That’s what you call research?
6 Likes
I can’t argue with that. I’m glad you’re enjoying your music. Since you’re enjoying your system you may want to dig deeper to understand why (hint, it’s not MQA).
1 Like
There has been so much research into why hi res sounds better than CD that I do not wish or need to repeat it.
I listen to the results and I am enjoying what I hear. That’s all that matters.
If anyone only wants to listen to CD then that’s fine. On a decent system CD is capable of extra ordinary results when done well.
There are, of course, diminishing returns the higher up the audio chain you go. (With equipment and higher and higher resolutions) The extra quality I perceive especially with MQA adds no extra costs for me and so I may as well make the most of it.
The digital audio domain includes the intersection of several “normal” technical domains: electricity, electronics, network, computers, even mechanics (speakers), acoustics, etc. and, of course, audio and Hi-Fi.
I think that currently the digital audio field is not completely known and analyzed from a scientific or technical point of view.
At the same time, I believe that in this context, the raw application of scientific knowledge from another field to the audio field has consistent chances to be wrong, but it can also be correct. That is, until science covers and clarifies that area… I am referring to statements such as “electrons are electrons” (an electrical cable cannot affect the quality of the audio system - speaker cables) or “bits are bits” (a network component cannot affect the quality of the audio system - network cables, switches) etc.
We, as users, can express our opinion and share our own experience (influenced or not by imagination or placebo), but that does not mean that this is the scientific truth.
In addition, I think that at an audition the essential element is the music itself, as long as the sound quality is not degraded so much that the musical idea is altered…
1 Like
There isn’t a single scientific study that claims the difference between high res audio and CD quality audio is easy to hear. Not a single one! You’re confusing the claims of audio designers etc. with scientific research.
18 Likes
If that’s really all that matters why are you making up scientific findings that don’t exist?
5 Likes
Agreed. There’s always more to learn in any endeavor, but the science of digital audio has been well understood for decades. The issue relates more to marketing than science. The HiFi industry has had to invent new problems to solve to continue selling ever more expensive products to an aged and shrinking customer base.
8 Likes
Do you know why nobody did study with 80 GHz bandwidth oscilloscope attached to amplifier outs while changing network cables and comparing measurements to find possible difference? It is not because it is difficult - but because it’s stupid and wasting of time. It simply cannot impact audio quality. It’s the same like to proove that water is liquid in 24°C in normal atmospheric pressure. Indeed it will be liquid.
Could you believe there are still people who belive that Earth is flat arguing there is not enough scientific research to proove it’s not?
Audiophilia in my definition is (and no offense to anybody) combination of lack of knowledge and lot of money to spent. Audiophiles just want to be sure they have the maximum technologically possible to avoid any possible compromise on quality. Technological maximum is in their view measured by market cost, not by undestanding technology. That’s why the market with 1K$ network cables exists.
Maybe I will open bussiness with floor carpets. Normal carpet but I will put “audiophile grade” sticker on in and sell 1K$ per square meter. I will pay some internet reviews so they will say something about nanotechnology and something like carpet fiber absorbing sound up to 80% more efficient than normal carpet and define extra cleaning process not to damage. It will be my second company providing cleaning of those audiphile carpets.
1 Like
It’s all that matters to me, my perception of the music, my enjoyment of the music.
60+ year old car mechanics are trying to lecture internationally renowned researchers on their field of research. Priceless!
9 Likes
That truism doesn’t explain why you’re making up scientific findings that don’t exist.
6 Likes
I guess this is another one of those useless arguments we have here. If high resolution was foolishness, why are most of us paying for high resolution music downloads or streaming services. My Qobuz subscription just renewed last night for another year at $149.99. Last month, I renewed Tidal for another year for $99.99. If they didn’t sound better to my 72 year old ears, I could save $250 and use my free Apple Music account. I also would not have purchased a lifetime Roon subscription for $500 and a Nucleus for $1119. To me, there is a real difference. I don’t think it’s my imagination, but I guess it could be.
(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)
That seems like a waste of money to me. If it doesn’t sound noticeably better, why not use that money for something else or save it for when you might need it?
1 Like
I’m not making anything up, I am joining in the conversation as you do. If you don’t hear any benefit to higher resolutions or MQA, then that’s fine but I an many others perceive a fuller, more relaxed, spacious real sound.
To me it’s another level and I have a system that handles CD quality very well indeed. So the margins may be smaller for me than for many folks who’s systems do not handle CD so well. I’m talking about MHR, EBA, and Apodising, however you spell it.
You may say it’s just a placebo of the little blue or green light, and who knows, maybe you are correct (maybe not) but if that’s what it takes… I’m happy.
2 Likes
Perhaps it is a waste of money, perhaps it isn’t. I also like to wear tailor-made Brioni suits, although I know they’re unlikely to last twenty times longer than suits off the peg…
4 Likes
That’s because you see value in the suits that justify the price. I see value in Tidal and Qobuz over Apple Music. Maybe, you do also??
2 Likes
I too see value in Tidal, but not because of MQA or high-res I don’t care for. I listen to 44.1/16 exclusively on my setup chosen just to do that right. But, Tidal and Qobuz integrate with Roon, and Apple Music does not. And I like Roon, it gives me pleasure, it permits me to integrate a diverse and to me valuable music collection with the wide catalogue of a premier streaming service. There’s not a day I don’t discover new albums to explore and listen to. That’s the value I see in it. And as to the music I love, I am perfectly happy with Red Book, as long as it’s well recorded and mastered. And that is what weighs more than anything else in the music reproduction chain… if the source is not well recorded and mastered, all else doesn’t matter much.
11 Likes
Yes, I prefer lossless music (CD quality or high res) to lossy music. On principle! Not because I’m sure I could easily tell the difference.
9 Likes
I notice quite a difference between 256 AAC and 16/44 FLAC, it depends on the album, but 16/44 has much more presence and is far more realistic and engaging. This stops me buying Apple Music. Beyond 16/44, the recording/mastering needs to be extremely good to justify the huge file sizes, and even then its questionable to my ears.
4 Likes