworkable. For example, the idea of an MQA approved/branded ADC and what such an ADC would actually do? The answer, is absolutely nothing that it didn't do before it was MQA certified. It cannot actually convert from analogue to MQA because there is no way to process an MQA stream. No DAWs support it, no processors/plugins support it and getting all the different DAW and plugin manufacturers to support it is a practical impossibility purely on logistical/contractual grounds, let alone: The insurmountable practical problems of the accumulation of noise-shaped dither on every recorded channel, the massive hit on computer resources required to process numerous channels of encoded audio data and, the eventual generational loss of quality incurred by repeated lossy decoding and re-encoding. If any DAWs do ever support MQA files, it will only be support in the sense of being able to decode and convert them into an uncompressed, lossless format such as wav (although there'd still be the insurmountable problem of noise-shaped dither accumulation). In practise, the MQA ADC would have to output standard PCM, as they do currently, and the mixing/processing would also have to be done in PCM as it is now, so where's the MQA involvement? The only difference with an MQA ADC from any other ADC could be the reporting of it's jitter spectrum or more likely, it's decimation filter characteristics but it's unclear how these could be "corrected" and, what audible benefit there could possibly be from doing so anyway. The only clue given in this regard is a paper published by Stuart (et al) on "The Audibility of Typical Digital Audio Filters in a High-Fidelity Playback System" - which is yet another nonsense paper because he's used a completely ATYPICAL filter (and atypical dither) for the audibility tests!

In any event, the only practical/acceptable point in the entire recording, editing, mixing and mastering chain to encode into MQA is at the very end of it, after the mastering is essentially already complete. So if MQA is applying any sort of "corrections" or any other processing, then the questions become:1. How is MQA part of "every step" if it's not doing or influencing anything until after all the steps have already been completed? 2. How do you process the completed master and more importantly, 3. Why on earth would you want to? There is no conceivable, rational response to these questions, so the only option I can see is either: No response or an irrational response, which going on existing MQA marketing tactics, would take the form of obfuscation by redefining already well established terms and/or some deliberate confusing of scale/context!

G