HelpfulDad

Since I can’t edit my original post, it’s stuck as is. But I think it’s pretty clear to whom I am referring isn’t it?

It isn’t overkill and it makes a non-trivial difference in quality and fidelity. I’m not going to dive into a scientific proof here because this isn’t the place, but there are a few principles that address the benefits of higher sample rates and bit depths: The “master,” from which a high sample rate and bit depth copy is created, dominates the perceived quality of the release. This includes: the recording technology such as DSD, PCM, or analog, the track mixing, and audio engineering (i.e. levels, equalization). The digital “master” is recorded at a sample rate that is an integer multiple of the rate of the release The brain is a crucial component of listening. Human beings have a remarkable ability to distinguish specific sounds from many simultaneous sounds, by mentally focusing on one in particular. The brain also has the ability, variable for each person, to “fill in” inaudible or absent parts of familiar sound. While the same “units” (Hz) are used to measure sounds and sample rates, they are different items in the mathematics of digital audio and not appropriate substitutes for each other. Some individuals, truly , do not perceive any fidelity improvement in digital audio with sample rates and bit depth greater than 44.1khz and 16bit, CD quality. Contrary to what many, as described by item 5 above, believe to be “confirmation bias”, some individuals truly hear the fidelity improvement from increased sample rate and bit depth. The so-called “science” that those in item 5 above cite as proof that sample rates greater than 40khz are unnecessary is based on the inappropriate use of valid theorem for which the necessary conditions to for its application do not exist.

As I found out. No matter. Your answer got me on track to find out it was the pro variant which is easy to miss. Thank you for the reply.

RME site doesn’t show this as an AD converter only DA

Slightly off topic but idk where to get this information: Which specific digital recorder did you use to create a 768/24 PCM file?

The thing I really don’t understand about you MQA haters is why do you give a sh!t why we like it so much you want to kill it? It meets a need.

It’s not name-dropping. It’s citing individuals who are on record about it so it’s not just some guy, like me, who hears it. While there are those who don’t like it, there are plenty who think all digital is garbage, so do we stop using digital?

Neil young wouldn’t let his mother make a nickel off of his music. Haven’t read it. How do you know I have it in my car? I use a ProJect PreBox S2 plugged into the aux port. Great little overachiever BTW. I use Onkyo HF on iPhone and it has this PCM to DSD converter that against all my expectations makes a big difference

Here’s the most compelling reality to support the reduction in “bit depth” of samples to make for less data. 24 bit allows for 144 db dynamic range. Recorded music is less than half of that, so tossing 12 wasted bits per sample doesn’t affect the accuracy of the individual sample. Can you cite any recorded music that actually needs 144db or even 96db of dynamic range(16 bit)? The so called “lossy” description of MQA is akin to cutting the blank top and bottom margin of a typewritten page and claiming that the text is compromised. It does require advanced signal processing transform mathematics to accomplish this, but these sorts of transforms are common in electronics mathematics for various reasons, so the claim that nothing necessary is lost is completely reasonable and similar to other transforms like a Laplace transform from time to frequency domain for more efficient analysis in control theory. Mathematics provides the ability to do these sorts of things. Fourier transform is another. Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, MQA mathematics do something completely different than either of these transforms, but the point is that it’s not some new, hairbrained mathematics technique, its just another one for a specific purpose: to reduce storage while retaining information. It is proprietary so why would he explain the details of it? So someone can copy it for free? Sony and Philips get paid for every SACD and CD, but nobody cares about that. There are also recording engineers like Bob Ludwig, et al who have actively endorsed the sound as a better representation than any other digital content. MQA does themselves a disservice but not publishing the provenance of the “Studio” encodings. Or does everyone believe that MQA, Ltd is just “making it up” when they cite the content as accurate as per the band members and/or engineer? Particularly when there are plenty of people who hear the realism as the one who validated for MQA. This hatred of MQA is almost a replay of the SACD haters vs. DVD-Audio haters and the Nyquist groupies with their “anything above 44.1khz is snake oil” stance. All that hating is a contributing factor to neither hi-res disc format being successful when it mattered and recording masters of the 1980s and early 1990s being recorded at 44.1/16. And, for those who insist MQA is about DRM, a negative can’t really be proven, so what’s the evidence that there is DRM in MQA encoded content that will prevent playing the content unless you have license to do so? If you’re saying patent royalties are DRM, then why is paying Bob Stuart for the technology to encode or decode the content such a problem? Are you so naïve to think there are no patent owners being paid when you buy a CD or any piece of electronic gear? Yet this is cited as DRM. But, I’m sure none of this is considered evidence because, other than my mathematics jag, I’m repeating what’s already available. What I, and others who appreciate technological improvements, are perplexed about is what possible improvements in digital sound will ever be accepted by the contrarians who make up a huge portion of us in this hobby? A good portion of you argue that 44.1/16 is “perfect sound forever.” Why do those who think that way feel a need to sidetrack a topic about higher sample rates or MQA with why we’re ignorant for not seeing it their way? Not necessarily this topic, but it’s nearly impossible to open a topic in any forum on any site to talk about MQA or hi-res without someone side-tracking it with why it’s a useless discussion because MQA is BS or 44.1/16 is perfect sound forever. It seems to be rooted in emotion. I have my own “armchair psychologist” theories why they do it, but it’s just my opinion. I’m glad that there is so much MQA out there and hope that more becomes available. Specifically the Columbia catalog. But they’re invested in DSD, so that’s unlikely. Yet, there are many who vehemently argue that even DSD is a trick and we’re all getting fooled, except them because they only THEY know that 44.1/16 is perfect sound forever. We’re just gullible tools being soaked for nothing. Our “expectation bias” lining the pockets of the charlatans selling DSD, hi-res PCM, and MQA. I just hope this nonsense doesn’t stop the encoding to MQA because, IMHO, it’s one of the best developments in digital audio since higher sampling. I like nearly my whole music catalog on my iPhone or streaming over cellular without sucking down my entire data plan and then playing it back as a realistic session of music squeezing out every bit of performance my system can deliver. But, just like anything in this hobby, MQA isn’t magic and there is bad-sounding MQA content for whatever reason. That doesn’t indict the codec as bad any more that 44.1/16 upsampled to 192/24 and sold as hi-res indicts 192/24 as bad. Come on!!! How can anyone who brings up Donald Trump as relevant to a digital codec be taken seriously? Similarly, how can anyone who tells me that I’m not hearing what I say I’m hearing be taken seriously? I believe you when you say you don’t hear a difference, but to tell me I’m fooling myself when I hear what Bob Ludwig, Jimmy Page, et al hear is silly at best and actually offensive.

What on earth do politics have to do with this? I wasn’t at AXPONA to hear what you heard, nor would I know anything about the setup or content you heard. MQA can’t fix issues with those things. But someone who throws in a credibility attack with politics has an emotional issue with MQA that makes him feel the same way as he did with Trump and makes him feel that politics is relevant. Sounds like your hatred of MQA has more to do with your expectation bias based in those emotions than anything.

ROTFL!! Since I have a life and don’t post here often that means I’m paid? I want MQA to succeed because it’s both convenient and excellent. I can go further than MQA can in evangelizing because I won’t be subject to legal challenges that would be costly in terms of expensive and revealing proprietary information. There is more than adequate evidence to support MQA claims on top of the vast improvement in realism over straight PCM. If you say you don’t hear a difference, it’s likely YOUR expectation bias or the person who set up the DAC didn’t do it right. Idk why people are like this about MQA, other than the contrarian nature of those attracted to this hobby, but they are. I, for one, am very happy that Stuart figured out how to jettison millions of unused bits and improve sound and don’t mind paying him for that.

This little jewel of a setting has been lurking on my player and I just tried it. It is really much better for 44.1, less so as your sample rate goes up. But, it’s not magic. Quantization errors on sample rates that are multiples of 48 are still there. And, while the dynamics are better, cymbals are still not smooth like high sampling or native DSD. And it’s still not as realistic as hi res I was puzzled why this sounded better and IMHO, it’s because the errors are smaller in magnitude. The conversion to DSD is mathematically done so it’s perfect(44.1 multiples), and if there is a DAC or cable error it would be 1-2 bits in magnitude versus as high as 12 bits for PCM. It is probably the most you can get out if 44.1 -176.4 and it really does sound wonderful.

And BTW. Chris Squire died after the music was encoded so there’s that bit of disinformation on your part.

No it isn’t. Your imperfect understanding of how MP3 works vs. MQA leads you to think that. And, let me guess, you’ve never heard it fully decoded