• If you ever spot Spam (either in the forums, or received via forum direct message) please use the Report button at the bottom of each post to make sure a Moderator can handle it quickly. Thanks for your help in keeping things running smoothly!

Why We Don’t Need MQA

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

insider9

Well-known member
Sep 20, 2016
739
298
5,270
shadders said:
Yes, if Tidal is completing the decoding, and the Yamaha unit is showing 96kHz, then you are hearing the full decode.
I honestly thought it was not the full benefit. Yamaha is not an MQA DAC. Tidal desktop app acts only does one unfold so getting to 192kHz is impossible (max 92kHz). Are you sure about this? I'm too tired now to check more info on MQA. Will give it a good read in the next couple of days.
 

Al ears

Moderator
insider9 said:
shadders said:
Yes, if Tidal is completing the decoding, and the Yamaha unit is showing 96kHz, then you are hearing the full decode.
I honestly thought it was not the full benefit. Yamaha is not an MQA DAC. Tidal desktop app acts only does one unfold so getting to 192kHz is impossible (max 92kHz). Are you sure about this? I'm too tired now to check more info on MQA. Will give it a good read in the next couple of days.
All further discussion is meaningless. MQA in all reality is going to die the same death as the physical media SACD. Unless there are many of us that want to spend out a fortune, yet again, on a format that promises the dogs nuts in sound reproduction, and to a quality we cannot apparently hear, then bravo Meridian.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
91
43
18,570
insider9 said:
shadders said:
Yes, if Tidal is completing the decoding, and the Yamaha unit is showing 96kHz, then you are hearing the full decode.
I honestly thought it was not the full benefit. Yamaha is not an MQA DAC. Tidal desktop app acts only does one unfold so getting to 192kHz is impossible (max 92kHz). Are you sure about this? I'm too tired now to check more info on MQA. Will give it a good read in the next couple of days.
Hi,

Yes, if the Tidal application is decoding, then the datastream to the DAC/Yamaha is 96kHz as stated. I am not sure that 192kHz is avaliable from MQA?

The fact that your DAC is not MQA, only means that the final temporal blurring due to the filter in the DAC is not corrected. The MQA reviews and literature indicate that the affect is minimal and you are, in effect, still getting the full benefit of MQA.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

insider9

Well-known member
Sep 20, 2016
739
298
5,270
Al ears said:
All further discussion is meaningless. MQA in all reality is going to die the same death as the physical media SACD. Unless there are many of us that want to spend out a fortune, yet again, on a format that promises the dogs nuts in sound reproduction, and to a quality we cannot apparently hear, then bravo Meridian.
Quite possibly. I've not been around long enough to know as much as you do, Al. It may be naive of me, perhaps... don't know. What I do know is that the you and many other would hear a difference in sound. Also being developed with streaming in mind it's got every right to become successful. It's Tidal now but who's to say Spotify won't join?

I don't think cost will be the limiting factor here and a broad appeal is much greater to that of a SACD. The restrictions MQA Ltd puts on manufacturers/designers are the one thing that can do more harm than good. Only time will tell.
 

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
0
18,890
Al ears said:
All further discussion is meaningless. MQA in all reality is going to die the same death as the physical media SACD. Unless there are many of us that want to spend out a fortune, yet again, on a format that promises the dogs nuts in sound reproduction, and to a quality we cannot apparently hear, then bravo Meridian.
That all depends how it is handled. Lets take an example of the CD. If/when MQA CDs are produced, they need to phase out non MQA CDs. This was the mistake when producing SACDs, just the same as when Bluray was introduced - DVD should've been phased out to help the new format (although Bluray can't be played on a DVD player). SACDs can play on normal CD players, just as streaming MQA files can play on any streamer, MQA or not.

Any new format needs to be backwards compatible, even if it can only play at the resolution of the previous format on old players. If it can't, support for the previous format needs to cease to force people into the new format.
 

Leeps

New member
Dec 10, 2012
219
1
0
davidf said:
That all depends how it is handled. Lets take an example of the CD. If/when MQA CDs are produced, they need to phase out non MQA CDs. This was the mistake when producing SACDs, just the same as when Bluray was introduced - DVD should've been phased out to help the new format (although Bluray can't be played on a DVD player). SACDs can play on normal CD players, just as streaming MQA files can play on any streamer, MQA or not.

Any new format needs to be backwards compatible, even if it can only play at the resolution of the previous format on old players. If it can't, support for the previous format needs to cease to force people into the new format.
I know this is off-piste a bit, but absolutely. It's ridiculous that now, as 4K TV's are selling well, that many TV series especially (like Endeavour for example) are only being released on a 2-generation old format, DVD. It wouldn't be so bad if they released it on Bluray too, but having DVD as the only available option is mad. DVD should have been killed off years ago, especially considering Bluray players are so cheap.
 

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
0
18,890
Leeps said:
I know this is off-piste a bit, but absolutely. It's ridiculous that now, as 4K TV's are selling well, that many TV series especially (like Endeavour for example) are only being released on a 2-generation old format, DVD. It wouldn't be so bad if they released it on Bluray too, but having DVD as the only available option is mad. DVD should have been killed off years ago, especially considering Bluray players are so cheap.
I appreciate DVDs are still selling, and outselling Bluray - but who is to blame for that?!! If you don't make moves to delete the old format, the majority of people are going to stick with what they've got! The prices of DVDs have crept up too, because they're selling. Walk into any HMV, what's more prominent, DVDs air Blurays? You can't really blame HMV as they're just pandering to the sector of the market that's selling - that's their business after all - but unless something is done to oust the older formats, or at least reduce the number of titles available for older formats, new ones just a won't take off. At least MQA is compatible with older and newer tech, so non MQA CDs can stop production. The end user then has the choice of whether they take advantage of its capabilities or not. It also means should someone want to move on from an Argos special, they can, and their whole collection would move with it.
 

cheeseboy

New member
Jul 17, 2012
246
0
0
davidf said:
That all depends how it is handled. Lets take an example of the CD. If/when MQA CDs are produced, they need to phase out non MQA CDs. This was the mistake when producing SACDs, just the same as when Bluray was introduced - DVD should've been phased out to help the new format (although Bluray can't be played on a DVD player). SACDs can play on normal CD players, just as streaming MQA files can play on any streamer, MQA or not.

Any new format needs to be backwards compatible, even if it can only play at the resolution of the previous format on old players. If it can't, support for the previous format needs to cease to force people into the new format.
So if we use your logic we should get rid of vinyl then..... ;)
 

Samd

Well-known member
Mar 6, 2013
153
46
18,620
davidf said:
Al ears said:
All further discussion is meaningless. MQA in all reality is going to die the same death as the physical media SACD. Unless there are many of us that want to spend out a fortune, yet again, on a format that promises the dogs nuts in sound reproduction, and to a quality we cannot apparently hear, then bravo Meridian.
That all depends how it is handled. Lets take an example of the CD. If/when MQA CDs are produced, they need to phase out non MQA CDs. This was the mistake when producing SACDs, just the same as when Bluray was introduced - DVD should've been phased out to help the new format (although Bluray can't be played on a DVD player). SACDs can play on normal CD players, just as streaming MQA files can play on any streamer, MQA or not.

Any new format needs to be backwards compatible, even if it can only play at the resolution of the previous format on old players. If it can't, support for the previous format needs to cease to force people into the new format.
Suppose it depends on what you mean by 'normal' - a couple of Cambridge players do not incl CXC
 

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
0
18,890
cheeseboy said:
So if we use your logic we should get rid of vinyl then..... ;)
Well, yes, but they didn't did they. If they had, it wouldn't have come back in the way that it has done (only from a used point of view maybe). But then again, vinyl didn't really affect the take up and success of CD, as the two are completely different formats. CD to SACD was still disc based, and DVD to Bluray was still disc based, which obviously aids backwards compatibility, should the developing companies choose to use it.
 

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
0
18,890
Samd said:
Suppose it depends on what you mean by 'normal' - a couple of Cambridge players do not incl CXC
What I meant was that a hybrid SACD disc can play back in 16/44 on a normal CD player, allowing it to be purchased by anybody. In this case, the standard CD can be discontinued and deleted, so the only copy you can purchase is the SACD copy. More sales of SACD would (should) bring down prices, and if things had been done the way I outlined, we'd now have HMVs full of SACDs at not too dissimilar prices to what we are paying for CDs now, maybe the same. It's a gradual take over, those who have never heard of SACD are none the wiser, and those who are get to listen to better quality. As I say, those who purchased it as a CD are then free to discover what SACD is all about, and maybe even help the audio industry thrive a little, which would help everyone.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
91
43
18,570
davidf said:
Samd said:
Suppose it depends on what you mean by 'normal' - a couple of Cambridge players do not incl CXC
What I meant was that a hybrid SACD disc can play back in 16/44 on a normal CD player, allowing it to be purchased by anybody. In this case, the standard CD can be discontinued and deleted, so the only copy you can purchase is the SACD copy. More sales of SACD would (should) bring down prices, and if things had been done the way I outlined, we'd now have HMVs full of SACDs at not too dissimilar prices to what we are paying for CDs now, maybe the same. It's a gradual take over, those who have never heard of SACD are none the wiser, and those who are get to listen to better quality. As I say, those who purchased it as a CD are then free to discover what SACD is all about, and maybe even help the audio industry thrive a little, which would help everyone.
Hi,

I don't think any format should be declined just to force people to move to another format. DVD's are still approximately £5 cheaper upon release than Blu-ray, and the change from VHS to DVD is much greater than the difference between DVD and Blu-ray.

I disagree with any proprietary standard (MQA) forced upon people by removing the existing standard (CD redbook). That seems like forced monopoly.

It may be illuminating to read the computer audiophile link comments section. There are some great points being made there.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
0
18,890
shadders said:
Hi,

I don't think any format should be declined just to force people to move to another format. DVD's are still approximately £5 cheaper upon release than Blu-ray, and the change from VHS to DVD is much greater than the difference between DVD and Blu-ray.
£3-5 difference, judging by a quick look on HMV's website. Personally, I wouldn't pay £10 for a DVD, new or back catalogue (only if it was never going to be released on Bluray).

It's not really a case of "forcing" anyone into a new format - they're still buying a disc in a slimline case - it's just that it'll have two discs (which is sometimes the case anyway), one DVD, one Bluray, although I dare say that a disc could be produced that like SACD, will play the relevant layer to the player it is inserted into. Fully shutting down vinyl production would have been forcing people into CD, but replacing the DVD on the sales shelf with a hybrid disc, or dual disc type format isn't. MQA wouldn't even be that complicated, as it's still a CD. Most people could be none the wiser about the shift to MQA CDs as it'll still work in their Alba mini stack.

I disagree with any proprietary standard (MQA) forced upon people by removing the existing standard (CD redbook). That seems like forced monopoly.
But as above, it replaces it, and is still useable by MQA users and non MQA users.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
91
43
18,570
davidf said:
shadders said:
Hi,

I don't think any format should be declined just to force people to move to another format. DVD's are still approximately £5 cheaper upon release than Blu-ray, and the change from VHS to DVD is much greater than the difference between DVD and Blu-ray.
£3-5 difference, judging by a quick look on HMV's website. Personally, I wouldn't pay £10 for a DVD, new or back catalogue (only if it was never going to be released on Bluray).

It's not really a case of "forcing" anyone into a new format - they're still buying a disc in a slimline case - it's just that it'll have two discs (which is sometimes the case anyway), one DVD, one Bluray, although I dare say that a disc could be produced that like SACD, will play the relevant layer to the player it is inserted into. Fully shutting down vinyl production would have been forcing people into CD, but replacing the DVD on the sales shelf with a hybrid disc, or dual disc type format isn't. MQA wouldn't even be that complicated, as it's still a CD. Most people could be none the wiser about the shift to MQA CDs as it'll still work in their Alba mini stack.

I disagree with any proprietary standard (MQA) forced upon people by removing the existing standard (CD redbook). That seems like forced monopoly.
But as above, it replaces it, and is still useable by MQA users and non MQA users.
Hi,

I was originally responding to your statement "That all depends how it is handled. Lets take an example of the CD. If/when MQA CDs are produced, they need to phase out non MQA CDs."

As such, we would be creating a monopoly for a secret proprietary coding system. Read some of the comments on the link provided by another poster :

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/694-comprehensive-q-mqa-s-bob-stuart/

Not everyone wants blu-ray, has a blu-ray player, can afford the blu-ray discs, and DVD is adequate, and cheaper for initial release. A double sided disc, or whatever the construction to include DVD and Blu-Ray on the disc will drive up prices for those who cannot afford.

davidf said:
MQA wouldn't even be that complicated, as it's still a CD. Most people could be none the wiser about the shift to MQA CDs as it'll still work in their Alba mini stack.
That is a problem. So many people would never know the difference ?. So why then, even provide MQA ?. MQA provides (reportedly) a better experience by extending the bandwidth, so why provide it for the masses who never want it ?

This leaves the audiophile people - in my earier link - the system reduces the 24bit sample to a dithered 17bit sample. You don't get those bits back.

The codec continues to place 13bits Linear Pulse Code Modulation (LPCM = CD) as the MSB's and the 3 other LSB's are just noise. Why should you degrade the existing standard ? Let us assume it is 2 bits worse (we have 1 bit dithering already for CD) - that means the noise floor rises by 12dB.

Where are the independent blind tests showing the results that an MQA CD on a non MQA DAC is acceptable ?.

The only way you benefit is if you pay the extra for a DAC that incorporates MQA.

Additionally - why should everyone pay the MQA tax on CD's if they are never getting the benefit ?.

The model should be, open standards only, but if you don't want the MQA experience, then you should never pay for it, directly or indirectly.

The MQA tracks have been carefully remastered - i have some very good sounding CD's - so all we really need is better mastering process. MQA samples are unlikely to be badly mastered, and perhaps this is the difference, they ensure the better mastering and everyone thinks is solely down to MQA.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

tamefox

New member
Dec 3, 2015
3
3
0
Frankly the opening article that started this thread is complete bollocks.

Lots of higher frequency harmonics from instruments merge and produce lower frequency effects that we can all hear.

My hearing now tops out at c12KHz - but I can still hear a great difference with full MQA decoder and DAC.

MQA tracks are remastered from original source tapes, not "stacked-codecs" reworked over each other. 2L in Norway (2l.no) remaster stuff and record new in MQA - mostly Norwegian orchestras.

I have listened to full albums of MQA and non MQA versions of the same music -same label - same recording - on non-MQA and on MQA full DACs (Bluesound).

Even on non-MQA decoder/DACs there is an extra level of detail than on normal CD or on 24/192 files. With the full MQA decoder the whole msuical experience is just that - much more musical - more open, and the timbre/harmonics on cello stirings are awesome - you can hear the timbre of the wooden box of the instrument - sounds so real - unlike non MQA version of whatever format.

Highly recommended for any genre of well-recorded music. Would love to hear some of my Floyd collection in MQA....

Try the 2L samplers - many formats of each recording available.

Wont post URL here as will get bounced by spam filter again...

Also try HiResAudio site for MQA - they have over 100 albums, classical, chambre, jazz and more.

If you have access to a full MQA DAC try (after you buy) the Japanese Quartet playing Vivaldi's Four Seasons. - awesome - knocks spots off Kennedy's rushed version.
And I repeat - I can't hear tones above 12KHZ - but MQA is the ONLY way forward for all my digital purchases from now on. ..and for those of you who appreciate real hi-fi - a Bluesound Node ain't so expensive - feed it into your hi-fi stack. I use DLNA Renderers round the rest of the house as I wouldnt get the MQA benefits so much on the cheaper equipment they are hooked up to.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
91
43
18,570
tamefox said:
Frankly the opening article that started this thread is complete bollocks.

Lots of higher frequency harmonics from instruments merge and produce lower frequency effects that we can all hear.
Hi,

Incorrect, any linear time invariant system will not produce lower frequency effects due to high frequency effects. That is how MP3, and MQA work - they use filters to separate the audio band into sub bands and code each sub band.

For the higher frequencies to affect the lower frequencies - then the system would need to be non linear.

tamefox said:
My hearing now tops out at c12KHz - but I can still hear a great difference with full MQA decoder and DAC.

MQA tracks are remastered from original source tapes, not "stacked-codecs" reworked over each other. 2L in Norway (2l.no) remaster stuff and record new in MQA - mostly Norwegian orchestras.

I have listened to full albums of MQA and non MQA versions of the same music -same label - same recording - on non-MQA and on MQA full DACs (Bluesound).

Even on non-MQA decoder/DACs there is an extra level of detail than on normal CD or on 24/192 files. With the full MQA decoder the whole msuical experience is just that - much more musical - more open, and the timbre/harmonics on cello stirings are awesome - you can hear the timbre of the wooden box of the instrument - sounds so real - unlike non MQA version of whatever format.

Highly recommended for any genre of well-recorded music. Would love to hear some of my Floyd collection in MQA....

Try the 2L samplers - many formats of each recording available.

Wont post URL here as will get bounced by spam filter again...

Also try HiResAudio site for MQA - they have over 100 albums, classical, chambre, jazz and more.

If you have access to a full MQA DAC try (after you buy) the Japanese Quartet playing Vivaldi's Four Seasons. - awesome - knocks spots off Kennedy's rushed version.
And I repeat - I can't hear tones above 12KHZ - but MQA is the ONLY way forward for all my digital purchases from now on. ..and for those of you who appreciate real hi-fi - a Bluesound Node ain't so expensive - feed it into your hi-fi stack. I use DLNA Renderers round the rest of the house as I wouldnt get the MQA benefits so much on the cheaper equipment they are hooked up to.
You may be hearing better mastering - who knows, but it is NOT higher frequencies affecting lower frequencies.

If you do believe it is higher frequencies that are affecting lower frequencies, please present the reference to the peer reviewed paper stating as such.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

insider9

Well-known member
Sep 20, 2016
739
298
5,270
Shadders, I don't deny you have some kind of technical knowledge. As it's far superior to mine I'm unable to assess the extent of it and/or accuracy. I find it admirable that you stick to your principles even if I don't share some of your beliefs.

I was just wondering whether you actually have listened to any MQA material yet and if so how much and on what equipment? What is your opinion of it purely on what you've heard (first hand experience) and not what you belive about the codec and how it's licensed etc. ?
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
91
43
18,570
insider9 said:
Shadders, I don't deny you have some kind of technical knowledge. As it's far superior to mine I'm unable to assess the extent of it and/or accuracy. I find it admirable that you stick to your principles even if I don't share some of your beliefs.

I was just wondering whether you actually have listened to any MQA material yet and if so how much and on what equipment? What is your opinion of it purely on what you've heard (first hand experience) and not what you belive about the codec and how it's licensed etc. ?
HI,

I have not listened to MQA, and i have never disputed anyones subjective experience, but i have commented on the alternative possibilities of a subjective experience. If somone wants to believe whatever it is, that is up to them.

I am not in pursuit of the ultimate audio experience, as i discovered, for myself, that it does not exist, it is just an interpretation, and belief of something can affect your listening pleasure.

As such, i will only comment on the engineering/technical and scientific aspects. I think the technical, and as you have referred to, licensing aspects, are very important.

The computer audiophile interview as referenced earlier, there are many misleading aspects to the answers. There does not need to be any misleading, so this then further makes those answers more relevant to scrutiny.

The MQA process may regenerate existing recordings, but the coding is not required. The same process - such as inverse temporal blurring can be applied without encoding in MQA. That is, we can reap the benefits of better mastering without paying the levy/tax to MQA.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
0
18,890
Personally, I do feel that frequencies above our hearing range affect those below - it's harmonics, and we're surrounded by it every day. Play any two frequencies that you can hear together, and the result is very different from hearing them individually. I always remember early Yamaha AV amps having a bass test tone, which you could choose certain frequencies, and you could also choose the lowest and highest one - I forget the frequencies, but it was something like 40Hz and 380Hz. 40Hz on its own was a nice frequency to listen to, but add in that higher frequency at the same time and that 40Hz just didn't sound the same.

Pioneer's Legato Link DACs in the 90s definitely had something going fot them as they definitely sounded different to other DACs around at the time.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
91
43
18,570
davidf said:
Personally, I do feel that frequencies above our hearing range affect those below - it's harmonics, and we're surrounded by it every day. Play any two frequencies that you can hear together, and the result is very different from hearing them individually. I always remember early Yamaha AV amps having a bass test tone, which you could choose certain frequencies, and you could also choose the lowest and highest one - I forget the frequencies, but it was something like 40Hz and 380Hz. 40Hz on its own was a nice frequency to listen to, but add in that higher frequency at the same time and that 40Hz just didn't sound the same.

Pioneer's Legato Link DACs in the 90s definitely had something going fot them as they definitely sounded different to other DACs around at the time.
Hi,

The signal from the DAC, does not include higher frequencies affecting lower frequencies. The recording MAY have this as part of the recording, and you will hear that.

If the output from the DAC is two test tones, then that is all that is replayed - two test tones, and no effects. Your hearing may interpret this differently.

That is - two tones appearing at the ear drum is not the same as the DAC replaying a higher frequency which affects the lower frequency signal output. The DAC should not, unless very poorly designed, allow a high frequency to affect the lower frequency.

The Pioneer Legato - i had seen a comment on another forum that it added information not there in the recording in an attempt to make it sound nicer.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
0
18,890
shadders said:
The Pioneer Legato - i had seen a comment on another forum that it added information not there in the recording in an attempt to make it sound nicer.
It mathematically attempted to add back in the harmonics that were removed by CD's brick wall filter (or the original master), which arguably could be present in a hi-res file. This is why I've never accepted downsampling as a valid form of comparison.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
91
43
18,570
davidf said:
shadders said:
The Pioneer Legato - i had seen a comment on another forum that it added information not there in the recording in an attempt to make it sound nicer.
It mathematically attempted to add back in the harmonics that were removed by CD's brick wall filter (or the original master), which arguably could be present in a hi-res file. This is why I've never accepted downsampling as a valid form of comparison.
Hi,

The comment on the Pioneer Legato was not positive, so subjective experiences will always differ.

The differences between high resolution and standard CD, are minimal. I have some high resolution recordings, and they sound good, but I don't think that they are worth the premium. They do seem to have increased in price recently too. I very happy with CD recordings, although some could be better, so this does indicate that CD is very adequate, we just need better final production.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

insider9

Well-known member
Sep 20, 2016
739
298
5,270
shadders said:
insider9 said:
Shadders, I don't deny you have some kind of technical knowledge. As it's far superior to mine I'm unable to assess the extent of it and/or accuracy. I find it admirable that you stick to your principles even if I don't share some of your beliefs.

I was just wondering whether you actually have listened to any MQA material yet and if so how much and on what equipment? What is your opinion of it purely on what you've heard (first hand experience) and not what you belive about the codec and how it's licensed etc. ?
HI,

I have not listened to MQA, and i have never disputed anyones subjective experience, but i have commented on the alternative possibilities of a subjective experience. If somone wants to believe whatever it is, that is up to them.

I am not in pursuit of the ultimate audio experience, as i discovered, for myself, that it does not exist, it is just an interpretation, and belief of something can affect your listening pleasure.

As such, i will only comment on the engineering/technical and scientific aspects. I think the technical, and as you have referred to, licensing aspects, are very important.

The computer audiophile interview as referenced earlier, there are many misleading aspects to the answers. There does not need to be any misleading, so this then further makes those answers more relevant to scrutiny.

The MQA process may regenerate existing recordings, but the coding is not required. The same process - such as inverse temporal blurring can be applied without encoding in MQA. That is, we can reap the benefits of better mastering without paying the levy/tax to MQA.

Regards,

Shadders.
I was merely interested how you would react to an actual MQA recording, knowing all the theory. Whether you'd think it was better quality or not.
 

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
0
18,890
shadders said:
Hi,

The comment on the Pioneer Legato was not positive, so subjective experiences will always differ.

The differences between high resolution and standard CD, are minimal. I have some high resolution recordings, and they sound good, but I don't think that they are worth the premium. They do seem to have increased in price recently too. I very happy with CD recordings, although some could be better, so this does indicate that CD is very adequate, we just need better final production.

Regards,

Shadders.
I have my own views on Legato Link, so I'm not really interested in whether someone else slates it. It may not have been perfect at the time, but as I say, it certainly made the Pioneer players sound different to many others at the time. The Stable Platter Mechanism may well have been adding its contribution too. I owned two Pioneer players using these technologies, both excellent players (PDS-901 and PDS-904).

I'm not really interest in the monetary side of MQA or hi-res - I'm just interested in what sounds better and what doesn't. Personally, I do feel that the system that CDs and hi-res files are compared on plays a part in the perceivable differences. A system has to be able to be good enough to appreciate those differences. And I'm not necessarily saying that all hi-res files are automatically better.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
91
43
18,570
insider9 said:
shadders said:
insider9 said:
Shadders, I don't deny you have some kind of technical knowledge. As it's far superior to mine I'm unable to assess the extent of it and/or accuracy. I find it admirable that you stick to your principles even if I don't share some of your beliefs.

I was just wondering whether you actually have listened to any MQA material yet and if so how much and on what equipment? What is your opinion of it purely on what you've heard (first hand experience) and not what you belive about the codec and how it's licensed etc. ?
HI,

I have not listened to MQA, and i have never disputed anyones subjective experience, but i have commented on the alternative possibilities of a subjective experience. If somone wants to believe whatever it is, that is up to them.

I am not in pursuit of the ultimate audio experience, as i discovered, for myself, that it does not exist, it is just an interpretation, and belief of something can affect your listening pleasure.

As such, i will only comment on the engineering/technical and scientific aspects. I think the technical, and as you have referred to, licensing aspects, are very important.

The computer audiophile interview as referenced earlier, there are many misleading aspects to the answers. There does not need to be any misleading, so this then further makes those answers more relevant to scrutiny.

The MQA process may regenerate existing recordings, but the coding is not required. The same process - such as inverse temporal blurring can be applied without encoding in MQA. That is, we can reap the benefits of better mastering without paying the levy/tax to MQA.

Regards,

Shadders.
I was merely interested how you would react to an actual MQA recording, knowing all the theory. Whether you'd think it was better quality or not.
Hi,

OK - i think my response to davidf indicates my approach. The differences between MQA and high resolution is not night and day - they are minimal - as reported so far by others. So minimal differences between CD, High Resolution and MQA would mean that MQA has nothing to offer myself.

This was not the point of me starting this thread. MQA may assist in processing the master to the benefit of listening - but we don't need MQA for that, just process the file to correct temporal blur.

It is the insertion of MQA in the audio chain, which is not required, especially if it offers no real benefit for many people, and only increases cost.

On the computer audiophile link, the coments indicate that they have removed some high resolution links of the same album that now have MQA. It has also been stated in the comments that MQA downloads (file - not streaming) is much more expensive than the previous high resolution. Not sure whether this is true or not - but my interpretation is, provide MQA for those who want it, and leave the original high resolution in place so it is available.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts