The best DSD recordings I've heard were recorded straight from R2R master tapes. Any mastering was done by analog equipment before the ADC. No digital mastering at all. Not too many recordings out there like that. There are some though.
Schiit Yggdrasil DAC and MQA
- Thread starter Al M.
- Start date
The best DSD recordings I've heard were recorded straight from R2R master tapes. Any mastering was done by analog equipment before the ADC. No digital mastering at all. Not too many recordings out there like that. There are some though.
and btw, aren't there several thousand MQA titles on Tidal already?
SACD only has something like 6,000 titles in 10 years and over half are classical.
SACD only has something like 6,000 titles in 10 years and over half are classical.
Al, what I don't understand is this: if regular Red Book CD sounds so good, and "it is where all the music is", then why have there been so many attempts to improve digital sound? There are so many alternatives purporting to be "higher resolution" and now there is MQA. DACs like the Vivaldi have filters which change the sound too. Why have designers invested so much time and effort in trying to improve ordinary CD sound? Surely some folks don't think standard CD is good enough.
You and I have heard a few excellent DACs, the Vivaldi, Rossini and now your Schiit. I agree that these sound very good, and yet, and yet, standard CDs, even with ever improving playback implementation, don't seem to be good enough. What do you think drives the dissatisfaction?
People who say there are no MQA titles available are just not looking. The count was well over 3000 and growing weekly when the stopped tracking. Unlike hi-res it isn't just the SOS releases. There is a good mix of current releases along with old music and covers most genre. Sure everyone will complain there favorite genre is wanting and classical and jazz junkies are probably correct Then again they aren't the ones who will determine whether MQA is successful.
Its a great question Peter - my answer to it is in part 'delta-sigma DAC chips'. There are plenty of reports of satisfying sounding multibit DACs extant nowadays but the installed base is still in the main D-S (or S-D). I'm not entirely sure if the problems with these integrated chips are the S-D modulator, the digital filter or the output opamps or any combination of the above.
I don't follow the argument that to fix digital it needs to be more bits or higher sample rate. RBCD satisfies me wonderfully, which is rather fortunate because as you point out, that's where all the music is.
High end audio is competitive and always seeking to improve, in all aspects.
Also, I think digital has inherent issues with producing irritating artifacts, which is made all the more apparent with comparisons to analog sources. I don't think this is the case with all digital sources and there seem to be a wide variety of high quality DACs to choose from with truly good options starting at ever-lowering prices. So I'd agree there has been dissatisfaction with digital but I wouldn't blame the redbook cd format for all of the issues, it's mostly the playback devices.
I also question the differences people hear in formats is due to the format and not the way the DAC handles the conversion, even if it's the same DAC doing multiple formats. It's hard to say if results would be the same with a different DAC...
I'm probably repeating myself here, but MQA certainly was a pretty big step up over the standard files that were heard from Peter's collection....which BTW was fairly impressive.
I know that many of you are happy with the results you are getting either from your DSD files or your standard red book, but unless you can do an AB with MQA I don't think you will truly know the difference. I'm not a digital fan, and MQA is really going to change that, but to my ears it is a big step up towards the sound of a good analog rig. So much so, that I wouldn't personally consider any new DAC without the ability to decode and unfold MQA....regardless of the current number of titles available.
I know that many of you are happy with the results you are getting either from your DSD files or your standard red book, but unless you can do an AB with MQA I don't think you will truly know the difference. I'm not a digital fan, and MQA is really going to change that, but to my ears it is a big step up towards the sound of a good analog rig. So much so, that I wouldn't personally consider any new DAC without the ability to decode and unfold MQA....regardless of the current number of titles available.
Ok, before we know who is misssing the big picture here: who is paying for MQA? License fees, by whom? Tidal? DAC manufacturers? As far as I know, the customer does not pay an extra fee to get MQA from Tidal.
Because if nobody is paying, MQA will go the same way as SACD which nobody paid for eiher, because nobody (or just a few) bought the physical discs.
Can I ask what those standard files resolution at recording were of Peter's, you listened to ?
I can see an obvious advantage in streaming with MQA as it is a compression method and due to current streaming bandwidth limitations
However, I don't see the point in MQA with high resolution originally recorded files
If the original recordings were recorded at 24/192 or better, what's the point of MQA ?
If all the MQA claims are to be taken at face value
It's main advantages are
1. Streaming of high resolution audio in a band limited condition
2. Some attempt at deblurring flawed recordings which were recorded at insufficient resolution to meet Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem conditions
First, when you are in Tidal and click on the "Masters" tab under albums, you only get a few until you select "View All". Even looking at "View ALL" they still limit this to ~460. Many of these ~460 stay the same week after week yet a few new ones come on and a equal amount drop off.
Second, Here is a link to a document that hasn't been updated in months which shows over 2700 titles. This list is way behind as the new MQA titles that show up weekly in Tidal have not been added.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Oo2MjIa3orv9DKZfwiRQKmTAA/edit#gid=1207026806
Yes, my point is the digital format keeps changing. Designers and consumers are challenged to keep up. The digital hardware implementation keeps improving too, just as with analog playback gear. It just seems that despite some minor efforts to make different types of LPs: 45rpm, direct to disk, digital masters, 200 gram, clear vinyl, one sided vinyl, etc, there does not seem to be the whole hearted effort to improve the vinyl format the way there is with digital. And I don't see people debating different types of LPs the way I do see debates about digital formats. Of course, the physical medium CD is being seriously challenged by downloadable files, and there simply is no equivalent disruption on the analog side. Perhaps analog is just too fringe.
I ask this in partial jest: Does this all come down to digital still being in its "infancy" the way vinyl was when people spun 78s with cactus needles? Reading these digital threads and the defense of playing CDs with transports makes me wonder if there was ever a defense of 78s when the 33 1/3 LP came around. My kids barely know what a CD is just as I've never played a 78rpm record. Is the greater effort really just about delivery method and convenience with only we in the high end caring about sound quality?
This thread has surprised me. When I last read about MQA I thought it was determined that it was a lossy format and total scam. Sounds like there have been a few of you that have heard it and are convinced there is something legitimate about it.
Very interesting.
Very interesting.
It is a lossy format if your talking bits and going from 24 bits
The high frequency are rolled up into the LSB
BETWEEN 4 and 7 bits
Thus there is loss of SNR which can be made up with dither, and if originally recorded at 24 bit probably some music content
It's ability to deblur or reverse engineer lost high frequency information in inadequate resolution recordings is unknown ? at an objective level, some believe it sounds better whether this is repeatable across recordings or only when circumstances are optimal is unknown by all
It clearly has advantages currently in streaming high res content if indeed it contains high res content
Unfortunately I could not persuade anyone in WBF to get this one - IMHO the best SACD recording I own. http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?23072-My-curent-reference-Les-routes-de-l%B4esclavage-(Jordi-Savall)
All digital using the Merging Technologies Pyramix.
No one has told us exactly what easily available challenging MQA recordings they have used to build their opinions.
I've done plenty of comparisons using commercial recordings, through Tidal, so if you tell me what kind of music you'd like, I'll find something that I've compared and that will show a remarkable difference/improvement.
Al - As far as consumers paying a premium for MQA? Who knows - enough clearly are paying $20/mo for hifi which may be good enough. $240/year is much more than people were spending on physical media. All 3 big dogs in DACs have signed on (DCS, MSB, Berkeley). Several mid-fi companies as well (Pioneer, Technics, Onkyo). All 3 big record labels even - and Warners entire catalog is due this year.
This is completely different from SACD. I had all of a dozen SACDs before giving up. They trickled out, required new hardware, etc. I think the more interesting question is if we have a hi rez format war depending on what Spotify does.
Warner's CEO said this:
"The digital music era has been all about convenience," he said. "It is fantastic that we can listen to virtually any song, anywhere, any time. In that process, however, convenience has trumped sound quality, and we have gotten further away from the sound that artists work so hard to create. MQA makes hi-resolution music easy to stream or download to any device. Music fans will love it when they hear it, and WMG is thrilled to be partnering with MQA to take the next step in bringing hi-resolution music to consumers across the globe."
In the September issue of Stereophile, MF said this: " Better than vindicating CD detractors, MQA provides for a way to fix more than 10 years worth of bad digital recordings-- in the time domain, at least."
and--- " In any case, I'm completely sold on the audible benefits of MQA, notwithstanding the often cynical, mostly joyless, frequently unpleasant and dyspeptic comments about Jana Dagdagan's video MQA. Yes or No? An Axpona 2017 Poll?. I feel sorry for those folks.
The ones who think Bob Stuart is in this 'just for the money' are particularly clueless. Of course, with an analog recording, I'll take the LP almost every time, occasionally audible wow and flutter notwithstanding. The claim that digitization is transparent to the analog source has not been borne out by my listening"
Couldn't agree more with MF.
and--- " In any case, I'm completely sold on the audible benefits of MQA, notwithstanding the often cynical, mostly joyless, frequently unpleasant and dyspeptic comments about Jana Dagdagan's video MQA. Yes or No? An Axpona 2017 Poll?. I feel sorry for those folks.
The ones who think Bob Stuart is in this 'just for the money' are particularly clueless. Of course, with an analog recording, I'll take the LP almost every time, occasionally audible wow and flutter notwithstanding. The claim that digitization is transparent to the analog source has not been borne out by my listening"
Couldn't agree more with MF.
I am having deja vu, 15 years ago Peter McGrath demonstrated his recordings made with a Pacific Microsonics HDCD converter while trying to sell me a Cello surround system in a Cello store in Fort Lauderdale. I hope MQA does better than HDCD and surround music recordings have done !
Similar threads
Members online
- Massimo66
- Chpray
- the sound of Tao
- P-pan
- Oortje
- tsaett
- JMaudiophile
- sigbergaudio
- Stbo
- markramler
- Artnet
- SlapEcho
- kagilulfo
- itay123
- GuyB
- dctom
- crosswind
- MarkusBarkus
- Raker24
- nunobrazuna
- tonytsui
- Kingsrule
- christensenleif@msn.com
- MusicFellow
- Limsp
- hopkins
- alecm
- PurePoor
- Nataraja
- oknotok
- Xampai
- Holli82
- Colekat
- Argonaut
- Young Skywalker
- mtemur
- PLiXiR Power James Soh
- Christiaan Punter
- Golum
- Rob77
- Hear Here
- bonzo75
- Adelmor
- DW101
- wl215
- wbfhet
- rt662
- Alex G
- Lojay
- wbass
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |