Jump to content
Computer Audiophile


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jhwalker

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  1. Satellite Radio Sounds Awful

    Stern is the only reason we keep SiriusXM
  2. I think we're saying the same thing - I'm sure MQA has been at least 10 years in the development, probably more. It's a case of taking so long to get to "production" current events have rendered your product obsolete. Of course, I came "of age" before personal computers were widespread (and certainly before the Internet was publicly available), but I remember in the early days of the Internet when tiny (postage stamp sized) "videos" on websites took minutes to buffer so you could watch them. Last night, we watched one of the latest movies in Blu-Ray quality streamed (flawlessly) with no initial buffering whatsoever. Amazing what a few years' progress can do!
  3. From a sheer technical standpoint, I actually like the idea of the lossy MQA format for streaming - IF we were still in the world where it was developed. Keep in mind, they presumably started developing this format when Internet bandwidth was at a premium. The idea that you could losslessly encode the audible content and lossily encode the rest, keeping it compatible with existing hardware, etc., would actually have been attractive to streaming providers 5-10 years ago. But then they started layering on DRM to appeal to the record labels, adding their custom filters to the concept, etc., and it all got out of hand. By the time they actually brought it to market with all the supposed "benefits", we were on the cusp of not NEEDING to conserve bandwidth, and the other bells and whistles are for the industry, NOT consumers. Three years later, broadband is ubiquitous in most countries where streaming is available and I'd much rather just stream 24/48, 24/96, 24/192 (or even Miska's 18/96), etc. LOSSLESS content. So while MQA is still a curiosity to me in terms of the technology involved, I just don't see the benefit to consumers over lossless streaming.
  4. BIS - e|classical vs. Qobuz

    I've noticed the same. I've gotten where I check eClassical first to see if 1) the recording is available in multichannel and 2) if it's 24-bit vs. 16-bit. If so, and the cost differential is not great, I'll buy it Multichannel is pretty great.
  5. Qobuz coming to U.S.

    I've subscribed to Tidal since the day it was available (maybe before, I think I got in on the beta) and I've never received a mailing of any sort (that I can recall) - perhaps there are account settings that turn mailings on and off Yes, I wish they had a better / more complete classical section.
  6. You actually get a bit more than that: . . . and if Qobuz offers a PDF booklet, you can view that, too - see the "book" icon on the upper right of the details window.
  7. Audirvana does a nice job with this, as well, with no pushback from Qobuz. So it seems the conflict is Roon's desire not to "break" their UX model to allow simple playback without all their bells and whistles, as Qobuz has already shown they don't mind other programs repackaging their material.
  8. Tidal sucks

    I just checked - Audirvana streams AAC 320 on the ones I checked from the list above. So it's not necessarily that "Tidal sucks", as the title of this thread states - if they have the lossless version, that's what you get. If they have a lossy version, they're not going to "upgrade" it to lossless, they'll stream what they have (in some cases, I suspect there is no lossless version available).
  9. . . . someday . . . maybe . . .
  10. Understanding Sample Rate

    Thank you - of course.
  11. Understanding Sample Rate

    Exactly - if I'm doing my math correctly (always a shaky proposition for me!), 48/24 sampling would be 279x more sensitive in time discrimination than 44/16 - down to an incredible 198 femtoseconds!
  12. Understanding Sample Rate

    Think again about the nature of a wave - frequency is the horizontal axis (the higher the frequency, the steeper the slope), amplitude is the vertical axis (likewise). The wave is sampled 44,000 / second, and both X and Y change each time. So, as others have pointed out, you're not limited to accuracy along the horizontal axis, but the horizontal TIMES the vertical axis (i.e., sampling rate times amplitude / bit depth) TIMES the formula for the curve, which allows an extremely fine resolution.
  13. I don't know that's a "general" consensus: https://samplerateconverter.com/educational/r2r-ladder-dac-vs-sigma-delta
  14. Understanding Sample Rate

    This is as succinct a statement of the "my belief is just as good as your facts" problem I've seen
  15. Physical CD's

    This is just a logical corollary to the oft-made statement you must delete any digital copies you have upon sale of the physical media; i.e., if you're asked to prove ownership of a digital file, you must be able to produce the physical CD you ripped it from. That said, I've not heard that any court in the US has officially ruled on the legality of even ripping files for your own use - everyone just assumes it "should be" OK. As do I. But I keep all my physical CDs (yes, taking up LOTS of room) and all my email "receipts" for downloaded tracks. Better safe than sorry.