MQA

[71 dB]

Sorry for making you have to read this thread.

You are not making me to do anything. I can choose to ignore your posts. However, you are filling this place with nonsense and others need to "clean your mess" if they want to keep this a "Sound science" section rather than letting it become a "Placebo effect tells me there is a difference" snake oil section.

I don't know why you think higher res than cd means you have to be able to hear higher.

Because all sample rate does is it dictates the available bandwidth of signal. Samplerates above 44.1 kHz only matter if someone (such as a dog or cat) can hear frequencies above the bandwidth limit of 44.1 kHz sampling frequency, which is about 20 kHz due to the transition band of the anti-alias and reconstruction filters.

At 96, I find slightly more fluidity to electric bass notes, too.

Okay, I believe you, but all of that should be a placebo effect. If the effect remains even when you DO NOT know what version is playing then we can discuss about other explanations.

 

[71 dB]

Probably that Tidal trying to save money on bandwidth won't save them very much money, anyways.

No doubt Tidal tries to save money if possible, but them offering three subscription options (Normal, Hifi and Master) is simple service segmentation tactics to maximise the money they can collect from their customers of which I might add majority has weak knowledge/understanding of digital audio.

 

[sander99]

At 96, I find slightly more fluidity to electric bass notes, too.

Okay, I believe you, but all of that should be a placebo effect. If the effect remains even when you DO NOT know what version is playing then we can discuss about other explanations.

And of course make sure to compare the same master, just do the test as I proposed before.

By the way: If a better master is available in high res than in 44.1/16 that can be a valid reason to get the high res version of course. But it is a waste of space or bandwith.

 

[Audiophiliac]

Nobody is saying that. But some of the other things you are saying...
Look, you probably don't realise what this sub-forum of Head-Fi, the Sound Science forum is all about.
This is the only place on Head-Fi where it is allowed to discuss actual facts and science about audio rather than marketing bull and pseudo science. And also the only place on Head-Fi where statements contradicting the actual facts and established science are allowed to be (and will be) questioned.

Sound science is the right place to talk about MQA not working. If you don't care about it, don't read it. If there has to be a reason I don't know what I'm talking about, stick to why that has to be.

Because you might be surprised about the result and learn something.

Now just assume for a moment that there is no audible difference between high res and standard res, do you think then it is okay that people are told that high res sounds better, and that they pay extra thinking they will actually get audible better sound while they are not? It seems to me that we essentially have the same motivation, only you are not aware yet how far the deception by the audio and music industry is going. You assume because you (think) you hear a difference, and because many, many other people also (think they) hear a difference that there is an audible difference. It is however an indisputable scientific fact that people can (think to) hear differences, even night and day differences, when there is no audible difference (or actually even no difference at all). For example there is a studie showing that telling people a change from A to B is made while it is still A results in the same change in which brain areas are active as when a real change from A to B occured (while being told about it also).
And no, not everything sounds the same, not "everything digital" is audibly perfect, 44.1 kHz 8 bit PCM for example is not, but there is a point where the human hearing abilities are fully covered and any further improvement is inaudible.

'Just assuming' that there is no audible difference is all we need to know about your thoughts about higer res audio. We understand your point of view, and anyone on audio forums who assumes, based on science, that there is a difference with higher res audio, should know that about you. Please stop posting mindless nonsense in forums.

 

[Audiophiliac]

And of course make sure to compare the same master, just do the test as I proposed before.

By the way: If a better master is available in high res than in 44.1/16 that can be a valid reason to get the high res version of course. But it is a waste of space or bandwith.

If you would wisen up and learn that we already know that you just assume higher res won't improve anything, we won't have to listen to any more of this.

 

[gregorio]

Oh good, even more utter nonsense:

I can only help you hear it if you try uncompressing a well known file to wav, then compare what playing that sounds like to what you are used to.

Firstly, that’s false! There’s nothing you can do to “help me hear” noise that doesn’t exist and secondly, I’ve been uncompressing flac files to wav and comparing them before you even knew what a wav file was.

I find uncompressed to be much more relaxing.

Again, as they’re both identical, how can one be more relaxing?

If you can't hear a difference, lucky for you, your collection takes 40% less space.

Why is it lucky that I can’t hear a difference where there are no differences? I suppose compared to someone hearing non-existent things I am lucky?

There are many people shopping for Raspberry pi's with audio OS, network streamers, and disc transports to replace their laptop's with cpu's with something quieter.

There are countless people shopping for all kinds of stuff, what does that prove? CPUs are solid state, there are no moving parts that make any noise. Therefore, people are not shopping for quieter CPUs, what they’re shopping for is quieter fans as they do make noise. How could you not know that?

You should just tell people it's theoretically impossible for more expensive gear to have anything it improves on.

Why should I tell people something that’s false and again, you have absolutely no idea what gear I’ve got. Most likely it’s far more expensive than what you have anyway!

Then you won't have to hear a twice as expensive dac's snakeoil techniques.

I cannot hear something that is inaudible and as far as I’m aware there are no DACs twice as expensive as what I have. Again, you have no idea what I’ve got.

Accused of nonsense, your response is even more nonsense. No wonder you were kicked out of ASR, you’ll probably be kicked out of here in the not too distant future and will likewise be kicked out of any science or fact based forum for the same reason!

G

 

[Audiophiliac]

That doesn’t make any sense. Of course he/we cannot hear something that isn’t there and doesn’t exist.

As they’re both identical, how can one sound more relaxing?

Exactly “you don’t know” so why are you arguing based on ignorance and in a sound science forum of all places?

The bass notes at 96kHz are identical to the bass notes at 44.1kHz, so again, how can one have more fluidity (or more of anything) if they’re identical?

It’s just all nonsense!

G

Do you also believe that cd's sound the same as LP's? Many people prefer lp's. When cd format came out, it was slagged by audiophiles. Higher res recordings improve on the way that digital is fundamentally flawed, the use of samples only, to record and then get played back by a chip.

 

[71 dB]

And of course make sure to compare the same master, just do the test as I proposed before.

Yes. Different masters is one of the most probable explanations if differences are heard in proper blind listening tests.

By the way: If a better master is available in high res than in 44.1/16 that can be a valid reason to get the high res version of course. But it is a waste of space or bandwith.

Yep. If one wants the better master available only in high res format, one is "forced" to pay more for it, but can at least save storage space by converting the downloaded files into 44.1/16 or even encode lossless files for further file size reduction, or even go as far as doing audibly very transparent lossy coding such as AAC 256.

 

[Audiophiliac]

Because all sample rate does is it dictates the available bandwidth of signal. Samplerates above 44.1 kHz only matter if someone (such as a dog or cat) can hear frequencies above the bandwidth limit of 44.1 kHz sampling frequency, which is about 20 kHz due to the transition band of the anti-alias and reconstruction filters.

If you increase the frequency of the samples, you increase detail. Imagine if someone from a speedmetal band played a guitar riff 100,000 times a second. Then will you hear a difference between 44.1 and 96khz? Sounds can be round, and everchanging. That's what people find 96khz helps with.

Okay, I believe you, but all of that should be a placebo effect. If the effect remains even when you DO NOT know what version is playing then we can discuss about other explanations.

 

[71 dB]

Again, as they’re both identical, how can one be more relaxing?

G

People lacking knowledge of digital audio may find it relaxing to know the music file they are listening to has very high bit rate...

 

[sander99]

Sound science is the right place to talk about MQA not working.

100% correct. In fact I think it should be in other forums to.

If you don't care about it, don't read it.

I do care.

We understand your point of view

I have little trust in that, above again 2 examples of you not reading what people write.

If you would wisen up and learn that we already know that you just assume higher res won't improve anything, we won't have to listen to any more of this.

It is not my assumption. It is science and facts. You clearly didn't really read my posts. Do the test, so you will know that higher res doesn't improve something, instead of assuming it does based on your uncontrolled subjective listening experiences, testemonies of other people's uncontrolled subjective listening experiences, marketing bull, deluded reviewers bull, etc.
This is the sound science forum. We shouldn't have to listen to your audiophool nonsense here.

Do you also believe that cd's sound the same as LP's?

Of course he doesn't believe that. LP's are not audibly transparent. The difference between LP and CD can easily be heard in a double blind ABX test. Measurements clearly indicate audible differences between them.

Higher res recordings improve on the way that digital is fundamentally flawed, the use of samples only, to record and then get played back by a chip.

No. This is a common misconception of people who don't know how digital audio really works. Read the article we mentioned. Study the sampling theorem.

 

[Audiophiliac]

Oh good, even more utter nonsense:

Firstly, that’s false! There’s nothing you can do to “help me hear” noise that doesn’t exist and secondly, I’ve been uncompressing flac files to wav and comparing them before you even knew what a wav file was.

flac? oh, that new format to losslessly compress audio. You've been sitting there comparing since flac came out, and still can't hear a difference. We didn't have mp3's when I first got a cd player. They still wouldn't have done much for me on the pc, I only had a 40gb hard drive, and an 8 bit sound card.

Again, as they’re both identical, how can one be more relaxing?

Why is it lucky that I can’t hear a difference where there are no differences? I suppose compared to someone hearing non-existent things I am lucky?

You must be unlucky then, because you have to always be telling people they can't really hear things.

There are countless people shopping for all kinds of stuff, what does that prove? CPUs are solid state, there are no moving parts that make any noise. Therefore, people are not shopping for quieter CPUs, what they’re shopping for is quieter fans as they do make noise. How could you not know that?

I couldn't know that because they are filling this forum with audible differences, rather than just saying 'good thing it has no fans'.

Why should I tell people something that’s false and again, you have absolutely no idea what gear I’ve got. Most likely it’s far more expensive than what you have anyway!

I cannot hear something that is inaudible and as far as I’m aware there are no DACs twice as expensive as what I have. Again, you have no idea what I’ve got.

Accused of nonsense, your response is even more nonsense. No wonder you were kicked out of ASR, you’ll probably be kicked out of here in the not too distant future and will likewise be kicked out of any science or fact based forum for the same reason!

G

Wow, may I ask which dac you have, that has none twice as expensive? It's the one you can't pick out the noise on, for sure. Maybe I should stick to telling people nothing makes a difference scientifically, so that I don't get kicked off.

 

[gregorio]

Do you also believe that cd's sound the same as LP's?

Why would I? Don’t you know that an LP is different to a CD? Or that they measure significantly differently and can be differentiated in controlled testing? Do you not know what “identical” means?

Many people prefer lp's.

I’m not talking about preferences, I’m talking about objective facts.

When cd format came out, it was slagged by audiophiles.

That’s FALSE! With hardly any exceptions CD was widely praised by audiophiles and the audiophile press. However this is irrelevant because this is the sound science forum, not the audiophile marketing forum.

Higher res recordings improve on the way that digital is fundamentally flawed, the use of samples only, to record and then get played back by a chip.

How is 16/44 fundamentally flawed? You have this entirely backwards, analogue audio is fundamentally flawed digital audio is not. Why do you think digital audio was invented in the first place?

If you increase the frequency of the samples, you increase detail.

No they don’t. Are you really claiming Nyquist/Shannon is wrong and therefore the digital age doesn’t exist or are you just completely ignorant of how digital audio works?

Imagine if someone from a speedmetal band played a guitar riff 100,000 times a second. Then will you hear a difference between 44.1 and 96khz?

Why?

Sounds can be round, and everchanging. That's what people find 96khz helps with.

No, sounds cannot be round, they can only be sinusoidal pressure waves. Hence why they’re called sound waves. However they are continuously varying but how can people “find 96kHz helps with” that when 96kHz doesn’t help with that?

Again, it’s just arguing from ignorance and more complete nonsense!

G

 

[Audiophiliac]

People lacking knowledge of digital audio may find it relaxing to know the music file they are listening to has very high bit rate...

No, they'll probably tell you it's not helping, it still sucks.

 

[71 dB]

If you increase the frequency of the samples, you increase detail. Imagine if someone from a speedmetal band played a guitar riff 100,000 times a second. Then will you hear a difference between 44.1 and 96khz? Sounds can be round, and everchanging. That's what people find 96khz helps with.

Audible detail doesn't increase. 44.1/16 contains all audible detail already.