Pioneer’s XDP-100R the world’s first MQA-compatable player

[cheeseboy]

And what I like about it is it's a better guarantee of quality than the other formats.

I wish I could share that thought, but I can't see how it is. Pono was meant to be the same, but look how that turned out.

 

[manicm]

And what I like about it is it's a better guarantee of quality than the other formats.

I wish I could share that thought, but I can't see how it is. Pono was meant to be the same, but look how that turned out.

MQA is guaranteed to be derived from the original master. Pono is just a player.

 

[cheeseboy]

MQA is guaranteed to be derived from the original master.

cheers, just reading now. It appears that so far they have one company so far - the bakery, which is a mastering studio only. So the sales bumpf *imho* is a bit misleading as they make it sound like you're getting something straight from the mixing desk 🙁 (not that I want something straight from the mixing desk mind 🙂 )

I'd be interested to do some abx testing with an mqa file and cd as they do claim a normal mqa file will sound better than cd (with nothing at all to back that up), when most if not all hi res comparisons with CD have resulted in people not being able to tell the difference. Should be interesting..

Pono is just a player.

It's a music store as well...

 

[Vladimir]

There was this at AVS Forums. Big drama spawned from that later at AudioStream, WhatsBestForum and Real HD-Audio.

http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/e...&maxRec=599628

http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/d...465D01.wapp1nC

http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/e...PCTDescription

 

[cheeseboy]

cheers vlad, I shall have a read 🙂

 

[cheeseboy]

some more info here

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2016/01/measurements-mqa-master-quality.html

I have to say, I'm starting to lean towards the cynical side that it's a method for touting to companies in order to be able to sell/stream high def with DRM, rather than actually a revolutionary new technology given they talk about how it's all science, yet don't include much in the way of science in the blurb, just lots of testimonials.

Either way, it's still interesting (to me anyways) and nice to see people trying new things. How long before apple buy it? 🙂 😉

 

[Vladimir]

Compared to Neil Young and his Toblerone player I have more faith in Meridian and Bob Stuart. I'm waiting to see what happens and I'm not jumping for or against MQA just yet.

We all knew that if anyone was going to push digital (r)evolution 2.0 is going to be Bob Stuart. Let's see what he manages to acomplish.

 

[cheeseboy]

Compared to Neil Young and his Toblerone player I have more faith in Meridian and Bob Stuart.

*lol* Don't know what you are talking about... 🙂

 

[Vladimir]

 

[manicm]

some more info here

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2016/01/measurements-mqa-master-quality.html

I have to say, I'm starting to lean towards the cynical side that it's a method for touting to companies in order to be able to sell/stream high def with DRM, rather than actually a revolutionary new technology given they talk about how it's all science, yet don't include much in the way of science in the blurb, just lots of testimonials.

Either way, it's still interesting (to me anyways) and nice to see people trying new things. How long before apple buy it? 🙂 😉

The problem with that piece or rather 2L is that they seemed to take an existing recording (and new master recordings will rarely be in 16/44 these days) and then apply MQA compression, which Meridian themselves state is not ideal. MQA is primarily designed for new master recordings, done in 24/192 or higher. It will compress a master recording to a size less than conventional 24/192 PCM etc.

So that example is not really representative of MQA's potential, neither of sound quality nor convenience.

 

[cheeseboy]

The problem with that piece or rather 2L is that they seemed to take an existing recording (and new master recordings will rarely be in 16/44 these days) and then apply MQA compression, which Meridian themselves state is not ideal. MQA is primarily designed for master recordings. It will compress a master recording to a size less than conventional 24/192 PCM etc.

So that example is not really representative of MQA's potential, neither of sound quality nor convenience.

I totally agree, but given Meridian appear to being super coy about any actual details, whilst at the same time saying how about it's all science (without seemingly backing it up with any science) we have to shoot in the dark at the moment 🙂

 

[Al ears]

All I can say is that it's way to early to say anything about quality. It may be just what streaming needs but as I don't do any at the moment ( apart from local streaming from a NAS) then I am quite happy with hires and DSF downloads.

Early days but the concept has been around a while. Like most formats it will not take off unless many more firms choose to employ it and most newly recorded material is made available as MQA files, and that's going to be a long way down the road judging by current pace.

Even the first available player isn't able to actually play it yet.

 

[Andrewjvt]

Remarks and all of a sudden i dont think mqa is the solution to all of the worlds problems.

Now im looking at dsd and how/what/who.

Basically i want to play as hi res as possible without upsampling

 

[Andrewjvt]

Ive know about the format and that my dac can handle these files but never looked into it.

So i have a few questions as i use jriver media center.

As all my collection is in flac, would i have to select a different audio playback option. My audio is set to wasapi and i think the jriver engine is by-passed on this setting. Now what if im playing downloaded dsd files? Will i have to make a change in the settings as that would be to annoying as i like to select random and leave it to do its thing.

Also how softer are dsd downloads compared to the normal cds? Does it make a huge difference?

 

[steve_1979]

When will people realise that digital music formats make ****** all difference? It's the recording/mixing/mastering process that matters where better sound quality is concerned.

 

[Al ears]

When will people realise that digital music formats make ****** all difference? It's the recording/mixing/mastering process that matters where better sound quality is concerned.

I am afraid that, as always, can be misinterpreted and probably will be.

The same track down mixed to MP3 format will have differences to the same piece in at dsd frequency.

 

[steve_1979]

When will people realise that digital music formats make ****** all difference? It's the recording/mixing/mastering process that matters where better sound quality is concerned.

I am afraid that, as always, can be misinterpreted and probably will be.

The same track down mixed to MP3 format will have differences to the same piece in at dsd frequency.

When I wrote it I almost included a disclaimer saying the above statement doesn't include low bit-rate MP3 and AAC. 😀

However my point still stands. Everything from CD quality 16/44 and above will sound identical no matter what format it is. The only bit that makes a difference to the sound quality from 16/44 and up is the recording/mixing/mastering process.