Home
AudioAsylum Trader
Digital Drive

Upsamplers, DACs, jitter, shakes and analogue withdrawals, this is it.

For Sale Ads

FAQ / News / Events

 

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.

You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login


Login to access features only available to registered Asylum Inmates.
    By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username:

The Name that you picked or by default, your email.
Forgot Moniker?

 
 

Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".

Password:    

Forgot Password?

 Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:  
Your Email:  
Subject:  

Message Comments

   

Original Message

RE: "MQA is trying to be the preferred format for hi-res"...

Posted by Ivan303 on July 17, 2017 at 17:19:23:

Trying, but that's about it.

I understand why MQA wants us to compare it to Hi Rez, I just don't agree that it's is a candidate to be a 'preferred format for hi rez' because it's NOT hi rez, it's a compression of hi rez and a lossy one at that.

Yes, it's better than 16/44.1 Lossless FLAC (or TIDAL thinks so) as long as the master it is taken from is better sounding that Redbook CD. I don't disagree.

But given the choice of a paid download of a 24/96, 24/192, or even a 24/48 file and an MQA file, guess which one I'm taking?

Hint: Not the one that requires a special DAC and/or a computer algorithm to play it.

So it really doesn't matter to me if the MQA file sounds a lot like a real, no kidding hi rez file because in any and all cases, I'll take the real thing.

The ONLY use-case for MQA that I can see is when the choice is MQA or Redbook CD, which is the current TIDAL use-case.

As far as 'different masters', yes, the Redbook CD you bought in the 80's is likely from a different master than the remastered one being sold as a download in any format from 16/44.1 - 24/96 - 24/192 and/or DSD. A surprising amount of stuff recorded long ago and sold on vinyl or sold in the 80's on CD has been recently remastered and sold as a re-issue on CD and streams on TIDAL, DEEZER Elite and QOBUZ in 16/44.1 Lossless FLAC, so these comparisons with MQA are valid.

For example, most of the early catalog of the group "Dead Can Dance" (Neoclassical dark wave, world music, ethereal wave, art rock, gothic rock, pagan rock, post-punk, you-pick-the-genre) was remastered 2008 and issued on SACD (now out of print). The SACDs currently sell for outrageous prices. TIDAL will stream the re-mastered albums in lossless FLAC 16/44.1 and it sounds SO much better than the original CD of the 80's. Would MQA sound better? Sadly we don't know because TIDAL's MQA catalog is still pretty thin. :-(

ONE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION: Hi Rez Download @ $12.50 vs. MQA Download FREE!

But that's ONLY because I currently have a Meridian Explorer 2 MQA enabled DAC. ;-)