- Thread Author
- #1
Sounding terrific!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MQA encoded UHQ CD’s from Japan
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Sounding terrific!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Thread Author
- #3
CPP
Active member
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
The true connoisseur would have the Vinyl, Cassette, CD, HDCD, SACD, DVDA, Bluray and MQA CD version of the same album.
BlueFox
New member
I tried order Exile On Main Street and Wheels Of Fire today, but found out I didn't have a credit card.
I have those two albums on the Japanese SHM SACD format, and I was looking forward to comparing each one in the SACD player to try and see if there is any sonic difference. Then I was going to rip the CDs and play through the Lumin for the full MQA decode experience.
Maybe later.
I have those two albums on the Japanese SHM SACD format, and I was looking forward to comparing each one in the SACD player to try and see if there is any sonic difference. Then I was going to rip the CDs and play through the Lumin for the full MQA decode experience.
Maybe later.
BlueFox
New member
Dr Tone
Banned
What is that full decode experience on a 16bit source? There can be very little folded high res data after data for authentication and the upsampling filter data? So in this scenario it's always worst than regular redbook CD, IMO.
Kuoppis
New member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5,203
There is a point that MQA/ non-MQA CDs are 16 bit, while streaming and downloads tend to be 24 bit.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
BlueFox
New member
I thought the whole point of MQA was to encode all this music data in a CD quality file that is then unfolded into a 192/24 file via the MQA software.
Kuoppis
New member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5,203
Yes, thought so too. But it was recently pointed out to me that physical CDs are 16 bit instead of 24.
It was when I was testing ripping of MQA CDs, which btw works nicely. The encoding stays intact. But I think most people are not aware of this difference. I was not either.
For demonstration purposes, you see Roon identifies the file as a 176K version file in MQA and that is also played back by the DAC. But it is 176/16. This is unfortunately a bit of a silver disc coffin nail IMHO. So a better option might be to get a DL if you want to own the file.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It was when I was testing ripping of MQA CDs, which btw works nicely. The encoding stays intact. But I think most people are not aware of this difference. I was not either.
For demonstration purposes, you see Roon identifies the file as a 176K version file in MQA and that is also played back by the DAC. But it is 176/16. This is unfortunately a bit of a silver disc coffin nail IMHO. So a better option might be to get a DL if you want to own the file.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rnrmf
Member
Also interesting that these cd's are based on the DSD files from the Shm-SACD's as I recall reading.
That would make for an interesting comparison.
That would make for an interesting comparison.
Especially for Brothers in Arms which is a 16/44.1 PCM master :lol:
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
SHHHH!! Party pooper you
Dr Tone
Banned
The CD layer from the MOFI SACD is the way to go on this one.
- Thread Author
- #17
I have both and this new UHQ is the best I’ve heard the album.
I’m going to try ripping it soon.
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
I'd go with whichever format subjectively sounds best to you/makes you happiest enjoying it.
Dr Tone
Banned
Deleted by admin.
CPP
Active member
It will be interesting to see how the rip come out. The MOFI SACD is pretty good, but I'm still partial to the 85 Original mastered by John Dent. Man I have so many "copes of this album its nuts. But hey you like what ya like.