hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,950
|
Post by hemster on Jan 20, 2017 17:34:52 GMT -5
I too would be fine with a $50 premium for MQA... provided that I am convinced that it actually provides better SQ than without MQA.
Also, just in case, I'd prefer an option to defeat/turn off MQA.
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,950
|
Post by hemster on Jan 20, 2017 17:38:01 GMT -5
In all fairness, I think the recordings are good, it's the mastering that often is below par. I mean the whole ball of wax. I have done some recording in my time. I have been listening to music for 50 years and recordings or mastering should have improved long ago. Both of them. There has been many good recordings but I have a pretty big pile of music that I sure wish they did something better than they did. Blame whoever you want but if your in the industry just get to work and make it better please.  Well, for 'industry' to improve things it's got to be worth their while. And in today's world where most music is increasingly consumed in digitally crapified format like MP3, why would they bother?  |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Jan 20, 2017 17:40:48 GMT -5
Agreed. Listening the "master" version of red hot chili peppers "californication" is painful all over again  I like that song but the recording, mixing, mastering Or whatever it is could surely be improved, a lot too! The entire album is terrible |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 20, 2017 17:41:47 GMT -5
I too would be fine with a $50 premium for MQA... provided that I am convinced that it actually provides better SQ than without MQA. Also, just in case, I'd prefer an option to defeat/turn off MQA. Tell me what it is like if you get it. I trust your opinion on stuff like this. You know Hemster I have some Sting that he encoded with a kinda surround sound. It sounded good. I wonder if they are doing something like that. What could people be hearing that makes them think it sounds better ? |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Jan 20, 2017 17:42:41 GMT -5
I like that song but the recording, mixing, mastering Or whatever it is could surely be improved, a lot too! The entire album is terrible Do you mean the music or the sound quality? |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Jan 20, 2017 17:46:22 GMT -5
The entire album is terrible Do you mean the music or the sound quality? The music is terrific. The sound quality is awful, probably one of the worst that i ever heard and i guess the mqa technology doesn't do miracles either. |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 20, 2017 17:49:15 GMT -5
I mean the whole ball of wax. I have done some recording in my time. I have been listening to music for 50 years and recordings or mastering should have improved long ago. Both of them. There has been many good recordings but I have a pretty big pile of music that I sure wish they did something better than they did. Blame whoever you want but if your in the industry just get to work and make it better please. Well, for 'industry' to improve things it's got to be worth their while. And in today's world where most music is increasingly consumed in digitally crapified format like MP3, why would they bother? I am sick about it. All those I phones !  What happen to my beautiful analog world ?  |
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,950
|
Post by hemster on Jan 20, 2017 17:52:36 GMT -5
I too would be fine with a $50 premium for MQA... provided that I am convinced that it actually provides better SQ than without MQA. Also, just in case, I'd prefer an option to defeat/turn off MQA. Tell me what it is like if you get it. I trust your opinion on stuff like this. You know Hemster I have some Sting that he encoded with a kinda surround sound. It sounded good. I wonder if they are doing something like that. What could people be hearing that makes them think it sounds better ? Rather than encode in surround sound, they claim to improve SQ with MQA, presumably even for 2-channel music. Admittedly I've only sampled a couple of tracks with MQA, one sounded better - clearer, more expansive. The other I couldn't discern from WAV and FLAC. So thus far I'm cautiously optimistic but not completely sold. Now, if they want me to buy new hardware, they'll have to wait. I have neither the budget, nor intention to replace my gear at the moment. Interesting times we live in. Come a long way from my dad's old Philips gramophone. |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Jan 20, 2017 17:53:09 GMT -5
Do you mean the music or the sound quality? The music is terrific. The sound quality is awful, probably one of the worst that i ever heard and i guess the mqa technology doesn't do miracles either. I totally agree. Another one is Adele's 25, one can hear she's singing louder from how her voice changes but it doesn't get louder! |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 20, 2017 18:00:50 GMT -5
Tell me what it is like if you get it. I trust your opinion on stuff like this. You know Hemster I have some Sting that he encoded with a kinda surround sound. It sounded good. I wonder if they are doing something like that. What could people be hearing that makes them think it sounds better ? Rather than encode in surround sound, they claim to improve SQ with MQA, presumably even for 2-channel music. Admittedly I've only sampled a couple of tracks with MQA, one sounded better - clearer, more expansive. The other I couldn't discern from WAV and FLAC. So thus far I'm cautiously optimistic but not completely sold. Now, if they want me to buy new hardware, they'll have to wait. I have neither the budget, nor intention to replace my gear at the moment. Interesting times we live in. Come a long way from my dad's old Philips gramophone. I do not stream from the internet and I am sure not going to buy any music I already have unless I know the improvement came from the source. I'm to old for any tricks. I am seriously thinking gramophone in the form of a new good turntable and some tube amps along with some fresh vinyl. That's when I would buy music I already have. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Jan 20, 2017 18:08:40 GMT -5
Well, suppose there are 10 things that people say they want. And each one involves a $50 uptick in price because of development, licensing fees, etc. Are you still willing to pat $50 for all 10: $500 more for the XMC-1, etc.? If not, which subset of the 10? And who decides?
Manufacturers like Emotive pretty much have to go with a metric where "the vast majority of our customer want feature 'X'" in order to consider including it.
Casey
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,950
|
Post by hemster on Jan 20, 2017 18:43:22 GMT -5
Well, suppose there are 10 things that people say they want. And each one involves a $50 uptick in price because of development, licensing fees, etc. Are you still willing to pat $50 for all 10: $500 more for the XMC-1, etc.? If not, which subset of the 10? And who decides? Manufacturers like Emotive pretty much have to go with a metric where "the vast majority of our customer want feature 'X'" in order to consider including it. Casey Supply and Demand 101. Ultimately customers vote with their wallet and vendors decide on acceptable return on their investment. But of the 10 (or however many) we're talking about 1 in particular here viz. MQA. I'd rank the other features based on my needs and desires. |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Jan 20, 2017 18:56:21 GMT -5
Supply and demand is fine, problem for the vendors is which if any extras to choose.
Besides, it's easy for a consumer to say "but it's just a software addition and/or change".
However, for anyone involved in any involved in software and hardware development,
"small" software changes might end up costing a lot more than anticpated.
|
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Jan 20, 2017 22:08:31 GMT -5
I would love Emotiva to include MQA. I wouldn't have a problem paying 50 dollars for the firmware/license. I heard MQA rendered with Tidal and I liked it.
With MQA, rock music doesn't sound harsh. You could pump the volume and enjoy it loud. +1 on Emotiva having MQA.
Also, please have a USB/DLNA DAC, MQA & AKM Veritas top chip. Day one buy from me
|
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 21, 2017 11:32:21 GMT -5
I think I may be getting a better picture of what is happening here.
Tidal crap vs MQA processed.
What is Tidal sending ? MP3 stuff or some other sort of compression ?
I have never heard Tidal and know nothing about it but its over the internet if I am correct. It takes a CD with an good recording and mastering through a good CD player and DAC to get just good sound. It seems to me that if you are piping music files to millions over the internet then something got to give.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 21, 2017 11:40:00 GMT -5
I think I may be getting a better picture of what is happening here. Tidal crap vs MQA processed. What is Tidal sending ? MP3 stuff or some other sort of compression ? I have never heard Tidal and know nothing about it but its over the internet if I am correct. It takes a CD with an good recording and mastering through a good CD player and DAC to get just good sound. It seems to me that if you are piping music files to millions over the internet then something got to give. Tidal streams in two resolutions, regular mp3 and CD quality. You pay a premium for the latter, which they call "hi-fi quality" and is lossless. From what I understand, you can upgrade to MQA and still pay the same premium price, $19.99 a month. I think you can sign up for a free month trial so maybe you can try it and see what you think. I was a Tidal hi-fi subscriber but canceled because I just didn't utilize the service enough to justify paying that each month. I'd rather just buy my own CD's, then rip them to files and stream them. Kind of doesn't make sense but that's me. There was nothing wrong with Tidal's service or the quality of the streaming. It sounded like CD quality to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 21, 2017 12:01:15 GMT -5
I think I may be getting a better picture of what is happening here. Tidal crap vs MQA processed. What is Tidal sending ? MP3 stuff or some other sort of compression ? I have never heard Tidal and know nothing about it but its over the internet if I am correct. It takes a CD with an good recording and mastering through a good CD player and DAC to get just good sound. It seems to me that if you are piping music files to millions over the internet then something got to give. Tidal streams in two resolutions, regular mp3 and CD quality. You pay a premium for the latter, which they call "hi-fi quality" and is lossless. From what I understand, you can upgrade to MQA and still pay the same premium price, $19.99 a month. I think you can sign up for a free month trial so maybe you can try it and see what you think. I was a Tidal hi-fi subscriber but canceled because I just didn't utilize the service enough to justify paying that each month. I'd rather just buy my own CD's, then rip them to files and stream them. Kind of doesn't make sense but that's me. There was nothing wrong with Tidal's service or the quality of the streaming. It sounded like CD quality to me. With the CD quality subscription it sounded like CD quality to you. If you are receiving the mp3 version I am guessing, not so CD quality. I believe Monku would actually get a CD out and compare it to his Tidal. I just can't buy that they are sending music files over the internet and they are saying that they can improve over CD quality. They are saying that they improve music file sound quality if you spend money and buy there music and dacs ? I can not buy this. |
|
|
|
Post by edshull on Jan 21, 2017 12:43:04 GMT -5
Not only would pay the extra $50, it would have made the difference between me buying one brand/model over the other.
I pay for Tidal regardless because it streams the highest quality available. MQA is a big step forward in the streaming world. Even though I have an MQA DAC in the Bluesound, I prefer going into my preamp digitally.
And not to open a whole other can of worms, it would be cool if somehow more products got streaming ability. I really feel manufacturers are missing out but not having some of this built in the same way they have Bluetooth built in. But I know that's a whole other issues with plenty of challenges of it's own. But yes, I'd pay the $50 extra for MQA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 21, 2017 13:05:21 GMT -5
Could MQA use an equalizer to make the music distinct from each other ?
|
|
emovac
Emo VIPs 
Saeed al-Sahhaf
Posts: 2,456
|
Post by emovac on Jan 21, 2017 13:28:10 GMT -5
MQA is simple - Either it sounds better or it doesn't. If it does, then I don't care how it works. If it doesn't then I don't care why not. Where's the beef?  It sounds really good. If you have Tidal Hi-Fi, it's awesome. It's like getting a bunch of hi-res stuff for free. I also have Signalyst HQPlayer for upsampling, and in my setup, I like the MQA better thusfar. Meridian Explorer 2 USB DAC can be had for $200. I am using it downstream from my Bryston BDP-1 media player. I downloaded about 30 MQA "Master" albums into my Tidal favorites, and have listened to several. I'm impressed. I listen through Roon, which hasn't updated it's firmware to internally manage MQA, but if you leave the signal unaltered, it will passthrough and function just fine through the Explorer 2 up to 24/192. Most albums are decoded as MQA Studio (blue light on the mode indicator) at 192. Some were 24/96 and one so far was 24/48. |
|
