[headfry]

1. And again (!), you seem to be confused and have it backwards! From what I can tell Darko is NOT an audio professional, he's a professional writer. So apparently you'll take an unprofessional opinion over a professional one, the exact opposite of what you stated, presumably because it agrees with what you hear.

2. A couple of points you seem unaware of: 1. SACD is DSD, they're not different things. 2. 24bit has exactly the same resolution as 16bit, so while it's fair to say 24bit is "hires", it's no more "hires" than 16bit.

To answer your question: SACD provides the obvious advantage over redbook of being multi-channel rather than just 2 channel stereo but as far as sound quality is concerned, SACD is technically slightly inferior. I say "technically" because despite SACD's relatively serious flaws, controlled listening tests have demonstrated no human ability to discriminate SACD from CD (or it's flaws). Next, 24bit does have some practical advantages over 16bit for audio recording and production (due to it's increased headroom) but provides zero benefit for playback/reproduction! So, as far as the consumer is concerned, 24bit being more "hires" than 16bit is just marketing. BTW, none of this relies on a "well-mastered redbook", just the same basic master. And lastly, this is NOT just my view, it's a view informed by how digital audio actually works, the scientific evidence and proofs, and is the view of other audio pros/those who also understand how digital audio works!

G

Thanks for re-stating your views.

My main point is this: better mastering can sound MUCH better, and if what pays for it is a proprietary format, so be it, as otherwise the better releases may never happen. Many of my 24 bit releases sound great, I don't argue that the 24 bit format is unnecessary; it's the album's quality that matters and that they are made available!

Audio reviewing is an art; some reviewer's opinions tend to be on the nose - Darko is one of the finest out there IMHO.

 

[headfry]

I re-discovered the music of Todd Rundgren, in particular
his album Todd 1974 - he was all of 26 at the time

if you skip the first track - the rest is mainly classic experimental pop music -
and stellar - Tidal Masters makes me not need to seek out and buy the 24 bit master -
this sounds amazingly good, as do most of my other Masters albums - so I don't need to.buy it -

as original as Frank Zappa in his prime....Todd is cosmic.......!!!!


http://www.allmusic.com/album/todd-mw0000191699


if you love good pop/experimental music....pls check this out (skip 1st track!)

 

[gregorio]

[1] My main point is this: better mastering can sound MUCH better,
[2] and if what pays for it is a proprietary format, so be it, as otherwise the better releases may never happen.
[3] Many of my 24 bit releases sound great, I don't argue that the 24 bit format is unnecessary; it's the album's quality that matters and that they are made available!
[4] Audio reviewing is an art; some reviewer's opinions tend to be on the nose - Darko is one of the finest out there IMHO.

1. In practice, it's rarely a simple case of just "better mastering" sounding better. For example, a master with less audio compression will sound better than a more highly compressed master on a decent system in a reasonably quiet listening environment but the exact opposite is true if the environment is noisy; say if listening while walking, jogging, sitting in a car, train, plane, bus or while doing the chores, etc.

2. You have this backwards. MQA does not put money into the industry (pays) for better masters, it takes money out of/charges the industry. If MQA is successful, the end result will be worse releases! You seem to just keep repeating your marketing driven mantra of better releases, while not giving a damn about the fact you're ultimately promoting/contributing to poorer quality releases. Either you're lying when you state "it's the album's quality that matters" or you're shockingly illogical?! And BTW, as far as I'm aware, all the MQA releases so far are of already existing masters, just batch encoded into MQA.

3. Commonly, hires releases are made from less compressed masters than the CD version. These hires releases therefore sound better than the CD versions when listened to critically (with a decent system/quiet environment), which justifies the higher price of the hires version and maintains/promotes the illusion that hires is better. In reality, the less compressed version could be released in CD format (and sound identical to the hires) but then they couldn't charge the large mark-up for this less compressed version. As long as the manufacturers/industry think they can keep duping audiophiles into falling for/buying into this marketing idea of more bits and higher sampling rates being higher res and sounding better, they'll keep promoting it and making "audiophile" products and content to fulfil that demand. While an audible difference can always be maintained, by deliberately degrading the sound quality of the lower bit/sample rate version, the inevitable consequence is that the un-degraded "higher res" version will be of lesser SQ than it could have been. The consequence of you (and other audiophiles) buying into higher and higher resolutions and products like MQA is the exact opposite of your stated desire ("it's the album's quality that matters")!

4. I agree that audio reviewing is an art and as with all art, it can be based on fact, fiction or some combination, in audio reviewing terms; fact or audiophile myth. The problem for a professional reviewer is that the vast majority of audiophile products rely partially or entirely on audiophile myths and therefore, there's little/no advertising revenue to be gained from basing their "art" on facts. Maybe Darko knows the difference between fact and fiction and chooses fiction because he knows what butters his bread or maybe he's just as duped as the audiophiles he's writing for? If you like fiction or don't know and don't care that it is fiction, then I agree, Darko is very good. Personally though I'm interested in fact, rather than fiction presented as fact, so to me Darko is little more than just another (ignorant or not) worthless parasite.

G

 

[headfry]

1. In practice, it's rarely a simple case of just "better mastering" sounding better. For example, a master with less audio compression will sound better than a more highly compressed master on a decent system in a reasonably quiet listening environment but the exact opposite is true if the environment is noisy; say if listening while walking, jogging, sitting in a car, train, plane, bus or while doing the chores, etc.

2. You have this backwards. MQA does not put money into the industry (pays) for better masters, it takes money out of/charges the industry. If MQA is successful, the end result will be worse releases! You seem to just keep repeating your marketing driven mantra of better releases, while not giving a damn about the fact you're ultimately promoting/contributing to poorer quality releases. Either you're lying when you state "it's the album's quality that matters" or you're shockingly illogical?! And BTW, as far as I'm aware, all the MQA releases so far are of already existing masters, just batch encoded into MQA.

3. Commonly, hires releases are made from less compressed masters than the CD version. These hires releases therefore sound better than the CD versions when listened to critically (with a decent system/quiet environment), which justifies the higher price of the hires version and maintains/promotes the illusion that hires is better. In reality, the less compressed version could be released in CD format (and sound identical to the hires) but then they couldn't charge the large mark-up for this less compressed version. As long as the manufacturers/industry think they can keep duping audiophiles into falling for/buying into this marketing idea of more bits and higher sampling rates being higher res and sounding better, they'll keep promoting it and making "audiophile" products and content to fulfil that demand. While an audible difference can always be maintained, by deliberately degrading the sound quality of the lower bit/sample rate version, the inevitable consequence is that the un-degraded "higher res" version will be of lesser SQ than it could have been. The consequence of you (and other audiophiles) buying into higher and higher resolutions and products like MQA is the exact opposite of your stated desire ("it's the album's quality that matters")!

4. I agree that audio reviewing is an art and as with all art, it can be based on fact, fiction or some combination, in audio reviewing terms; fact or audiophile myth. The problem for a professional reviewer is that the vast majority of audiophile products rely partially or entirely on audiophile myths and therefore, there's little/no advertising revenue to be gained from basing their "art" on facts. Maybe Darko knows the difference between fact and fiction and chooses fiction because he knows what butters his bread or maybe he's just as duped as the audiophiles he's writing for? If you like fiction or don't know and don't care that it is fiction, then I agree, Darko is very good. Personally though I'm interested in fact, rather than fiction presented as fact, so to me Darko is little more than just another (ignorant or not) worthless parasite.

G

===============================================================================

If you don't see the value in articles by great professional audio reviewers such as Darko and believe that
he is either on the take and and/or perpetuates myths knowingly or unknowingly then I think I know where you're
coming from and respectfully and strongly disagree with your view on this. Also, while I think you enjoy
expressing yourself I wonder what you're doing on this thread, which is
an appreciation thread.

here is where your comments would be a better fit:

MQA: Revolutionary British streaming technology

which I'm pretty sure you are aware.

BTW, do you or have you used your analytical and writing skills in an occupation or avocation? <<<. ========



...if anyone would like to chime in on Tidal Masters Appreciation, I'm ready to hear from you!

 

[gregorio]

[1] If you don't see the value in articles by great professional audio reviewers such as Darko
[2] and believe that he is either on the take and and/or perpetuates myths knowingly or unknowingly then I think I know where you're
coming from and respectfully and strongly disagree with your view on this.

1. I do see the value in articles by great professional audio reviewers but to be a great (or even just a competent) reviewer requires that the stated facts are accurate and marketing myths/BS are exposed. For this reason, Darko is not a great or even a competent reviewer!

2. Huh, in contrast I've no idea where you're coming from! You say Darko is a professional reviewer, which means he earns a living from reviewing. As DAR is not a subscription service, where do you think the money that pays him to be a "professional" comes from? Either Darko is "on the take" (in the form of advertising revenue from audiophile manufacturers/retailers) or he's not a "professional", which is it? You are of course free to "respectfully and strongly disagree" but you're doing so against the glaringly obvious, basic economic facts! Which brings us back to my previous analogy; flat earthers are also free to "respectfully and strongly disagree" in spite of the obvious fact that the earth is a sphere!

G

 

[pinnahertz]

===============================================================================

If you don't see the value in articles by great professional audio reviewers such as Darko and believe that
he is either on the take and and/or perpetuates myths knowingly or unknowingly then I think I know where you're
coming from and respectfully and strongly disagree with your view on this.

I have to admit that until he was mentioned here I knew nothing of Darko. So I went, and I read.

Darko is, in fact, a professional. He's a decent writer, he rights a lot, it's readable, and decently structured, and he gets paid for it (which is what makes him a "professional").

And, he is doing the job of an audio reviewer: setting up and listening to audio stuff then writing his opinion. He's paid to do it. The site is thoroughly monetized in every which way. Great? Yeah, I don't thing so. Greatness, for someone in that profession, would require substantially more real, pertinent, and accurate content that is being delivered, something like real investigative research without regard for marketing hype.

Unfortunately, though reasonably well crafted, his review of MQA lacks any semblance of a real, honest review of the technology. It's riddled with parroted MQA marketing hype. Comparisons are classic: he compares a CD version and the shiny new MQA version, with no knowledge whatsoever of the heritage of either. In fact, he's writing about one of the most highly biased, non-controlled forms of auditioning there is: fully sighted (he writes about the MQA lights too) and without any concern for the total signal path.

Yes, he's a professional writer. But if you want accuracy of evaluation of products, look elsewhere. And sure, he's on the "take". The site is loaded with paid ads and links to manufacture's sites (where the original marketing hype is found), thus perpetuation their fantasy world. And, by the look of things, he's very, very well funded.

...if anyone would like to chime in on Tidal Masters Appreciation, I'm ready to hear from you!

Sure, Happy to.

So far, I appreciate knowing that Tidal Masters have provided yet another layer of audio marketing confusion. I appreciate the fact that some here will recognize that there has been no real qualitative evaluation of MQA.

I would appreciate it if many more here would adopt a little understanding of what is actually being heard in a Tidal Master/MQA recording, and referenced here, like early 1970s analog tape recordings that have followed an undisclosed and ambiguous remastering path which would sound every bit as good on a CD as on a Tidal Master.

I do not appreciate blindly swallowing the MQA marketing Cool-aid, or frankly, blind faith in anything. I also don't appreciate that in a public forum those with dissenting opinions are asked to depart in an artificial tone of respect.

So here's something: I've developed a new and highly advanced MQA compatible speaker cable. It doesn't degrade CD audio, but when used specifically with an MQA recording, it compliments the anti-time-smearing properties of the MQA "process". In fact, the cable has been pre-processed in our lab high in the Himalayas by celibate monks who are vowed to lives of silence. To audition this cable requires a standard audio system and an MQA audio system, set up side by side. The standard system plays a standard CD, uses standard electronics, standard speakers and standard speaker cables. The MQA system plays MQA recordings, uses MQA speaker cables and the same type of speakers, but sitting right next to the standard ones. Compare the two and hear how amazing our MQA wire is!

Now it shouldn't take a lot to see what's wrong with that, right? Comparing too many variables. Different recordings, different speaker positions, different wire, and possibly others like a difference in system gain. This is precisely what's going on when someone compares a CD to an MQA release! There is a list of variables, differences between the two "versions", only we don't know exactly what they are. We are, however, comparing the result of all of them. And MQA is only one.

Some don't care how we get better quality music, if MQA does it, that's just fine. And I would agree if (and this is a big one) there wasn't someone pushing MQA with vague yet glowing marketing, license fees, and non-disclosure of the technology.

 

[headfry]

The hardware companies onboard with MQA are among the best in the industry, some of them are:

Aurender
Berkely Audio Design
Bluesound
bel canto
brinkmann
Krell
Audioquest
Mark Levinson
Mytek
Moon by SimAudio
Pro-Ject


Make of this list what you may, I can bet that by and
large the above companies see MQA as a real advancement in audio streaming formats!

....I don't need marketing psuedo-claims
to influence my appreciation of MQA - I've
been enjoying the improvement for over three months now thanks to Tidal and its software decoding (and as I've said a few times) if it continues to bring better sounding releases then I'm all for it -
the improvement is similar in magnitude to the better hires masters out there - more solid, effortless,
musically expressive with better imaging, with MQA's better soundstage and 3D palpability - more natural and overall nicer.

I'm not the only one to think this either.

 

[winders]

A real advancement? Please. Better soundstage and 3D palpability - more natural and overall nicer? That's not what I hear, but whatever your expectation bias needs you to think....

Look, those companies are supporting MQA because they think they need to. They don't want a potential customer to see they don't support something and strike them from their list because of it. Just like some people won't buy a DAC that doesn't support DSD.

 

[wormcycle]

The hardware companies onboard with MQA are among the best in the industry:

Aurender
Berkely Audio Design
Bluesound
bel canto
brinkmann
Krell
Audioquest
Mark Levinson
Mytek
Moon by SimAudio
Pro-Ject


Make of this what you may, I can bet that by and
large the above companies see MQA as a real advancement in audio streaming formats!

....I don't need marketing psuedo-claims
to influence my appreciation of MQA - I've
been enjoying the improvement for over three months now thanks to Tidal and its software decoding (and as I've said a few times) If it continues to bring better sounding releases then I'm all for it -
the improvement is similar to the better hires masters out there - more solid, effortless,
musically expressive with better imaging, soundtage and 3d palpability - more natural and nicer.

Generalizing a bit I guess. What does it mean exactly "onboard with MQA"?
I am on Tidal, did a lot of A/Bing between the 16/44 and MQA and, with two different setups, and HD800S I hear no difference. Maybe it is a Tidal decoder but I am not in a hurry to buy MQA DAC.

 

[headfry]

Generalizing a bit I guess. What does it mean exactly "onboard with MQA"?
I am on Tidal, did a lot of A/Bing between the 16/44 and MQA and, with two different setups, and HD800S I hear no difference. Maybe it is a Tidal decoder but I am not in a hurry to buy MQA DAC.

Your experience - which is perfectly valid, altho not that of many others such as myself.


If I heard no difference I wouldn't have started this thread; my enjoyment
spurred it.


They are MQA official partners on the MQA web site.

 

[headfry]

A real advancement? Please. Better soundstage and 3D palpability - more natural and overall nicer? That's not what I hear, but whatever your expectation bias needs you to think....

Look, those companies are supporting MQA because they think they need to. They don't want a potential customer to see they don't support something and strike them from their list because of it. Just like some people won't buy a DAC that doesn't support DSD.

expectation bias? just because you don't hear it? don't be so sure my preference is due to expectation bias.

 

[pinnahertz]

expectation bias? just because you don't hear it? don't be so sure my preference is due to expectation bias.

Oh, but it definitely is! You've done absolutely nothing to eliminate expectation bias, so it's there in full force, and your expectation is that MQA is better. You've quoted MQA marketing hype repeatedly, reinforcing your own expectation bias and sadly, that of others as well.

Your experience - which is perfectly valid, altho not that of many others such as myself.

Don't try to spin this by referencing yourself and "many others" unless you plan to include the other "many others" who have not shared your experience. You don't have any statistics of who hears what, do you? Diminishing someone's personal observation and elevating your own does a disservice to everyone, and your own credibility takes a hit along the way.

If I heard no difference I wouldn't have started this thread; my enjoyment
spurred it.

Nobody doubts that you believe you heard a difference. The doubt is completely contained in why you heard a difference.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I can bet that by and large the above companies see MQA as a real advancement in audio streaming formats!
[2] .... I don't need marketing psuedo-claims to influence my appreciation of MQA
[3] if it continues to bring better sounding releases then I'm all for it -
[4] the improvement is similar in magnitude to the better hires masters out there ...

1. I'd take that bet! Do you really think the engineers at those companies have as little understanding of the science, technology and lossy codecs as you? I'd bet, that the above companies see MQA as an advancement/opportunity in audiophile marketing.

2. And yet, since you started posting on MQA (in other threads), you've quoted it's marketing psuedo-claims repeatedly and virtually verbatim. Are you saying that's just pure coincidence?

3. You're actually against it then? Obviously, as they're taking money out of production budgets (by charging the content creators) that HAS TO result in poorer sounding releases. I've got no idea how you're going to able to tell though, how are you going to compare the recording that's available with a better recording which was never made?

4. That's a zero magnitude then! As the better hires masters are audibly indistinguishable from those same masters in low/standard res (16/44.1). In practice, at very best, the improvement is of zero magnitude (no audible difference) or negative magnitude (slightly audibly poorer) because it's a lossy codec! However, whether it's audibly identical or slightly worse is irrelevant, the only thing which really matters in the audiophile world is if audiophiles think/believe it's better and that of course is dependant on the effectiveness of the marketing. This has been demonstrated/proven so many times over the last few decades that it's now an axiom of the audiophile industry and incidentally, this is why you virtually never find audiophile equipment in commercial music/audio studios.

G

 

[headfry]

1. I'd take that bet! Do you really think the engineers at those companies have as little understanding of the science, technology and lossy codecs as you? I'd bet, that the above companies see MQA as an advancement/opportunity in audiophile marketing.

2. And yet, since you started posting on MQA (in other threads), you've quoted it's marketing psuedo-claims repeatedly and virtually verbatim. Are you saying that's just pure coincidence?

3. You're actually against it then? Obviously, as they're taking money out of production budgets (by charging the content creators) that HAS TO result in poorer sounding releases. I've got no idea how you're going to able to tell though, how are you going to compare the recording that's available with a better recording which was never made?

4. That's a zero magnitude then! As the better hires masters are audibly indistinguishable from those same masters in low/standard res (16/44.1). In practice, at very best, the improvement is of zero magnitude (no audible difference) or negative magnitude (slightly audibly poorer) because it's a lossy codec! However, whether it's audibly identical or slightly worse is irrelevant, the only thing which really matters in the audiophile world is if audiophiles think/believe it's better and that of course is dependant on the effectiveness of the marketing. This has been demonstrated/proven so many times over the last few decades that it's now an axiom of the audiophile industry and incidentally, this is why you virtually never find audiophile equipment in commercial music/audio studios.

G

================================================
...and as long as your technical understanding tells you that MQA
can't possibly be any better than Redbook
(and that it is therefore and obviously a shameless money-grabbing scam - why can't everyone see that?????),
it may be coloring your perception of same. For example,scientific theory tells us that specialty USB cables, if properly constructed and
shielded, can't possibly give any audible/musical improvements....yet in revealing systems they certainly can.

Just saying that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not (almost) everyone else.


It seems to me that you and P revel in criticizing hires formats, in particular MQA as it is trying to get established now.

Just wondering why the two of you feel the need to persist in repeating your positions,
when this purpose of this thread has to do with sharing Masters tracks and albums that sound great and that
are particularly musically rewarding....compared to the available releases of same.

 

[bfreedma]

================================================
...and as long as your technical understanding tells you that MQA
can't possibly be any better than Redbook
(and that it is therefore and obviously only obviously a shameless money-grabbing scam - why can't everyone see that?????),
it may be coloring your perception of same. For example,scientific theory tells us that USB cables, if properly constructed and
shielded, can't possibly give any audible/musical improvements....yet in revealing systems they certainly can.

Just saying that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not (almost) everyone else.


It seems to me that you and P revel in criticizing hires formats, in particular MQA as it is trying to get established now.

Just wondering why the two of you feel the need to persist in repeating your positions, when the purpose of the
thread has to do with sharing Masters tracks and albums that sound great and that
are particularly musically rewarding....compared to the available releases of same.

What evidence (aside from your opinion) can you provide to support the claim in bold?

I ask because none of the manufacturers of "audiophile" USB cables have been able to provide validated data supporting your claim.