MQA Discussion Group

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 18780 times.

witchdoctor

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #40 on: 7 Sep 2017, 05:15 pm »
WTF is HDCD??  :scratch:

 :sleep:

It's like HDMI on for CD's, get it HDCD? :lol:

*Scotty*


Larry Dickman

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 42
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #42 on: 7 Sep 2017, 05:56 pm »
The Grateful Dead organization continues to use HDCD (this is a 2016 release, see logo in lower right)

https://pxhst.co/avaxhome/b6/e2/003de2b6.jpg



Xinon

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #43 on: 7 Sep 2017, 06:50 pm »
I want the real masters with NO CLIPPING  :thumb:
Not compressed streaming MQA wannabe masters :duh:
 :lol: :lol:

Loudness is the real enemy
https://youtu.be/3Gmex_4hreQ


CanadianMaestro

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1113
  • Skepticism is the engine of true progress
    • Hearing Everything That Nothing Can Measure
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #44 on: 7 Sep 2017, 07:53 pm »
It's like HDMI on for CD's, get it HDCD? :lol:

Is HDCD better sounding than SACD?
Seems redundant to me.

CanadianMaestro

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1113
  • Skepticism is the engine of true progress
    • Hearing Everything That Nothing Can Measure
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #45 on: 7 Sep 2017, 07:57 pm »
Here are a couple links to more information about HDCD.
http://www.goodwinshighend.com/manufacturers/pacific_microsonics/pacific_microsonics_model_two.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Definition_Compatible_Digital
Scotty

Thanks.

Too many damn formats....will stick with hi-rez files and Redbooks.   :lol:

gbaby

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 131
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #46 on: 7 Sep 2017, 09:21 pm »
Is HDCD better sounding than SACD?


Hell no.  :D Only slightly better than redbook. You have to have an HDCD player to notice it.

gbaby

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 131
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #47 on: 7 Sep 2017, 09:22 pm »
Thanks.

Too many damn formats....will stick with hi-rez files and Redbooks.   :lol:

Agreed. :green:

*Scotty*

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #48 on: 7 Sep 2017, 11:08 pm »
HDCD was basically smoke and mirrors at the consumer playback end. The HDCD decoder/filter PMD 100 chip which was used to replace the DF1704 sounded mediocre in comparison. Essentially where ever the PMD 100 was used, the stock chip configuration usually sounded superior.
 Scotty

CanadianMaestro

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1113
  • Skepticism is the engine of true progress
    • Hearing Everything That Nothing Can Measure
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #49 on: 7 Sep 2017, 11:16 pm »
Probably needed some dilithium crystals, Scotty
 :lol:

*Scotty*

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #50 on: 8 Sep 2017, 12:47 am »
Even using dilithium crystals, ye cannae make a silk purse of a sow's lug.
Scotty

witchdoctor

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #51 on: 8 Sep 2017, 12:59 pm »
I don't have any dilitium but the Bluesound Node can kick it into warp drive and fire full phasers at my speakers, amazing

Mike in NC

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #52 on: 8 Sep 2017, 09:21 pm »
HDCD was basically smoke and mirrors at the consumer playback end.

And IMO, MQA is the HDCD of today. The same proprietary nature, the same over-the-top raves by some of the audio press (Mr. Harley in particular), and the same question of whether it wouldn't just be better (and a hell of a lot more straightforward) to improve recording techniques and supply good-quality originals.

witchdoctor

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #53 on: 8 Sep 2017, 09:33 pm »
And IMO, MQA is the HDCD of today. The same proprietary nature, the same over-the-top raves by some of the audio press (Mr. Harley in particular), and the same question of whether it wouldn't just be better (and a hell of a lot more straightforward) to improve recording techniques and supply good-quality originals.

Not even a close comparison. You had to BUY HDCD encoded discs and BUY an HDCD decoder. As a Tidal subscriber you get MQA tracks (30,000+ and counting) for no additional fee and buying an MQA DAC is optional. I haven't spent an extra penny to enjoy MQA.

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 16590
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com

jseymour

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #55 on: 8 Sep 2017, 10:32 pm »
James, thank you.  That paper confirms everything I have surmised about MQA.  I love their summary that MQA should be used for streaming only and that need will decrease as bandwidth increases.  We do not need another audio codec.  CanadianMaestro summed it up properly.  Just give us good PCM in the form of RedBook and Hi-Res.

Larry Dickman

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 42
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #56 on: 8 Sep 2017, 10:41 pm »
Not even a close comparison. You had to BUY HDCD encoded discs and BUY an HDCD decoder. As a Tidal subscriber you get MQA tracks (30,000+ and counting) for no additional fee and buying an MQA DAC is optional. I haven't spent an extra penny to enjoy MQA.
Agreed. HDCD was never billed as a high resolution format like SACD or MQA. I myself am only interested in MQA via Tidal streaming (in keeping with what jseymour says above), which as you say is no additional cost. Look for more, and affordable, MQA enabled DACs, preamp/DACs, and integrated amp/DACs in a year or so. 

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 16590
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #57 on: 9 Sep 2017, 11:36 am »
Mastering Engineer Brian Lucey on MQA:

http://magicgardenmastering.com/

MQA is, in all of my tests so far, brighter and thinner with more distortion, and a sense of excitement (remember Aphex?) and even volume from the artifacts. Sure many lay people will be fooled. I don't like to see pros fooled, but oh well, that's why I'm busy I suppose and they're posturing next to a new product so I'm free to tell the truth here.

If there is a market for MQA sure that's great, all good. Yet I don't think we should let Audiophiles (who are a small market in the first place) set definitions on good sound quality. They're not even remotely objective as they don't have the source files and do not know the intentions of the creative team. They're also easily fooled by all sorts of things, because they are essentially experiencing creativity, by tweaking the playback.

That's fine, and I love them for paying money for great systems, but MQA is what it is - a form of creativity and control.

Deblurring

The bottom line for me, this whole "bettering" the source file and "deblurring" malarkey has to be stopped. It's less data and a new filter ... not better or equal to the source files, that are not that much larger, and are easily downloaded by most people in the world with 2017 tech.
To say otherwise is either greed, a dreamers imagination or just bad I helped Mytek redesign the Manhattan II, and everything in the room was fine. Previously I also heard a flaw in the Bricasti M1 and helped them to make it greater, after years on the market. My room set up is working very well, thank you.

Yet the fact is MQA is not better and not neutral, anyone who has done the tests that has endorsement integrity I respect, hears the same thing. Corporations are getting on board to make money, and people are lining up to get on that gravy train.

I'm fine with any new product clients want to pay for, I just think we need to live in reality. Less data and a filter is not better, and should seem a skeptical claim even without hearing anything. Better than the source, and any kind of "correcting PCM" claims are just absurd.

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 16590
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #58 on: 9 Sep 2017, 11:44 am »
Analogue Mastering

When going back to basics no one (except some MQA Meridean endorsed flagship labels?) records MQA, everyone records WAV or DSD. I don't see the whole foodchain change quickly. This means that MQA at this moment in time adds nothing more than a redundant container serving marketing purposes, actually missleading "high end" end users.

The MQA file IS NOT what left the studio. It's just another encoded format, solely developed to reinvigorate backcatalogue and push certification licensing down the foodchain.

Rather than discussing the technicalities of the format, it's plain misleading marketing based on the current state of the business.


witchdoctor

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #59 on: 9 Sep 2017, 12:32 pm »
If the DSD files are superior why aren't they being released en masse? Why are there relatively so few available and they cost so damn much? If redbook is so great why does a :hirez" market even exist? This guy thumbs his nose at the "audiophile" market (audiophiles are not even remotley objective and easily fooled?) like we have all lost our senses spending money on equipment as basically entertainment. Your opinion is only valid if you have the "source files".
What an ego. My experience is more similarf to this study:

http://www.monoandstereo.com/2016/01/2l-with-meridian-mqa-encoded-audio.html

Now I see why there are so many vendors on audiocircle here if this "engineer" is to be believed. Audiophiles are unobjective fools with deep pockets who are easily duped. If that is the case I would worry a LOT more about us "fools" being "tricked" into buying $$$$ amps, speakers, cables, BRD players than I would worry about a $20 a month Tidal subscription. Our only hope according to this jack off is that one day we get access to the "source files" and read the minds of the "creative team" to know there intentions. Oh please, give me a break.

James you posted this? It seems to denigrate your customer base. Do you agree that we are all unobjective suckers spending money on your gear when all we really need are the original "source files"? You may as well toss out your cuurent DACs if that is the case.