Reasonable definition of ‘hi-res’ music

As I see it, the particular kind of resolution hi res recordings give us (i.e. greater bit depth and sample rate) are useful for their secondary effects on the D to A process

Resampling can potentially offer these same secondary benefits to the DA process. In fact, resampling offers the opportunity to improve things further

This is not so much an argument “against higher rates and depths” … but more an explanation to demonstrate that they are nowhere near as clear cut as people are being conditioned to believe.

What you say here davewantsmoore reminds me of something. Was there not a popular series of consumer DS dacs (I want to say AKM, I am probably incorrect) a few years back which, because of internal optimization, “preferred” 16/44 and when you fed it higher rates it measured significantly worse?

Some DACs seem to “respond” better than others to certain kinds of upsampling. Also, Miska indicates on his Signalyst website which DACs are true 1 bit, so that when you feed it DSD it actually is processing this natively and not internally re-resampling back internally.

In all this, even for the informed audiophile its hard to track all the variables, let alone draw any conclusions…so we are in a way back to subjective “golden ear” judgements…darn…:yum:

This might be of interest to some in relation to all this:

What you say here

In short and general terms yes.

It is possible that you could use your own resampler and do a better job than what the DA does internally.

It’s also possible that the internal DA resamplng process, is critical to DA achieving its typical performance.

We cannot always generalise that “bypassing” what is going on inside the DA, by “feeding it is native rate” (or whatever other fluffy terms) is going to be an advantage. It is just an opportunity.

1 Like

Great article reference thanks Crenca. Feel free to post it in the HQ Player section where it will be read closely. I’ll do it in a day or so if you don’t, and steal all those likes, bwahahahahaha.

1 Like

The idea, as I understand it, is to send an analog signal (music we hear is analog be it from a synthesiser or anything else) down a digital pipeline so the sound produced at your speaker is the same as the sound that went into the Pipeline.
The aim of MQA is to do no more damage than a couple of meters of air. (Don’t beat me up for saying this)
All the digital in between is worthy of understanding if people wish to study it but The Analog Sound is what counts and all that really matters. Does it sound the same?
Measure what you will but, does it sound the same as what went in, save a few meters of air?

The same principle should apply wether we talk about MQA MP3 High Res, whatever. It’s the sound that counts.

Obviously a particular amp and speaker combination will have an effect on the final result along with the room and the perception and prejudice of the listener.

21 posts were split to a new topic: MQA and Digital Rights Management

Generalization of any sort, and of our subject in particular, is a kind of necessary evil in relation to the market. However, you have me thinking about the generalization of ‘hi res’ and its relation to the music market. What is its place/use overall? Mostly as a way to sell quality. As you say, its link to quality is tenuous, though I don’t go as far as you do - there is this confluence of factors that is useful, even if these are quality ‘happy accidents’. I think hi res has a niche place for guys like myself who can take advantage, but I am only 1 of a 100, a 1000 even, of music lovers (who can take advantage).

John Atkinson of Stereophile was excited by MQA exactly for it’s promise of an “end to end” hi res deliver chain that in effect, bypassed the end user and even the studio - a minimum level of quality that in a sense is forced upon everyone in the delivery chain because most of them screw quality up through their bad habits, rank ignorance, etc. Obviously this turned out to be a mere marketing angle to a product that in no way delivers, but I see the attraction of the idea.

Interesting conversation!

To my ears, Redbook 44.1/16 sounds noticeably better than MQA, if both are sourced from the same master file.

Yes - there is certainly no consensus as to whether MQA files are as good as their ‘standard’ hi-res equivalents nor indeed as good as ‘Redbook 44.1/16’, and your frequent posts have voiced your opinion.

To put this into context I have pulled in a couple of extracts from some of your other posts:

and

Your opinion as to the sound quality of MQA files versus their ‘Redbook’ equivalents is as valid as is my own, but no more valid than my opinion. The problem I have is that your listening results are much more conclusive and absolute than my own. It’s quite unusual to be so certain in a subjective matter such as music sound quality. You state that MQA coded files in every single case sound significantly worse. My own conclusions using a pretty good system (possibly not as good as your “great” system with “uncoloured speakers”) is that MQA files on Tidal often (but not always) sound subtly better than their Redbook equivalents. I would be very cautious about drawing any conclusive evidence from my own findings, but you seem so positive?

And of course, you say that you cannot make comparisons on Tidal, and that you do not have access to Tidal yourself. Well, that defeats the object of the exercise for me because I do subscribe to Tidal, and the potential benefits of MQA on Tidal bringing hi-res to this service are precisely what interest me.

Could I possibly ask where and with what material you have carried out your “extensive” comparisons, and possibly give us some details of the “great” system and “uncoloured” speakers that you used? I would be happy to give details of my own systems.

1 Like

My thoughts, exactly.

Thx for the laugh – this couldn’t be more true, though you don’t even need the ‘magic’.

Well said.

I was in that crowd, too, but was lead out of the audiophile world by the same person who introduced me to the audiophile world (decades ago). I would use the money I spent on hi-end audio & “hi-fi cables” (ugh, don’t get me started) to justify (and manifest) a “better sounding system” in my head.

A couple of years ago I, along with 5 other people, spent an afternoon at his home listening to “hi res” music on a six-figure $ system & tried to pick between various formats.

Not a single person was able to reliably distinguish between any of the “hi-res” formats vs CD or 320k mp3. Most of the time it came down to guessing, and there was no clear winner. The only unanimous answer was “they all sound good”. Having said that, most of us could reliably pick between 128k mp3 & any of the other formats (320k mp3 & “hi res”).

It gets better: No one (myself included) could hear the difference when he switched back & forth between using massive Pass Labs monoblocks (I forget the exact model) vs his ~$2500 Anthem home theater receiver (in 2-ch mode) to power his speakers.

That’s when everything changed for me – the con was (finally) over. I sold everything & bought a pair of used LS50W’s at an absolute fraction of the cost of my other gear. Ok, I fess up – I still have my first “hi-end” purchase, a Rotel RA-1412.

/rant-over

2 Likes

Ah yes, there is no one more vocal about the horrors of smoking than the reformed smoker who has quit smoking - except perhaps the reformed ‘Audiophile’ about so called ‘high-end’ hi-fi.

"I once was lost, but now I’m found ……"

Actually, as with most things there is a sensible middle ground. I completely agree that for most audiophiles (and I include in this category anyone who enjoys listening to music on anything other than a very cheap transistor radio) music and a love of music is of paramount importance, and that music can be enjoyed on a very cheap audio replay system - even occasionally on a cheap transistor or car radio.

However, I don’t think that many people would argue against the premise that music can sound much better on a ‘decent’ but not necessarily expensive system than on a cheap transistor radio. If you do argue against that, then either there is something amiss with your hearing or you are deluding yourself.

Whilst there is no doubt that the law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty quickly in respect of relatively expensive hi-fi gear for most people, there are some benefits to be had from relatively hi-end gear.
It is impossible to replicate a live performance of any scale on a hi-fi system. However, in my experience, it is more or less impossible to create even a relatively close illusion of the scale of such a performance without a pair of relatively large and consequently relatively expensive speakers. It is also often the case that these speakers present a difficult ‘load’, and consequently require a capable (and consequently often expensive) amplifier to drive them successfully.

There is no ‘black’ and ‘white’ in respect of largely subjective things like music reproduction. When I was much younger I lived very happily with hi-fi systems that were significantly less capable than the ones I now use, but the ones I use now are better and I am pretty sure that even ‘audiophile’ sceptics would agree with my assessment were they to listen to my systems. However, I am now happy with my systems and the music that they reproduce. My systems are more or less static. I don’t tinker constantly with irrelevances (to me) like non standard digital cables (I use standard cat6 ethernet cables), so called ‘cable dressing’ and other similar so called audiophile pastimes, although I don’t feel inclined to ridicule those who do. When constant experimentation and tinkering gets in the way of the enjoyment of music then that’s where I begin to agree with the audiophile sceptics or reformed audiophiles.

1 Like

Does anyone who have wrote anything in this thread, knowing how a Studio Recording is made???
The most recording’s is made in 24/88.2!!!
When it’s Mastered they down sampled the recording to 16/44.1!!!

Did you know that???

Or that the most Mastering Engineer’s is Compressing/Pressing the Music as Hard that’s Possible!!! So the Beautiful recorded Music with Great and Wonderful Dynamic Range is turning into a Flat and Totally Lifeless Piece Of Music!!!
All Thanks To The Glorified CD Records (Or Red Books) That So Many People Use Especially On Roon Community!!! Why don’t I understand it’s a just CD Record 16/44.1 Nothing Else :joy: Maybe it’s more fancy to Write “Red Book”!!!
With the CD records entry so Died The Beautiful Analog Music!!!

So for me as a Musician and Studio Engineer/Producer From the Analog Time, So is The MQA a Piss In Mississippi Compared to the CD Record!!!

But it’s only my Opinion!!! Please Don’t Make Any Stupid Commentary’s On This, Because Deep In Your Mind Or Hearts So Does You Knowing That’s Right!!! Especially If You Loves Music!

The End.

Love & Respect

String

1 Like

Well, it’s a little embarassing… I can never remember whether the 16 or the 44.1 is supposed to go first, so I usually just write “red book” instead :blush:.

1 Like

hmack,

Your not actually addressing the topic which is “Reasonable definition of ‘hi-res’ music”.

Possibly not in this particular post - I was simply responding to a series of posts in this thread with which I did not entirely agree. I have provided my ‘reasonable’ definition of ‘hi-res’ music in a number of earlier posts in this thread.

My own "definition of ‘hi-res’ music’ is very uncomplicated and entirely ‘reasonable’ from my perspective at least. That is - any music medium that has a resolution that is greater than 16bit, 44.1kHz, and that has been sourced from an original ‘hi-res’ (same definition) master.

Yes, but ron_jeremy was tying his experience and understanding of hir res directly to hi-end, hi-fi, and the like. You simply defended the usual/normative subjectivist stance. Actually you went beyond that - you scolded ron_jeremy with the allusional “lost but now found” and then explained to us how your subjectivism is in fact the “sensible middle ground”. Perhaps you should start your own “sensible middle ground” subjectivism thread? This thread is about hi-res…

Well - If you are attempting to make a point then I’m afraid you have completely lost me.

“usual/normative subjectivist stance” - does this mean something?

However, I do agree with you that this thread is about hi-res. If you work your way up to the first post in this thread, you will see that it is one of my own posts which happens to refer to one of your own and very clearly states my own ‘perfectly reasonable’ definition of what constitutes ‘hi-res’ in this context.

To clarify - I would still be considered an audiophile by most people since I do not normally purchase mass market audio equipment. And while I still follow and concur with many audiophile beliefs and principles, I no longer blindly follow each and every audiophile trend or claim. I now evaluate each new claim using the best available science that I can find (meaning I do some research) and if the claim has no basis in science then I dismiss it. $500 USB cables - no scientific basis, dismissed. 24bit offering greater dynamic range of the actual music present on the recording - no scientific basis, dismissed.

However on the other hand - speaker cabinet bracing to reduce unwanted vibrations - real science, embraced. Proper matching of power amp and speaker load - real science, embraced. Well made cable and speaker wire versus poorly made cheap cables - real science, embraced.

So basically what I try to do is separate the real science from the marketing BS - and this ends up producing real bang for the buck in my audio purchases since I’m no longer buying pipe dreams.

1 Like