[mw7485]

Why would it require a hardware decoder ?
And mqa is a lossy compression so decoding can’t recreate the original signal but wether the difference is audible is a different thing.

Lossy? In relation to what? Here are a couple of articles that explain the general principles. Linky 1 & Linky 2. The whole idea of MQA is that you are preserving as much as possible - in as smaller space as possible. Forget the stuff about streaming for now; think of MQA as a CODEC that utilises the "noise space" that other CODECs happily preserve and playback for you. This noise space contains nothing of value - music wise anyway.

I agree, the test is whether a difference can be perceived hence ny desire to find an album that was available in both formats, MQA decoders are for the most part only available in quite expensive gear. The decoder finishes the unfolding process that cannot be done through a software renderer, and ensures you get exactly what was encoded. Whether your monitors can reproduce that is another matter! though.....

 

[mw7485]

Just picked up a WM1Z for £1700 off eBay seller discounts123ltd. A bit surprised they accepted the offer, so hope it's not a dodgy deal. Looking forward to hearing what all the fuss is about and see how it sounds next to my WM1A with Oriolus V2. Here we go with the burning in process again

I looked at these guys. They do have one positive feedback for a WM1A - at least you should get protection for the purchase if it turns out to be non-existent!

 

[roses77]

[Quoted section removed by Mod]
It’s not a fact about the bass going down a notch but to me the 1.20v sounded more like Sony Signature SQ. The 2.0v sounds more like Astell&kern Daps as it’s more refined, better instrument separation, wider sound stage, faster bass, more airy, as I already own Astell&kern daps I didn’t want another dap that sounded exactly the same. I’d listen to my Astell&kern Dap instead. That’s why I buy Sony for a different sound signature.

This is what I wrote.

 

[roses77]

Did you have Wm1z or was it 1A ?

I own the WM1Z. Thankyou for not editing my quote and changing the meaning. Thankyou.

 

[gerelmx1986]

I may switch back to 2.0 but I am still thinking about

 

[gerelmx1986]

Don't know what @Dithyrambes has to say about firmware 2.0

I love classical music and well in the typical stereotype of the classical music audiophile is zero to little bass... Seems 2 is logical. But man I like musicality.

Did you stay with 1.20 or decided to jump to the 2.0?

 

[nc8000]

Lossy? In relation to what? Here are a couple of articles that explain the general principles. Linky 1 & Linky 2. The whole idea of MQA is that you are preserving as much as possible - in as smaller space as possible. Forget the stuff about streaming for now; think of MQA as a CODEC that utilises the "noise space" that other CODECs happily preserve and playback for you. This noise space contains nothing of value - music wise anyway.

I agree, the test is whether a difference can be perceived hence ny desire to find an album that was available in both formats, MQA decoders are for the most part only available in quite expensive gear. The decoder finishes the unfolding process that cannot be done through a software renderer, and ensures you get exactly what was encoded. Whether your monitors can reproduce that is another matter! though.....

Others seem to not agree that mqa is lossless and hiressudio for that exact reason stopped selling mqa

http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/highresaudio-to-stop-offering-mqa/

I’m nowhere near technically qualified to determine who is right but many claim and believe that mqa is lossy.

The definition of lossless must be that the exact original signal is recreated after a round of encode followed by decode.

 

[kzzstzst]

any connect the balanced out with passive preamp ?
https://s1.gifyu.com/images/20171116-051943.jpg

 

[Lemieux66]

I recall an argument over what 'CD quality' meant in advertising a few years ago. I think a court agreed that if people can't tell the difference between Redbook and a lossy codec then the lossy codec IS 'CD quality'. Maybe the same type of argument is happening with MQA.

My two pence would be that if we're talking about encoding the last 4 bits in 24 bit audio, then it's just noise at best, and electronic devices, microphones etc can't really work with such low signals. DSD on the otherhand, I do find interesting and used to own dCS equipment when I was more serious about digital.

.

 

[Whitigir]

Woa, this Benk Glass protector is spot on, and fit like a gloves. I literally can not tell if it is on or not
Once again, thanks @kms108 for giving it to me, but most importantly, impressive research to have found such wonderful products that fit the 1Z like a gloves !

 

[kms108]

Woa, this Benk Glass protector is spot on, and fit like a gloves. I literally can not tell if it is on or not
Once again, thanks @kms108 for giving it to me, but most importantly, impressive research to have found such wonderful products that fit the 1Z like a gloves !

You should of put the sticker down 7mm and right 7mm from your current position.

 

[mw7485]

Others seem to not agree that mqa is lossless and hiressudio for that exact reason stopped selling mqa

http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/highresaudio-to-stop-offering-mqa/

I’m nowhere near technically qualified to determine who is right but many claim and believe that mqa is lossy.

The definition of lossless must be that the exact original signal is recreated after a round of encode followed by decode.

Gotta love the double standards of hiresaudio. Yesterday, I purchased an 192kHz MQA audio encoded album from them! They also seem quite happy to slap the "MQA Studio Master" moniker over a load of their albums, even though most of them are not MQA encoded. I'm not sure how that isn't a trademark infringement, Still no matter, not my problem - that's MQA's battle, not mine.

I accept that MQA is lossy in the sense that it is not a bit for bit copy - bit then again, very little is a true bit for bit copy unless it is enormously large in terms of storage space. You could probably even argue that it is not possible to create a 100% replication of the studio master (the exception being a digital master of course) - otherwise, what we be the point of having a studio master? However, MQAs possible value to me (and hopefully others reading this thread) is in the file size and apparent playback quality as listened to on the 1Z when compared to 24 bit flac on the same gear - through my probably imperfect ears. I accept that some may suggest that a logical extension to this argument may be the high bit rate mp3 v 16 bit flac debate, but I think this is a little different. MQA seeks to actively maintain the "extra" data - rather than discard it (as is the case with mp3). Yes, MQA have a vested interest in talking up what MQA as a CODEC can do, after all they take a slice of the pie at each step, and it wouldn't do much good if they turned round and said, actually, its all pants, we've invented this whole thing just to make a shed load of money. MQA is a different approach. Its an approach that seems to accept that loss will occur, but seeks to minimise that loss in a way that doesn't cost inordinate amounts of disk space, or bandwidth and then slaps a quality control structure on the while process to try and ensure the end consumer has confidence in the product. Cynics may see this as one enormous money spinner, and perhaps it is. My ears will be the judge for me.

 

[NaiveSound]

I got lcd XC. I tried it with wm1a briefly but it's not strong enough to power the lcd XC.

Still having a difficult time selling my. Wm1a. I figured people likes this player

 

[gerelmx1986]

I'll stick with PCM

 

[Lemieux66]

I got lcd XC. I tried it with wm1a briefly but it's not strong enough to power the lcd XC.

Still having a difficult time selling my. Wm1a. I figured people likes this player

I used my LCD3 with the 1A and it was fine. Are the XC a significantly harder load? You can even drive the LCD3 with an iPad output and it sounds good.