MQA Discussion Group

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 10512 times.

witchdoctor

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #220 on: 24 Sep 2017, 05:42 pm »
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rotflmao:

I guess I shouldn't laugh... on a boombox they do sound the same/better :roll:

Laugh all you want, like I said it's your money to burn:

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/134-0650941-7031705?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=boombox

skunark

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1329
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #221 on: 24 Sep 2017, 05:51 pm »
Maybe you should get a new boombox but this isn't my opinion, it's the facts:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html

I like how the procedures make you use a 24/88 or 24/96 file vs a 24/192.  So they take a 24/192 source, convert it to MQA and 24/88 or 24/96 and ask to compare the differences.  Just in the procedure alone, why would you not want anything but the 24/192 file?    What if the source was 24/88 or 24/96, are you then asked to compare MQA with a 24/48 or 24/44 file?     Another article pulling random science facts but at least they attempt an experiment, even with the biased procedures, the results don't justify spending cash the lossy format.

Jim

witchdoctor

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #222 on: 24 Sep 2017, 05:51 pm »
Slowdown buckeroo, the only format that has crashed and burned is HDCD and MQA is more like HDCD than any other format out there.  SACD has become DSD,  DVD-A has become Blu-ray Audio, and last i checked there are several sites with HiRez downloads.   You can say they are struggling with consumer adaption sure, but that's about it sweet cheeks.

Keep in mind playing MQA on a non-MQA DAC is effectively play a 13-bit file, so it's technically has less information than a CD for about twice the file size, oh and don't forget the extra noise it causes.   There's just no upside to the format, as most folks can't tell the difference from DSD, 24-bit Hires and 16-bit CD quality files and your can even toss in other lossy formats.  Even if you had  MQA DAC, it's equivalent of a 17-bit file, so no it's not the same as a 24-bit Hires file.  Since you agree that you can't hear a difference, I don't really understand your push for the format, it's just an unnecessary extra expense if you claim there's no difference.

One key issue I have with hires download sites is with the content, they don't offer any current music and the bulk of it is remastered.  Well i take that back, i found one current artist offered at 24-bit 192khz, but also noticed several artist being offered at 16-bit for the same price as hires, shame on that website we all know about.   BTW,  on that same site some of those remasters were from inferior sources and they were caught selling that products and others were heavily compressed (loudness wars) and sold as 'remastered'.  Itjust seems the studios are after reselling a old devalued products again as long as they have breathing customers wiling to buy it.  Maybe Tidal will change the game if they get a current music to jump on board, but they have a long hard battle and with their financial struggles, it's not looking good. 

Buttercups

The mass market never adopted any "HIREZ" formats, to me that is crash and burn. MQA has something no other format has except redbook and that is support from all the major labels. You are right about Tidal but Pandora has committed to MQA and we will see how many other streaming services get on board.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7647454/major-labels-pandora-riaa-announce-support-hi-res-streaming-mqa

witchdoctor

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #223 on: 24 Sep 2017, 05:53 pm »
I like how the procedures make you use a 24/88 or 24/96 file vs a 24/192.  So they take a 24/192 source, convert it to MQA and 24/88 or 24/96 and ask to compare the differences.  Just in the procedure alone, why would you not want anything but the 24/192 file?    What if the source was 24/88 or 24/96, are you then asked to compare MQA with a 24/48 or 24/44 file?     Another article pulling random science facts but at least they attempt an experiment, even with the biased procedures, the results don't justify spending cash the lossy format.

Jim

This is a great forum to conduct your own test. You seem like a savvy member, if you can do better go for it.

JohnR

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #224 on: 24 Sep 2017, 06:07 pm »

racerxnet

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #225 on: 24 Sep 2017, 06:08 pm »
This is a great forum to conduct your own test. You seem like a savvy member, if you can do better go for it.


Is this a MQA forum or the Bryston forum? We have read and seen that you (witchdoctor) are the cheerleader for the format. Give it a rest and the others who may not like it as well. If you have something to add to the Bryston forum regarding their products, please do.

MAK

skunark

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1329
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #226 on: 24 Sep 2017, 06:13 pm »
No, i will just take your word for it, there's 0 [audible] difference.   

Keep in mind that the studio masters have always been 24-bit, so claiming it's a failed format is a little obtuse.

I fully expect one of my local high-end audio stores to slyly play a MQA track, if i spot it, i will let you know.  Based on all the studies and feedback, i won't....      One high-end audio store i stopped visiting tried to pass off streaming audio as sufficient.  It was clear they hadn't thought this through, as a customer if i'm going to buy a component, i will want to bring my own music on my own vinyl, cd or thumb drive.   I don't want to second guess a streaming service adjusting the quality based on the client's bandwidth limits at that moment in time.    I was polite and gave their streaming audio a go though because i was really interested an integrated for the home office, we went through a few songs and I pointed out it lacked depth and detail and left.     One more reason against streaming services and audio manufactures should mandate a way to play customer music.

Jim

sonicboom

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 94
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #227 on: 24 Sep 2017, 06:20 pm »

Keep in mind playing MQA on a non-MQA DAC is effectively play a 13-bit file, so it's technically has less information than a CD for about twice the file size, oh and don't forget the extra noise it causes.   There's just no upside to the format, as most folks can't tell the difference from DSD, 24-bit Hires and 16-bit CD quality files and your can even toss in other lossy formats.  Even if you had  MQA DAC, it's equivalent of a 17-bit file, so no it's not the same as a 24-bit Hires file.  Since you agree that you can't hear a difference, I don't really understand your push for the format, it's just an unnecessary extra expense if you claim there's no difference.


C'omn now! going on and on about bits and schbits! Leave the good Doctor alone. After all, the mqa kool-aid is so refreshing! :lol:

Besides, 13 is the new 16 and 17 is the new 24... good times!!!

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 16364
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #228 on: 24 Sep 2017, 07:06 pm »
OK - So what I am not understanding is if we agree that MQA currently sounds the same as PCM why would we advocate for a system that:

1.   Up-samples signals above 96K rather than use Native 176, 192,352,384 plus files.
2.   Reduces the number of BITs.
3.   Is a ‘lossy’ technology.
4.   Uses DRM technology.
5.   Is a closed Proprietary system.
6.   Licencing costs for both the manufacturer of audio gear and the music production industry not to mention the software developers all the way to the end user.
7.   Reduces all competition going forward from other possibly more advanced systems in the future.
8.   Can't use DSP for room correction or crossover applications.

Just asking!

james
« Last Edit: 24 Sep 2017, 11:23 pm by James Tanner »

JerryM

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #229 on: 24 Sep 2017, 08:10 pm »
Umm; we wouldn't.

Just answering.  :thumb:

CanadianMaestro

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 964
  • Skepticism is the engine of true progress
    • Hearing Everything That Nothing Can Measure
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #230 on: 24 Sep 2017, 08:33 pm »
No common sense person would.

Nice encapsulation, JT.  :thumb:

skunark

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1329
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #231 on: 24 Sep 2017, 08:51 pm »
DSD lines up to points 4-7, plus the requirement of a DSD DAC for native playback.

Technically so did MP3s.. lol

 

witchdoctor

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #232 on: 24 Sep 2017, 09:49 pm »

Is this a MQA forum or the Bryston forum? We have read and seen that you (witchdoctor) are the cheerleader for the format. Give it a rest and the others who may not like it as well. If you have something to add to the Bryston forum regarding their products, please do.

MAK

OK. I believe the Bryston Active Speakers are the way to go. Whatever format you listen to you need speakers right? :D

To me I would rather listen to an MP3 through active speakers than MQA through a "boombox".


Rupret

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #233 on: 24 Sep 2017, 11:33 pm »
OK - So what I am not understanding is if we agree that MQA currently sounds the same as PCM why would we advocate for a system that:

1.   Up-samples signals above 96K rather than use Native 176, 192,352,384 plus files.
2.   Reduces the number of BITs.
3.   Is a ‘lossy’ technology.
4.   Uses DRM technology.
5.   Is a closed Proprietary system.
6.   Licencing costs for both the manufacturer of audio gear and the music production industry not to mention the software developers all the way to the end user.
7.   Reduces all competition going forward from other possibly more advanced systems in the future.
8.   Can't use DSP for room correction or crossover applications.

Just asking!

james

I advocate for a system that supports MQA because it is the best sounding STREAMING option currently available to my ears and I don't know when or if anything better will come along in my lifetime.

Why go without?

Rupert

Pundamilia

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 109
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #234 on: 25 Sep 2017, 12:58 am »
Quote
No common sense person would.

Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with common sense. It's all about some greedy corporations trying to squeeze yet another nickel off the consumer, either through hardware licensing passed on or by re-selling the same content in yet another format, with no obvious/audible advantage to the consumer.

witchdoctor

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #235 on: 25 Sep 2017, 01:26 am »
OK - So what I am not understanding is if we agree that MQA currently sounds the same as PCM why would we advocate for a system that:

1.   Up-samples signals above 96K rather than use Native 176, 192,352,384 plus files.
2.   Reduces the number of BITs.
3.   Is a ‘lossy’ technology.
4.   Uses DRM technology.
5.   Is a closed Proprietary system.
6.   Licencing costs for both the manufacturer of audio gear and the music production industry not to mention the software developers all the way to the end user.
7.   Reduces all competition going forward from other possibly more advanced systems in the future.
8.   Can't use DSP for room correction or crossover applications.

Just asking!

james

Because if I am going to pay $3495 on a DAC why not have MQA? Hey, why do DAC's offer DSD when only a portion of the customers will actually use it? Because if the customer changes their mind in the future they got it. If Audioquest can offer MQA in a $99 DAC it makes 0 sense to me not to get it in a $3000+ DAC. Sure, I may not need it today but do I really want to buy another DAC if I change my mind in the future?  :scratch:

skunark

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1329
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #236 on: 25 Sep 2017, 04:05 am »
Because if I am going to pay $3495 on a DAC why not have MQA? Hey, why do DAC's offer DSD when only a portion of the customers will actually use it? Because if the customer changes their mind in the future they got it. If Audioquest can offer MQA in a $99 DAC it makes 0 sense to me not to get it in a $3000+ DAC. Sure, I may not need it today but do I really want to buy another DAC if I change my mind in the future?  :scratch:
Seems like you found your solution on an audio format that has 0 audible differences right?   All for $99.  Good job sweet cheeks!

Jim

witchdoctor

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #237 on: 25 Sep 2017, 04:48 am »
Seems like you found your solution on an audio format that has 0 audible differences right?   All for $99.  Good job sweet cheeks!

Jim

Maybe you didn't understand the test results. The results were that hirez PCM and MQA SQ differences were not significant. They didn't test DAC's.
The fee is $20 a month for Tidal, not $99.

My point is if a $99 DAC can include MQA more expensive DAC's should include it too.

I listened to the MQA Motown Playlist on Tidal tonight. Just to listen to James Jamerson's bass playing in MQA is worth the price of admission IMO. If you haven't checked it out yet you are missing out on a beautiful thing. You can get a good MQA result with the Tidal desktop app but if you feel like splurging you can get the $99 MQA DAC they used in the listening test I posted. To me the final decode you get with an MQA DAC pushes it over the top into what I would describe as more analog and less digital. I have no idea if it sounds like the Master Tape because I never heard one. I would really like to see a comparison between an LP and an MQA track but I lack a turntable:

https://tidal.com/playlist/4e618a07-fd16-48ff-a0b3-efdfb28cf408

stonedeaf

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #238 on: 25 Sep 2017, 05:27 am »
In the end the reason I subscribed to tidal and bought a MQA box came down to the DRM -this stinks - but real world  the USA's copyright/licensing laws leave us as consumers at the mercy of the record companies. They will not allow the music they "own" to be made readily and cheaply available if accurate digi copies can be made of it. So - I want to listen to hiRez Miles Davis in depth - far as I can tell - it simply comes down to hands up and throw down the cash . BUT and it's a BIG BUT - I do get access to more jazz on Columbia Records across a massive number of titles with Tidal/MQA than I will ever be able to find on LP. Now James point 8 is troubling -but I guess this will just keep me using the ancient and honorable analog Bryston Electronic  crossover - not a particular hardship :-) . This is a real issue for a lot of folks who are still trying to run stereo music thru multi-channel HT receivers - no way these will be spittin out hirez MQA -so disappointment and disbelief will reign.

skunark

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1329
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #239 on: 25 Sep 2017, 05:29 am »
witchdoctor, are you affiliated with MQA in any way?  Your endless push on here and on the digital amplifier company circle does make you look like a gorilla marketer.  Maybe you work for Tidal trying to help them stay afloat financially. 

I'm just using your words, but honestly I don't want to pay the "MQA Tax" on a service I don't see myself using.    I also don't see why i would pay for a MQA service that requires a desktop for playback, I don't want a windows or mac computer anywhere near the audio gear    The expense doesn't justify the zero sum audible gain as you have stated.

Jim