Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
Fayne
2575
Jul 25, 2019
bookmark_border
Ignoring all of the snake oil and DRM comments (yes, I know they're valid, I just don't care), a major reason MD wouldn't do a MQA DAC is licensing. When you use MQA, it ain't free. There are also likely a whole bunch of requirements set by Meridian, and I'm sure those aren't cheap, especially when you consider the volume of product sold. That said, I'd happily pay the extra price for a cheap balanced DAC with both MQA decode and render. I don't mind MQA, especially seeing most all of the MQA tracks are new masters and sound cleaner.
Jul 25, 2019
JJayJJ
472
Aug 2, 2019
bookmark_border
Fayne"(yes, I know they're valid, I just don't care)," "That said, I'd happily pay the extra price for a cheap balanced DAC with both MQA decode and render." So you're openly and perhaps adamantly proud of professing you would still pursue a product you that you know is built upon a false premise, and promise? This isn't actually a logically valid answer for the majority of people who also agree with your first statements.. The last sentence where you attempt to salvage some credibility: " I don't mind MQA, especially seeing most all of the MQA tracks are new masters and sound cleaner."
Aug 2, 2019
Fayne
2575
Aug 2, 2019
bookmark_border
JJayJJLawl. You expect logic in a den of audiophiles? I want MQA even though I don't agree with DRM lock in. I don't give a crap about pissants like you who are going to harp on about how it should go away. Just save your breath there. I'm not trying for credibility, just want a farking balanced MQA DAC with full decode and render that doesn't cost 1k. If you're having problems grokking them words... here are two just for you. Piss off.
Aug 2, 2019
JJayJJ
472
Aug 2, 2019
bookmark_border
FayneDo you understand the implication you’re making? You literally call anyone who considers themselves an audiophile almost brainless. You then openly confirm you don’t actually think (at least not logically with respect to your desires). The staggering portion is you know and understand the arguments of why MQA is nonsense - which you don’t deny. And then you clearly disregard that aspect and STILL pointlessly want it? See there is one thing you must be commended for. Every single other person I’ve come across in support of things like MQA and such, are true lunatics or mostly liars. If you tell them about the DRM scheme that it is - they will deny it, with ears plugged while repeating the same delusion to themselves denying evidence. You’re the first person I’ve seen to actually not be a liar and not deluding themselves with a lie, but I can’t understand what is still driving you to care st all about this MQA nonsense? One thing you’re classically in-line with as other “audiophiles” are with respect to MQA and other such voodoo products, is the instant someone inquired or questions you for the illogical stance you’re taking - you instantly raise a serious firewall. We’re on a public forum here.. why would you tell me to piss off indtantly? I don’t know you, I never aimed to vulgarly offend you, I don’t get anything from conversing with you, I have nothing to sell you. Heck I’m actually telling you to disregard something that will eat your money for no reason. Why would you you instantly turn around and reply to me like I’m some sort of foreign pathogen or something?
Aug 2, 2019
Fayne
2575
Aug 2, 2019
bookmark_border
JJayJJI'm not calling all audiophiles idiots, I just haven't seen very much logic from a lot of them. Objectivists have a tendency to lean towards thinking stats and synthetic tests are king, ignoring the awesomeness of some of the secondary and tertiary harmonic distortions and crap like that. Subjectivists have a tendency towards thinking their whizbang cables and knobs make the music sound better, ignoring basic maths. Why do I want it? Because when you have the full decode and render, it sounds generally as good as what I get from my local FLAC library without the extra effort of transcode and modification (filters PCM->DSD, etc). Even with just the first unfold (decode) it has that benefit. But I mostly want MQA because mastering it requires having clean copies of the master tracks. So for the older music it generally means a full remastering. Plus if I get at least one significant bit of resolution more than I get from 16-44,1 CDDA I'm happy. My use case for MQA is 100% streaming only. Which is why I want a cheap balanced DAC with decode and render. I'm not terribly keen on paying the Mytek or TEAC tax for something that may go the way of the dodo. As for my piss off response, well, you open up attacking statements I've made... expect less than friendly to be default reaction. ;)
(Edited)
Aug 2, 2019
JJayJJ
472
Aug 2, 2019
bookmark_border
FayneOkay so we’ve established neither of us fall into each binary category of subjectivist or objectivist. You see the lunacy of cable worshippers as well as the lunacy of people looking at pure stars and no actual listening. Thats fine. I still can’t get over a few things. Why is FLAC a problem if you have bit-perfect system? My DAC has 20 bits of resolution, though capable of processing 32-bit bit-perfect flies in the chain. What is the problem with FLAC you think you’re overcoming, and what is the audibility concern you think you’re rectifying in the decode process you think will make a difference? Also the supposed requirement of “clean masters” is not going to actually happen, MQA is billing itself as a tech and also now trying to bill itself as some shady dealer that somehow is privy to all these wonderful untouched original recordings. Lets day they achieve such a thing in theory for arguments sake.. how will they ever make any headway in any serious capacity to having implementation within the mainstream music industry? It can’t happen from a reality perspective simply put. And that’s the crux of the issue. I suppose it’s okay if you have a specific collection of entities hat come together to niche an existence for MQA for a few record/label houses for specific genres they may have some market share for. But when you realize MQA requires an idiotic chain of devices if you want the full she-bang for virtually no actual benefit over FLAC.. I simply cannot rationalize why anyone would want this. But more than anything why would anyone actually believe ANY of their claims when they won’t have theirs party audits to their whole company and statements about what they and their technology is doing. Especially since they can’t publicly prove anything they’re actually saying. But also, why openly support untested nonsense like this on top of knowing the actual DRM scheme that it is? Like if we were talking about the Google Play Store and it’s claims of having on-demand easy app downloads, but it functions as a DRM application, you would have people against it in some degree.. but what you don’t have is a yoneclaiming “The Google Play Store isn’t actually an application repo, it doesn’t do anything, it’s a fake app”. With MQA, people are literally explaining how this nonsense serves zero purpose especially if you have lossless libraries to begin with. What is it about the hardware you have that you find insufficient in processing the files you currently have?
Aug 2, 2019
jaxtrauma
2104
Aug 13, 2019
bookmark_border
FayneI would recommend the Activo CT 10 dap. Has MQA baked in
Aug 13, 2019
jaxtrauma
2104
Aug 14, 2019
bookmark_border
JJayJJYou make valid points, but all I can say is: I can't argue with my ears. MQA just sounds better (on my system, to me - subjective). But I've done A/B tests on my own FLAC files and the ones on TIDAL that aren't MQA (the vast majority) are FLAC files. Their FLAC files sound better too and it must be voodoo or something, 'cause they're the same darned files.
Aug 14, 2019
JJayJJ
472
Aug 14, 2019
bookmark_border
jaxtraumaThat's completely fine to experience, I also listen to DSD music whenever I decide to purchase well recorded tracks at times, and then listen to FLAC converted versions and think "man this DSD sounded better I think". Knowing full well the placebo I am undergoing. After listening to the music track multiple times throughout the week, they begin to equalize and I can't tell the two apart even in sighted testing. ABX testing I couldn't tell them apart day one, nor day 12.. It's fine to admit these things, and I appreciate people that do because then they know there's something going on subjectively with their experiences, and not doing the thing most people do - religiously defending their senses as if they're infallible.
Aug 14, 2019
jaxtrauma
2104
Aug 14, 2019
bookmark_border
JJayJJI think ALL audiophilia is subjective. I mean, how could it not be? If they buy a speaker based on specifications they will probably say they love it even if it sounds less than wonderful. Very good point JJJJ. I'm using JRiver Media Ctr on the PC with the ifi nano iDSD BL for 2x DSD in DoP format and its hard to tell the difference. Of course the recording quality is key.
(Edited)
Aug 14, 2019
JJayJJ
472
Aug 14, 2019
bookmark_border
jaxtraumaI agree further and can say all life is subjective. But there are limits. People can’t seriously say though “subjective I can hear 192Khz”, or subjectively “I can feel the output impedance of my device just by listening to it” or subjectively “I can levitate objects with my will”. I mean techbically people can say all these things, but they don’t matter at all if you can’t prove them (this is why we institute people into insane asylums). It depends if course how outlandish your claim of capability is of course. No one is going to put much doubt if you say “I can tell the difference between 0.5db in a music track” vs “I can see ultraviolet, gamma, and X-ray light with my naked eye”. If people can prove their claims, then all is well. The only problem being none of those borderline lunatics could ever prove their claims, they can’t prove it with objective measurements using machines, nor could they prove it subjectively when asked to take a double blind test (which would be proof even without using any machines like they dislike to trust). Those folks are are free to believe whatever they want. The real reason some get heated when they see some dude saying he can hear the different types of metal a cable is made from - is this poisons the mind for new comers, and also runs in contrary to the scientific community that put in countless hours trying to reveal truth and our understanding of the world.
(Edited)
Aug 14, 2019
jaxtrauma
2104
Aug 14, 2019
bookmark_border
JJayJJAbsolutely we need measurements and standards which are empirical and easily proven. I guess I was saying that some folks delude themselves into blindly (or deafly) believing whatever a stereo manufacturer says about the specs. Trust, but verify as the famous snake oil prez said. Independent verification is totally the way to go. Read reviews. Audition, audition, audition (where possible). Ultimately you have to go by what your ears (all of us) and one's wallet (most of us) dictates. I've heard systems that had monster specs and sounded like a cheap one and heard cheap ones sound like a goliath. I'm shocked I paid $700 for 'little speakers' (Audioengine HD6)
search
but after burn-in they sound better than many tower speakers I've heard costing a lot more. They would completely fill any size room. Frequency response 50Hz-22kHz +/-1.5dB; 50 Watts (x 2) RMS; THD+N <0.05% at all power settings. I used to think a 50 Watt amp was wimpy. Not when using honest measurements. Analog dual-class A/B monolithic amplifier (custom). They sound huge and crystal clear, analog or digital. Bought a sub to go with them but don't need it for music, really just for movies and gaming, or maybe if disco comes back. I don't know how they can get such loud and clear sound from a small box (< 12" tall) ? But I can assure you they do. Technology has always fascinated me and I can appreciate what went into the design and quality of materials and construction. I was totally amazed at the difference in the sound once I got them off the desk and on the stands, they really opened up then. The crazy thing is, there are $50,000 headphones (Sennheiser electrostatic), so you just know there's a $60,000 speaker somewhere (FOCAL Grande Utopia III $280,000). Trust your ears, you know what you like. My philosophy is I should spend more on speakers/headphones because that's what your ears actually hear. A $2,000 amp will sound like crap if you run it through crap speakers, the converse is also true. And... if it sounds good, enjoy it. EDIT: BTW great discussion, thanks EDIT 2: FWIW I listed the specs for the HD6 as an example of a product that clearly out-performs those specs (to my ear), including price
(Edited)
Aug 14, 2019
JJayJJ
472
Aug 14, 2019
bookmark_border
jaxtraumaFully agreed
Aug 14, 2019
View Full Discussion
Related Posts
Trending Posts in Audiophile