Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: MQA is a 'lossy' codec... posted by Ivan303 on January 22, 2020 at 12:32:46
but for certain it ISN'T 24/96
says it is 96/17.
Ten years ago the need to reduce bandwidth might have been useful. Why would anyone compromise the source signal today?
and have streamed the above referenced remastered RUSH album using both.
Admittedly, I'm allowing Audirvana to do the initial unfold and that's it as there is no way I'm replacing my DENAFRIPS Terminator with an MQA capable DAC, so there is that.
Audirvana MPD/DLNA to a uRendu to the DAC and both sound pretty good (if you like RUSH).
Audirvana allows easy flipping between QOBUZ and TIDAL and it's WAY better than LMS, no matter what inmate 'GoneFishing' says. :-)
After a few back and forths, I think QOBUZ with REAL 24/96 wins.
Lossy MQA isn't far behind and I admittedly did have to move to the 'sweet spot' and flip back and forth to decide.
I always asked, lossy compared to what? 16/44.1 is lossy. MQA, if it is to be believed isn't nearly that lossy.
I have a similar setup to yours and I found both MQA and Qobuz to be about the same. At those rates you just don't hear it anymore.
That said though I dropped Tidal, but mostly due to the cost of having two services. Qobuz had more Jazz and classical it seemed so I kept that.
So you basically came to the conclusion that MQA didn't do much for you, if anything. I'm experiencing the same as I have Tidal with some MQA titles, and Qobuz with full high resolution streams.
At the end of the day, I'm hearing about equal sound quality between the two services. Sometimes it goes to Qobuz and at other times Tidal. But where does that leave MQA if Qobuz sounds as good or better w/o it?
Exactly. MQA is a solution to a problem that does not exist.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: