HD FILES which is best hi Bit Rates, or Hi Word lengths?

The key is to understand that most DACs benefit from higher resolution and upsampling as it corrects non-linearity in bit levels and allows for a less aggressive anti-aliasing filter.

Currebt Class A+ DACs have the equivalent of 21 bit resolution at the analog output. It makes no sense to restrict yourself to 16 bit if a 24 bit version is available.

A bit of both is probably the best answer. How much that would be audible is a moot point, however. If you think it will be, make sure that the tracks are really HD. Also, don't waste money/disc space on HD versions of old analogue recordings.

shadorne > It makes no sense to restrict yourself to 16 bit if a 24 bit version is available.

Blindjim > @shadorne > for this question then, merely look at the apparent Word lengths as indications of better sound quality and resolution? Not necessarily the bit rates?

BTW… what’s happening to those other three words from 24 to 21, if you don’t mind mentioning it?



Willemj > > ake sure that the tracks are really HD.

Blindjim > @Willemj what methodology do you use to ensure tracks you’re considering buying are in fact High Definition?

Willemj > don't waste money/disc space on HD versions of old analogue recordings.

Blindjim > this one I sort of get. Old master tapes by their nature seem either hit or miss as to their orig integrity, so deriving greater fidelity off of them simply by now converting to higher rates doesn’t seem to add up.

= = ==

In spite of that last sentence, I mentioned to a friend the other day that folks are re-issuing supposed HD digital files taken from the orig Master Tapes and as well providing reputedly better quality audio onto 15 ips Reel to reel tapes too and both formats are a lot more expensive.

The question he posed then was “how do you get better sound quality . from a decades old orig master tape than what it already possesses?

The debate then hinged on if it was analog to begin with, how did it improve migrating into digital, than back into analog as with LPs and reel to reel tapes?

Trying to answer, I said, “digital trickery.’

It was the best I could come up with then, I’d like a better more qualified answer if possible from folks around here.

As Willemj said, ensure its HD at the oneset. OK. How?

Some of the prices I’ve read about on these forums for RTR dupes of master’s can bring hundreds of bucks. Seems to me it’s a pretty easy place for someone to lose a fair chunk of money, as there seems no possible way to validate the product beforehand.

Ditto, HD retail files quality from archived masters of years gone by.

http://archimago.blogspot.nl/2015/12/musings-wisdom-of-simplicity-re-hi-res.html
http://archimago.blogspot.nl/2015/02/measurements-bob-dylans-shadows-in.html
I will try to find more, but it is bedtime here.

None of this matters anymore (bit/word lengths, stream rates)  because of MQA! Btw, practically all the major digital hardware companys have jumped on board with MQA, so....not sure why the post? If I was a pure digital person I would learn all about it.

Matt M

willemj
http://archimago.blogspot.nl/2015/12/musings-wisdom-of-simplicity-re-hi-res.html


http://archimago.blogspot.nl/2015/02/measurements-bob-dylans-shadows-in.html

@willemj > thank you for your efforts.
OK. I had heard HD Tracks had published some questionable or blatant false HD cuts/albums some time back. I thought this had been resolved.

Reading thru both links each one points to an incredible degree of falsification, purposely or by lack of any QA, or just careless attitudes in the majority of HD download sellers. Not all but most.

I was er, am appalled. .

With odds on against, and not having great refuges of disposable income for media, it seems I’ll have to keep concentrating on the DIY approach, ripping to whatever outcomes the ripping software allows.
Bummer.


mattmiller > None of this matters anymore (bit/word lengths, stream rates) because of MQA! Btw, practically all the major digital hardware companys have jumped on board with MQA, so....not sure why the post?

@mattmiller
Thanks for the input. It appears short sighted though. ‘many’ does not equal ALL.

mattmiller > ... I would learn all I could about digital ....


@mattmiller
how better to learn than to ask questions?

to hang one's hat on MQA currently, one could find their hat on the floor given its infancy.


For more insights on MQA and its obstacles:
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/01/mqa-promises-something-for-everyone/

MQA is merely a fledgling enterprise. Although if one’s musical preffs are limited in scope, and is OK with just listening to whatever $20 a month buys, or whatever Tidal wishes to provide, I suppose it’s the real deal for that individual. Although the costs don’t end with Tidal alone, of course.

However, Master Quality Authentication is a recent architecture, and by its nature poses several problems.
1 Licensing
2 recording lables consent
3 proliferation
4. limited access to content
5 proprietary hardware or software
6 resources
If every recording label, every chip maker, and every streaming service got on board today with MQA, there would still be a severely limited assortment of available content, especially classic pop, rock RB, Country, Folk, etc., that could be acquired for discretionary use.

Immediately, its all a streaming affair. Not a cut by cut, album by album download use it/them as you choose, when you wish it arrangement.

The first group of titles will obviously be the present and new releases which MAY or may not garner MQA fingerprinting, see labeling, licenseing etc., above..

Until we rush right out and acquire the MQA (read it just like it was//is THX) approved hardware or remain handcuffed to the personal comfuser to receive available content via the meager amount of titles Tidal offers, it seems for a time, likely a very long time if not forever with most content, we’ll still be dealing with word lengths and bit rates, wether we go the DIY route or buy them ready rolled. With the latter appearing more and more, a perilous venture.

MQA has a very long way to go and has not yet become anything but a niche process dependant upon several variables, not the least of which is wide spread public, non audiophile acceptance.

Apple and Bose could do a lot of good for MQA acceptance.

Without all or nearly all streaming services, mobile devices, music content resources, and all or nearly all audio DA converters from entry level up, it may never be what it should or possibly could.

So, it is easy to understand the question as to which aspect of any HD file matters most is definitely worthwhile.

Now it begs one more….
How do we authenticate files or QA HD files prior to their purchase, without MQ Authentication?

Comparative or testing software comes to mind, but this is an ‘after’ the fact method and therefore would have quite varied results for getting one’s money returned if the product is proven false.

@blindjim

"BTW… what’s happening to those other three words from 24 to 21, if you don’t mind mentioning it?"


-----> The 21 bit resolution in the analog is an analogy. It means that the noise floor on the analog circuits sits at the equivalent level of the signal level of the 22nd LSB or approx -160 dB. I think we can hear roughly 15 dB below the noise floor for musical tones especially in the mid range so even some stuff below the noise floor might be audible. The point is that 24 bits is well worth it but any higher than that (32 or 64) really only confer advantages to complex signal processing (heavy digital filtering or complex deconvolution like in room mode DSP - often described as the number of taps or coefficients in the filter - a large number being more complex and computationally intensive but more accurate such as having less pass band ripple) 

FWIW I have played around with room DSP and deconvolution filtering and I think it can improve things below 100Hz. However, even fairly complex 32 bit deconvolution like Audyssey XT32 creates audible artifacts in the mid range which to my ears are detrimental and degrading to two channel music - although for HT 7.1 and higher the benefits may outweigh the disadvantages (as speaker consistency and integration becomes more important as you increase the number channels)

" ‘many’ does not equal ALL. " ARE you for real? OPPO, Meridian, Aurender, Auralic, Burmester, Cambridge the list goes on and on. I see MQA pushing to become the next popular HI-FI digital medium. Blindjim, You should be used to changes by now, thats all digital does is keep changing ( for the better of course..."wink wink") every time we think we have a catalog of great sounding music they come out with a higher rez or higher bit rate music file. Now they want us to purchase MQA...its a never ending hamster wheel imo. MQA makes the most sense though when it comes to digital music, hats off to Meridian! Having to re purchase all my favorites on MQA priceless I cant wait! (not)  And you know you'll be doing it, digital junkies...LOL

P.S Take what I say with a grain of salt... I listen to Vinyl to avoid all this crap anyways!

Matt M

I don’t listen to hi res downloads myself but I hear tell some of them are overly compressed. At least according to the Official Dynamic Range Database. Agree, disagree?

@shadorne
Tremendous thanks. Much of it is over my head but I will follow up. Although from the notes it looks like the word length carries more water than bit rates.

In fact, and I may well have missed it on the web page I saw the Life Songs of Kris k. @ 24/44.1, released Oct 2017, this may be an MQA file. I saw MQ Authentication was similar to FLV, or HD264 container for videos, being realized at 24/44, and 24/88 fodedd and then unfolded while being carried in a lossless file format like FLAC, AIFF, or ALAC.
Again, thanks.


mattmiller's avatar
@mattmiller > You should be used to changes by now, thats all digital does is keep changing ( for the better of course..."

Blindjim > Just when you think you’re out…. They drag you back in!!
Nope. Not a fan of change. Not at all. !@#$%!^Q@%^Y


@mattmiller > Now they want us to purchase MQA...its a never ending hamster wheel imo. MQA makes the most sense though when it comes to digital music,


Blindjim > indeed. The input on MQA has opened my eyes with enthusiasm.

MQA offers more than former file formats, a positive force going forward and one looking back for the digital realm, with security or accountability to boot.

From the articles I read last night, it sure doess make the most sense of what has so far rolled off the Rock Island Line railway.

The way it will make the most sense is when or ‘if’ this MQA fingerprinting, its logarythym or what ever else is needed is set to ripping software so the catalogs we currently possess can be at least elevated onto the First tier of the MQA stairway, if not in fact all the way up..

I’d buy a couple more rom drives right away and begin flip flop and flying discs in and out of the tower each day..

Better still, merely reprocessing batches of files previously ripped into lossless. This last bit although possibly the most desirable as well as profitable, may be the caboose to this train.

As for a new rendering faction I’d loosely quote Julius Ceasre as he wrote to the Senate, “. Veni, vidi, vici”

Here however it translates as: I came, I saw, ‘they’ conquered… again…. And again… and again…

MQA is just a marketing trick. Even Meridian admit they have no scientific data.

Willemj > MQA is just a marketing trick. Even Meridian admit they have no scientific data.

@Willemj
Perhaps. Bob Stewart however says he has plenty. Sure seems something is amiss as meridian is in the mix for licensing still…. And or ‘was’.

See above link for more info on MQA background according to Digital Review mag.

willemj327 posts

MQA is just a marketing trick. Even Meridian admit they have no scientific data

Can you substantiate that claim?

Yes, but have to cook dinner first.

See here for a first installment: http://archimago.blogspot.nl/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html
http://archimago.blogspot.nl/2017/10/mqa-final-final-comment-simply-put-why.html#more

▲▲▲▲▲▲ It looks like lotsa hearsay in those links, but nothing to support your claim that:

MQA is just a marketing trick. Even Meridian admit they have no scientific data  

Well, Bob Stuart himself has said they have not published research results. Do you know of a scientific paper with results, or even a clear explanation of what it actually is? Archimago has at least published a blind test with quite a few participants. Statistically, people could not identify the MQA recordings reliably, nor did they have real a preference. The test is by no means perfect, but good enough to be highly sceptical.
In its most basic form, and from what I understand from the limited information, MQA sacrifices some bit depth to preserve some high frequency information in a lossy form. Is that the great breakthrough that we were waiting for? If we really believe that that information is important (I don’t necessarly), why not simply wait for a bit more bandwith?

willemj
First you claim:

MQA is just a marketing trick. Even Meridian admit they have no scientific data

When challenged for documentation, you answer:

Bob Stuart himself has said they have not published research results. Do you know of a scientific paper with results, or even a clear explanation of what it actually is?

It's not my job to support your claim that MQA is just a "marketing gimmick." You made that claim, and added that Meridian admits it. It looks like you can't substantiate you claim, which doesn't surprise me at all.

I am very skeptical of MQA, btw. But I wouldn't make the leap from skeptic to denier to fabricating the claim that "Meridian admit they have no scientific data."

Speculation is one thing, skepticism arguably a prudent approach, but to wildly de cry something as snake oil or plainly invalid should be corroborated or one should leave well enough alone as it demonstrates unmistakably overt bias.


Hans bakhausen on meridian MQA codec
(sorry, I may have murdered his last name with a misspell)

In these two youtube links Hans educates on fundamental words and sampling rates, and then all about MQA as well as his own comparative audtitions listening to MQA files..

First…. ADC basics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_wxRGiBoJg

secondly MQA background & tech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5o6XHVK2HA

Hans B. explains the ‘lossy’ encoding function, which as I understood it does not compress audio in the ‘folding’ or ‘’unfolding’ process of the MQA technique.

A previously posted link I added above, is to a Digital Rreview account on how MQA was developed, by whom, and how it is to be technically implemented.

In that article and the subsequent public commentary much is illuminated.

I chose not to input more links here. There are numerous other articles from across the globe, but the chances of anyone reading them all is slim and all can be had via a Google search if MQA and, or , meridian is added into the search text.

MQA was announced around 2015 or so as a ‘new’ Meridian enterprise. It still is a Meridian concern.

The tech behind it seems valid enough, and as I described previously in this thread, its obstacles are not unlike any new format, although it’s promises are strong.

Its main promise is one need not rush out and buy MQA DACs to realize some portion of MQA proposed gains for orig contant, as there are two additional levels of HD to be realized IF the proprietary MQA consequent hardware is deployed in a home audio system. At that point one could, if the info was presented, obtain the full 192KHz .bandwidth.


When our Fedearl Govt. agency the FCC took on Dolby as the audio broadcasting standard it took a long time for us to await Dolby content as the basic default zenith among others were in the mix with their own idieas as to how to improve OTA audio transmissions and reception. Dolby was chosen.

. Still more time to bring it to media, and then still more time to have the tech side of home audio hardware fully appreciate and optimize it.

Dolby too has seen its own series of alterations and developments. It wasn’t always 5.1 multi ch audio. Nor was it Dolby Master Audio intill just a few years ago. DMA is still an option, not a default, it requires specific hardware to allow us to enjoy it.

Now Dolby Video approaches.

The same argument for DTS master Audio persists. If ya got the hardware, super. If not? Too bad.

MQA however says, either way, there will be a sincere improvement in audio quality. Approved gear or not.

No other format goes that far out on the limb, nor could they.

A single caveat remains even with MQA… ‘crap in and crap out. If the orig recording sucks. MQA ain’t fixing it. If it did not begin as a 192KHz source file, it ain’t gonna be one later. It will reamin, at 96KHZ or 48KHz, or possibly too, at 44.1KHz. it all depends. The ‘fingerprinting’.or security watermark however will tell us immediately if the orig file was re-arranged’ or intentionally upsampled to emulate High res files artificially.


Dolby Audio’s inception to maturation segment took what, thirty years or more to arrive? And it continues to morph.

How many iterations has HDMI undergone? How long did it take for that tech to get understood and accepted, by the public and then by audio nuts?

One cable? Impossible!

What will we do with all the money we’re saving using one single $10 wire?

As with any and all new formats the single largest element to overcome is time.

Two years on is not a whole lot of time for any format to acquire wide spread acceptance or possibly even far reaching public acknowledgement the thing exists.

It took Phillips and Sony CD format how long before they began to sound decent?


TIDAL’s issues with MQA hinge on the same issue it has previously…. Its catalog is not the best reflection of popular music or so many have mentioned this to me. meaning across past decades and thru the litany of genres music gets sliced up and into, it is not a deep or incisive representative go to catalog.

The jury will be out on this one for a good long while.

In the interim, leaning hard onto DA conversion of 16/44.1KHz seems the real ticket.

And as to revisit the topic herein, it’s the sampling rate that is more important. Not the ‘word length’ thereof.

So folks… to coin a phrase, ‘rip ‘em if ya got ‘em! …and at whatever native sampling rates they are. Then find a DAC which does an earnest, sincere exemplary job getting those bits into the analog section of your audio rig without the use of smoke and mirrors, and presents them in the flavor you prefer.

But then that’s just my humble opinion.