MQA Discussion
- Thread starter still-one
- Start date
http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html?
note that you will need a MQA DAC. Otherwise get a free TIDAL trial and you can get a partial software decode to get a feel for MQA with any DAC driven by a computer
note that you will need a MQA DAC. Otherwise get a free TIDAL trial and you can get a partial software decode to get a feel for MQA with any DAC driven by a computer
What industry?
Money from where?
If you have a Lumin, PS Audio with Network Bridge II and countless others, the MQA upgrade is free. I know some manufacturers will charge a small fee to recover their development costs (i.e. $500 like Berkeley), but it's not crazy. Also, MQA albums are included for free with your Tidal subscription.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Kingsrule
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2014
- Messages
- 646
Very well said
You would think China would mine their gas deposits and go with nuclear power plants as I do sense they want to be regarded as a tech leader/innovator rather than a tech copycat nation
CPP
Active member
Until your free subscription runs out then is $19.99 a month. Maybe thats what some people are gripping about. I don't know a person can buy $10k + speakers and $5k + amps, $500 + cables but has issues with a $19.99 a month fee. But they can pay to own a $20 - $40 download. Anyway I still like my Lp's and the wife loves streaming
CPP
Active member
CPP
Active member
You want to discuss GW, man I live at the beach. You are in the desert.
I see changes every year. Anyway this is way off topic lets get back to our regular scheduled MQA discussion. "The Truth Is Out There"
An opposing view?
"I was eager to hear the differences. Although I don’t have an MQA-compatible DAC, MQA-processed files can be played by non-MQA DACs, and some have reported that they sound better than the non-MQA versions."
Again? Sigh!
If Doug is saying some people have reported MQA files sound better on a non-MQA compatible DAC, I find that VERY hard to believe. I have 12 DAC's at my disposal and I'm calling BS on that one.
Again, I spoke with Bob Stuart at Munich in May. I asked him specifically about the claim that people are making that they are getting "90%" of MQA without an MQA DAC. He laughed and said "it's not even 50%". I asked for clarification: "20%?" His response, "maybe".
Trying to write about MQA requires A. full decoding of MQA (Lumin U1 --> Berkeley Ref 2 MQA DAC for example) and B. time. Just listen. Take 2-3 weeks and listen. If you still think MQA is total BS after that, then move on or as they say in New York, fuhgeddaboudit. I can't imagine that someone in Doug's position can't get a proper MQA setup to borrow.
It's like someone buying SACD's (which have the CD layer), playing them on a non-SACD player and saying "I hear no difference between the CD and SACD".
http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/1104
"I was eager to hear the differences. Although I don’t have an MQA-compatible DAC, MQA-processed files can be played by non-MQA DACs, and some have reported that they sound better than the non-MQA versions."
Again? Sigh!
If Doug is saying some people have reported MQA files sound better on a non-MQA compatible DAC, I find that VERY hard to believe. I have 12 DAC's at my disposal and I'm calling BS on that one.
Again, I spoke with Bob Stuart at Munich in May. I asked him specifically about the claim that people are making that they are getting "90%" of MQA without an MQA DAC. He laughed and said "it's not even 50%". I asked for clarification: "20%?" His response, "maybe".
Trying to write about MQA requires A. full decoding of MQA (Lumin U1 --> Berkeley Ref 2 MQA DAC for example) and B. time. Just listen. Take 2-3 weeks and listen. If you still think MQA is total BS after that, then move on or as they say in New York, fuhgeddaboudit. I can't imagine that someone in Doug's position can't get a proper MQA setup to borrow.
It's like someone buying SACD's (which have the CD layer), playing them on a non-SACD player and saying "I hear no difference between the CD and SACD".
http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/1104
still-one
Active member
CPP
Active member
I totally agree. Nothing infuriates me more than realizing that $50 vinyl record was sourced from a digital master. UGH. One of my favorite albums is Elton John, Tumbleweed Connection. I have four (yes four) original pressings. I THINK I paid $10 for the most expensive one. I recently purchased the reissue for $25 here: http://www.elusivedisc.com/Elton-John-Tumbleweed-Connection-180g-LP/productinfo/MERLP83065/
It's total and complete crap compared to a first pressing from the tapes.
Hi Mike.
Since you have the possibility to completely decode MQA, both with Lumin A1 and with Lumin U1 + Berkeley Ref2, I would like to ask you if you believe that the Flac 44/16 comparison against the same file, fully deployed MQA, is equally satisfactory with A1 and With U1 + Berkeley?
I do not ask if U1 + Berkeley sounds better than A1, but who does the best, the latest MQA deployment.
I hope Google Translate has done a good job.
Regards
Since you have the possibility to completely decode MQA, both with Lumin A1 and with Lumin U1 + Berkeley Ref2, I would like to ask you if you believe that the Flac 44/16 comparison against the same file, fully deployed MQA, is equally satisfactory with A1 and With U1 + Berkeley?
I do not ask if U1 + Berkeley sounds better than A1, but who does the best, the latest MQA deployment.
I hope Google Translate has done a good job.
Regards
Yes, I have done those comparisons and whether I'm listening to an MQA album at home on my Lumin A1 or the same MQA album in the store, it's mutually satisfying. But the Lumin U1/Berk REF2 MQA is really on a level of its own.
Have I found MQA albums that suck? Yes. A few. Lynyrd Skynyrd Second Helping MQA vs this version: http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/85655/Lynyrd_Skynyrd-Second_Helping-200_Gram_Vinyl_Record -- there is no comparison.
Mark (MDP) and I have been talking about MQA. He's very impressed with most MQA albums, but pointed out this example, and after my own comparison vs the vinyl, I concur.
CPP
Active member
When your free Tidal trial is over unless you cancel, you will pay for whatever subscription option you chose, So you pick standard at $9.99 no MQA, , you pick Hi-Fi you pay $19.99 and you get MQA. You are asked to submit a credit card for this trial. There is no charge for the MQA as its included in the masters Hifi section. But you will pay $19.99 a month to listen to it, which is $10 more than standard. Maybe we are saying the same thing.
http://tidal.com/us/try-now-b
Right now I'm loving Dire striats on MQA via my Lumin.
still-one
Active member
CPP
Active member
So your saying with a standard Tidal subscription @ $9.99 you get MQA, help me out here
still-one
Active member
- Thread Author
- #998
No. You only get lossy Tidal for $9.99. You have always paid $19.99 for 16/44 CD quality. Tidal did not raise the price above $19.99 when they added MQA titles beginning last January.
Premium - $9.99 USD a month with standard sound quality, high definition music videos and expertly curated editorial. (prices vary depending on geography and local currency)
HiFi - $19.99 USD a month with lossless High Fidelity sound quality, high definition music videos, expertly curated editorial. (prices vary depending on geography and local currency)
CPP
Active member
what is the difference from what you wrote and I wrote, its the same thing, go back and read my post. I know Tidal didn't raise the price for MQA, I know you don't get MQA in the standard sub. I noted that MQA is included in the $19.99 hi-fi subscription.
Which is why there will never be more than a few thousand MQA titles at best. MQA will remain another irrelevant niche format, like HDCD, SACD, DSD etc. If Tidal would raise their prices for MQA users to allow for economics where release of more titles might make sense, who'd want to pay except perhaps a few thousand audiophiles at best?