|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.249.169.177
In Reply to: RE: MQA (as I understand it) works only with streaming services or downloads... posted by John Marks on May 04, 2016 at 15:02:10
Right now the cheapest wat is to get a Meridian Explorer2 dac $299. Then you have to download MQA files to your computer and play them from your computer with a program like JRiver. This is what I am doing
Alan
Edits: 05/04/16Follow Ups:
What are your opinions now that you are actually using MQA at home? You are the first to say that you are listening to MQA in a home system.
bigshow
Today was the first day. I would like to break it in for a while and then give it a full review. All I will say at this stage is that MQA is the real deal. I have a MQA classical piano recording from 2L audio and it sounds like a real live piano. Amazing.
Alan
Truth is that 2L has many 96/24 piano recordings that sound like live pianos. No need for MQA encoding to save a few bits.
If you are streaming, there may be some benefit to the format if your bandwidth is limited to 44/24. You will get some portion of the additional quality available at 96/24 compared to 44/24. However, most people stream background music, rather than listening critically, making small sonic differences irrelevant. Streaming is, by its nature, incompatible with audiophile activities, which includes critical listening, including tweaking the playback, comparing equipment, etc., none of which can really be done with something like a "live" stream.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I disagree with everything you say in your post. When I compare the MQA piano recording with its original 16/44 it is clearly better. Yes the original is very good but the MQA is better. Also I am a serious audiophile and listener to music and I stream from Tidal and Classicsonline all the time and with really good equipment it is serious high end reproduction
Alan
You need to compare the MQA with a high-res version of the recording, at least 96/24. (I am assuming that the original 2L recording was made in DXD.)
If the specific recording you have in mind started out in 44/16 format then the discussion is different and more complex. In effect, the MQA process performs a remastering of the original recording, but if this is done automatically it will be little different from what you could do yourself using software such as HQPlayer and a non-MQA DAC.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
No the specific recording is a 2L DXD recording. On the 2L testbench I downloaded it in 16/44 and MQA to see what the difference would be
Alan
When I compare the MQA piano recording with its original 16/44 it is clearly better.
Was that the Nielsen piano work mastered at 16/44?
If so, that is an odd approach. Master at 16 bits and require 24 bit playback. Go figure.
Have you compared the MQA version with any of the others mastered at DXD?
No. It is a 2L recording called Chaconne and it was recorded in DXD. You then can download this recording at almost any resolution. All MQA files are 24/44 or 24/48. That is why the can't be put on a 16bit CD. Streaming or downloads only for MQA at least write now
Alan
just confused why you are comparing it to 16 bit Redbook?
When I compare the MQA piano recording with its original 16/44 it is clearly better.
Have you compared the MQA version to one of the 24 bit flavors?
I have a MQA classical piano recording from 2L audio and it sounds like a real live piano.
Indeed, 2L is known for producing fine recordings. How does it differ sonically from the non-MQA version?
It is cleaner with better dynamics and better resolution
Alan
.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: