<div dir="ltr">So maybe audiophiles have moved past bit transparency. I guess a lot of them prefer character over accuracy so I guess that makes sense.<div><br></div><div>I know a many audio engineers are particular about gain structure. The attenuation introduced by loudness normalization can cost a bit or two of resolution. But this is only the case if you start with a high-resolution source or are using crappy reproduction equipment. I'm not sure how much appreciation there is that there's not any usable information in the LS 4 bits of a 24-bit audio signal.</div><div><br></div><div>Kevin</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Bob Katz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bobkatz@digido.com" target="_blank">bobkatz@digido.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>The best response to an audiophile concerned about bit
transparency is that a loudness normalization method is already
available in MQA to the best of my knowledge. Since they have
their faith in MQA then they should trust its volume control :-)</p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p><br>
</p>
<p>BK<br>
</p></font></span><div><div class="h5">
<br>
<div class="m_-8743829018995575454moz-cite-prefix">On 12/12/17 11:49 AM, Kevin Gross
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">Audiophiles can have anxiety about bit
transparency so could shun loudness normalization on those
grounds. But MQA is not bit transparent so that doesn't seem to
be a reasonable objection in this context. Is there some nice
story we can tell about a symbiotic relationship between high
resolution or MQA and loudness normalization?<br>
<br>
<div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">Kevin </div>
<div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>