HD FILES which is best hi Bit Rates, or Hi Word lengths?

shadorne > It makes no sense to restrict yourself to 16 bit if a 24 bit version is available.

Blindjim > @shadorne > for this question then, merely look at the apparent Word lengths as indications of better sound quality and resolution? Not necessarily the bit rates?

BTW… what’s happening to those other three words from 24 to 21, if you don’t mind mentioning it?



Willemj > > ake sure that the tracks are really HD.

Blindjim > @Willemj what methodology do you use to ensure tracks you’re considering buying are in fact High Definition?

Willemj > don't waste money/disc space on HD versions of old analogue recordings.

Blindjim > this one I sort of get. Old master tapes by their nature seem either hit or miss as to their orig integrity, so deriving greater fidelity off of them simply by now converting to higher rates doesn’t seem to add up.

= = ==

In spite of that last sentence, I mentioned to a friend the other day that folks are re-issuing supposed HD digital files taken from the orig Master Tapes and as well providing reputedly better quality audio onto 15 ips Reel to reel tapes too and both formats are a lot more expensive.

The question he posed then was “how do you get better sound quality . from a decades old orig master tape than what it already possesses?

The debate then hinged on if it was analog to begin with, how did it improve migrating into digital, than back into analog as with LPs and reel to reel tapes?

Trying to answer, I said, “digital trickery.’

It was the best I could come up with then, I’d like a better more qualified answer if possible from folks around here.

As Willemj said, ensure its HD at the oneset. OK. How?

Some of the prices I’ve read about on these forums for RTR dupes of master’s can bring hundreds of bucks. Seems to me it’s a pretty easy place for someone to lose a fair chunk of money, as there seems no possible way to validate the product beforehand.

Ditto, HD retail files quality from archived masters of years gone by.

http://archimago.blogspot.nl/2015/12/musings-wisdom-of-simplicity-re-hi-res.html
http://archimago.blogspot.nl/2015/02/measurements-bob-dylans-shadows-in.html
I will try to find more, but it is bedtime here.

None of this matters anymore (bit/word lengths, stream rates)  because of MQA! Btw, practically all the major digital hardware companys have jumped on board with MQA, so....not sure why the post? If I was a pure digital person I would learn all about it.

Matt M

willemj
http://archimago.blogspot.nl/2015/12/musings-wisdom-of-simplicity-re-hi-res.html


http://archimago.blogspot.nl/2015/02/measurements-bob-dylans-shadows-in.html

@willemj > thank you for your efforts.
OK. I had heard HD Tracks had published some questionable or blatant false HD cuts/albums some time back. I thought this had been resolved.

Reading thru both links each one points to an incredible degree of falsification, purposely or by lack of any QA, or just careless attitudes in the majority of HD download sellers. Not all but most.

I was er, am appalled. .

With odds on against, and not having great refuges of disposable income for media, it seems I’ll have to keep concentrating on the DIY approach, ripping to whatever outcomes the ripping software allows.
Bummer.


mattmiller > None of this matters anymore (bit/word lengths, stream rates) because of MQA! Btw, practically all the major digital hardware companys have jumped on board with MQA, so....not sure why the post?

@mattmiller
Thanks for the input. It appears short sighted though. ‘many’ does not equal ALL.

mattmiller > ... I would learn all I could about digital ....


@mattmiller
how better to learn than to ask questions?

to hang one's hat on MQA currently, one could find their hat on the floor given its infancy.


For more insights on MQA and its obstacles:
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/01/mqa-promises-something-for-everyone/

MQA is merely a fledgling enterprise. Although if one’s musical preffs are limited in scope, and is OK with just listening to whatever $20 a month buys, or whatever Tidal wishes to provide, I suppose it’s the real deal for that individual. Although the costs don’t end with Tidal alone, of course.

However, Master Quality Authentication is a recent architecture, and by its nature poses several problems.
1 Licensing
2 recording lables consent
3 proliferation
4. limited access to content
5 proprietary hardware or software
6 resources
If every recording label, every chip maker, and every streaming service got on board today with MQA, there would still be a severely limited assortment of available content, especially classic pop, rock RB, Country, Folk, etc., that could be acquired for discretionary use.

Immediately, its all a streaming affair. Not a cut by cut, album by album download use it/them as you choose, when you wish it arrangement.

The first group of titles will obviously be the present and new releases which MAY or may not garner MQA fingerprinting, see labeling, licenseing etc., above..

Until we rush right out and acquire the MQA (read it just like it was//is THX) approved hardware or remain handcuffed to the personal comfuser to receive available content via the meager amount of titles Tidal offers, it seems for a time, likely a very long time if not forever with most content, we’ll still be dealing with word lengths and bit rates, wether we go the DIY route or buy them ready rolled. With the latter appearing more and more, a perilous venture.

MQA has a very long way to go and has not yet become anything but a niche process dependant upon several variables, not the least of which is wide spread public, non audiophile acceptance.

Apple and Bose could do a lot of good for MQA acceptance.

Without all or nearly all streaming services, mobile devices, music content resources, and all or nearly all audio DA converters from entry level up, it may never be what it should or possibly could.

So, it is easy to understand the question as to which aspect of any HD file matters most is definitely worthwhile.

Now it begs one more….
How do we authenticate files or QA HD files prior to their purchase, without MQ Authentication?

Comparative or testing software comes to mind, but this is an ‘after’ the fact method and therefore would have quite varied results for getting one’s money returned if the product is proven false.

@blindjim

"BTW… what’s happening to those other three words from 24 to 21, if you don’t mind mentioning it?"


-----> The 21 bit resolution in the analog is an analogy. It means that the noise floor on the analog circuits sits at the equivalent level of the signal level of the 22nd LSB or approx -160 dB. I think we can hear roughly 15 dB below the noise floor for musical tones especially in the mid range so even some stuff below the noise floor might be audible. The point is that 24 bits is well worth it but any higher than that (32 or 64) really only confer advantages to complex signal processing (heavy digital filtering or complex deconvolution like in room mode DSP - often described as the number of taps or coefficients in the filter - a large number being more complex and computationally intensive but more accurate such as having less pass band ripple) 

FWIW I have played around with room DSP and deconvolution filtering and I think it can improve things below 100Hz. However, even fairly complex 32 bit deconvolution like Audyssey XT32 creates audible artifacts in the mid range which to my ears are detrimental and degrading to two channel music - although for HT 7.1 and higher the benefits may outweigh the disadvantages (as speaker consistency and integration becomes more important as you increase the number channels)