Last week I was walking across a field in France with my wife and her sister and cousins. The five of us are all older than 50 and my ears are now 66. As we walked across the field we noticed that it was full of grasshoppers of all sorts of species. I asked my wife if she could hear them, '"just about" she said. My sister-in-law said that she could hear them everywhere. My wife's cousins could not hear the grasshoppers either. Even when I cupped my hands over my ears I could not for the life of me hear a grasshopper.
Grasshoppers stridulate at 10 KHz or above. The older members of our group therefore had problems hearing high frequencies.
Later on we did a very non-scientific test of our hearing by downloading some test frequencies. My wife's sister could easily hear a 12 KHz tone. The rest of us had problems though but my wife's younger nephew could hear above 15 KHz.
When I returned to London I tested myself again in the quite of my office. Through headphones I could easily hear a 8 KHz tone; but I had to turn up the volume to hear 10 KHz and 12 KHz tones. I could not hear a 14 KHz tone even with the volume turned up full.
You may well ask "what has this got to do with Hi-Fi?". Well the generally accepted range of hearing for frequency in humans is 20 Hz to 20 KHz. This range is for younger people only; for as we get older our ability to hear the higher frequencies diminishes. Luckily, I can still hear the difference between a clarinet and an oboe when listening to an orchestra live. This is because I can still hear the principle harmonics of both the oboe and the clarinet as they are lower than the 8KHz limit that I am still able to hear clearly. A CD can reproduce sound between 20KHz and 22 KHz . The upper limit is far beyond the hearing capacity of most people even children. An LP record really starts to tail off its frequency response at 15 KHz; but its upper frequency response is still above what most people in their 40s and over can hear easily.
You may ask yourself why older audiophiles are prepared to pay big sums of money for moving coil cartridges that can reproduce frequencies well above the limit for human hearing. You may ask why some older audiophiles insist that they can hear differences between CD quality music files and "HIRES" music files when all other parameters are equal. A 24/96 "HIRES" music file can reproduce a tone of 48 KHz!
Why do we need DACS, speakers and amplifiers that are capable of reproducing frequencies that no-one can hear? We would not produce a television system that could broadcast UV light as it would be a complete waste of resources, so why do it with Hi-Fi? Some Hi-Fi enthusiasts are being confused by a numbers game.
You may well ask why older Hi-Fi journalists have somehow defeated the ravages of time so that they can really distinguish between PCM, DSD and MQA. And why they don't need to turn up the volume to listen to the grasshoppers just like the rest of us old ones.
Friday, 11 August 2017
Wednesday, 26 July 2017
Downloading "HIRES" files - what a drag
The other day I bought some jazz music on the internet which was not available on CD. I made the mistake of downloading the 24/176.4 "Hi-Res" file rather than the 16/44.1 version. Once I had realised my mistake, I had already paid 12 EUR. I knew that my 4 year old main Hi-Fi CD, come external DAC, player could only play up to 24/96 music files. I let the download run on though.
The download was slow enough for me to water a medium sized garden and make a cup of tea with time to spare.
VLC on my computer could play the zipped files but my secondary music player which can play 24/176.4 files would not respond. I therefore had to unzip the files and it was time to make another cup of tea and read the paper.
The unzipped files would now play on my secondary music player but what about the player in the car? It would only play 16/44.1 files. And what about my main Hi-Fi?
I decided to convert the files to 16/44.1. I then compared the CD quality files to the "Hi-Res" originals. I could hear no difference, and no one has come forward to prove that they can hear the difference as part of a peer reviewed double blind test either. It was ,therefore, unnecessary to down sample the files again, this time to 24/88.2, to play on my main Hi-Fi as 16/44.1 would do the trick.
To keep things simple I have stored this music on my hard drives in 16/44.1 format for all playback.
The original downloads have now been backed up twice.
My conclusion is that it is better to buy music in 16/44.1 format when downloading. The files are much easier to handle and store and can be played on all music streamers and computers etc. You can make your own CD easily as well.
I have just bought some music from "Pristine Classic" on the internet but on a CD. A company like "Pristine Classic"is unlikely to mess around with loudness equalisation, so that you can be sure that the music will not be compressed like a Meatloaf album. "Pristine Classic" also provide an MP3 download for playing the music on a space restricted smartphone. It is all very simple and you are ready to go straight away.
There really is not much need for "Hi-Res" downloads even for classical music and for most pop music you might as well buy a 256 kbps MP3 download.
The download was slow enough for me to water a medium sized garden and make a cup of tea with time to spare.
VLC on my computer could play the zipped files but my secondary music player which can play 24/176.4 files would not respond. I therefore had to unzip the files and it was time to make another cup of tea and read the paper.
The unzipped files would now play on my secondary music player but what about the player in the car? It would only play 16/44.1 files. And what about my main Hi-Fi?
I decided to convert the files to 16/44.1. I then compared the CD quality files to the "Hi-Res" originals. I could hear no difference, and no one has come forward to prove that they can hear the difference as part of a peer reviewed double blind test either. It was ,therefore, unnecessary to down sample the files again, this time to 24/88.2, to play on my main Hi-Fi as 16/44.1 would do the trick.
To keep things simple I have stored this music on my hard drives in 16/44.1 format for all playback.
The original downloads have now been backed up twice.
My conclusion is that it is better to buy music in 16/44.1 format when downloading. The files are much easier to handle and store and can be played on all music streamers and computers etc. You can make your own CD easily as well.
I have just bought some music from "Pristine Classic" on the internet but on a CD. A company like "Pristine Classic"is unlikely to mess around with loudness equalisation, so that you can be sure that the music will not be compressed like a Meatloaf album. "Pristine Classic" also provide an MP3 download for playing the music on a space restricted smartphone. It is all very simple and you are ready to go straight away.
There really is not much need for "Hi-Res" downloads even for classical music and for most pop music you might as well buy a 256 kbps MP3 download.
Friday, 7 April 2017
Raumfeld Connector Two
It was not my intention to write about Hi-Fi equipment but I could not resist writing about the Raumfeld Connector Two. It was a Christmas present and it replaces the laptop computer which I was using to stream internet radio via my WiFi router. The laptop also played all my ripped music from a hard drive.
The Raumfeld Connector Two was easy to set up, from an Android app which controls the device, once I figured out that it does not accept a WEP key but rather a WPA2 key. Using WPA2 meant that I had to reset all the other devices which were using my router, of which there are many.
The box itself is small and can be easily hidden. It is simple to use, it can read digital music files stored on a NAS drive by WiFi or via an ethernet cable. It reads and plays back all the major music file types including WAV, MP3 and FLAC. It also handles "HIRES". It will also read music files from a USB hard drive directly attached to the device. I have all my music stored on a portable 1TB HDD and it catalogues this drive quickly and reads it easily.
The device has its own built in DAC and analogue line outputs; these work very well when linked to my amplifier.
In my case, I use the digital optical output to connect to my external ESS Sabre DAC. The technical quality of the music played from a FLAC or WAV file,in this way, is second to none.
The Connector Two even accepts line analogue inputs and converts them to digital. The Connector Two can be used as part of a multi-room system to broadcast the music via your WiFi to Raumfeld active speakers rather like a Sonos or a Yamaha Multicast system. Technically, it it would be possible to broadcast an LP around the house via the digital connection. I have not tried this as I use the Connector Two in a stand alone mode.
The Raumfeld Connector also has built in internet radio and Spotify; all controlled from an Android or an Iphone app.
I have a Yamaha Music cast system in another room. This system recognises the Raumfeld Connector as a server attached to the WiFi router and will playback music from the attached USB hard drive. The Raumfeld Connector Two is therefore acting like NAS drive.
This is a versatile and brilliant piece of equipment which can replace a laptop for streaming music. All this for about £140 and available directly from Teufel in Germany. I recommend it.
https://www.teufelaudio.co.uk/raumfeld-audio-streaming/raumfeld-connector-p9527.html
The Raumfeld Connector Two was easy to set up, from an Android app which controls the device, once I figured out that it does not accept a WEP key but rather a WPA2 key. Using WPA2 meant that I had to reset all the other devices which were using my router, of which there are many.
The box itself is small and can be easily hidden. It is simple to use, it can read digital music files stored on a NAS drive by WiFi or via an ethernet cable. It reads and plays back all the major music file types including WAV, MP3 and FLAC. It also handles "HIRES". It will also read music files from a USB hard drive directly attached to the device. I have all my music stored on a portable 1TB HDD and it catalogues this drive quickly and reads it easily.
The device has its own built in DAC and analogue line outputs; these work very well when linked to my amplifier.
In my case, I use the digital optical output to connect to my external ESS Sabre DAC. The technical quality of the music played from a FLAC or WAV file,in this way, is second to none.
The Connector Two even accepts line analogue inputs and converts them to digital. The Connector Two can be used as part of a multi-room system to broadcast the music via your WiFi to Raumfeld active speakers rather like a Sonos or a Yamaha Multicast system. Technically, it it would be possible to broadcast an LP around the house via the digital connection. I have not tried this as I use the Connector Two in a stand alone mode.
The Raumfeld Connector also has built in internet radio and Spotify; all controlled from an Android or an Iphone app.
I have a Yamaha Music cast system in another room. This system recognises the Raumfeld Connector as a server attached to the WiFi router and will playback music from the attached USB hard drive. The Raumfeld Connector Two is therefore acting like NAS drive.
This is a versatile and brilliant piece of equipment which can replace a laptop for streaming music. All this for about £140 and available directly from Teufel in Germany. I recommend it.
https://www.teufelaudio.co.uk/raumfeld-audio-streaming/raumfeld-connector-p9527.html
Tuesday, 29 November 2016
Turn the volume up
I recently bought a new whizz bang HD TV and decided to connect it up to my Hi-Fi system to hear the sound better. Also, I had had the Blu-ray player connected up to my amplifier using RCA analogue cables. I had the idea to simplify matters by using the TV as a communication hub to pass through the digital signals from the various boxes to my CD player using a Toslink cable. The trouble is my Hi-Fi is situated rather a long way from the TV and the Blu-ray player. I could not get a reliable digital signal from my TV to the CD player. In the end, I solved the problem by connecting a short Toslink cable from my TV to a USB DAC/amplifier and running analogue RCA cables directly to my amplifier. In this way I could hear BBC 3 Radio from a terrestrial source being reproduced fairly well. My wife could also hear continental channels from a satellite source in almost Hi-Fi quality as well. Radio over the TV is broadcast in MP3 at 192 kbps.
For my Blu-ray player, I wanted better performance for playing opera films etc. I ended up connecting up the player directly to my CD DAC using a 5m Toslink cable - this worked perfectly.
I did lots of tests of the sound quality by playing CD quality and 256 Kbps MP3 music files through the various DACs and amplifiers. I concluded that modern DACs and Amplifiers seemed to sound the same - to my ears anyway. I also concluded that if I was to take a double blind test to distinguish between 256 kbps MP3 and CD then I would probably fail to determine which was which other than by chance. To me a big difference between the quality of the sound from various sources could only be perceived when the volume changed. This is a well known phenomenon. I get the feeling that many people including journalists from Hi-Fi magazines can easily get fooled by the Fletcher-Munson curve. The volume of a sound affects the frequency response of the ears. You could easily be fooled into believing that one cable sounds better than another etc. if you do not do your listening tests at equalised volumes.
http://ehomerecordingstudio.com/fletcher-munson-curve/
After all the playing around with digital cables etc. I got a pleasant surprise; a friend of mine gave me some Beatles Mono LPs which were bought soon after they were released in the sixties. We had some friends around for lunch and compared them to the newly re-mastered Beatles mono albums. All of the old records were in very good condition and they sounded almost exactly the same as their modern equivalents. There was no arguing or Hi-Fi hype or snobbishness: we all immediately came to the same conclusion without discussion. I did, however, have to adjust the volume as some of the modern re-masters seemed quieter. The good old Fletcher-Munson curve came into play again, but none of us was fooled that new or old sounded better.
For my Blu-ray player, I wanted better performance for playing opera films etc. I ended up connecting up the player directly to my CD DAC using a 5m Toslink cable - this worked perfectly.
I did lots of tests of the sound quality by playing CD quality and 256 Kbps MP3 music files through the various DACs and amplifiers. I concluded that modern DACs and Amplifiers seemed to sound the same - to my ears anyway. I also concluded that if I was to take a double blind test to distinguish between 256 kbps MP3 and CD then I would probably fail to determine which was which other than by chance. To me a big difference between the quality of the sound from various sources could only be perceived when the volume changed. This is a well known phenomenon. I get the feeling that many people including journalists from Hi-Fi magazines can easily get fooled by the Fletcher-Munson curve. The volume of a sound affects the frequency response of the ears. You could easily be fooled into believing that one cable sounds better than another etc. if you do not do your listening tests at equalised volumes.
http://ehomerecordingstudio.com/fletcher-munson-curve/
After all the playing around with digital cables etc. I got a pleasant surprise; a friend of mine gave me some Beatles Mono LPs which were bought soon after they were released in the sixties. We had some friends around for lunch and compared them to the newly re-mastered Beatles mono albums. All of the old records were in very good condition and they sounded almost exactly the same as their modern equivalents. There was no arguing or Hi-Fi hype or snobbishness: we all immediately came to the same conclusion without discussion. I did, however, have to adjust the volume as some of the modern re-masters seemed quieter. The good old Fletcher-Munson curve came into play again, but none of us was fooled that new or old sounded better.
Wednesday, 31 August 2016
HIFI tripe
There is lots of noise in the HIFI press about the revival of LP records and some extraordinary claims which defy scientific evidence and logic.
For some reason HIFI journalists seem to be going over the top when making subjective assessments of the performance of turntables.
Many journalists make reference to timing issues. If the speed of the turntable varies too much you can often hear changes to the pitch of instruments as a result of wow and flutter. If your turntable's speed varies too much then instruments such as the clarinet and piano can be heard to vary their pitch.
The best turntables maintain their speed with sufficient accuracy to ensure that you cannot hear wow and flutter affecting the pitch of an instrument. A mis-placed spindle hole in the actual LP itself can also cause wow and flutter and a mechanical solution to this problem is difficult and expensive.
HIFI magazines of course measure wow and flutter and make comparisons - all well and good. In general most modern turntables keep wow and flutter under control and generally the more expensive tables do a better job than the cheaper ones. However, if you do not set up your turntable with some precision you can suffer from wow and flutter no matter how much money you have paid. Even using greasy fingers on a turntable belt could cause speed variations.
I don't have too much problem with HIFI journalists making comments on wow and flutter from subjective point of view as long as they are balanced by evidence and objectivity.
I do have a problem when HIFI journalists compare turntables with their ability to reproduce the sequence in which notes are played. The wave form of a piece of music is embedded within the grove of an LP record. The only way that the sequence of notes could be varied would be to cut into the vinyl and make splices just as you could do with a cassette tape. This is really not possible. It would be possible to alter the sequence of notes electronically but this defeats the the point of HIFI reproduction. HIFI journalists are talking tripe with reference to this.
Many HIFI journalists also seem to be looking at LP sound reproduction through rose coloured glasses probably just because it is an analogue system which they claim to have almost infinite resolution. There is no doubt that you could create an analogue recording system with near infinite resolution. But, not with systems using lathe cutters to produce LP masters and stamping machines to produce the final product. The whole system of LP production is riddled with errors. A turntable and cartridge using a diamond stylus cannot improve upon those errors. To achieve error free transcription we are talking about using non-frictional transcription devices which store the wave form on a storage device to be read by a non-frictional means. Such a system would would probably involve lasers. This type of analogue system would be very expensive and would hardly improve upon digital recording methods such as CD or "HiRes" digital files. Would we be able to hear the difference anyway? Once again HIFI journalists are talking tripe when they claim that LP has a greater potential for HIFI reproduction than well implemented digital sound recording and sound reproduction.
It really is time for HIFI journalists to become more objective and professional in their judgements.
For some reason HIFI journalists seem to be going over the top when making subjective assessments of the performance of turntables.
Many journalists make reference to timing issues. If the speed of the turntable varies too much you can often hear changes to the pitch of instruments as a result of wow and flutter. If your turntable's speed varies too much then instruments such as the clarinet and piano can be heard to vary their pitch.
The best turntables maintain their speed with sufficient accuracy to ensure that you cannot hear wow and flutter affecting the pitch of an instrument. A mis-placed spindle hole in the actual LP itself can also cause wow and flutter and a mechanical solution to this problem is difficult and expensive.
HIFI magazines of course measure wow and flutter and make comparisons - all well and good. In general most modern turntables keep wow and flutter under control and generally the more expensive tables do a better job than the cheaper ones. However, if you do not set up your turntable with some precision you can suffer from wow and flutter no matter how much money you have paid. Even using greasy fingers on a turntable belt could cause speed variations.
I don't have too much problem with HIFI journalists making comments on wow and flutter from subjective point of view as long as they are balanced by evidence and objectivity.
I do have a problem when HIFI journalists compare turntables with their ability to reproduce the sequence in which notes are played. The wave form of a piece of music is embedded within the grove of an LP record. The only way that the sequence of notes could be varied would be to cut into the vinyl and make splices just as you could do with a cassette tape. This is really not possible. It would be possible to alter the sequence of notes electronically but this defeats the the point of HIFI reproduction. HIFI journalists are talking tripe with reference to this.
Many HIFI journalists also seem to be looking at LP sound reproduction through rose coloured glasses probably just because it is an analogue system which they claim to have almost infinite resolution. There is no doubt that you could create an analogue recording system with near infinite resolution. But, not with systems using lathe cutters to produce LP masters and stamping machines to produce the final product. The whole system of LP production is riddled with errors. A turntable and cartridge using a diamond stylus cannot improve upon those errors. To achieve error free transcription we are talking about using non-frictional transcription devices which store the wave form on a storage device to be read by a non-frictional means. Such a system would would probably involve lasers. This type of analogue system would be very expensive and would hardly improve upon digital recording methods such as CD or "HiRes" digital files. Would we be able to hear the difference anyway? Once again HIFI journalists are talking tripe when they claim that LP has a greater potential for HIFI reproduction than well implemented digital sound recording and sound reproduction.
It really is time for HIFI journalists to become more objective and professional in their judgements.
Friday, 29 April 2016
Record Store Day
A couple a Saturdays ago I popped down to my local record shop to hear some music and browse through the racks of LPs which were loaded with mainly pop and rock music. There were some blues and jazz records available. I was not tempted to buy anything as I got the impression that the record labels were cashing in.
Yes, it is nice to hold a record cover in your hand and feel the weight of the vinyl and quite often the covert art is spectacular. However, it is the quality of the music that matters both artistically and technically. The music enthusiast has little control over the artistic content except by not buying a disliked artist.
However, from a technical viewpoint the music lover has a really broad choice. Most of the LPs will be available on CD or "on-line" sources. A well mastered CD will always sound better than its LP equivalent. The arguments about dynamic range hardly hold water. Most rock and pop music is recorded and mastered with very little dynamic range compared to orchestral works. Of course there are exceptions such as the Pink Floyd. The Beatles used compressed dynamic range to artistic effect.
You really are better off playing a CD if you you want to hear High Fidelity sound reproduction of any genre of music. The sound reproduction equipment needs to be good however. A good set up should not cost you an arm and a leg. A thousand pounds should be able to buy a good CD player, Amplifier and Speakers - modern technology works wonders.
CD s are not plagued by pops, clicks, hisses and rumble or wow and flutter. They reproduce the music as it was recorded on the master tape. I never listen to classical music or acoustic folk on an LP.
You may well ask why bother buying and listening to an LP. I do it for a bit of fun playing a Beatles record on a turntable brings me back to my teens. If I want to hear the Beatles in their full glory then I play the modern digitally remastered versions.
Many of the new converts to vinyl agree with me, as 48% of people who buy LPs don't play them. They just look at the cover whilst playing the digital version by you tube or digital downloads. Some people pin the LP to a wall and gaze at it whilst playing the music from digital sources. 7% of LP buyers do not have a a record player at all!
I appeal to all those who love music to actually play their LPs; a turntable is not that difficult to set up and you can buy a decent one for around two hundred and fifty quid. Some turntables have the necessary pre-amp built in. Many modern amplifiers also make provision for pre-amplification. There is nothing to be frightened of when you play an LP. You just have to be careful when dropping the needle and don't play your LPs at a party. There is a slight difference in sound to the CD or MP3 equivalent because the LP itself adds a little harmonic distortion which changes the quality of the sound. If I were to be pedantic then I would consider LPs not to be High Fidelity or " High Definition"- but it is probably best not to continue with this line of reasoning.
Audio cassettes are making a comeback; I have got three players but I only use the one in my older car. I cannot bring myself to use an MP3 player with an adapter. Other than in the car I see audio-cassettes as being a pain in the neck. I have digitised any recordings that I cannot source on CD. I have often bought audio cassettes that have survived only three or four replays. However I have got one cassette that is nearly thirty years old and it is indestructible - it is all very random. Some artists are releasing new material on this medium.
Amongst all the LPs on Record Store day I saw a young man fingering the one lonely cassette on display. He was probably debating with himself whether to buy it or not. The music was also available on LP. I was tempted to say to him not to bother but that would have been unfair on the record shop. There are no such limitations on this blog.
Will the new desire to buy LPs and audio cassettes be a long term phenomenon? The statistics point to an "analogue" revival that will be just a short term fashion. Only time will tell; but one thing is certain digital music sound is here to stay for the foreseeable future.
Yes, it is nice to hold a record cover in your hand and feel the weight of the vinyl and quite often the covert art is spectacular. However, it is the quality of the music that matters both artistically and technically. The music enthusiast has little control over the artistic content except by not buying a disliked artist.
However, from a technical viewpoint the music lover has a really broad choice. Most of the LPs will be available on CD or "on-line" sources. A well mastered CD will always sound better than its LP equivalent. The arguments about dynamic range hardly hold water. Most rock and pop music is recorded and mastered with very little dynamic range compared to orchestral works. Of course there are exceptions such as the Pink Floyd. The Beatles used compressed dynamic range to artistic effect.
You really are better off playing a CD if you you want to hear High Fidelity sound reproduction of any genre of music. The sound reproduction equipment needs to be good however. A good set up should not cost you an arm and a leg. A thousand pounds should be able to buy a good CD player, Amplifier and Speakers - modern technology works wonders.
CD s are not plagued by pops, clicks, hisses and rumble or wow and flutter. They reproduce the music as it was recorded on the master tape. I never listen to classical music or acoustic folk on an LP.
You may well ask why bother buying and listening to an LP. I do it for a bit of fun playing a Beatles record on a turntable brings me back to my teens. If I want to hear the Beatles in their full glory then I play the modern digitally remastered versions.
Many of the new converts to vinyl agree with me, as 48% of people who buy LPs don't play them. They just look at the cover whilst playing the digital version by you tube or digital downloads. Some people pin the LP to a wall and gaze at it whilst playing the music from digital sources. 7% of LP buyers do not have a a record player at all!
I appeal to all those who love music to actually play their LPs; a turntable is not that difficult to set up and you can buy a decent one for around two hundred and fifty quid. Some turntables have the necessary pre-amp built in. Many modern amplifiers also make provision for pre-amplification. There is nothing to be frightened of when you play an LP. You just have to be careful when dropping the needle and don't play your LPs at a party. There is a slight difference in sound to the CD or MP3 equivalent because the LP itself adds a little harmonic distortion which changes the quality of the sound. If I were to be pedantic then I would consider LPs not to be High Fidelity or " High Definition"- but it is probably best not to continue with this line of reasoning.
Audio cassettes are making a comeback; I have got three players but I only use the one in my older car. I cannot bring myself to use an MP3 player with an adapter. Other than in the car I see audio-cassettes as being a pain in the neck. I have digitised any recordings that I cannot source on CD. I have often bought audio cassettes that have survived only three or four replays. However I have got one cassette that is nearly thirty years old and it is indestructible - it is all very random. Some artists are releasing new material on this medium.
Amongst all the LPs on Record Store day I saw a young man fingering the one lonely cassette on display. He was probably debating with himself whether to buy it or not. The music was also available on LP. I was tempted to say to him not to bother but that would have been unfair on the record shop. There are no such limitations on this blog.
Will the new desire to buy LPs and audio cassettes be a long term phenomenon? The statistics point to an "analogue" revival that will be just a short term fashion. Only time will tell; but one thing is certain digital music sound is here to stay for the foreseeable future.
Wednesday, 6 April 2016
MQA new kid on the block
I shall not be rushing to audition Meridian's MQA sytem even though there is now a lot of interest in this new method of encoding digital music files.
https://www.meridian-audio.com/news-events/meridian-audio-launches-mqa-master-quality-authenticated/
We now have "temporal blurring of transients" to deal with in our calculations. MQA is based on some scientific research which suggests that human beings can detect time differences of around 5 micro seconds and use this time difference to locate exactly where sounds are coming from. A time difference of 5 micro seconds is a very short time for an electro-chemical nerve transmission system to deal with, so I am very sceptical of the neuroscience and I would need to see absolute proof of such a claim.
I am not sure that my ears are capable of handling the extra resolution that MQA claims to provide.
I cannot for the life of me recognise any difference between between a CD music file and a "HIRES" one. Neither can any of my friends or family. I have always wanted to believe that "HIRES" improves on CD but the placebo effect and confirmation bias have failed me. My £24 spent on the HIRES download of "Band On The Run" was a waste of money because when I converted the "HIRES" version to 16/44.1 to make a CD for the car I could hear no difference. The music itself sounds great.
I am not going to try and do a double blind comparison of the 256 kbps MP3 that I made of the same album for fear of failing. The "HIRES" version of the album does not sound better to my ears than the "LORES" versions.
I have got a 24/96 "HIRES" blu-ray version of Supertramp's "Breakfast in America" this came along with free a 320 kbps MP3. Once again I am reluctant to do a double blind ABX comparison for fear of failing. I have also got the vinyl LP version which has remained in very good condition with few clicks and pops and not much record hiss etc. The digital versions sound better to my ears, in a technical sense". The LP sounds slightly different but not so much different that I prefer the LP version to the digital one. This music sounds great too.
Before I buy an album digitised to MQA standards I shall need proof from a measurement point of view that this form of digital conversion is superior to CD. I will then need to satisfy myself that it sounds superior to my ears.
Many of us have heard "Time" on Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" and it sounds very realistic to me either in digital or analogue form. The sound of the mechanical alarm clock always gives me a shock and it sounds exactly like the clock I used to have on my bedside table. And what is more to the point, why should I pay thousands more for equipment and newly re-mastered recordings that can only sound very marginally better to my compromised ears? If , they sound better at all!
https://www.meridian-audio.com/news-events/meridian-audio-launches-mqa-master-quality-authenticated/
We now have "temporal blurring of transients" to deal with in our calculations. MQA is based on some scientific research which suggests that human beings can detect time differences of around 5 micro seconds and use this time difference to locate exactly where sounds are coming from. A time difference of 5 micro seconds is a very short time for an electro-chemical nerve transmission system to deal with, so I am very sceptical of the neuroscience and I would need to see absolute proof of such a claim.
I am not sure that my ears are capable of handling the extra resolution that MQA claims to provide.
I cannot for the life of me recognise any difference between between a CD music file and a "HIRES" one. Neither can any of my friends or family. I have always wanted to believe that "HIRES" improves on CD but the placebo effect and confirmation bias have failed me. My £24 spent on the HIRES download of "Band On The Run" was a waste of money because when I converted the "HIRES" version to 16/44.1 to make a CD for the car I could hear no difference. The music itself sounds great.
I am not going to try and do a double blind comparison of the 256 kbps MP3 that I made of the same album for fear of failing. The "HIRES" version of the album does not sound better to my ears than the "LORES" versions.
I have got a 24/96 "HIRES" blu-ray version of Supertramp's "Breakfast in America" this came along with free a 320 kbps MP3. Once again I am reluctant to do a double blind ABX comparison for fear of failing. I have also got the vinyl LP version which has remained in very good condition with few clicks and pops and not much record hiss etc. The digital versions sound better to my ears, in a technical sense". The LP sounds slightly different but not so much different that I prefer the LP version to the digital one. This music sounds great too.
Before I buy an album digitised to MQA standards I shall need proof from a measurement point of view that this form of digital conversion is superior to CD. I will then need to satisfy myself that it sounds superior to my ears.
Many of us have heard "Time" on Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" and it sounds very realistic to me either in digital or analogue form. The sound of the mechanical alarm clock always gives me a shock and it sounds exactly like the clock I used to have on my bedside table. And what is more to the point, why should I pay thousands more for equipment and newly re-mastered recordings that can only sound very marginally better to my compromised ears? If , they sound better at all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)