[Ieonasj]

The Audeze headphones need good current but they are generally not hard to drive. What amp are you asking about?

thanks. now im use fiio Q3 MQA via 3.5mm single output at 32ohm has 170mW. Want say volume at 50-60% perfect for me. more is too big sound for ears.


balanced 4.4mm has 330mW output ,but i dont have 4.4mm cables. i m see at ifi gryphon,as want portable powerfull with MQA and bluetooth dac/amp.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

thanks. now im use fiio Q3 MQA via 3.5mm single output at 32ohm has 170mW. Want say volume at 50-60% perfect for me. more is too big sound for ears.


balanced 4.4mm has 330mW output ,but i dont have 4.4mm cables. i m see at ifi gryphon,as want portable powerfull with MQA and bluetooth dac/amp.

I'm sorry, I don't know. You should ask in the ifi threads and consider buying a balanced cable for the best sound quality. Loudness is not the only aspect of higher power, many times it sounds better even at low volumes, if the amp has more power.

 

[Ieonasj]

I'm sorry, I don't know. You should ask in the ifi threads and consider buying a balanced cable for the best sound quality. Loudness is not the only aspect of higher power, many times it sounds better even at low volumes, if the amp has more power.

so,im use now from sourse 170mW,from gryphon will be 1000mW.

 

[Mediahound]

I will literally only listen to MQA on the very few recordings that were actually recorded in MQA (such as those from label 2L). like Quiet Winter Night - An Acoustic Jazz Project or the album called Magnificat.

Albums that are recorded normally and then just converted to MQA, which is basically everything on Tidal, you may as well just listen to the normal lossless CD quality instead.

(I prefer Qobuz over Tidal, no MQA streaming, except for the above mentioned)

 

[gimmeheadroom]

Albums that are recorded normally and then just converted to MQA, which is basically everything on Tidal, you may as well just listen to the normal lossless CD quality instead.

That's not always possible and it's not always true. Qobuz is available in much fewer countries than Tidal and it's 2X the price of Tidal in many places. Here it is not available at all.

And MQA often sounds great, even compared to Redbook or lossless. For listening, I'm fine with MQA. If you archive then sure, you want the lossless version.

 

[Mediahound]

That's not always possible and it's not always true. Qobuz is available in much fewer countries than Tidal and it's 2X the price of Tidal in many places. Here it is not available at all.

And MQA often sounds great, even compared to Redbook or lossless. For listening, I'm fine with MQA. If you archive then sure, you want the lossless version.

It will never actually sound as good as the original track. See this from Rob Watts (Chord DAC designer);

As to the compression from 88.2/96 to 44.1/48 this is seriously flawed with major sound quality and measurement issues. For one, it has a massive notch at 22.05 kHz or 24 kHz that is introduced, which will have transient timing repercussions; secondly the system has completely unacceptable aliasing issues, which means distortion at 20kHz is a massive 1% - and aliasing has a huge consequence to the sound quality too, as again it degrades transient timing; thirdly the system is lossy, and converts a 24 bit signal into something like 17 bits. This is again unacceptable.

My advice is to ignore MQA and always go for the unchanged original file

 

[gimmeheadroom]

It will never actually sound as good as the original track. See this from Rob Watts (Chord DAC designer);

That doesn't change anything

 

[Mediahound]

That doesn't change anything

You stated:

And MQA often sounds great, even compared to Redbook or lossless.

Which is refuted.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

Which is refuted.

That's nonsense. Nobody can say what somebody else thinks sounds good or prefers.

This is a zero-day dispute between Watts and Stuart. They each have their own snake oil to sell. Nobody has the moral high ground.

Yes MQA is lossy, yes it's hires, yes, many people think it sounds better. If you don't, that's fine. Preferences are opinion, and opinion cannot be refuted.

 

[Mediahound]

That's nonsense. Nobody can say what somebody else thinks sounds good or prefers.

Well it's also been measured by third parties ( @GoldenOne above is one of them). There's a reason Bob Stuart does not publish any measurements though...b/c MQA doesn't measure up!

When it comes down to it, MQA is a scam. It's not intended to improve audio quality (how can a lossy format "improve" on lossless?) or to give customers a better experience. It exists only to extract license revenue from every single link in the production and playback chain, and it's a very convenient scheme to introduce both hard DRM and quality reduction for anyone not willing to pay into this scheme, whether they produce hardware, software or content, or are just a listener.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

Well it's also been measured by third parties ( @GoldenOne above is one of them). There's a reason Bob Stuart does not publish any measurements though...b/c MQA doesn't measure up!

You're missing the point. Nobody has correlated measurement to sound quality. You can measure all you want, it doesn't mean anything. What matters is what you like.

 

[Mediahound]

Nobody has correlated measurement to sound quality. You can measure all you want, it doesn't mean anything. What matters is what you like.

This is true, there are certianly people who prefer very lossy formats like cassette tape and Minidisc. The difference is you don't hear the inventors of those format saying that they're superior to lossless or redbook audio even though it measures worse, like we have with MQA stating.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

This is true, there are certianly people who prefer very lossy formats like cassette tape and Minidisc. The difference is you don't hear the inventors of those format saying that they're superior to lossless or redbook audio even though it measures worse, like we have with MQA stating.

There is no correlation between so-called measurements and how much people enjoy music. That's dumb. Why don't you measure pizza or paintings. Just dumb...

According to your buddy, upsampled digital music sounds better and he'll sell you gear costing many thousands so you can figure out for yourself it doesn't. But you probably won't say it out loud until you sell your expensive mscaler.

Like I said, neither of these guys have the moral high ground. One man's snake oil is another man's bread and butter.

 

[Mediahound]

According to your buddy, upsampled digital music sounds better

It sounds better AND measures as such. There's the difference.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

It sounds better AND measures as such. There's the difference.

Again, just opinion about whether it sounds better.

You drank the Chord kool-aid and that would be fine if you didn't try to say the MQA Kool-aid was somehow not ok. You can't have it both ways. Either opinion is valid or it's not. If it's not, then your posts are off-topic except in the sound scientology forum. If opinion is valid, then you accept that the other guy gets to like what he likes, just like you get to like what you like. And most of all, you don't get to say that what the other guy likes is crap just because your leader says so.