Maybe it was a Windows touchpad ?? All I know is he was using it to select the music.....and it was displaying Tidal, and which selections were Masters ??
See above.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe it was a Windows touchpad ?? All I know is he was using it to select the music.....and it was displaying Tidal, and which selections were Masters ??
If he was using an Ipad, it wasn't MQA.
From the Tidal website:
** Currently TIDAL Masters audio is supported via our desktop application only.
Although I've not verified this, there are other forum reports of Universal MQA showing up in Tidal.
All the Tidal and MQA naysayers can say what they want, with Universal Music Group unloading their catalog under all of these Universal groups labels http://www.universalmusic.com/labels/, there is going to be a lot of music to listen to via Tidal, MQA or otherwise.
I have been reading a lot through these threads and discussions on MQA. Some sound like hocus pocus, some sound very intriguing. If someone does not do Tidal and does not stream, at all, but instead prefers to purchase music for their private collections, where does MQA stand? Almost all of these discussions seem to revolve around tidal and streaming, which very much appear to make sense. However, for local downloaded files?
My point is this, if I have a well recorded album which the master is directly converted to DSD64, DSD128, DSD256 versus direct converted to MQA... this is the comparisons I am interested in. I have read several articles over the past year or so in which this type of comparison was done and the DSD won out... maybe this is no longer the case.
Another huge concern for the average user is the associated costs. When you are talking about products like the Berkeley Reference and MSB and the like price is usually not a road block. For the average user price is a huge consideration. The average user cannot replace their DAC, their library of music, etc., just to compare MQA.
If MQA was a simple add on, that could be added to an existing system it might have a better chance of actually gaining legs in the market place. Having to replace your DAC is definitely going to be an issue. The low price DAC's that have came out are very limiting, to say the least. The Explorer 2 is pretty much terrible for any other type file from what I have heard. The Mytec Brooklyn is using low end ESS 9018 portable DAC chip (the same chip that is in my Pono). To me that is limiting the capability.
For us that cannot afford the high high end, how are we to ever to do true comparisons? Hopefully my post is clear enough to get my point across......
I have been reading a lot through these threads and discussions on MQA. Some sound like hocus pocus, some sound very intriguing. If someone does not do Tidal and does not stream, at all, but instead prefers to purchase music for their private collections, where does MQA stand? Almost all of these discussions seem to revolve around tidal and streaming, which very much appear to make sense. However, for local downloaded files?
My point is this, if I have a well recorded album which the master is directly converted to DSD64, DSD128, DSD256 versus direct converted to MQA... this is the comparisons I am interested in. I have read several articles over the past year or so in which this type of comparison was done and the DSD won out... maybe this is no longer the case.
Another huge concern for the average user is the associated costs. When you are talking about products like the Berkeley Reference and MSB and the like price is usually not a road block. For the average user price is a huge consideration. The average user cannot replace their DAC, their library of music, etc., just to compare MQA.
If MQA was a simple add on, that could be added to an existing system it might have a better chance of actually gaining legs in the market place. Having to replace your DAC is definitely going to be an issue. The low price DAC's that have came out are very limiting, to say the least. The Explorer 2 is pretty much terrible for any other type file from what I have heard. The Mytec Brooklyn is using low end ESS 9018 portable DAC chip (the same chip that is in my Pono). To me that is limiting the capability.
For us that cannot afford the high high end, how are we to ever to do true comparisons? Hopefully my post is clear enough to get my point across......
The list of MQA naysayers must be getting shorter...
This is big news and will bring MQA to many more people.
For me, I have a hard time listening to non-MQA digital anymore. I find when I listen to MQA albums, hours fly by. ZERO digital fatigue. Love it.
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/major-mqa-announcements-at-the-berlin-ifa-show/
I wonder what this statement regarding Amarra Luxe means. It sounds like the SW package would deliver the full shebang, but isn't an MQA DAC needed for that?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
More than software configuration their biggest and most expensive problem to solve will be bandwidth. Problems started popping up in various parts of the country months ago. Especially during the high use evening hours. They have been unable or unwilling to provide a solution to anyone who has opened a support ticket with them. And yes I realize that some of you, in big population areas, claim to have no problems. That seems to be a given for the major media markets but not true overall.
I wonder what this statement regarding Amarra Luxe means.