Jump to content

rbbert

  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. "Consumers" (and reviewers) have been complaining about the music played at audio shows for at least the past 5-6 years, and little has changed. Face it, exhibitors usually want to play the music that they think makes their system sound good, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Why not use this soapbox to discuss a little bit more about how and why MQA is bad for the consumer and the audio hardware industry in general, and good only (or almost only) for the record companies and Meridian?
  2. it wasn't a snide comment. You are a member at enough other forums besides this one to realize that all those people who have heard MQA with or without a MQA-capable DAC claim a significant difference (improvement) with an MQA DAC. As far as you have posted, you have not yet listened with an MQA DAC, so what you "believe" may (or more pertinently, may not) be true.
  3. Not exactly, as even a superficial reading of MQA topics almost anywhere will demonstrate...
  4. Now once again nothing on their Facebook page about MQA except that it is one of the formats they sell? I guess we wait until Mar 1 to see what happens
  5. No one ever knows all of those
  6. Why? It's only opinion, can't be proven or disproven, and I'm quite comfortable with it.
  7. Really?! Ted Smith? One of the most knowledgeable and innovative DAC designers around? Who probably knew more about digital audio and its implementations 5 years ago than Bob Stuart ever knew?
  8. I'm sorry if what I have posted is misunderstood. Yes there is a lot of "talk" about MQA; there has been a lot published in the last 2+ years about how it is (essentially) the second coming of digital audio. Now two years later there are a handful of titles available for purchase and in the last week (finally!) a few hundred titles available for streaming (admittedly and happily a number growing by the day). My posts reflect what has actually happened, and pardon me for being skeptical of "big talk" by the principals involved. Given the rather ill-founded comments and comparisons regarding the sound of MQA all over the forum in the past few days (really! comparing it to CD's, with no idea of comparable masterings much less hi-res or not) I'm a bit surprised with the response to my comments which are in fact directly on point with that topic, and of this moment are not demonstrably false (although I acknowledge, in fact hope, that may change over the next few days, weeks or months)
  9. But in fact you are being difficult. First, the fact is that only already existing hires masters transferred to MQA are being offered. Second, you are ignoring the primary purpose of my post, which was to point out the best way to compare MQA to non-MQA for Tidal's current offerings. Whatever...
  10. Because that's all there is available, and all that Tidal is talking about becoming available (their "30,000 songs"). Planning to do something and actually doing it can be two different things; the evidence to date suggests that only the current hi-res PCM offerings will be available in MQA. More to the point, I was specifically referring to which traditional PCM masterings to compare to MQA, and for Warner Music that means the ones that are currently available for hi-res download already. Don't get me wrong, I do hope the whole catalog becomes available, but there is really little reason at this time to think that will be true
  11. Well, what I read there, combined with what I see on Tidal now, pretty much supports what I posted. When or if some Warner albums appear in MQA that aren't also available in traditional hi-res, I can amend that post
  12. Google is your friend MQA and Warner: the Real Scoop | Stereophile.com
  13. Warner's has already said that the only albums they plan to make available via MQA are the ones already released in hi-rez, so comparisons should clearly be between the hi-res versions available from retailers such as HDTracks, Qobuz, Highresaudio, etc. and the MQA versions (on Tidal). For the Grateful Dead albums this means the 24/192 (or 24/96) versions from the 2011 remasterings, not the CD's, not the DVD-A's, not the SACD's. Likewise for Talking Heads, The Doors, etc. And this also means that many rock and pop recordings (and some newer jazz) will be significantly peak-limited. Apparently (info relayed from others' discussions with Bob Stuart at CES 2017) the last bit of time and phase correction of the MQA process can only be done in a MQA-certified DAC, because the time and phase characterisitics of the DAC need to be known for the correction to be "correct". Thus the concept of the Tidal desktop app being only "partial" decoding. using only the Tidal desktop app, into a non-MQA DAC, and comparing to those hi-res versions I have, I can say that the MQA version is immediately distinguishable as "different". Both versions are emminently "listenable" when the recording and mastering are good in the first place. Although I have been very skeptical and dismissive of MQA up to now, I have to admit to being very curious about how these albums would sound with the benefit of a true MQA DAC
  14. Take a look at Marillion.com I'm sure there were Blurays of their last 2 studio albums, with 24/96 stereo PCM tracks, also some of their recent live albums; Live at Cadogan, Holidays in Zelande, Brave Live 2013, although I'm not sure what is currently in print or available
  15. Seems a lot more cost-effective to rip the 24/96 tracks from the Blurays? The ones they have released up to now sound pretty good that way.
×
×
  • Create New...