pink fish media

Go Back   pink fish media > discussion > audio

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 14-02-17, 01:32 AM
radamel radamel is online now
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
Have you had a chance to compare recordings where you *know* the source material of the MQA and non-MQA versions are exactly the same?
I compared most of what is available for free download in 2L's website. I guess that at least some of those should have the same mastering.

Unlike you I care mostly about how it sounds. So if fully decoded MQA music in part sounds as good as it does because of a different mastering it's just as well.
__________________
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.-
Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 14-02-17, 02:04 AM
simon g simon g is offline
Grumpy Old Man
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
It was in comment to " I'd also be surprised if Tidal tried to increase fees as their upside is more members". Meridian/MQA wants their licensing fees. Either Tidal has to charge extra for the MQA version, or people who don't want or need MQA end up subsidizing the MQA users.
Interesting one this. There may be a cost saving benefit to Tidal due to reduced file storage and distribution costs perhaps? I suspect though that there will be another layer added to membership, so it'll be 'HiFi' or "HiFi +MQA".

I've now listened a great deal to MQA through the analogue out of my BS Vault (so full 24/192 MQA) and via its digital output, so mostly at 96KHz. As you've pointed out, it's very difficult to know to what to compare. Some albums are really excellent (eg 'Kin' by Pat Metheny) and sounds, to me, clearly superior to my CD copy. This may be though that the MQA is a different master, to which I have no access other than through Tidal/MQA. Having said that, at present, it's no additional cost to me so I'll just listen to the MQA album. Would I pay for that? Maybe. Depends on cost and how extensive the MQA offering becomes and whether or not the albums that I want to listen to are available, plus whether they're any 'better' than versions I already own. It's not all good with MQA either; some albums are just strange, to my ears (compared to CD version), others are merely different. I was quite enthusiastic at first, but am now much more hesitant on this.

Your posts on the technical side of this I've found very interesting, even if I can only follow them partly. It's very useful to have an objective counter to a subjective experience, albeit that I sit mostly in the subjective camp (close to the fence though!)
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 14-02-17, 02:04 AM
radamel radamel is online now
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
It was in comment to " I'd also be surprised if Tidal tried to increase fees as their upside is more members". Meridian/MQA wants their licensing fees. Either Tidal has to charge extra for the MQA version, or people who don't want or need MQA end up subsidizing the MQA users.
Not necessarily. It all depends on the number of additional subscribers MQA will attract (and existing subscribers it will help to retain).

If the additional revenue is greater than the additional cost than MQA will end up subsidizing non MQA using subscribers.
__________________
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.-
Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 14-02-17, 02:06 AM
diybry diybry is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
It was in comment to " I'd also be surprised if Tidal tried to increase fees as their upside is more members". Meridian/MQA wants their licensing fees. Either Tidal has to charge extra for the MQA version, or people who don't want or need MQA end up subsidizing the MQA users.
I'm unsure whether MQA is a good or bad thing, however If you take at look at the Tidal app, The 'Masters' section is awkwardly placed within the 'Albums' section. Certainly not an elegant or user friendly solution.
This leads me to believe that the 'Masters' position in the website is temporary, and will eventually migrate to a completely new category above the 'HI FI' section, access to which (I guess) will require an increased subscription.
I forecast that this will happen when there is sufficient Tidal MQA content available, and more importantly, when sufficient individuals have bought MQA hardware and are committed to the format.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 14-02-17, 02:21 AM
Rodney gold Rodney gold is offline
Im just me...
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,750
Albeit MQA sounds great.. there are really only 20 albums that appeal to me ..out of the 1200 or so in the wild.
I would not rebuy those anyway..or in fact buy a dac to play em or subscribe to tidal for MQA (I subscribe for the smorgasbord of new music with no lossy compression)

MQA HAS to be "free" to the consumer and the catalog has to be expanded way above what is currently on offer for it to be accepted wholesale.
It would also help if there was less confusion as well .. the launch has been bungled IMO
__________________
roon/tidal>SBT> Dirac (ddrc-22)> 2 x Devialet d premiers >Giya G1's > fully treated room
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 14-02-17, 02:21 AM
Julf Julf is offline
Evil brother of Mark V Shaney
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by radamel View Post
I compared most of what is available for free download in 2L's website. I guess that at least some of those should have the same mastering.
Unfortunately we are all just guessing about that,

Quote:
Unlike you I care mostly about how it sounds.
Of course I care about how it sounds, but I also want to understand why it sounds the way it sounds - is it due to technology, or marketing-led choice of material and processing?

Quote:
So if fully decoded MQA music in part sounds as good as it does because of a different mastering it's just as well.
Except that in that case, we could get the same great quality using standard FLAC on our favorite equipment.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 14-02-17, 02:26 AM
Julf Julf is offline
Evil brother of Mark V Shaney
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by simon g View Post
Your posts on the technical side of this I've found very interesting, even if I can only follow them partly. It's very useful to have an objective counter to a subjective experience, albeit that I sit mostly in the subjective camp (close to the fence though!)
Thanks - personally I have nothing against subjectivity in personal preferences, it is when it is used to make general claims that I feel the subjective impressions need to be verified in some objective way.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 14-02-17, 02:27 AM
Julf Julf is offline
Evil brother of Mark V Shaney
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by radamel View Post
Not necessarily. It all depends on the number of additional subscribers MQA will attract (and existing subscribers it will help to retain).

If the additional revenue is greater than the additional cost than MQA will end up subsidizing non MQA using subscribers.
That is assuming Tidal is making a profit on each additional subscribers.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 14-02-17, 02:31 AM
radamel radamel is online now
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post


Except that in that case, we could get the same great quality using standard FLAC on our favorite equipment.
If fully decoded MQA sounds as good as (or perhaps even better than) DXD or DSD 256 the file size would be considerably bigger for a comparable sound quality. Like it or not MQA allowed for Hires streaming. That's no small feat IMHO.
__________________
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.-
Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 14-02-17, 02:51 AM
Jim Audiomisc Jim Audiomisc is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by radamel View Post
If fully decoded MQA sounds as good as (or perhaps even better than) DXD or DSD 256 the file size would be considerably bigger for a comparable sound quality. Like it or not MQA allowed for Hires streaming. That's no small feat IMHO.
Yet it might well be the case that alternatives like bitstacking or noise shaping would do just as well to "allow highres streaming". With no need for any new player/decoding/DAC or for anyone to pay anything extra or divulge info about their DAC design, etc.

The point here is that these alternatives have been known about for years. So why invent MQA as a closed, charged-for method?
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 14-02-17, 02:53 AM
radamel radamel is online now
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
That is assuming Tidal is making a profit on each additional subscribers.
As I've said it depends on additional revenue vs additional cost.
Saying that non MQA using subscribers will subsidize MQA users is as speculative as saying the opposite.

What is a fact is that Tidal decided to stream MQA without any price increase.What will happen in the future is just guessing at this point.
__________________
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.-
Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 14-02-17, 02:55 AM
rich46 rich46 is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 825
we were ripped of in the 80s with cds. now its digital downloads. nothing changed
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 14-02-17, 02:56 AM
radamel radamel is online now
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Audiomisc View Post
Yet it might well be the case that alternatives like bitstacking or noise shaping would do just as well to "allow highres streaming". With no need for any new player/decoding/DAC or for anyone to pay anything extra or divulge info about their DAC design, etc.

The point here is that these alternatives have been known about for years. So why invent MQA as a closed, charged-for method?
The point is also that those alternatives like bitstacking or noise shaping are not available in a commercial streaming service. And MQA is.
__________________
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.-
Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 14-02-17, 02:57 AM
radamel radamel is online now
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by rich46 View Post
we were ripped of in the 80s with cds. now its digital downloads. nothing changed
How is MQA ripping you exactly?
__________________
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.-
Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 14-02-17, 02:59 AM
Yomanze Yomanze is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,031
Good old 16 / 44.1 is still the format of the future...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
pink fish media