|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.19.73.221
In Reply to: RE: Nice reveiw by Michael. Thanks for posting the link... posted by AbeCollins on May 26, 2016 at 15:06:27
And foolish audiophiles will pay a premium to the manufacturers. And the high end marketplace will have fewer vendors. And a little bandwidth will be saved, but not enough to cover the licensing fees.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Follow Ups:
Which has NEVER happened before in the history of high end audio.
NEVER.
EVER.
OK, maybe once or twice. :-)
Whoever can call MQA high end?
I disagree. :-)
It pretty much covers a majority of "high end audio" seen as a collection of products and vendors. I'm not sure when there was a disconnection between "high fidelity" and "high end", but the two salient technological events that precipitated this disconnect was the invention of Dolby compression (destroying any possibility of pure analog recording) and the 44/16 CD standard, slicing music up into bits that could never be pure, and thereby creating the opportunity for scam artists to sell products that would be ultimately mediocre as something "better". So, IMO, it was mostly over by the mid 1980's.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
SQ in comparison with true high res material in high end systems.
MQA benefits
Firms that charge for streaming
Meridian for creating a monopolistic enterprise
DAC manufacturers looking for more sales
Audio magazines and reviewers looking for new things to review
Audio motivated inmates for trying out a new toy.
It seeks to limit or destroy progressive audiophile innovators trying to offer better and higher resolution music and systems.
It also damages the pockets of those who want to 'try it out'.
Until things settle, it may be better to buy a new audio PC or box as the next toy.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Same here.
You could be right Tony but I have no idea what the licensing cost will be to the manufacturers. Do you know if there is a licensing fee associated with DSD DACs? I know there was with SACD players. It seems that many DAC manufacturers held out until they had to "check the DSD checkbox" in their literature to remain competitive.
There's an announcement by schiit about MQA, and their decision. At least they are not playing games.
High resolution is a sick fetish, we are all mentally ill and sick.
I agree. The largest part of my music collection is 16/44.1 ripped from CD, then 24/96 downloads, a small handful of 24/192, and then just a couple DSD albums. My sweet spot is 24/96 PCM although the CD rips are not at all shabby. But I'm in it for the musical enjoyment so I play it all.
There is a lot of very high quality digital music available at 96/24. It would be a rare case where an inferior production would exceed this level of quality by virtual of being distributed in a higher resolution format. However, the recordings that I have with the very best sonics are invariably at higher resolution formats. IMO 96/24 is roughly equal in resolution to 15 IPS 1/4" 2 track reel to reel tape.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 05/27/16
In the 60's we were already recording at 30ips 1/2 track. Also we dumped Dolby A pretty fast because we were starting to record parts of an album at different studios and not all studios had dolby. Even if they did they would not track the same from one unit to another. That is why we went to 30ips. Plus it sold a lot of tape
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: