Recent content by Office Dog

And... we're off. I guess you're not one for disagreeing agreeably. I just don't get the aggressiveness and arrogance that (some) people adopt in forums. My opinions? I like how MQA files sound; I am happy to pay for TIDAL Masters; and I don't mind paying for MQA-compatible kit. And while I...

It's not unfortunate news, I guess, for those who enjoy MQA. (And for those who may work for MQA for that matter!) Also, I'd be interested to understand more about your 'most audiophiles, etc' statement - on which data is your comment based?

Bandwidth is perhaps not as relevant to today's individual user as previously - though don't underestimate the data appetite of hi-res audio on-the-go - but it is increasingly important to streaming companies delivering bucketloads of data; from both cost and sustainability angles. Also...

Lovely to finally have David McAlmont contributing to the forums.

Reading this thread back, Tinman1952, I suspect that it's not the fact that you are expressing a different opinion. It's your tone when you do it. 'Say what you mean, but don't say it mean.'

I am always more interested in people's experience of listening - I find the online discussions (aka arguments) quite dull. Not sure why all these people get so het up about a company attempting to sell its product - isn't that what a free market economy is about? I use both Tidal and Qobuz ...

For balance, when linking 'that' it seems sensible to also link 'this': https://bobtalks.co.uk/a-deeper-look/all-that-glitters-is-not-golden/

It's odd how this keeps resurfacing. Using less data is one of MQA's 'features', yes, but it's not the only one. Deblurring is clearly a key technique, one that no other audio tech offers, yet it's regularly overlooked. As for bandwidth now being a non-existent situation (1) not everyone does...

It's not news, no. Nor is it factually correct. I thought, when you said 'in theory' that you actually had some balanced, fact-based research. That (gladly) aside, do you have examples of tracks that demonstrate the 'well known added brightness'? You've tested with your own ears, yes?

Interesting . What's your background theory to sounding 'more natural'? If we are talking theory, thanks to its unique deblurring process, Tidal Masters (MQA) should sound more natural. Also, when you say it's well known that Tidal adds a bit of brightness, on which report(s?) is this statement...

When you have time, check out @MrTomGray #BrokenRecord re the world of £streaming - I don't think it's healthy at all tbh. Re headphones 'best buys', message WHF editorial and/or the makers and request more WHF reviews of the brands you feel are missing/overlooked? :)

WHF since practically the beginning of time followed the 'sound per pound' argument. Just choosing the most expensive has never been an angle. And, personally, I'd like to see artists benefit more from royalties so I am no fan of price wars in streaming services. As for the headphone selection...

Just for starters, stating ‘what you are missing is what MQA calls the third unfolding’ demonstrates your lack of understanding of - and/or refusal to understand - MQA; the Yamaha machine; and digital audio in general. I’m not going to try and change your mind, but it would be irresponsible of...

It is important to note that the information noted here, and linked to, is factually incorrect.

Never a truer word... :)