WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions.
Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
I just ripped my only MQA CD and played it back through Audirvana only to find that it actually is lossy as Audirvana automatically outputs this to 16/88.2 (there you go, it's lossy Hi-Res indeed) before it goes to my DAC per 1st unfold (the rest of the folding gets unfolded by the MQA DAC)
I just ripped my only MQA CD and played it back through Audirvana only to find that it actually is lossy as Audirvana automatically outputs this to 16/88.2 (there you go, it's lossy Hi-Res indeed) before it goes to my DAC per 1st unfold (the rest of the folding gets unfolded by the MQA DAC)
My DAC is non-MQA so that’s why Audirvana only does the 1st unfold to 88.2 or 96 if the MQA source is 16/48 (no bit scale-up from 16 bits). Still thinking whether to get the D90 or SMSL for the full 352.8/384 (3rd unfold). Then again, I don’t feel the urge to get one due to how shady is MQA
My DAC is non-MQA so that’s why Audirvana only does the 1st unfold to 88.2 or 96 if the MQA source is 16/48 (no bit scale-up from 16 bits). Still thinking whether to get the D90 or SMSL for the full 352.8/384 (3rd unfold). Then again, I don’t feel the urge to get one due to how shady is MQA
True today, but MQA enables much more restrictive DRM. For example, this patent application describes licensing a song based on a "user key" and a "device key". Search for the section whose title is "Rights Management". The final paragraph of this section says a song could be licensed either to a specific user or a specific device. The latter scheme could require you to pay extra for each device on which you want to play a purchased song. https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014125285A1
True today, but MQA enables much more restrictive DRM. For example, this patent application describes licensing a song based on a "user key" and a "device key". Search for the section whose title is "Rights Management". The final paragraph of this section says a song could be licensed either to a specific user or a specific device. The latter scheme could require you to pay extra for each device on which you want to play a purchased song. https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014125285A1
Point taken. And should Tidal, as my current MQA provider, implement a higher price tier for MQA content, I may well reconsider my options. But at the minute I consider it a bonus to the lossless tier.
MQA files on Tidal often sound better on my system than other hi res Tidal tracks (not always). I am using the Tidal app on Windows to do first unfold and then playing via MiniDSP which performs DAC function plus DIRAC frequency response and phase orrection and active crossover to integrate my sub
I think what MQA doing is funding/driving a desire to remaster a lot of music to higher quality and that is the higher quality that I am really hearing and I am happy to pay the 'tax' for that.
I think one of the other acoustic advantages is the claimed temporal improvements at source. By knowing the characteristics of the original recording A to D device and the playback DAC Meridian says they can correct for temporal artifacts. Without the hardware unfold I dont think I see this potential claimed advantage though?
To get this second advantage I would have to forego the incredible advantages my miniDSP affords me an buy anMQA DAC which I think would be one step forward and 3 steps backwards.
I think one of the other acoustic advantages is the claimed temporal improvements at source. By knowing the characteristics of the original recording A to D device and the playback DAC Meridian says they can correct for temporal artifacts. Without the hardware unfold I dont think I see this potential claimed advantage though?
That's almost entirely a lie. I've seen a couple of tracks where they've done some fancy noise reduction (which has nothing to do with "temporal accuracy"), but for the most part all they've done is downsample a high-res source to 96 kHz using an idiotic triangle filter.
That's almost entirely a lie. I've seen a couple of tracks where they've done some fancy noise reduction (which has nothing to do with "temporal accuracy"), but for the most part all they've done is downsample a high-res source to 96 kHz using an idiotic triangle filter.
I think what MQA doing is funding/driving a desire to remaster a lot of music to higher quality and that is the higher quality that I am really hearing and I am happy to pay the 'tax' for that.
.
I don't give a lot of weight to the new DACs supporting it. More important are the new sources jumping on the encoding bandwagon with seems to have slowed to a trickle.
Even better IMO are the number of suppliers now adding Atmos encoded files to their library. Seems to be breathing a bit of new life into multich playback. Now that IS something celebrate.
I don't give a lot of weight to the new DACs supporting it. More important are the new sources jumping on the encoding bandwagon with seems to have slowed to a trickle.
Even better IMO are the number of suppliers now adding Atmos encoded files to their library. Seems to be breathing a bit of new life into multich playback. Now that IS something celebrate.
