Hi res audio - newbie questions
Discussion
gizlaroc said:
The guy is a f
king idiot as far as I am concerned.
You can't simply apply similar filters, so it will sound different to the original file, but the whole point of MQA is the filters cancel out the digital artefacts that production introduces.
He is just someone that has already decided it can't sound good/better.
I'm not saying MQA is better or worse, but it sounds different, and I like it.
I stand to correction, but it sounds to me as though he's trying to give MQA a fighting chance.king idiot as far as I am concerned. Arcimago said:
By using the software MQA decoder to 88/96kHz and then upsampling that with a filter effect similar to what MQA does, we can get the essence of the decoding quality using something like TIDAL and a taste of the temporal characteristics of the filter. This is why I have these files as 176/192kHz.
He really is missing the point of what MQA does. You can't simply apply similar filters, so it will sound different to the original file, but the whole point of MQA is the filters cancel out the digital artefacts that production introduces.
He is just someone that has already decided it can't sound good/better.
I'm not saying MQA is better or worse, but it sounds different, and I like it.
Edited by gizlaroc on Wednesday 19th July 23:47
He has decoded an MQA file (which ends up as an 88/96 file) and then upsampled the result to 176/192 to match the files he is drawing comparison with.
Anyway - let's face it - if Meridian had been more open about the inner workings of MQA for the outset, they may have had more of a chance to convince the entire community that they had something special.
As things stand, the 'product' was released in a shroud of secrecy and hype - IMHO never a good way to market a product.
The Youtube videos for example - showing what appears to be random people being exposed to MQA and expressing astonishment at the format - how many of those people had actually heard real high end audio before?
I'm sure that many people who have never previously heard really high quality tracks on high end kit would be astonished whether or not it was MQA.
In fact I'm sure that if you got a decent high end CD player, a properly mastered CD, a decent headphone amp and good quality 'phones and gave that to a 'non hifi' person to listen to, they would express astonishment.
My belief is that Meridian launched the product in the way they did, as they realised it was always going to be a tough sell.
I have no idea on the development time of MQA, however I suspect that in reality, they were late to the party, as current DACs, along with high resolution (and properly mastered) music had already left MQA behind by the time they were ready to release it.
Based on the publicity I have seen, Meridian are simply trying too hard, which to me implies they realise MQA has nothing better to offer in the face of current DAC technology.
And then there is this "Linn: MQA is bad for music"
Of course Linn is a direct competitor - however there are some very valid points made in that article.
TonyRPH said:
He has decoded an MQA file (which ends up as an 88/96 file) and then upsampled the result to 176/192 to match the files he is drawing comparison with.
Which loses the MQA of it all. It still sounds different, and I agree with your findings on the sound too. It seems to take away some of that digital bite, which makes it sound more analogue, which is a good thing.
I agree with everything you are saying btw.
Funk said:
It all seems a bit 'audiophile-bullst-snakeoil' to me - I say that as someone who's spent thousands on kit over the years but finally got off the merry-go-round.
Hardly, it was conceived by trying to look at what makes analogue sound so good, what is it in the analogue to digital encoding that loses something. I think they have done that very well. t-snakeoil' to me - I say that as someone who's spent thousands on kit over the years but finally got off the merry-go-round.However, encoding at much higher resolutions also achieves the same results. However, a 50mb file vs a 400mb file for 6 minute track is a good thing....for now. In 5 years time we probably won't care.
gizlaroc said:
Funk said:
It all seems a bit 'audiophile-bullst-snakeoil' to me - I say that as someone who's spent thousands on kit over the years but finally got off the merry-go-round.
Hardly, it was conceived by trying to look at what makes analogue sound so good, what is it in the analogue to digital encoding that loses something. I think they have done that very well. t-snakeoil' to me - I say that as someone who's spent thousands on kit over the years but finally got off the merry-go-round.However, encoding at much higher resolutions also achieves the same results. However, a 50mb file vs a 400mb file for 6 minute track is a good thing....for now. In 5 years time we probably won't care.
Actually thinking about it, my speakers roll off at 20khz (and my hearing earlier than that) so any extra audio content above that is pointless for me.
Podie said:
Funk said:
It all seems a bit 'audiophile-bullst-snakeoil' to me - I say that as someone who's spent thousands on kit over the years but finally got off the merry-go-round.
Perhaps, but I go with the principle that if I enjoy what I'm listening to, then that's all good t-snakeoil' to me - I say that as someone who's spent thousands on kit over the years but finally got off the merry-go-round.
t in the audio world...!Funk said:
Podie said:
Funk said:
It all seems a bit 'audiophile-bullst-snakeoil' to me - I say that as someone who's spent thousands on kit over the years but finally got off the merry-go-round.
Perhaps, but I go with the principle that if I enjoy what I'm listening to, then that's all good t-snakeoil' to me - I say that as someone who's spent thousands on kit over the years but finally got off the merry-go-round.t in the audio world...!Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff