Very well said. I listen to hours and hours of digital, most of it Tidal at 16/44.1 and if that is supposed to cause fatigue, I must have anti-fatigue DNA in me.I have my answer to this. I have been saying that even 16/44.1 sounded "good enough for me" and had someone from one of the other forums over the other day, who thought I was crazy, but after he heard my streaming Tidal via an Aurender into the Select DAC via usb, he understood and agreed.
Does streaming Tidal sound as good as Tape or Vinyl? Of course NOT, IF you compare it to the same criteria as vinyl or tape sound. I doubt if digital will ever sound like vinyl or tape. And it doesn't matter whether it's 16/44.1, MQA or DSD, it still does not sound like vinyl or tape. If you ONLY love vinyl or tape sound and have a closed mind towards digital you will NEVER like it.
On the other hand if you love vinyl and tape, but are open to listening to digital then as I have personally experienced even non MQA, 16/44.1 streaming Tidal TOTALLY satisfies me and actually gives me more overall music pleasure that vinyl or tape. It just works for me and the digital sound is different, yes, but it's a sound that allows me to become totally involved in the music and that's what I care about, NOT if it sounds like vinyl or tape, which again IT DOES NOT.
I am of the opinion that a great recording streamed over 16/44.1 is going to sound better than a mediocre original recording that has been MQA'd (HW or SW unfolded) or DSD. BUT I am using the MSB Select DAC to make these declarations, so take it for what it's worth.
Very well said. I listen to hours and hours of digital, most of it Tidal at 16/44.1 and if that is supposed to cause fatigue, I must have anti-fatigue DNA in me.
my question would be can MQA compete with optimized HQ Player? only because to my ears optimized HQ Player seems to really take digital somewhere much closer to analog.
as the tuning proceeds finding the ideal settings for HQ Player I'm hearing things in long term references I've never heard. Sunday a friend who is very sensitive to a digital signature commented how much less digital it sounded. and this guy is hard core analog and a tube guy to boot. and HQ Player is dsd compatible.
at some point I would like to hear MQA in my system and compare it to what I'm getting from HQ Player.
not that MGA might not be competitive, but I would be skeptical, and MQ Player is essentially free and out there for anyone to use. as opposed to the dark side of MQA as some are suggesting.
If you have digital fatigue....it's your system,not the digital.
It has a conjugate filter which is supposed to back out the anti-aliasing filter that was used when the music was originally digitized. Their tools leave breadcrumbs in there for the decoder to perform this function.Good question. Actually, can I piggyback on this and ask if there's any reason why MQA should be better than current hi-res? Have I misunderstood, or is MQA not just a (lossy) way of wrapping up higher-res in a CD-esque bit rate and word length?
Very well said. I listen to hours and hours of digital, most of it Tidal at 16/44.1 and if that is supposed to cause fatigue, I must have anti-fatigue DNA in me.
Hi Mike, I have had good success with HQ Player. However, I don't know what the optimized version is. Is it a separate product or do you have a specific set of settings that you use to optimize HQP? If so, can you share? One issue I have with HQP is the myriad of possible settings. Thanks, Larry
Howdy Mike, one thing that I would say is that each person that answers any of these questions is "probably" coming with a different perspective. The final result as you know is the entire system's recipe. For one person they might love MQA or CD streaming or ???, but that has a LOT to do with their entire system, not necessarily just the digital formats being played.
fully agree Bob. if you are living with mainly streaming and playing lots of new music that way, then MQA has maybe more relative value than if you are a files from the server kind of guy. MQA has little help for the files listener.
MQA has little help for the files listener.
That's what I'm trying to establish with my question, really. I still haven't got a solid sense of whether that's true or not.
OK, so there are at least reasons why it could be superior to normal high-res. Interesting.
I've never even heard a MQA non streamed file, so I have no idea, but from my perspective MQA is all about streaming....or at least to me it is.
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |