Showing 1 of 74 conversations about:
shorty15
7
Apr 26, 2016
bookmark_border
Well I really want to pick this up but I may have to back out. MQA is right around the corner and hopefully Tidal will make good on their promise to release it. Unfortunately, to really harness the full potential of MQA, you need a certified DAC that can decode the files. This can be done with a firmware upgrade for existing DAC's but it is on the DAC maker to update the firmware. I've contacted Teac to see if they plan on updating the firmware to support MQA decoding but if not, I'll have to wait for a DAC that does support the format.
Apr 26, 2016
TheHun
100
Apr 27, 2016
bookmark_border
MQA is the latest in the long line of audiophiliac nonsense.
Apr 27, 2016
shorty15
7
Apr 27, 2016
bookmark_border
I would normally agree with you but MQA really seems like it has what it takes to be the next big thing, unlike DSD. Even DACs without MQA encoding can play back MQA files at higher than CD quality. I've had a chance to demo it and it really is pretty unbelievable that you can get sound quality this good from a streaming service. Believe the hype. Of course it all depends on whether or not Tidal is able to get it up an running.
Apr 27, 2016
TheHun
100
Apr 27, 2016
bookmark_border
I'm not into streaming at all, and I'm well aware of Meridian's claim on the technology, however this will only matter if it was used at the original recording, and labels aren't hurting themselves to get the technology. If it's only used as a re encode, then it's just another more efficient codec to deliver the same exact quality that was on the recording to begin with, despite what Bob Stuart or the audiophoole press claims. No I don't think it's gonna be big other than maybe for streaming for obvious reasons.
Apr 27, 2016
ElectronicVices
2540
Apr 28, 2016
bookmark_border
The master will almost always exceed the quality of the files provided to us, regardless of the codec used. Lossless high-res codecs and compression algorithms are an effort to resemble the master as closely as possible. Anyone remember DVD-Audio?... yeah Meridian compression was at the heart of that one too. None of these are designed to "improve" the original recording, they just try to minimize the amount of fugging they do to it and reduce bandwidth/storage requirements.
Apr 28, 2016
TheHun
100
Apr 28, 2016
bookmark_border
"The master will almost always exceed the quality of the files provided to us, regardless of the codec used. Lossless high-res codecs and compression algorithms are an effort to resemble the master as closely as possible."""
If we are not getting what's on the master than it's deliberate choice by the labels. There is absolutely no technical reason not to get the same exact copy bit by bit of the master. Analog is even easier, as it doesn't even reach CD resolution. Most of the problem is mastering itself, that is were dumbing down happens and it is by choice, to re-sell existing albums.
"""" Anyone remember DVD-Audio?... yeah Meridian compression was at the heart of that one too. None of these are designed to "improve" the original recording, they just try to minimize the amount of fugging they do to it and reduce bandwidth/storage requirements.""""
I agree with that, but some in the press don't seem to get that, when it comes to MQA.
Apr 28, 2016
JamesPTao
0
Jan 3, 2020
bookmark_border
First reel to reel has always exceeded the quality of cd. Second it is part of the process that an album is recorded in higher quality before mixed and mastered, the process itself limits the end product. So yes there is a technical reason. As for quality with 24 bit pcm and dsd (dsd was designed as a format to archive reel to reel masters as before its creation no digital format could do it justice, along with replicating analog the best) now mainstream and available in full resolution to the public without requiring a $2000+ player to hear the benefit we are very blessed. DSD need to be native and not pcm conversion to appreciate the difference but still both are amazing. As always though it depends on the orginal source. the early 2000's and having bands produce albums in mp3 for fans was pathetic. Good in good out. Besides even those spending large amounts of money for the average person will still not reap all the benfits of the sound as most forget to apply acoustic science (speaking of the speaker fans here) and design and treat a room to negate audio distortions caused by the listening environment which are unique to every room.
Jan 3, 2020
TheHun
100
Jan 5, 2020
bookmark_border
"""First reel to reel has always exceeded the quality of cd"""" False! The best tapes equal to about 15bits of resolution just shy of CD's 16bits. Now if you wanna claim that CD's deliberately or just out incompetence were encoded by substandard content or the fact that AD technology were lacking at the early stages, than I agree with that, but that's not the medium's fault. """Second it is part of the process that an album is recorded in higher quality before mixed and mastered, the process itself limits the end product. So yes there is a technical reason.""" Also false, especially the last decade or so. Labels can release the exact same files that was used for the master, they just don't want to so they can milk it for years to come for a re-issue. In fact MQA claims that is exactly what you get, though in a lossy format. """"As for quality with 24 bit pcm and dsd (dsd was designed as a format to archive reel to reel masters as before its creation no digital format could do it justice, along with replicating analog the best""""" Yes I'm aware of Sony's fable and how it rather turned their single bit step child into their new cash cow wanna be SACD instead of archiving , yet they failed. The new multi bit DSD is far superior.... """" now mainstream and available in full resolution to the public without requiring a $2000+ player to hear the benefit we are very blessed."""" You just admitted to my second point ;)
Jan 5, 2020
View Full Discussion