|
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 20, 2017 13:02:55 GMT -5
"A great position paper," ? I though more of you before this post. Ive read it and picked it apart but at this time don't have time or energy to show the obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 20, 2017 13:16:02 GMT -5
Work in progress
Schiit Paper;
Point one) asking for the stars and the moon, most do! Most don't get anything close ! Negotiations 101
2) "Consider the surround market. Companies making surround processors now have to support a dizzying array of different standards, none of which is a market differentiator, and the exclusion of any single standard can mean commercial failure. The result is a market in which competition is stifled and consumers are confused."
no they don't!
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Sept 20, 2017 13:23:29 GMT -5
"A great position paper," ? I though more of you before this post. Ive read it and picked it apart but at this time don't have time or energy to show the obvious. I'm not doubting you when you say the MQA-processed recordings sound better to you than non-MQA. But does that mean you are comparing apples to apples? What I mean by that is, are you comparing the same file or recording, one not processed by MQA and the same thing processed by MQA? Or is it comparing some other version of the file such as a vinyl recording or a CD track or one from a streaming service, to the MQA version? In other words, how do you know that the better sound from the MQA file is not due to its being remastered or remixed, and thus a different version altogether from what you have on the other sources that you say do not sound as good as the MQA version? |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 20, 2017 13:35:36 GMT -5
Well, assuming you're using a PC or Apple computer, you can try it easily enough. The Tidal desktop client (only the computer client; for either Windows or Apple computers; not the various client apps) does the "MQA first unfold" in software. You can then listen to it on your favorite DAC and judge for yourself. Of course, remember that, since you are listening to a re-mastered album, you still have to figure out how much of any difference you hear is due to MQA..... (Compared to any other versions, the MQA version is both "a re-master" AND "an MQA version".) At this point, it seems as if MQA might end up being a worthwhile differentiator for choosing Tidal..... (But you don't need any special hardware for that.... ) Great posts and info Keith ! Your explanation verify where I am at with this. I would love to be able to hear it in my system. Is it better then using Jriver through the xda to my rig? Or is just just good for streaming services etc. Hopefully eventually this shakes out for the consumers to decide. Mark |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,489
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 20, 2017 14:02:14 GMT -5
"A great position paper," ? I though more of you before this post. Ive read it and picked it apart but at this time don't have time or energy to show the obvious. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. Me, I'll hitch my wagon to Mike Moffatt, the father of DACs and high-end digital audio. |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 20, 2017 14:06:24 GMT -5
"A great position paper," ? I though more of you before this post. Ive read it and picked it apart but at this time don't have time or energy to show the obvious. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. Me, I'll hitch my wagon to Mike Moffatt, the father of DACs and high-end digital audio. I haven't hitched my wagon, Im just keeping an open mind. Closed minds don't create new or innovative ideas. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 20, 2017 14:32:19 GMT -5
Exactly.... The Dark Side of the Moon has been re-mastered literally dozens of times; and there are audible differences between many of them. I personally like the EMI 2003 version, and there is a Japanese gold CD version from 1972 that I quite like. (The MFLS version is good too, but I don't like it quite as much.) And the Grateful Dead Studio Album re-masters from HDTracks sound incredibly good - even when you play them at CD quality. (They did a lot of work on some of those re-masters to correct flaws and improve the mix; at least I personally like it a lot better.) I would also defend Schiit's "positioning paper" as just that - a statement of THEIR POSITION on MQA and why they have no plans to add support for it. Also note that it was written about a year ago........ (segue into my next paragraph  ) One of the biggest issues many people have with MQA is that "the story keeps changing". Many of the comments in that positioning paper were quite relevant, based on the claims made for MQA at the time it was written, but those claims have since changed. In their initial white papers, MQA actually did envision a world where every studio would use MQA licensed gear to make all their new content, distribute their music using MQA encoded files and streams, and require consumers to play back that content on MQA certified devices if they wanted the best audio quality (from smart phones to expensive DACs). Of course, in addition to that, the MQA encoder could be used to "improve" the audio quality of masters that were previously recorded on non-MQA equipment, and special "white glove hand processing" would be available for important content. And, no big shock, MQA would collect some sort of licensing fee for each of those steps along the way. It was also initially assumed that an MQA-capable DAC would be required to decode MQA content (there was initially no mention of the possibility of "doing the first unfold in software" and no "MQA renderers" with limited but still worthwhile decoding capabilities.) In addition, in the early papers, MQA seemed quite determined to position MQA as "lossless" - even though it is in fact lossy. They were also quick to point out that the MQA encoding process does NOT include DRM (copy protection); although detractors were equally quick to point out that, once a proprietary system becomes widely adopted, but remains under the absolute control of its inventors, DRM capabilities can easily be added later in an "upgraded" version. "A great position paper," ? I though more of you before this post. Ive read it and picked it apart but at this time don't have time or energy to show the obvious. I'm not doubting you when you say the MQA-processed recordings sound better to you than non-MQA. But does that mean you are comparing apples to apples? What I mean by that is, are you comparing the same file or recording, one not processed by MQA and the same thing processed by MQA? Or is it comparing some other version of the file such as a vinyl recording or a CD track or one from a streaming service, to the MQA version? In other words, how do you know that the better sound from the MQA file is not due to its being remastered or remixed, and thus a different version altogether from what you have on the other sources that you say do not sound as good as the MQA version? |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Sept 20, 2017 14:50:28 GMT -5
I think Donald Fagen's IGY is really about MQA.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,489
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 20, 2017 15:02:16 GMT -5
This part of their position paper is unlikely to change: Asked if there was any chance Schiit Audio might support MQA if it became the dominant format in the market, Moffat answered, “If it becomes the dominant audio technology, or even a very popular second-place format, we would have to evaluate it in the same way we evaluate other lossy compression standards, such as home theater surround formats, Bluetooth codecs, and MP3 variants.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Sept 20, 2017 15:58:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Sept 20, 2017 16:20:52 GMT -5
I quote an excerpt from this editorial: Myself, I’ve had an Aurender A10 player equipped for MQA playback in my system for around a month and I’ve been able to spend hours comparing streamed MQA files with downloaded files of the same content at the same level of resolution. My assessment is that MQA is definitely different, and usually better. Not night and day better, but better.Once again the same issue is raised that I keep raising which has not been definitively answered, which is are we actually comparing apples to apples? Is this streamed MQA file the exact same thing as the non-MQA file? He needs to define "content" - does that mean the same song or the exact same recording? Otherwise we don't know if the difference is due to a different master or mix. It is good for consumers that MQA presents what many say is a better sounding experience. That is beneficial. But is that better experience due to remastering or altering the source, or is it really due to the MQA processing? Because if it is the former, then all this other mumbo jumbo is a bunch of hoodoo voodoo snake oil. And that's what I can't seem to find an answer to. |
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Sept 20, 2017 16:22:48 GMT -5
It's so easy to try tidal mqa masters. I have been streaming tidal for over a year and a half. The new mqa masters are icing on the cake. If you have the capability try it. I'm a happy camper just streaming it from Mac book pro to oppo ess sabre dac via USB. My monthly payment is the same. Sound quality, convenience, and selection are pluses for me. Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Sept 20, 2017 16:34:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Sept 20, 2017 16:50:18 GMT -5
MQA claims even a brick-walled album will sound better because of the timing error correction but that's just plain wrong from my listening experience. As I've posted in other threads, there are some MQA (TIDAL) albums, mostly classical, that sound incredible but maybe it is just from a stellar restoration or remastering treatment.  |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,489
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 20, 2017 16:55:12 GMT -5
If I was Meridian trying to generate licensing revenue from people adopting MQA I'd say "it sounds better" too. Hell, I used to work for THX so I guess I *HAVE* used that lie in the past.  |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Sept 20, 2017 18:55:10 GMT -5
If I was Meridian trying to generate licensing revenue from people adopting MQA I'd say "it sounds better" too. Hell, I used to work for THX so I guess I *HAVE* used that lie in the past. Was there a time when Dolby could have created a monopoly and owned/controlled 100% of the movie sound market? DTS came later, correct? |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,489
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 20, 2017 19:00:15 GMT -5
Dolby is and has pretty much always been about as close to a monopoly controlling the movie sound market as there is. DTS and SDDS came later, yes, and they have small market shares. THX is even smaller, although I'd argue that THX's impact was more significant on home theater than DTS or Sony. Pales in comparison to Dolby, though. THX was never a delivery format in the same way as Dolby or DTS is, but more a set of performance criteria with a licensing and certification program. THX performance criteria are still "industry standard" for HT even though not many people pay the fees to use the logo any longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 20, 2017 19:34:26 GMT -5
Dolby is and has pretty much always been about as close to a monopoly controlling the movie sound market as there is. DTS and SDDS came later, yes, and they have small market shares. THX is even smaller, although I'd argue that THX's impact was more significant on home theater than DTS or Sony. Pales in comparison to Dolby, though. THX was never a delivery format in the same way as Dolby or DTS is, but more a set of performance criteria with a licensing and certification program. THX performance criteria are still "industry standard" for HT even though not many people pay the fees to use the logo any longer. I knew you were smarter then you let on! 👍😁 |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 20, 2017 19:46:11 GMT -5
This is one of the healthiest threads on the subject matter Ive read on the net. Thank you all for presenting an intelligent, courteous and intelligent discussion. Lets keep it up.
👍👍👍👍👍
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Sept 21, 2017 6:53:08 GMT -5
OK - Practical question:
As I understand it, there are MQA "half-DACs" (like my AudioQuest Dragonfly Red and the Meridian Explorer, for example) that can RENDER MQA content (second "unfold"), but which need an upstream MQA DECODER (such as Tidal or Aurirvana 3+) to prepare the MQA content (first "unfold").
Then there are MQA "full-DACs" (such as the Mytek Brooklyn and the Meridian Ultra) that can both decode AND render. To play a MQA-encoded CD, for example with "full MQA," you'd need a MQA "full-DAC."
Now to my question:
What DACs on the market (other than the Mytek Brooklyn and the Meridian Ultra) are "full-MQA?"
I see that NAD has models including their M51 and M12 that claim MQA compatibility, but it isn't clear from their specs whether or not they are "half" or "full" MQA devices. How does one tell?
Thanks - Boomzilla
|
|
)
