You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RME User Forum → ADI-2 & 2/4 Pro series, ADI-2 DAC series → High resolution
Hello!
RMA has chosen not to implement MQA in its DA converters. I do not intend to start a new discussion on MQA, but I am wondering about one thing. Behind MQA is the assumption that high-resolution music files give a better sound than CD, ie 16/44. If we ignore the fact that individual recordings may sound better or worse regardless of format, is there any technical or other evidence that higher resolution than the CD format gives or can give better sound?
Best Regards
Even if you could measure it technically the question remains whether its audible / useable / useful for you.
Can you hear it in blind tests ?
Its a question that you can't answer in general terms, it depends on your room / equipment / hearing capabilities of your ear.
I thought more about the purely theoretical aspects. I imagine that higher resolution could theoretically be perceived as a sound improvement in two different ways. First, if it affects filter design, so that higher sampling makes it possible to design filters that do not provide any artifacts in the audible range. The second is that humans can actually perceive frequencies higher than 20 khz. The latter, however, is very doubtful, although there is some research that suggests that it may be so in special circumstances.
My very personal opinion on the subject, love or hate it ;-)
I no longer worry about such topics. All this theorising is a waste of time in my eyes. In most cases, unoptimised spaces and the limits of human hearing have a far greater influence on the perceivable sound quality than 44.1 kHz/16 bit.
Nor do we live in anechoic chambers, have no bat ears and no brain that works like a measuring device. Monitors are also not perfectly linear.
So what should I worry about imperceptible nuances of sound if I cannot perceive 20 kHz or if my room generates worse values by overlapping or cancelling frequencies.
Then different people have very different listening habits and tastes.
The important thing is that you are satisfied with your equipment and it would be ideal not to spend more money on equipment than is absolutely necessary.
When I hold my hand in boiling water it is also completely irrelevant to discuss what hurts more, 92 or 97°C, it simply hurts.
It is nice to be able to measure all sorts of things, but one should not lose sight of the relevance of certain aspects for everyday life.
Maybe you find the one or other more willed to discuss this further.
All that I want by my answer to encourage you, to simply enjoy your device and music and not to be too academic which potentially could be counter productive in terms of -> "never satisfied".
Premise: I'm a rationalist, don't "believe" in anything.
I'm running a professional recording studio since more than three decades, and have experience with digital audio from the start, when it all began.
I'm in the position to do the most valid A/B testing all the time as my daily job: hearing the analog original vs. the digital recording.
There is one thing about digital audio I could always hear, in blind and not so blind A/B testing:
The sample rate of 44.1 kHz is at the edge to compromise sound.
Switching to 48kHz makes an audible improvement.
Beyond 48kHz some DSP functions audibly benefit from higher samplerates, mainly EQ boosts in the treble range, and all kinds of dynamically nonlinear processings.
There are technical reasons for that, too complicated to explain here.
But - if you start with a 44.1kHz CD master, like 99.999% of all music is stored today - the necessary upsampling to make it a (faked) "High Res Master" changes the sound.
Sometimes to the worse, sometimes to the better, adding a bit of sparkle like an effects processor or a very good vinyl disc chain, but never back to what it was in the analog domain.
Hello!
RMA has chosen not to implement MQA in its DA converters. I do not intend to start a new discussion on MQA, but I am wondering about one thing. Behind MQA is the assumption that high-resolution music files give a better sound than CD, ie 16/44. If we ignore the fact that individual recordings may sound better or worse regardless of format, is there any technical or other evidence that higher resolution than the CD format gives or can give better sound?Best Regards
Those video and page helped me to figure this out (and to not use HD):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM&t
https://web.archive.org/web/20150602103 … young.html
Premise: I'm a rationalist, don't "believe" in anything.
I appreciate just that.
Thank you for your answer and for sharing your experiences with me.
I am also not looking to create an opinion for myself, but am interested in what is real knowledge or qualified experience in the field. I have thought that, ok, we humans may not be able to hear over 20 khz, but the CD format means that we have to design very steep filters.
My very personal opinion on the subject, love or hate it ;-)
It is nice to be able to measure all sorts of things, but one should not lose sight of the relevance of certain aspects for everyday life.
Maybe you find the one or other more willed to discuss this further.All that I want by my answer to encourage you, to simply enjoy your device and music and not to be too academic which potentially could be counter productive in terms of -> "never satisfied".
I largely share your opinion and can sympathize with it. But it is not that this "worries" me or that it is something I ponder that makes me ask the question. I'm just generally curious. But there is a slightly more serious underlying issue, and that is the marketing behind MQA and the development of the music and HiFi industry in general. More and more manufacturers of DA converters are now implementing MQA decoding, and promising sound improvements. But MQA is just about so-called high definition sound. If now there is no use with MQA, but marketing succeeds, then we will all eventually be forced to pay for this technology, and manufacturers like RME will be forced to implement MQA in their products, no matter what, because that's what the market demands. This is the background to my question. I am asking myself, if there is any benefit at all for me as a music listener behind this technology. As you probably understand, I'm skeptical of MQA, precisely because I'm skeptical of the underlying assumptions.
Be careful, my fear is, that only the manufacturers will benefit from MQA, because then these MQA certified devices will simply be more expensive.
But then what will you pay for? My impression from what I have read about it:
1. that somewhere a light is shining to indicate to the customer, that this file is original / unmodified. Well .. get a good ripper as EAC (Exact Audio Copy), perform bit test with ADI-2 Pro/DAC, nothing more is needed to get the signal chain bit perfect end-to-end.
2. to have a container format with further information about A/D converter that have been used in production ?
Ah .. so I shall trust an automatism to modify the music "according to some standards" (defined by whom ? Can I trust them ?) where some people claim to know, how this should have sounded ...
Sorry, no, I want High Fidelity .. the sound that is on the original medium.
This is what mastering engineer and artist aligned on, how they want to present the music to the public.
And even if they used a "bad" converter .. AND ? Where is the problem .. I want my music material "authentic" not modified.
I think the industry simply wants to make money with it. Define and sell a pseudo premium standard that nobody really needs. Of course there will be again many people who are proud of what they got with MQA.
... I have thought that, ok, we humans may not be able to hear over 20 khz, but the CD format means that we have to design very steep filters.
The filters seem to be the single most factor where AD-DA sound changes happen.
Their effect reaches down to the audible range, whereever that starts.
With ADI-2 you can experiment with different ones, and for me they do make a difference.
It's not night and day, but subtle, and I found a clear preference.
Be careful, my fear is, that only the manufacturers will benefit from MQA, because then these MQA certified devices will simply be more expensive.
But then what will you pay for? My impression from what I have read about it:
1. that somewhere a light is shining to indicate to the customer, that this file is original / unmodified. Well .. get a good ripper as Exact audio copy, perform bit test with ADI-2 Pro, nothing more is needed to get it bit perfect end-to-end.
2. to have a container format with further information about A/D converter that have been used in production ?
Ah .. so I shall trust an automatism to modify the music "according to some standards" (defined by whom ? Can I trust them ?) where some people claim to know, how this should have sounded ...
Sorry, no, I want High Fidelity .. the sound that is on the original medium.
This is what mastering and artist aligned on, how they want to present the music to the public.And even if they used a "bad" converter .. AND ? Where is the problem .. I want my music material "authentic" not modified.
I think the industry simply wants to make money with it. Define and sell a pseudo premium standard that nobody really needs. Of course there will be again many people who are proud of what they got with MQA.
Thanks Ramses!
Spot On!!
Curt
Additionally, I am very glad that RME designs / implements features that make sense and leave out pseudo features that nobody really needs, to keep the prices on a reasonable and affordable level.
Ich auch!!!
Thanks Ramses! You have done a Superb Job of speaking my thoughts on this, often senseless matter.
We simply cannot "upsample" our way to reality. I (my Son actually) have/has Tech proof that much of what of what is masqueraded as "Hi-Res" is nothing more than an upsampled copy of some record.
He was able to to duplicate precisely a "192 khz" Recording by merely upsampling the Redbook CD. No content whatsoever beyond 12khz. And? I paid for what?
Reminds me of those who enjoy upsampling their Redbook collection to DSD. "For the added resolution"
False!
Whatever wasn't in the Source material will certainly not be in the IMMENSELY large copy of same.
There IS Hi Res...but Caveat Emptor!
Curt
Completely agree here 100%. Hi-Res is a commercial marketing campaign directed to music listeners(consumers).
There may be merits for different technical bit rates and sample rates for “recording” music in the studio.
Ich auch!!!
Thanks Ramses! You have done a Superb Job of speaking my thoughts on this, often senseless matter.
We simply cannot "upsample" our way to reality. I (my Son actually) have/has Tech proof that much of what of what is masqueraded as "Hi-Res" is nothing more than an upsampled copy of some record.
He was able to to duplicate precisely a "192 khz" Recording by merely upsampling the Redbook CD. No content whatsoever beyond 12khz. And? I paid for what?
Reminds me of those who enjoy upsampling their Redbook collection to DSD. "For the added resolution"
False!
Whatever wasn't in the Source material will certainly not be in the IMMENSELY large copy of same.
There IS Hi Res...but Caveat Emptor!
Curt
Thanks Juhasz.
As I said, there IS Hi-Res material out there! Quite often it is found in 44/16, and is the result of painstaking effort on the Recording/ Production end of the matter. Never on some Post Production BS. Really...if the original recording was Crap...no amount of Electronic Tomfoolery will Un-Crap it! (It sucked in 1972.. and it still does in 2020...except now the HI RES Light is On!!!)
Try as one might, You cannot "Unscramble" an Egg!
I applaud RME (and others) for avoiding/dismissing this phony concept. Every Cent of my RME purchase price was spent on Advanced Tech...not Baloney.
"First Unfold...Second Unfold"...ad infinitum.
There's only ONE "Unfold" the industry is truly interested in. That would be the Consumer unfolding Cash from his pocket. Do I make sense? 
Best!
Curt
RME User Forum → ADI-2 & 2/4 Pro series, ADI-2 DAC series → High resolution
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.