Streaming vs traditional

@willemj

CD is good enough - especially if upsampled and gentle filters are used. However 24 96KHz is usually a bit better quality and the modern DACs are approaching 21 bit resolution on the analog out which suggests you can benefit from 24 bits.

The biggest benefit from higher sample rates is that DAC non-linearities are randomized. Most DACs are rather non-linear between the different levels on an R2R or between the multitude of sigma delta converters on modern chips. This non-linearity is due to slight differences (order of 0.005 %)in the steps in the DAC. If you pass high sample rate music through these DACs then the inaudible high frequencies will help randomize distortion from non-linearity.

Of course, a well designed DAC will not care about sample rate as it will sound the same at all rates with the same source file (at least over the audible range)

@willemj

I think you’re missing the big picture.

I am not saying MQA is better than a high resolution downloaded file. Let’s assume for our discussion that MQA and a high resolution downloaded audio files sounds the same. What about the end user cost of high resolution audio? Would you rather pay $15-35 for each high resolution album, $2 per track (if available, most sites require you to purchase entire album) or pay $20-$25 per month for unlimited high resolution streaming?

As I said, MQA is affording us the opportunity for high resolution audio (currently available as downloads only) streaming at a static monthly fee. Well in case of Tidal, it’s available at no additional cost!!!

As I said, I am not sure higher rsolutions, either lossless or lossy compacted as in MQA are audibly better than red book. I think the jury is still out, but we shall see if someone can come up with decisive test data.
I don't do downloads for the reasons mentioned. I buy disks or I stream. The latter is a wonderful opportunity to get access to an amazing proportion of the world's music. I would like these streams to be of high quality, but at the same time better than perfect is obviously not necessary, and wastes scarce energy resources / pollutes the environment / adds to climate change. The scientists in the famous Phlips physics lab (Natlab) decided that 16/44 was the perfect sweet spot, with a resolution that was neither too low, nor unnecessarily high. Never again was such an outstanding team brought together in audio engineering. But if they were right, it was admittedly at the very edge of perfection, that is clear. These days, we would probably prefer to err a bit more on the safer side, i.e. 24/48.

"The opportunities of man are limited only by his imagination" 

Peace out! 

willemj, Since you are a scientific guy, I’m sure you know that double blind tests that have not been published in a peer reviewed journal have zero scientific credibility. I am not a scientist, but I can assure you that that study would not survive peer review and would never be published in a peer reviewed journal.

I’m not opposed to blind testing in audio, in fact, I’m for it. It’s just not scientific evidence. It could be used to see who has the best ears or the most revealing system or who is being a little too hyperbolic in their reviews at a given point in time and in specific circumstances, but that’s about it. It can’t tell you which gear or music or format you will like in the long run.

I’m sure that Meridian has double blind tests that show that MQA sounds superior to cds. So who’s right?

I don’t know if MQA sounds better than cds. I have read comments from many people who have heard it and believe it does. I think that streaming is a great thing and right now you can get MQA thrown in for free, so anyone who is interested should check it out and decide for themselves. If you’re not sure, just wait a couple years and see whether they can convince enough people that it’s worthwhile that it survives in the marketplace. We don’t have to wave double blind studies at each other, time will tell.