Brofman played a really nice Beethoven 4th Piano Concerto at Davies Hall on Sunday. Very delicate, very refined. Audience cheered after the first movement and gave him two ovations after the third. Brahms 3 was exquisite, though the brass in SF cannot compete with that of the CSO, which I heard weekly as an undergraduate at Chicago.
Brofman played a really nice Beethoven 4th Piano Concerto at Davies Hall on Sunday. Very delicate, very refined. Audience cheered after the first movement and gave him two ovations after the third. Brahms 3 was exquisite, though the brass in SF cannot compete with that of the CSO, which I heard weekly as an undergraduate at Chicago.
I have a pioneer elite CD player and it is even pathetic compared to a unmodified sonos or laptop>USB >yggy.
PlayStation 3 to yggy bad as well.
I don't understand?
Also I don't understand the discourse with MQA. It is clearly better in tidal. If you are honest and compare non MQA to MQA versions.
Embrace the future and move forward. I can't find reel to reel tapes any longer. And let's not pretend vinyl sounds better than hires digital. I performed the comparison myself.
Everyone's mileage may vary -- as far as the MQA racket goes, they have never clearly demonstrated a MQA on/off on the same recording without proving the mastering is the same. As many have noticed, mastering variances are far more significant than hardware differences in converters or amps.
The reason that I refer to it as a racket is that it is a monopolistic effort to extort money from all producers of music and makers of audio reproduction for a process which has never been clearly demonstrated in any environment other than their own, controlled one. If indeed it really better, then let them compete on a level playing field in the free market rather than their own coerced demands without clear proof that their MQA recordings are not merely remastered for better sound.
The reason that I refer to it as a racket is that it is a monopolistic effort to extort money from all producers of music and makers of audio reproduction for a process which has never been clearly demonstrated in any environment other than their own, controlled one.
I am as skeptical as I am sure most are and I don't drink the KoolAid with the crowd. But if someone can deliver to me the music that I listened to all my life and it makes me smile and I realize It sounds better than I can ever remember. Then let them remaster every single album out there and call it CheeseWiz.
Yggy sounds great and I hope it will just sound that much better with every remaster MQA or no MQA.
Don't we all just want our music to sound like what we remember back then....
Nothing to do with MQA itself, but with the fact that those MQA tracks have been remastered because Warner Music and Universal are desperate to get you locked into a new format to resell the same old music again.
If indeed it really better, then let them compete on a level playing field in the free market rather than their own coerced demands without clear proof that their MQA recordings are not merely remastered for better sound.
Exactly. They could go through the standards process (like MP3 and AAC did) and have their patents licensed to hardware and software vendors on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms. That's what Dolby and Fraunhofer did, and they got the royalties from gazillion devices as a result. If MQA think their tech is so good, they should welcome this standard process that would get them a huge mass market of devices and apps. One wonders why they don't.
... that since I got back into headphones a few years ago, I've never really tried listening critically to my physical CDs. It's all been FLAC files, with various USB transports.
So I ordered a digital audio coax cable. $6.49 from Amazon Prime. It arrived today. I hooked it up to connect my Oppo BDP-103D blu-ray to the Bimby. And pulled some of my favorite CDs out of their dusty cases.
DAMMIT !!!!
I know audio memory really isn't very good, and I am not a highly sophisticated listener ... but DAMN!
Just before I posted this, I was making up a list of all the used CD stores within 100 miles. That's how good it is.
Thanks Mike (Baldr) !!!! I thought I was done with physical media, and I was wrong.
I just ordered an Emotiva ERC-3 to hook up to my new Yggy via AES. I agree with Baldr that CDs will come back and I wanted to make sure I purchased a quality transport before they become scarce.
If we're running them through an external dac, what level of device is really needed for a mid-priced, high quality/value set up?
Various thoughts come to mind from a basic Onkyo 7030...to an Emotiva/Marantz/etc...to getting an Oppo UDP-203. Part of me leans in the Oppo direction because of the versatility/added functionality. On this option, would I lose any appreciable audio quality for playing CDs?
Everyone's hearing is different, and for me I did a direct comparison of a cd I had ripped Vs cd playback, both through the same DAC and I didn't hear an appreciable difference. So for me the convenience of a digital library wins out. It also means that I can continue to enjoy both systems "equally". I think I will stop my comparison here, as this results suits me just fine. As they say YMMV.
Everyone's hearing is different, and for me I did a direct comparison of a cd I had ripped Vs cd playback, both through the same DAC and I didn't hear an appreciable difference. So for me the convenience of a digital library wins out. It also means that I can continue to enjoy both systems "equally". I think I will stop my comparison here, as this results suits me just fine. As they say YMMV.
Same for me. There was very little difference if any between my marantz transport, and Mac air to Yggy. Maybe my tube amp has something to do with it. Anyway, I love the convenience of my 3000 album digital library. Would hate to have 3000 cds in my bedroom!
I have to step in, in defense of THX. George Lucas created that because the theatrical exhibition standards for motion pictures were abysmal. Absolutely disgraceful, and he as a filmmaker felt his work (mainly the Star Wars films, but just films in general) wasn't being show in the best possible environment after he'd spent all of his money (and some of the Fox's and the bank's money) making The Empire Strikes Back. For him it was an insult to put years and millions of dollars worth of effort into something only to have it shown in theaters with dim screens and blown speakers. THX was created as a checks and balances system for theaters to properly showcase movies and I'm glad he was able to do that.
I can't vouch for what THX eventually became though, because it got spun off into other avenues, and I'm not sure if Lucas continued to have control of it.
Everyone's mileage may vary -- as far as the MQA racket goes, they have never clearly demonstrated a MQA on/off on the same recording without proving the mastering is the same. As many have noticed, mastering variances are far more significant than hardware differences in converters or amps.
The reason that I refer to it as a racket is that it is a monopolistic effort to extort money from all producers of music and makers of audio reproduction for a process which has never been clearly demonstrated in any environment other than their own, controlled one. If indeed it really better, then let them compete on a level playing field in the free market rather than their own coerced demands without clear proof that their MQA recordings are not merely remastered for better sound.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
