Its rare digital processing introduces a new piece of signal. Digital artifacts cause abbirations in the music, is what you typically hear. Now if you hear a straight up *POP* thats an artifact, and does happen sometimes when streamers decided to fart or whatever they are doing. So it would be more accurate to say that you, 'don't hear the affects of digital artifacts' or 'don't hear abberations that indicate digital artifacts."
As an example, we know RF heightens details, but we don't refer to it as an artifact not only because its continous but because we hear the effects of it, not the RF itself. The techies make that mistake more than almost anyone else, believing if RF gets in an amp you'll hear it at the speaker and can't comprehend that they're hearing the music that is changed by the RF they can't hear.
This may seem trivial but it goes a long way in being able learn a lot more about audio reproduction.
As an example, we know RF heightens details, but we don't refer to it as an artifact not only because its continous but because we hear the effects of it, not the RF itself. The techies make that mistake more than almost anyone else, believing if RF gets in an amp you'll hear it at the speaker and can't comprehend that they're hearing the music that is changed by the RF they can't hear.
This may seem trivial but it goes a long way in being able learn a lot more about audio reproduction.
I have no idea what they're talking about, honestly. But I'm extremely avid on using the word "artifact" correctly because it's out of damn control in the general audiophile populous to the point where it's almost impossible to talk to them on certain subjects... complicated if you're a manufacturer having to not only translate everything you say into normie language, but then having to adopt grossly misused terminology to redefine your normie statements....
The '60%' is not a group. If you are a well-trained listener, you have 60% chance to hear it. How many people do you think are a 'well-trained listener'? 1% of population?
So one out of every 100 listeners has a slightly better than 50-50 chance to hear a difference.
The only way to make money from such an idea is with a massive brainwash campaign. Which is exactly what we see.
And remember also that all we have to know whether you did hear it, is just your word. I am sure you are sincere, but as a test report it is worth nothing.
Jan
Late at night I can hear a quiet hum if in the sitting room. I traced this to the RS 'encapsulated power supply' I am using for my temporary line stage. As I paid £5 for the module I can forgive it but I was interested in knowing the level. Sadly I then discovered that I have not invested anywhere near enough money in my SPL meter to measure that low. I'll have to roll out the UMIK-1 at some point. Luckily I have Jan's silentswitcher lined up
But, optimal dither is signal depending, so it´s usually different for clean sine waves and music.
Of course i can´t say whether Mark4 really percept something, but the "sine wave experiment" isn´t sufficient to rule it out.
Do you have a reference for that? I've read the seminal papers from the IEEE and JAES and have not seen that mentioned. Or maybe you can suggest a test vehicle where the result will not not be additive noise and no artifacts. The standard multitone signal? Unfortunately I have no idea where to get an actual recording of music that is not already self dithered by mic and mixer noise.
Results that depend on flawed A/D's or math short cuts also are not useful.
EDIT - I just realized we need to clarify what we are talking about, I was talking about the dither process in isolation. Dither applied as part of a SRC for instance, does not isolate one factor and is not really a valid experiment.
Last edited:
John I'm sure if you were there watching that Star Trek movie with me you would have heard the Klingons coming from behind too.
Well Scott, somehow you and I hear differently. I was very happy that I found a demo that was 'clean' enough to hear a real difference. Last year, I tried to hear for a difference at a Meridian exhibit, and found it difficult if not impossible to hear anything, because the demo was so compromised. Now does this change anything? Do I have MQA, yet? No, but I learned something that I have found separately in my practical experience: Time rules, not frequency, and extended bandwidth gives us a chance to have better time accuracy. I found this out with 30ips recording, and hi res digital already. This is one step beyond 88KHz-24bit, that is already pretty good.
Would not a "standard" PCM 192kHz/24 bit be much more accurate in time domain for real audio waves than that MQA manipulation? From the description we can see that they do not make it accurate, but attractive. I understand that the result may be attractive, especially in a short listening session, where is not much opportunity for critical listening.
Now what is the state of hi end audio? It is not universal, but it is alive and well. Many people I know have reverted to used vacuum tube equipment in order to avoid the compromises of IC and Class B sound quality. Attendance at hi fi shows around the world show as much enthusiasm as ever for a certain segment of humanity, usually a fairly well off bunch. Many are engineers and captains of industry. Other people usually go for convenience rather than highest quality.
No PMA, read the technical literature. MQA somehow removes excessive phase and time shifts due to the steep filters usually required in digital processing. However, while this effect would probably be strongest with CD, it also improves hi def recordings as proved in the demo. TIME (accuracy) is the difference, not frequency extension, alone.
I did read their literature, and there is no evidence of improved time response. Frequency extension is enough in case that it is extended above the highest frequency present in the signal. Based on this condition of frequency response above highest signal frequency, the time response for such signal is accurate as well.
Their technical description uses marketing reasoning rather than scientific reasoning. Which is almost always the case in (hi end) audio.
Last but not least, if "hi end" audio are tubes and vinyl, then hi end and accurate sound reproduction are 2 totally different things. Which is fine, but should be said in open terms.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.