|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.171.203.146
In Reply to: RE: MQA posted by Mercman on May 26, 2016 at 13:03:10
I think he did a good job of capturing what he heard, and kept the over the top comments to other reviewers. Time will tell if it becomes widely accepted by software and hardware sources.
Follow Ups:
In this very good review the word used the most to describe MQA was "Natural". If you go to my MQA review on the Hi Rez section here was my description
"The word that was used the most describing MQA was natural"
Two great minds thinking alike. Again I hope Tidal includes a MQA software decoder in there streaming service. Then we can use any dac we want.
Alan
It probably makes good sense for MQA to exist in internet streaming (your Tidal example) to save bandwidth. If bandwidth doesn't cost much to the home consumer, it does add up for the streaming service. They have a vested interest in keeping their bandwidth cost down. Same for mobile listeners on a cellphone or tablet data plan.I'm not sure I'm seeing the benefit for downloaded MQA files for local playback. DSD is also described as sounding 'natural'. I'm not sure how many people will be willing to repurchase MQA files to replace their existing DSD and PCM music library investment.
All I can say is that MQA had better sound jaw dropping pee in my pants better than DSD or PCM. Otherwise there's not enough incentive to get onboard, except to perhaps play with a couple MQA files. I most certainly will not re-buy all my music in MQA format.
But again, for internet streaming it makes sense.
Edits: 05/27/16
I agree with that Abe.
So pay more for MQA enabled streaming, I'm fine with that.
I just bought an Auralic Aries and an Auralic Vega DAC. I've seen demos of Tidal MQA streaming on the Aries already. I'm not certain how beneficial MQA will be for downloads if one can get DXD downloads instead. One has to assume that'll be a small percentage of people who will believe value in that in terms of the downloads as most don't know what they are doing. And then there are the masses who also wouldn't know the difference between mp3 and lossless. I see this as an attempt to satisfy all audiences in one file so to speak.
Streaming however it makes perfect sense, especially when you are talking about so much scale, from people with iphones streaming music over 4G/5G as well as Sonos/Auralic/Roon enabled devices, etc...
This just seems like so much madness, I read the article finally, it makes sense to me a little bit.
Implementation is another story and where I have questions, if you want everyone on board it better be built into recording software such as Pro Tools, Reaper, etc.. so you can just export as MQA after mastering, then send off to the streaming services as one file instead of many and then have the service re-encode multiple times like they do now, or at worst have to support multiple "physical" files.
There are too many streaming services to mention. I'm sure this will all get figured out down the line.
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: