MQA Discussion

radioactive said:
Bob Stuart is quoted as saying there are relatively a few number of ADC's that have been used and it would be possible to account for them
Click to expand...

It would certainly be possible for the music companies to do that. It's not possible for end users. A user needs to be able to somehow find out accurate information regarding the particular ADC used for the recording of a certain track on a particular release of an album, input that into the software player, then play it, and change it again for a different track / album. That doesn't work for me.

Besides, this simplified view does not take into account different parameters that may need be to tuned even for the same ADC in different setups / companies.
 
wklie said:
......Besides, this simplified view does not take into account different parameters that may need be to tuned even for the same ADC in different setups / companies.
Click to expand...

Are these different parameters for the same ADC precisely tuned by the MQA process or is it with a generic algorithm that is an approximation of the ideal?
 
I remember reading an article some months ago about having multiple iterations of preparing MQA music before settling on one that sounded best together with the studio ("MQA Studio Artist/Producer approved"). So I assume some tuning was required.
 
Who has the final say on what sounds best - the artist or the recording engineer, should there be any disagreement between the two?

I guess no-one can answer this as both will probably be bound by non-disclosure clauses before release of the album/track.
 
lallygagger said:
All very good points!!

I contacted Michael Lavorgna and he told me that at CES he asked about the possibility of a software MQA decoder and he was told that it is indeed coming. However since it is not their first priority nor even their second priority it will be sometime down the road before it is released.

This, for me, is great news because as I said, I really like my present DAC so I will happily wait for the software. :celebrate008_2:
Click to expand...

With a SW player I would test MQA in case Tidal comes around with the streaming, otherwise it's not a priority.

This is as I keep tweaking my 'table and vinyl just sounds so good to my ears.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
j2020 said:
Who has the final say on what sounds best - the artist or the recording engineer, should there be any disagreement between the two?

I guess no-one can answer this as both will probably be bound by non-disclosure clauses before release of the album/track.
Click to expand...


I say whomever is flipping the bill $$ for the recording
 
I wonder just how many different combinations we're talking about. If it's something under 20, I could see it as a user-configurable setting (like a filter) on MQA DAC's (still sticking with the idea that the music would be plain ol' PCM, not MQA-encoded). User's could experiment and find what they like -- because it sure sounds like that's exactly what the recording studios (with artists if you believe MQA) and MQA "engineers" are doing.
 
CPP said:
"" There's still something like 100,000 really important analog tapes that still haven't been digitized," Stuart said", I would be happy with access to the 100,000 vinyl records. :D
Click to expand...
This is either untrue or Bob Stuart has a very different definition of "really important" than most people do. Or perhaps he means haven't been digitized at hi-res?
 
Yea, that I know. I have spoken with their engineering and they do believe DSD does have some real benefits. They definitely believe DSD64 is all that is needed, but might eventual add a firmware update for DSD128 support. They will probably never offer DSD256 support.

Benchmark very much goes deep into the technical aspects...

They do have a tremendous DSD64 stage in the DAC2 however...

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/inside-the-dac2-part-2-digital-processing
 
I haven't seen any mention on this thread about Tidal's release of MQA -- http://tidal.com/us/masters?utm_source=TIDAL Editorial Newsletter

I've listened to a few titles with a friend's MQA enabled DAC/Player and compared the hi-rez version I have (for example "The Postal Service in 24/44" which I have, among others) and all we both agree on is that it sounds very compressed when played back over MQA when compared to my version on my Debussy. His Dac is not/not a cheap one and costs more than my Debussy. So as far as what we've heard on my system, we weren't impressed. Maybe these specific songs/albums aren't good examples? Who knows. I also went and compared the regular "master" and when played back on my Debussy, it shows up as 24/96 (at least all their "masters"), and again, they sound even more compressed. Beginning's of songs will come in loud, go quiet in the middle and then go loud suddenly. It's bizarre. I prefer their regular non-masters on at least that music which I've heard.

I'd love to hear anyone else's experience.
 
radioactive said:
...
I'd love to hear anyone else's experience.
Click to expand...

I can't remember which of the MQA threads at Computer Audiophile had the post, but there was a brief review from a listening session with several people comparing SACD, hi-res download and Tidal MQA of the same recording, using an MQA DAC. At that listening session, everyone seemed to prefer the MQA version.

I don't have an MQA DAC, so I can't comment on that. Tidal MQA without an MQA DAC is very pleasant to listen to; I wouldn't say I prefer it to a hi-res download, though, although the MQA sometimes sounds pretty different.
 
There are over 1400 MQA albums currently available. The ~500 on the Tidal Master list plus another ~940 identified in the list maintained on the Roon site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top