Jump to content

rmpfyf

Members
  • Content count

    1,303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About rmpfyf

  • Rank
    1000+ Post Club

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Online
  • Country
    Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

2,883 profile views
  1. rmpfyf

    Archimago blog on MQA (guess what, he's not a fan )

    I understand that you posted the VHQ option among your filter list though we're talking the same thing - your image focus on the whole filter implementation, I think the data immediately around the impulse is most important. I think the min phase option is extreme (it's 180 deg out at 14k) - it's possible to configure something intermediate. I didn't. It's possible to shorten the time domain response, I didn't. Could have done it at 96k to make it worse still though I don't think it's relevant. Yes, it's an extreme example. It's certainly possible to do better. Of course MQA has a different implementation. The time domain responses are half the length for starters. You would not ship a product with filters as I've implemented. Most products shipping min phase or asymmetric filters do better than what I'd put together. I can breakout MATLAB to put together a filter that's truly obtuse but, again, within a sphere of what's listenable and likely to be implemented in shipping hardware... that'd be irrelevant. Half the giveaway that MQA cares much about time domain effects is, obviously, the sample output rates employed. I think you're overcomplicating it somewhat. MQA employs a variety of filter characteristics and can tend towards min phase designs as it suits on content - maybe. It'd be great to understand how the array of filters available are employed - there's certainly a bunch of filters it can play with. Linear, symmetric sinc filters were driven in part by sampling filters and time domain effects, partly by digital knowledge of the day and, frankly, to a good degree by what was understood to be 'good' - taking a vinyl rig to its nth degree effectively gives linear filter characteristics. Using signal processing techniques to shape this in an active manner is relatively (keyword relatively) new, particularly in a complete end-to-end analogue-to-analogue workflow. There are a few things here that are not 'one sole thing' but 'many things' that change SQ markedly as an experience.
  2. rmpfyf

    Archimago blog on MQA (guess what, he's not a fan )

    My wife and quite a few others visiting also like the min phase the best. Just how much (to how little) changes on music type though, I imagine if one was listening to orchestral or electronica that you'd quite value having peak amplitudes in place. Maybe the aforementioned argument on ramming the resample freq as high as you can to get the time domain responses as short as possible might hold here if looking for a best all-round solution. It's interesting that both comments so far, whilst subjectively different on preference, do tell a story that's consistent with how the filters are employed. Both your ears are consistent with the science
  3. rmpfyf

    Archimago blog on MQA (guess what, he's not a fan )

    VHQ filters (see below on pic ripped from Archimago) - smaller peak amplitude on the min phase, different Q. The filter may 'act' as long in time but not with the same amplitude response magnitude. Consistent with comments from @eltech and @legend It is of course possible to tweak these and get a hybrid. There might be a scenario in the middle that is more liked by more than either. Want to try it?
  4. rmpfyf

    Tips & Tricks to boost SQ

    Yes, well... used to say the same of Ubuntu though the latest RC has me disappointed enough to admit Windows is a mature OS for adults born of the real world... we digress Go audiophile, go Linux
  5. rmpfyf

    Archimago blog on MQA (guess what, he's not a fan )

    Not quite in the filter as I applied it - I deliberately took it to extremes. It is of course possible to design a filter as you suggest. Interestingly I gave @eltech no forewarning of what the filters were - just that one was 'minimum phase' and one was 'linear phase'. These comments are however consistent with how the filters were employed - there was less peak amplitude and a longer ring. If this had to be extended as a test I'd suggest running the sample frequency as hard as a given DAC can sustain to get the time domain responses as sharp as possible, then to play with filter design to see if a more pleasing outcome can be obtained. Some DACs in practice work just as such and employ DSPs to do the heavy lifting on resampling per se. I don't mean 192-220kHz as is common for xover or (more increasingly) room correction DSP work, we're talking 384kHz.
  6. rmpfyf

    Archimago blog on MQA (guess what, he's not a fan )

    Not exactly. The example provided has a longer net duration. Giveaway being the difference in peak amplitude. Small differences at high frequencies though that's the game. That's a valid point. Though to get it smaller, up the sample freq and we're there... hence MQA and hires. I take @eltech's point of 'that's not the tool the mastering engineer completed their work with, and accordingly it's not the final work they signed off on - so it can only be different'. Similarly, there's no real quality advantage in MQA unless it's an end-to-end process, and even then if it can be proven that ultra-short filters with bugger-all (or variable) pre-ringing make a difference. You need the high sample freq as the post-ring otherwise is very audible. Redbook uses sinc for a reason. Question is whether that difference is pleasing or not.
  7. rmpfyf

    Archimago blog on MQA (guess what, he's not a fan )

    The filters I'd sent @eltech didn't have identical impulse response peaks; it's therefore impossible that their time domain response is identical.
  8. rmpfyf

    Archimago blog on MQA (guess what, he's not a fan )

    The redistribution of spectral energy in time around for an impulse response in the filters chosen is, of course, equal in magnitude though the Q of either is very different. More peak amplitude on the linear, and the ring on the min phase is more than 2x the pre/post on the linear. So a few things to listen for, then.
  9. rmpfyf

    Tips & Tricks to boost SQ

    True, though you've paid for a nice OS at that point and if you didn't want MacOS a tweaked NUC does just as well, has more grunt, and costs less. And a second-hand desktop-class low-power build will slay both
  10. rmpfyf

    Archimago blog on MQA (guess what, he's not a fan )

    The test track or the filter tool? PM me and we'll sort it out.
  11. rmpfyf

    F1 -- 2018

    Awesome... (though there's a part of me that wishes Seb would rack off and drive a Merc, and that it's the Dan and Kimi show in 2019).
  12. rmpfyf

    Archimago blog on MQA (guess what, he's not a fan )

    The piece was a live female vocal and piano, originally 44/16. Upsampled then to 192kHz using SoX's min and linear phase VHQ filters. Deliberately chosen as extremes.
  13. rmpfyf

    electric cars

    Try understanding it is as "in Europe, Germany won" after Tesla pushed a long time their own way. Will be interesting to see what happens in other markets.
  14. rmpfyf

    electric cars

    You misread a prerequisite for success in Europe as innovation. Specifically someone else's innovation.
  15. rmpfyf

    Archimago blog on MQA (guess what, he's not a fan )

    2nd that... definitely audible!
×