|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 7, 2016 10:43:09 GMT -5
Per Mr. Keith Levkoff's suggestion, I'd like to start this thread about audio streamers. My primary interest is in 2-channel stereo, but multi-channel is certainly of interest to many as well.
My current setup utilizes a "server computer" running JRiver Media Center 21. The audio files reside on a USB-2 connected RAID array. The server is connected via wired Ethernet to the DLNA port on my Oppo BDP-105. The system is controlled from an iPad mini running J-Remote. This is not an unusual setup, but the mechanics are interesting.
Many streaming devices are now appearing on the market that attempt to combine some of the functions that I have on my rig. How do the streaming devices work and what are their advantages / disadvantages?
Thanks - Boomzilla
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 7, 2016 10:57:32 GMT -5
The good news is that your Oppo is a very capable streamer. Assuming you like to watch blu ray/dvd movies on the oppo, if you want a streaming device you would be adding a second box. Or were you talking about doing away with the Mac system and using a streamer to stream it to the Oppo?
|
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Jul 7, 2016 12:25:37 GMT -5
The coolest devices I have seen recently are these new Audio endpoint devices designed for audio only. I strongly suggest that you check out both the Sonore Microrendu and Sotm SMS-200. These are small purpose built devices aimed at improving audio quality by removing the garbage inside the computer as much as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 7, 2016 13:41:27 GMT -5
Neither the Sonore nor the Sotm seem to do anything that my Oppo doesn't do already. They take in Ethernet DLNA streams, but rather than giving an audio out (DAC function), it outputs to USB. Why would one need this? If it's already going through my computer to get to Ethernet, then why have an extra conversion in the chain? If I had a USB-only DAC, then I could understand the need for this function, but I don't plan on buying any future DAC that doesn't include streaming via Ethernet / DLNA.
What I'd LIKE to do is get the server computer out of the chain. To do that, I'd need a streamer that:
1. Could communicate with my USB HDD in any format (FAT32, NTFS, OS-X, etc.)
2. Could play ANY file format (HD, FLAC, WAV, MP3, MP4, ALE, etc.)
3. Had its own graphical interface & search engine for both internet & HDD media
4. Had its own 802.11x wireless base station
5. Could accept audio streams from internet sources - TIDAL, etc.
6. Could accept wireless streams from any source in range
7. HD quality DAC
8. Meridian MQA support
9. Software upgradable for future CODECs
10. Has control apps for Android & IOS
11. Balanced outputs at audiophile quality
12. Front panel jacks for phones & temporary USB storage (that would instantly & either temporarily / permanently be added to the library on recognition)
13. Optical drive control for ripping to the library HDD
14. Reasonable price
Got any of THOSE laying around?
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Jul 7, 2016 13:51:57 GMT -5
SotM and the like and dedicated servers (I use a Sonic Orbiter/Vortexbox) allow streaming your library content at whatever bit rate it is saved as. You will always need a server computer, even if it's also your player. Take a look at Salk Audio's Stream Player. It's a streamer with on board 2Tb storage so many libraries can reside on it with no need for another machine (except to load content to the Stream Player.)
|
|
|
|
Post by melm on Jul 7, 2016 14:21:03 GMT -5
Per Mr. Keith Levkoff's suggestion, I'd like to start this thread about audio streamers. My primary interest is in 2-channel stereo, but multi-channel is certainly of interest to many as well. My current setup utilizes a "server computer" running JRiver Media Center 21. The audio files reside on a USB-2 connected RAID array. The server is connected via wired Ethernet to the DLNA port on my Oppo BDP-105. The system is controlled from an iPad mini running J-Remote. This is not an unusual setup, but the mechanics are interesting. Many streaming devices are now appearing on the market that attempt to combine some of the functions that I have on my rig. How do the streaming devices work and what are their advantages / disadvantages? Thanks - Boomzilla I recently bought an Aurender N100H. It completely replaces a PC or a Mac as a streamer. It has an internal 2 TB drive, and an SSD drive for caching if you use a NAS for a source. It's pricey, but the sound is sublime. Even ripped CD's (ripped lossless) sound better than playing the actual disc. I do have an Oppo BD-103 I've used for playback of high Rez files, and there's no question the Aurender outperforms it sonically. The Aurender does require a DAC and then off it goes to my XMC-1. I use a PS Audio NuWave which handles both PCM and DSD which are supported by the Aurender. It does require an iPad for control, and their app is terrific and easy to use. Worth a look. Mel |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jul 7, 2016 14:41:50 GMT -5
The Pros: IMO there almost always aren't any real pros except of course if you can't live without streaming, but then I don't see why anyone couldn't. That is, unless your portable DAP has built-in wireless streaming capability like my Astell & Kern AK240 has.
The Cons: Expensive; typically doesn't improve sound quality (at all, or not enough to justify the extra cost) except if the DAC is to blame, so a better solution would be to deal with the root cause of the problem as opposed to merely attempting to cure the symptoms. I.e., too many people try to talk you out of getting a decent USB DAC that has an asynchronous USB input clearly audibly worth its salt.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 7, 2016 14:42:45 GMT -5
SotM and the like and dedicated servers (I use a Sonic Orbiter/Vortexbox) allow streaming your library content at whatever bit rate it is saved as. You will always need a server computer, even if it's also your player. Take a look at Salk Audio's Stream Player. It's a streamer with on board 2Tb storage so many libraries can reside on it with no need for another machine (except to load content to the Stream Player.) What do you think about MQA? I don't know much about it except for some brief reading that went either way. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Jul 7, 2016 14:51:30 GMT -5
What do you think about MQA? I don't know much about it except for some brief reading that went either way. It's a lossy compression scheme that relies on proprietary encoding/decoding. I think it's another flash in the pan attempt to grab market share similar to DSD. But I'm just a cynical old bastard. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jul 7, 2016 15:03:56 GMT -5
SotM and the like and dedicated servers (I use a Sonic Orbiter/Vortexbox) allow streaming your library content at whatever bit rate it is saved as. You will always need a server computer, even if it's also your player. Take a look at Salk Audio's Stream Player. It's a streamer with on board 2Tb storage so many libraries can reside on it with no need for another machine (except to load content to the Stream Player.) What do you think about MQA? I don't know much about it except for some brief reading that went either way. I am not DYohn, but I think MQA is based on rock solid engineering (with a cherry on top) and it has the true potential to become a huge success if the record companies are willing to embrace and use it the way it was intended to be used. Now, that's one big "if", but I see no reason to panic (as long as they don't sell it to Apple  ). |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 7, 2016 15:29:53 GMT -5
I'd also like to ask about the advantages / disadvantages of the various digital interfaces?
DLNA via Ethernet
USB
SPDIF
ABS / EBU
Coaxial
Optical / TOLINK
Which is best for avoiding dropouts & why?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 7, 2016 15:41:27 GMT -5
My biggest "problem" with the various streaming devices is that their creators seem reticent about providing actual technical details about what they're doing. I currently have one player in one room. My player is a standard laptop computer, running Windows 10, and I store my music on an external USB hard drive. I get to pick which player program I want to use, I use WASAPI to be sure that my files are played exactly "as they sit", with no resampling or alteration, and it works just fine. If I wanted to use multiple players in multiple rooms, I would replace that USB hard drive with a NETWORK ATTACHED hard drive (like a USB hard drive only it's an Ethernet hard drive). I would have a hard drive, with audio files on it, and any computer that I connected to a share on that drive would be able to access those files across the network. The NAS is NOT acting as a music server... it's acting as a FILE server... and the files just happen to be music. And they could just as well be video files, or pictures, or spreadsheets. I play my music through a DAC connected directly to that computer...... and that DAC could be an Ego DAC, or the USB input on my XMC-1, or even the USB input on an Oppo 95 or an Oppo 105.... (The Oppo supports both SMB and DLNA file sharing.... SMB is supposed to be lossless/bitperfect; DLNA seems, as usual, to be somewhat more vague in the details....) Whenever I read the specifications of one or another of those streaming programs, I always encounter a huge "grey area". Does Apple Airplay send the actual bits exactly as they are, or does it change them? Hmmmmm.... good question. Likewise, does this or that DLNA server send every file exactly as is..... and I don't mean "at the same sample rate" - which is a good starting point.... I mean does it send each bit unaltered? I suspect that some do, at least if configured correctly, but I'm not sure that ALL of them do, and even the ones that probably do seem to avoid saying things like: "Your music will be sent across the network bit-for-bit exactly as it's read off the hard drive". And this omission makes me wonder whether they really do or not. I just went to the Sonic Orbiter website..... and I read a long list of sample rates and modes it supported..... but, conspicuous by its absence, was the word "bit perfect"..... and I didn't see anything vaguely like "unmodified audio data stream" either. Now, I also noticed that it supports several "modes", like Squeezeserver, which most definitely are NOT bit perfect. And, also, the very fact that they mention various PCM sample rates, and DSD, and DoP make me suspect that they do in fact offer lossless playback of those types of data streams..... But it still makes me somewhat... err... uneasy that they don't say something like "audiophile quality bit-perfect playback of high resolution music" right at the top of the page... or even somewhere on the FAQ where I could find it. This sort of makes me suspect that their priority is mostly on convenience and universal support, and a lot less of perfectly accurate music reproduction. All I can say is that, if I were describing my new streaming service, which absolutely promised to deliver your content bit-perfect, it would be a big, bold, bright red headline... and not buried in the FAQ on page 97. From a quick look around, the only method that is believed to always be bit-perfect is "SMB" - which is another term for "network file share". To paraphrase Oppo's description: "The file is not converted or transcoded, but merely passed to the requesting device unaltered". To me, that sounds like what I want, and all the other stuff seems to add a lot of unnecessary bells and whistles, and remove a layer of "trustworthiness"...... But, to get back to Boom's question..... I can buy a NAS drive, and a computer, and connect the computer to a share on the drive, and play music. I'm also still waiting to hear the awesome benefits I get by signing up to a streaming ecosystem, and locking myself in to a specific server and clients...... Per Mr. Keith Levkoff's suggestion, I'd like to start this thread about audio streamers. My primary interest is in 2-channel stereo, but multi-channel is certainly of interest to many as well. My current setup utilizes a "server computer" running JRiver Media Center 21. The audio files reside on a USB-2 connected RAID array. The server is connected via wired Ethernet to the DLNA port on my Oppo BDP-105. The system is controlled from an iPad mini running J-Remote. This is not an unusual setup, but the mechanics are interesting. Many streaming devices are now appearing on the market that attempt to combine some of the functions that I have on my rig. How do the streaming devices work and what are their advantages / disadvantages? Thanks - Boomzilla |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jul 7, 2016 15:52:05 GMT -5
Now that Ethernet has become more reliable than it used to be a few years back, I don't think you will experience any dropouts with any of the options you listed, at least not if the hardware is compliant and built within reasonable quality limits. (Even Wireless Ethernet proves to be stable and reliable between my Asus RT-N66U wireless router and the built-in Wi-Fi adapter of my Astell & Kern AK240).
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jul 7, 2016 16:14:08 GMT -5
My biggest "problem" with the various streaming devices is that their creators seem reticent about providing actual technical details about what they're doing. I currently have one player in one room. My player is a standard laptop computer, running Windows 10, and I store my music on an external USB hard drive. I get to pick which player program I want to use, I use WASAPI to be sure that my files are played exactly "as they sit", with no resampling or alteration, and it works just fine. If I wanted to use multiple players in multiple rooms, I would replace that USB hard drive with a NETWORK ATTACHED hard drive (like a USB hard drive only it's an Ethernet hard drive). I would have a hard drive, with audio files on it, and any computer that I connected to a share on that drive would be able to access those files across the network. The NAS is NOT acting as a music server... it's acting as a FILE server... and the files just happen to be music. And they could just as well be video files, or pictures, or spreadsheets. I play my music through a DAC connected directly to that computer...... and that DAC could be an Ego DAC, or the USB input on my XMC-1, or even the USB input on an Oppo 95 or an Oppo 105.... (The Oppo supports both SMB and DLNA file sharing.... SMB is supposed to be lossless/bitperfect; DLNA seems, as usual, to be somewhat more vague in the details....) Whenever I read the specifications of one or another of those streaming programs, I always encounter a huge "grey area". Does Apple Airplay send the actual bits exactly as they are, or does it change them? Hmmmmm.... good question. Likewise, does this or that DLNA server send every file exactly as is..... and I don't mean "at the same sample rate" - which is a good starting point.... I mean does it send each bit unaltered? I suspect that some do, at least if configured correctly, but I'm not sure that ALL of them do, and even the ones that probably do seem to avoid saying things like: "Your music will be sent across the network bit-for-bit exactly as it's read off the hard drive". And this omission makes me wonder whether they really do or not. I just went to the Sonic Orbiter website..... and I read a long list of sample rates and modes it supported..... but, conspicuous by its absence, was the word "bit perfect"..... and I didn't see anything vaguely like "unmodified audio data stream" either. Now, I also noticed that it supports several "modes", like Squeezeserver, which most definitely are NOT bit perfect. And, also, the very fact that they mention various PCM sample rates, and DSD, and DoP make me suspect that they do in fact offer lossless playback of those types of data streams..... But it still makes me somewhat... err... uneasy that they don't say something like "audiophile quality bit-perfect playback of high resolution music" right at the top of the page... or even somewhere on the FAQ where I could find it. This sort of makes me suspect that their priority is mostly on convenience and universal support, and a lot less of perfectly accurate music reproduction. All I can say is that, if I were describing my new streaming service, which absolutely promised to deliver your content bit-perfect, it would be a big, bold, bright red headline... and not buried in the FAQ on page 97. From a quick look around, the only method that is believed to always be bit-perfect is "SMB" - which is another term for "network file share". To paraphrase Oppo's description: "The file is not converted or transcoded, but merely passed to the requesting device unaltered". To me, that sounds like what I want, and all the other stuff seems to add a lot of unnecessary bells and whistles, and remove a layer of "trustworthiness"...... But, to get back to Boom's question..... I can buy a NAS drive, and a computer, and connect the computer to a share on the drive, and play music. I'm also still waiting to hear the awesome benefits I get by signing up to a streaming ecosystem, and locking myself in to a specific server and clients...... Per Mr. Keith Levkoff's suggestion, I'd like to start this thread about audio streamers. My primary interest is in 2-channel stereo, but multi-channel is certainly of interest to many as well. My current setup utilizes a "server computer" running JRiver Media Center 21. The audio files reside on a USB-2 connected RAID array. The server is connected via wired Ethernet to the DLNA port on my Oppo BDP-105. The system is controlled from an iPad mini running J-Remote. This is not an unusual setup, but the mechanics are interesting. Many streaming devices are now appearing on the market that attempt to combine some of the functions that I have on my rig. How do the streaming devices work and what are their advantages / disadvantages? Thanks - Boomzilla I am pretty confident that the iRiver (not to be confused with jRiver) MQS Streaming Server software that came as a free download with my Astell & Kern doesn't mangle the bits. It actually supports all file formats that are popular in the audio world, up to 192 kHz PCM and up to 5.6448 MHz (native) DSD. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 7, 2016 16:22:34 GMT -5
The Benefit of ANYTHING over Ethernet is that Ethernet is a packetized network protocol. Each cable connected to a router or switch can be up to a few hundred feet long (depending on the speed you're using). And, if you like, you can put a switch or router at the other end, and connect another cable to it. If you live in a normal house, you can put one router in the center, and run cables to every room. You can buy switches with anywhere from three to thousands of cable ports. The wires are cheap and easily available; switches are also really cheap. The "signal" is almost immune from interference, and errors, if they occur, are automatically corrected by the Ethernet protocol. The faster versions of Ethernet are also MUCH faster than the others...... (Certain protocols MAY deliberately choose to circumvent the error correction for their own reasons..... ) WiFi is a sort of subset of Ethernet. WiFi has less range, is more subject to interference, is slower to begin with, and tends to slow down as you get further from the router. It's a lot more variable than wired Ethernet, but it's still pretty good. Note that DLNA is a specific protocol, which means that what you get also depends on the specific "DLNA server" you use. (It doesn't just depend on the Ethernet transport it's using.) Also note that Ethernet tends to require "more thinking"....... Virtually all computers can "do" Ethernet, and some network devices, but "regular DACs" generally do not. For both wired and WiFi Ethernet, you can connect a whole bunch of devices to your network, and they all share it. A fast network can cheerfully support a lot of devices, although really heavy data traffic may cause significant enough delays to cause dropouts for audio or video traffic. If you know what you're doing, and have the right equipment, you can configure special settings to avoid this (Google things like "QoS" and "VPN".) You can also do more complicated things, like using separate switches for video and audio traffic - which can get VERY complicated. ALL of the others you mentioned are basically short distance protocols intended to connect two nearby devices together. While USB can be "extended", it's really intended to connect devices within ten or twenty feet of each other. It's relatively slow (although fast enough for audio), and can only connect two devices (no switches; one wire from device to device). The variety commonly used for data drives has error correction; the audio kind is subject to dropouts if the computer can't feed the audio fast enough. USB errors generally give you dropouts... for various reasons. USB ports on computers are prone to large amounts of jitter - but a DAC with an asynch USB input avoids this by controlling the data clock. AES/EBU is a "pro" digital audio standard. It has the capability to support many channels, and cables can be very long (up to somewhere around 100 feet). You're supposed to use a special cable of the proper impedance, but a regular XLR audio cable will usually work for short runs. The main limitation is that very few devices actually USE it. The other three are actually the same thing..... S/PDIF refers to the digital audio signal itself. Toslink is S/PDIF over an optical cable; Coax is SPDIF over an electrical connection. S/PDIF can be stereo or multi-channel..... the signal itself is sort of a packetized form of PCM (sort of) The Toslink version usually tops out at 24/192k x 2 channels (or 24/96k x 2 for older or less able implementations) The Coax version is considerably faster. Both Coax and Toslink are prone to jitter, with short cable lengths recommended for both (anywhere from about one foot to twenty feet). Since all of these are digital, if implemented correctly, they can be bit-perfect - and so equal in sound. Of course, many people insist that one or the other sounds better. This is almost certainly sometimes true - although it's more a matter of the individual device than of one protocol being "inherently better" than the other. Since they're intended for different purposes, and you usually won't encounter a device which supports all of them, it's almost always down to a choice between two or three, rather than picking the one you like. For example, most computers support USB, but only a few do Coax or Toslink, and, of the ones that do, most support more sample rates over USB. And, while there used to be many DACs that did Coax and not USB, USB is also now far more common, which makes USB the obvious choice for a computer DAC. I'd also like to ask about the advantages / disadvantages of the various digital interfaces? DLNA via Ethernet USB SPDIF ABS / EBU Coaxial Optical / TOLINK Which is best for avoiding dropouts & why? |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 7, 2016 16:34:14 GMT -5
If you read the long description, you'll find that "MQA" is really a whole bunch of different things...... 1) It's the protocol 2) It's a sort of "initiative" to offer high quality music encoded WITH that protocol 3) It's some vague sort of standard to deliver "MQA certified" DACs and other devices that, besides running that protocol, meet other requirements claimed to be important for sound quality 4) It's a possible service which might be utilized to "backwards engineer" existing masters to "undo" some of the flaws in them created by the original A/D process I think "what it is" and "how good it is" will depend on how many of those items actually happen. (Pono became an excellent portable music player, but I haven't seen any "Pono exclusive content", or any of the other pieces of the ecosystem that were originally promised.) I agree that the engineering seems to be at least solid..... and it looks to be the best lossy compression format developed to date. The general claim is that, even though it's a lossy format (YES), the choice of what to discard was made so intelligently that it still sounds better than an equally sized lossless equivalent. I'm reasonably convinced that, at low bit rates, such as those used by streaming services, it's probably a very good alternative..... However, whether it's audibly better, or equal to, other lossless high-res audio formats remains to be seen. (Yes, some previews have been very well received.... but since, by definition, ANY MQA recording has been remastered, an apples-to-apples comparison isn't even remotely possible.) My personal prediction is that it will join FLAC, WAV, and AIFF in the list of available high-res formats from stores like HD TRacks...... (And, as long as Apple doesn't buy the company, I have no problem if they license it like everyone else  .) What do you think about MQA? I don't know much about it except for some brief reading that went either way. I am not DYohn, but I think MQA is based on rock solid engineering (with a cherry on top) and it has the true potential to become a huge success if the record companies are willing to embrace and use it the way it was intended to be used. Now, that's one big "if", but I see no reason to panic (as long as they don't sell it to Apple ). |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jul 7, 2016 16:46:44 GMT -5
If you read the long description, you'll find that "MQA" is really a whole bunch of different things...... 1) It's the protocol 2) It's a sort of "initiative" to offer high quality music encoded WITH that protocol 3) It's some vague sort of standard to deliver "MQA certified" DACs and other devices that, besides running that protocol, meet other requirements claimed to be important for sound quality 4) It's a possible service which might be utilized to "backwards engineer" existing masters to "undo" some of the flaws in them created by the original A/D process I think "what it is" and "how good it is" will depend on how many of those items actually happen. (Pono became an excellent portable music player, but I haven't seen any "Pono exclusive content", or any of the other pieces of the ecosystem that were originally promised.) I agree that the engineering seems to be at least solid..... and it looks to be the best lossy compression format developed to date. The general claim is that, even though it's a lossy format (YES), the choice of what to discard was made so intelligently that it still sounds better than an equally sized lossless equivalent. I'm reasonably convinced that, at low bit rates, such as those used by streaming services, it's probably a very good alternative..... However, whether it's audibly better, or equal to, other lossless high-res audio formats remains to be seen. (Yes, some previews have been very well received.... but since, by definition, ANY MQA recording has been remastered, an apples-to-apples comparison isn't even remotely possible.) My personal prediction is that it will join FLAC, WAV, and AIFF in the list of available high-res formats from stores like HD TRacks...... (And, as long as Apple doesn't buy the company, I have no problem if they license it like everyone else .) I am not DYohn, but I think MQA is based on rock solid engineering (with a cherry on top) and it has the true potential to become a huge success if the record companies are willing to embrace and use it the way it was intended to be used. Now, that's one big "if", but I see no reason to panic (as long as they don't sell it to Apple ). Also, 5. It is a philosophy.  |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 7, 2016 16:48:55 GMT -5
Interesting.... although I'll admit to being somewhat perplexed..... The Aurender appears to have some very nice features. However, since it claims to deliver a bit-perfect output, and requires an external DAC, I'm wondering how it can make those bits sound better... (If you were using S/PDIF, then jitter might be an issue, but the USB inputs on everything you've mentioned are asynch, and so should be more or less immune to jitter.) Per Mr. Keith Levkoff's suggestion, I'd like to start this thread about audio streamers. My primary interest is in 2-channel stereo, but multi-channel is certainly of interest to many as well. My current setup utilizes a "server computer" running JRiver Media Center 21. The audio files reside on a USB-2 connected RAID array. The server is connected via wired Ethernet to the DLNA port on my Oppo BDP-105. The system is controlled from an iPad mini running J-Remote. This is not an unusual setup, but the mechanics are interesting. Many streaming devices are now appearing on the market that attempt to combine some of the functions that I have on my rig. How do the streaming devices work and what are their advantages / disadvantages? Thanks - Boomzilla I recently bought an Aurender N100H. It completely replaces a PC or a Mac as a streamer. It has an internal 2 TB drive, and an SSD drive for caching if you use a NAS for a source. It's pricey, but the sound is sublime. Even ripped CD's (ripped lossless) sound better than playing the actual disc. I do have an Oppo BD-103 I've used for playback of high Rez files, and there's no question the Aurender outperforms it sonically. The Aurender does require a DAC and then off it goes to my XMC-1. I use a PS Audio NuWave which handles both PCM and DSD which are supported by the Aurender. It does require an iPad for control, and their app is terrific and easy to use. Worth a look. Mel |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Jul 7, 2016 16:50:10 GMT -5
I use either an Apple TV 4 or a Roku 3 for video streaming but for audio, I'm intentionally using a laptop so I can utilize products like Amarra, Amarra SQ+, Amarra for TIDAL, PureMusic, Audirvana and more. I find these products enhance my listening experience greatly.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 7, 2016 16:52:21 GMT -5
If you read the long description, you'll find that "MQA" is really a whole bunch of different things...... 1) It's the protocol 2) It's a sort of "initiative" to offer high quality music encoded WITH that protocol 3) It's some vague sort of standard to deliver "MQA certified" DACs and other devices that, besides running that protocol, meet other requirements claimed to be important for sound quality 4) It's a possible service which might be utilized to "backwards engineer" existing masters to "undo" some of the flaws in them created by the original A/D process I think "what it is" and "how good it is" will depend on how many of those items actually happen. (Pono became an excellent portable music player, but I haven't seen any "Pono exclusive content", or any of the other pieces of the ecosystem that were originally promised.) I agree that the engineering seems to be at least solid..... and it looks to be the best lossy compression format developed to date. The general claim is that, even though it's a lossy format (YES), the choice of what to discard was made so intelligently that it still sounds better than an equally sized lossless equivalent. I'm reasonably convinced that, at low bit rates, such as those used by streaming services, it's probably a very good alternative..... However, whether it's audibly better, or equal to, other lossless high-res audio formats remains to be seen. (Yes, some previews have been very well received.... but since, by definition, ANY MQA recording has been remastered, an apples-to-apples comparison isn't even remotely possible.) My personal prediction is that it will join FLAC, WAV, and AIFF in the list of available high-res formats from stores like HD TRacks...... (And, as long as Apple doesn't buy the company, I have no problem if they license it like everyone else .) Also, 5. It is a philosophy. And, from the number of magazine articles published about it in the past few months, and how excited the "true believers" seem to be getting, I think it might be shooting for... 6. A religion (or maybe a cult).  |
|
).
.)
