Jump to content
Computer Audiophile

Mike48

  • Content count

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mike48

  • Rank
    Freshman Member
  1. Article: My First 24 Hours With MQA

    Perhaps that's right. Even if so, MQA would reduce choice in the marketplace, and it would render all present DSP devices obsolete. They all would have to be redesigned, with all DSP functions built into an MQA-approved DAC, because MQA prohibits digital output of the unencoded stream. That would include any kind of digital crossover, room correction, equalization, and so on. I don't think it's a pro-consumer choice to require all of that to be done in the same box as the DAC. It stifles innovation by companies such as miniDSP, for example, and it limits audiophiles' choices of products. Technically MQA is another HDCD -- a proprietary scheme that may or may not survive. Let's instead do some non-proprietary research on what really improves sound quality and find an open solution to the perceived problem. THAT would be a lot more interesting. MQA is a move to gain a lot of control over the audio market, and I don't care for it.
  2. Article: My First 24 Hours With MQA

    MQA may sound good, but that doesn’t make it a good thing. It is a proprietary protocol that is incompatible with some of the most interesting developments in audio (DSP by, e.g., Devialet, Lyngdorf, Classe, DEQX), and it is a roadblock to further progress. If we get MQA, we can kiss goodbye to all DSP, including digital crossovers, EQ, room correction, and speaker correction. MQA-encoded files are incompatible with all that, and MQA DACs are not allowed to have digital outputs of the restored material. I sure don't want to go back to having to do all audio signal processing in the analog domain. Digital equalizers that I have used are completely transparent. I can't say that about analog equalizers. And some mild room correction has been really helpful in the bass. Ever try to come up with a bass trap that damps 20 Hz effectively? It's close to impossible. MQA sounds like a power grab to me, one that outweighs any progress it represents in the field of audio reproduction.
  3. The Android app does not run on tablets. You can use BubbleUPnP on tablets. It is an outstanding control point. It will give some, but not all, of the cloud services Aries supports. In addition, it is very good at working with your local music library or with discs attached to Aries by USB. HTH
  4. I second that. The Auralic app still doesn't work right, at least not on a tablet.
  5. From my perspective, the main issue with Tidal is: They are trying to manage a large music library, and they have not used qualified librarians to catalog it. This makes a mess when you are trying to find classical pieces, know who is playing (other than a single "artist") on a piece, or even look for an artist, whose name may appear in various forms. Instead of thinking the problem out, they're simply followed the lead of that moneygrubber Steve Jobs, whose mess in cataloging music for iEverything has left us all in a cesspool. Respect for the artists? Forget it!
  6. Computer in the listening room

    Yes, it's on my radar, and I may give it a try. Thanks!
  7. Computer in the listening room

    Thanks, guys. My impression is, JRiver MC is less capable on Linux right now. They are working on it. I have to say, too, that JRMC gets more annoying with each release, as new features are added without documentation. It is increasingly trying to figure out how to use them.
  8. My networked audio system was Auralic Aries > TacT 2.2X RCS > Auralic Vega. I took the TacT out, because on good recordings, the sound is more natural using just Aries > Vega via USB. However, now I have no way to touch up the many mediocre (or worse) recordings. I am thinking of swapping out the Aries and swapping in a computer with JRiver, just to get tone controls. What computer to use? I don't want to build one (no workshop), and it must be silent. JRiver seems best suited to Windows, but isn't Linux more reliable? Looking for suggestions. Also, am I missing a simpler way? I've tried an analog equalizer (Audient ASP231), but again, in my system the sound is more natural without it. Mike
  9. Well, of course! I searched quite a bit but didn't come up with anything useful. Search usually does well by me, but not in this case.
  10. Ahh... finally found TIDAL, tucked away under "Local Media Server > Cloud". It never fails: Asking publicly is the fastest way of finding something myself <g>.
  11. I am wondering how to do this? Googling has got me nowhere, and I can't find anything about Tidal in BubbleUPnP. Help, anyone? Thanks!
  12. Yeah, you would think so, but AFAIK, PS Audio is STILL selling their Bridge that doesn't do gapless. Even worse, TAS is recommending it as an Editor's Choice "network server." This situation is really disgraceful: a manufacturer's selling a broken product and not fixing it for year after year, and a leading "review" publication overlooking this fundamental flaw for the entire time. Aren't the magazines supposed to help the consumers? -- and not just be shills for the industry? You'd have to pull out my fingernails to get me to buy another PS Audio product.
  13. direction please

    Hi, Congratulations on the 7Ts! I auditioned them and thought they were terrific speakers, though ultimately I chose something else (Janszen zA2.1). It was close. I'll make a few comments to get you started, and maybe others will follow up. Your first decision is whether you want to stream to your DAC via USB or via your home network. In either case, you store the music on a computer or NAS (network attached storage) box. But other than that, they are quite different. With USB streaming, you connect your computer directly to your DAC with a USB cable. I'm not sure, but I think the Oppo has a USB input. You would need a player program on your PC or mac. I prefer JRiver Media Center (JRMC) on Windows, but there are others. You also need a program to "rip" (copy) the audio from CDs to your disk. JRMC includes a decent ripper; there are others. JRMC acts as a music-library management tool and also a player. With network streaming, you rip the CDs to the disk and run a server program on a computer that has access to the disk. The server hardware typically is not in the music room, which helps with noise issues. In the music room, you need a stream receiver (technically called a renderer) and also a control point app running on iOS or Android. The control point gets music library info from the server, maintains a current playlist, and sends the renderer appropriate URLs to get and play the music. What you need depends on which approach you want to take. I have USB streaming in one room, network streaming (using the same music library) in another. I consider USB streaming pretty mature technology, because conceptually it's not much different from any digital connection. Network streaming is more complex and there are more pitfalls. Not all renderers will play gapless (the Oppos will not), and not all of them support pause and resume while playing. You can run into hardware and software compatibility issues. I like it, but it's definitely more bleeding edge. In either case, you also will need a good backup solution for your terabytes of music storage. You'll probably get more recommendations if you say which you are considering and what computer ecosystem you're already in (Mac, PC, Linux). Mike 1. JRiver Media Center > Lynx Hilo > Audioengine A5+ 2. Synology NAS > MinimServer > Ethernet > Auralic Aries > Auralic Vega > Marsh A400S > JansZen zA2.1
  14. Network or USB streaming?

    Thanks, guys. I did get the streaming issue straightened out. Still, I would like opinions about USB vs. network streaming from those who have tried both. AFAIK, one can obtain excellent fidelity either way, so the issues for me involve reliability, ergonomics, and features. I'll start with my view. I am using network streaming, and its strong point is less "stuff" in the listening room. No general-purpose computer, no monitor, and so on. Also, it's made to be controlled from the listening seat with a tablet, which is nice. The shortcoming is that it's a new field, and not all the pieces are guaranteed to work together smoothly. And there are more pieces -- server hardware, server software, control point, and renderer -- leading to more potential problems. A strong point I see with direct USB connection is that the player program (in my case, JRiver Media Center) can be used for digital room correction and general EQ. It's hard to think of a way to get such flexible and cheap DSP from a network-streaming setup. A second advantage is that it's easier to customize information display, using any or all of the tags so painstakingly entered. That's not always so easy with network streaming. Anyone else?
  15. Network or USB streaming?

    I'm having network streaming problems (occasional clicks) that are proving difficult to resolve. To fix this, I'm considering a new stream receiver, probably an Auralic Aries to go with my Auralic Vega DAC. Alternatively, I could drop network streaming and get a fanless PC with USB connection. (The music is on a Synology NAS.) As I see it, advantages of USB are (1) no potential for network issues, (2) better search, browsing, and replay gain using JRiver MC directly, including access to all tags; and (3) no potential issues matching a server from one developer, a control point from another, and a renderer from a hardware vendor. The apparent disadvantage is that a good (i7) fanless Windows PC costs around $1500-$1800, which is more than a stream receiver. Thoughts from those who've tried it both ways?
×