MQA vs Hi Res

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by old tech, Aug 15, 2017.
Page 1 of 4
2 3 4
Next
 
Last
  1. old tech
    Basshead Paul and ev13wt like this.
  2. chef8489
    If you are not required to have a mqa decoder then it really isnt a real test is it? These are not real mqa files thus the tests are not real.
     
  3. gregorio
    Did you even read the link? The files are MQA files which have been decoded, as they would be if you downloaded them and played them on a MQA enabled DAC or played them with Meridian's MQA decoder software.

    G
     
  4. ev13wt
    Post number 2. :)

    It doesn't really matter. But put up your own blind test!
     
  5. chef8489
    YEs i did read the full thing and no it is still not mqa as in his own words mqa like effect.

    You can run all the senthetic tests like this you want, but untill you have actuall mqa enabled dac playing mqa files it is not a real or a fair test.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2017
  6. ev13wt
    Done.

    Interesting.

    I do wonder what track is what. :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2017
  7. pinnahertz
    Senthetic=synthetic? Aren't all tests synthetic?

    You'd need to verify that nothing basic changes when the MQA DAC changes from MQA to nonMQA, how fast that changes, and if there's an audible "tell" (beyond the "vast difference in quality") when changing file types like ticks or glitches. THEN you might be able to run a sort of test that gets closer to "fair". But what you'd be testing is both the audible difference in files (that results from the entire chain of processes that was used to create them) and the audible difference when that specific DAC plays them.

    Until we have access to MQA encoders and could generate some controlled files, this is all pretty meaningless.
     
  8. gregorio
    OK, so you read it but unfortunately you failed to understand it! He is using the MQA core to decode the MQA file, the same as an "actual MQA enabled DAC" would! He's then used a filter to render the file along the lines specified by MQA. All the "de-blurring" marketing MQA have touted about should be just as audible in this test as it would be using an MQA DAC or the TIDAL (MQA core) software. And lastly, MQA states that even un-decoded the MQA file will sound better!

    G
     
    ev13wt likes this.
  9. chef8489
    I Did not fail to undersgand anything. It is sgill not a valid test and not a propper scientific test with true mqa standards thus a complete invalidation. Whether you believe if the mqa standard is better or not, as i am undecided at this point with my tests and equiptment, you still must understand the simple fact to experience mqa you first must have a mqa capable dac and mqa encoded music. Amything other than that and you are just fooling yourself.

    Now comparing the claim that mqa files sound better even without the propper dac is a different story. Have at it. Download true mqa music. There are some free tracks out there as well as the high res and dsd versions of same recordings. I cant remember the link off hand.

    The website he uses to obtain the files works http://www.2l.no/hires/
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2017
  10. gregorio
    1. Huh? So you're saying that MQA made their MQA core decoder to standards other than MQA's own standards? How would that work?

    2. What different story? Are you saying the "De-blurring" MQA touts only works on the folded, ultrasonic frequencies (which are then decoded)? What would be the point of that?

    G
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2017
  11. ev13wt

    You are quietly approaching the the act of embarking upon a personal credibility crisis.
     
  12. chef8489
    How so? Pardon the misspelling and weird typing. My phone types weird on this forum for some reason. I have to carefully read over the type as it likes to capitalize the first two letters of each sentence and add extra characters and spaces to words.
     
    ev13wt likes this.
  13. bigshot
    One flavor of decoded audio is the same as any other as long as it's put in a file that can contain all the information in the decoded audio. 24/96 should be more than enough to contain anything human ears can hear (and then some).
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2017
    ev13wt likes this.
  14. ev13wt
    Simply because you need to relax on defending your view about this subject. What you read somewhere as being "the truth". It might not be.

    What you have laid out in your head about how digital works. It might not be right.


    As the gentlemen have explained. :)


    What you do is open your mind and read more about the subject. Not reviews. A week is good. Then we can continue.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2017
  15. chef8489
    NO i am sasying the testing method is bad. Not that mqa is good or bad and it is not a true or fair evaluation. So many people are trash talking mqa and have not tried it and believing this would be a true representation of mqa is wrong is what i was pointing out.

    I still dont know if i am for or against mqa as of yet, but i do believe it deserves the propper testing method before people jump to conclusions anx condem it. I do have the ability to decode it properly, i just dont have enough media or time with it yet.
     
Page 1 of 4
2 3 4
Next
 
Last

Share This Page