Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 62
  1. #21
    Senior Member Julf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,364
    Quote Originally Posted by DanSmedra View Post
    Of course not. Why would I make that assumption? And why would I even care?
    Because you might want to know if the improvement you hear is because of superior technology, or just better/different source material.

    If TIDAL uses a higher-quality archived source to fill out its MQA streaming library and it produces better fidelity/sound quality to MY ears on my system, I don't give a rat's a$$ what's happening on the back end.
    The reason you might care is because if the difference is due to better (or at least different) source material, you could have gotten the same result even without MQA.

    But I can understand why not a few high-end audiophiles might be emotionally vexed. Over decades, they drop tens of thousands of dollars, or far more, into esoteric equipment, always tweaking, and an equal amount of dollars into various hi-res format libraries in hopes of having the biggest sound phallus with the goal to impress.

    But then along comes Bob Stuart with MQA, and with the tangible possibility that great studio-quality music could be enjoyed by anyone with a modest system...well yes, I'm sure that's scary.
    You make it sound like MQA is some pixie dust (unicorn fart?) that will bless even modest systems with magic properties. I see MQA as a solution to something that might have been an issue 5 years ago, but isn't any more.

    Archimago seems to agree with me.

    Anyway, I think this discussion belongs down in the "audiophile" section.
    "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, England
    Posts
    139

    MQA and Tidal app on LSM via Daphile

    I too am frustrated by the Tidal app on LMS not passing through MQA files - something (I don't know what) must be manipulating the music stream (MQA is sensitive to tampering).

    I'm running Daphile on a computer as my LMS, Squeezelite, iPeng overall solution and it's fantastic! Daphile is programmed to be as pure and bit perfect as possible so the Tidal app must be holding it back.

    Thinking about this as I type - will Tidal via ickStream bypass this restriction?

    I have recently invested in a Meridian Explorer 2 DAC as a low cost way to investigate MQA, and would much prefer the Daphile + iPeng solution as a method to remote control my music.

    Any ideas anyone? ickStream perhaps?

  3. #23
    Senior Member DanSmedra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by Julf View Post
    Because you might want to know if the improvement you hear is because of superior technology, or just better/different source material.


    No...I DON'T CARE. Go pound sand!
    Source: TIDAL HiFi, Pandora One > MySqueezebox.com using iPeng 9.2.1 app on iPhone6s/iPad
    Great Room: SB Touch(1) > AudioQuest TOS > PS Audio DL3 DAC > Audio Envy 10' cables > 200w powered Martin Logan (ML) Purity speakers, SB Touch(2) >JVC 110w amp > ML Motion 4 & AudioEngine 5.
    Garage: SB Touch(3) > CullenCoax > Wyred mINT > Cullen Cables > ML Motion 12
    Carry Anywhere: TIDAL >iPhone 6s > Bose Mini BT speaker.
    Streaming Media: https://www.facebook.com/groups/535747176592597/

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    10,949
    Quote Originally Posted by DanSmedra View Post
    No...I DON'T CARE. Go pound sand!
    I don't understand your anger in this response. Julf is asking a technical question about comparisons, which is relevant, and then following up with a very reasonable answer to your question about why one would care. If I'm comparing what appears to be two identical cars except different colors, and one very much outperforms the other, I'd really like to know whether the engine and drivetrains are identical or different so I can understand the performance drivers. (as opposed to simply saying, wow, the blue car is better and that's all I need to know). It may be that one simply buys the blue car and is happy (as they should be). But this is a forum discussing audio issues and users typically are interested in the "whys and hows" related to our audio.
    Home: VortexBox 4TB (2.3) > LMS 7.9 > Transporter, Touch, Boom, Radio (all ethernet)
    Cottage: VBA 3TB (2.3) > LMS 7.9 > Touch > Benchmark DAC I, Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio)
    Office: Win8(64) > LMS 7.9 > Squeezelite
    Spares: Transporter, Touch(3), Radio(3), Boom, SB3, CONTROLLER
    Controllers: iPhone6 & iPadAir2 (iPeng & Squeezepad), CONTROLLER, or SqueezePlay 7.8 on Win8(64) laptop
    Files: ripping: dbpoweramp > FLAC; post-rip: mp3tag, PerfectTunes; Streaming: Spotify

  5. #25
    Senior Member DanSmedra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    104

    Not "anger," Annoyance

    Quote Originally Posted by garym View Post
    I don't understand your anger in this response.
    Not "anger," annoyance with the trolling. Julf isn't interested in "discussing audio issues," he's an authority in his own mind, knows EVERYTHING, and KNOWS with absolute certainty that MQA is gimmicky technology, "quackery," "pixie dust," a "unicorn fart." His signature shows he has an 'ax to grind'. His goal is clearly to insult those who may have something favorable to say about MQA.

    Quote Originally Posted by garym View Post
    Julf is asking a technical question about comparisons, which is relevant, and then following up with a very reasonable answer to your question about why one would care.
    Not. My question wasn't generalized "why [any] one would care," but specifically "Why would I even care?" To date, MQA is solely relevant to the streaming world as it claims a form of lossless compression of larger studio master files, and thus better SQ for streaming. As far as I'm aware, it offers nothing to audiophiles who purchase and play uncompressed hi-res files.

    As a TIDAL HiFi subscriber, my post (#18) simply references what I subjectively heard with a simple consumer A/B test and what I personally consider better SQ. (Are subjective opinions of aesthetic value permitted in these forums or not?)

    Julf knew before he asked his "technical question" that ONLY a TIDAL employee would have knowledge regarding whether similar or dissimilar source files were used in creating MQA files. His question was "bait" to serve his agenda of disparaging MQA. His response "Because you might want to know if the improvement you hear is because of superior technology, or just better/different source material" is NOT "very reasonable," but again serves HIS agenda. You and he might want to know, but as a steaming music consumer, I don't have a dog in the fight about whether my experience of improved SQ is attributable to MQA technology, better source files, or both.

    I fully understand why OTHERS (including the two of you) might want or need to identify the primary and tertiary causes for better sound quality, but I never claimed to have that information. I simply testified as to what I heard. Ok? In any normal discussion, there's no need to insult other's subjective opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by garym View Post
    If I'm comparing what appears to be two identical cars except different colors, and one very much outperforms the other, I'd really like to know whether the engine and drivetrains are identical or different so I can understand the performance drivers. (as opposed to simply saying, wow, the blue car is better and that's all I need to know). It may be that one simply buys the blue car and is happy (as they should be). But this is a forum discussing audio issues and users typically are interested in the "whys and hows" related to our audio.
    Fine. You agree with me. But you're obfuscating the events. Julf's agenda here is clearly not to "discuss audio issues," but rather to disparage both what he considers "quackery" along with those persons who don't share his opinion. It's the 800lb gorilla sitting in the middle of this thread.
    Last edited by DanSmedra; 2017-02-06 at 21:00.
    Source: TIDAL HiFi, Pandora One > MySqueezebox.com using iPeng 9.2.1 app on iPhone6s/iPad
    Great Room: SB Touch(1) > AudioQuest TOS > PS Audio DL3 DAC > Audio Envy 10' cables > 200w powered Martin Logan (ML) Purity speakers, SB Touch(2) >JVC 110w amp > ML Motion 4 & AudioEngine 5.
    Garage: SB Touch(3) > CullenCoax > Wyred mINT > Cullen Cables > ML Motion 12
    Carry Anywhere: TIDAL >iPhone 6s > Bose Mini BT speaker.
    Streaming Media: https://www.facebook.com/groups/535747176592597/

  6. #26
    Senior Member Julf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,364
    Quote Originally Posted by DanSmedra View Post
    Not "anger," annoyance with the trolling. Julf isn't interested in "discussing audio issues," he's an authority in his own mind, knows EVERYTHING, and KNOWS with absolute certainty that MQA is gimmicky technology, "quackery," "pixie dust," a "unicorn fart."
    You are clearly not familiar with the concept of rational debate.

    His signature shows he has an 'ax to grind'.
    If my signature offends you, I guess it shows that you view any comment on the audiophile belief system and marketplace as a personal insult.

    His goal is clearly to insult those who may have something favorable to say about MQA.
    See above - the way you take any criticism of MQA as an insult is interesting.

    Not. My question wasn't generalized "why [any] one would care," but specifically "Why would I even care?"
    And why would we care if you care or not?

    To date, MQA is solely relevant to the streaming world as it claims a form of lossless compression of larger studio master files, and thus better SQ for streaming.
    And thus it is a solution to a non-problem. We are able to stream high-quality movies, with much higher data rates than "hi-res" FLAC - there is no reason to need a more efficient compression method for a fringe audience.

    Are subjective opinions of aesthetic value permitted in these forums or not?
    They really belong down in the audiophile subsection, and should preferably be clearly flagged as personal subjective impressions.

    Julf knew before he asked his "technical question" that ONLY a TIDAL employee would have knowledge regarding whether similar or dissimilar source files were used in creating MQA files.
    No, I really live in hope of finding recordings where the source of the "non-MQA" and MQA versions is the same . Perhaps the 2L samples are, perhaps not. But the absence of such test material is perhaps also telling.

    In any normal discussion, there's no need to insult other's subjective opinion.
    You seem to equate "questioning the underlying causes" with "insult".

    Julf's agenda here is clearly not to "discuss audio issues," but rather to disparage both what he considers "quackery" along with those persons who don't share his opinion.
    Ah! Thanks for reminding me, I had completely forgotten what it was! Right...

    How about taking this down to the audiophile section where it belongs?
    "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953

  7. #27
    Senior Member DanSmedra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    104

    MQA via SBT

    Quote Originally Posted by Julf View Post
    How about taking this down to the audiophile section where it belongs?

    photonblur began the thread with questions about Squeezebox Touch hardware, MQA feasibility, and the TIDAL software app.

    It remained on track until Julf hijacked the thread to give himself an anti-MQA soapbox.
    Source: TIDAL HiFi, Pandora One > MySqueezebox.com using iPeng 9.2.1 app on iPhone6s/iPad
    Great Room: SB Touch(1) > AudioQuest TOS > PS Audio DL3 DAC > Audio Envy 10' cables > 200w powered Martin Logan (ML) Purity speakers, SB Touch(2) >JVC 110w amp > ML Motion 4 & AudioEngine 5.
    Garage: SB Touch(3) > CullenCoax > Wyred mINT > Cullen Cables > ML Motion 12
    Carry Anywhere: TIDAL >iPhone 6s > Bose Mini BT speaker.
    Streaming Media: https://www.facebook.com/groups/535747176592597/

  8. #28
    Senior Member Julf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,364
    Quote Originally Posted by DanSmedra View Post
    It remained on track until Julf hijacked the thread to give himself an anti-MQA soapbox.
    It seems to have gone off track much sooner, when someone started to speculate about the potential market for a hypothetical, non-existing (and infeasible) product.
    "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, England
    Posts
    139

    Tidal app on LMS wanting passthrough for MQA files allowing DAC to unfold the details

    OK, back on track, if the Tidal app on LMS can be configured to allow MQA files to pass through "that would be fantastic".

    I've also posted a request for ickStream's implementation of Tidal (on their forum) to see if they can find a way to pass this through too.
    Last edited by stop-spinning; 2017-02-07 at 09:36.

  10. #30
    Senior Member DanSmedra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    104

    Agree

    Quote Originally Posted by stop-spinning View Post
    OK, back on track, if the Tidal app on LMS can be configured to allow MQA files to pass through "that would be fantastic".
    I fully agree!


    John Darko makes an interesting point regarding the future.

    Q. I guess. But hi-res isn’t a panacea for a poor recording or master though, is it?

    Darko: No, it is not. A bad master cannot be corrected by MQA and a nicely mastered file streamed via good old Redbook will, all other things being equal, sound better than a dynamically compressed master streamed via MQA.

    The things is: all things are rarely equal. It’s highly probable that a Redbook file converted to analogue by an Aqua La Scala MKII ($6,000) will easily better the SQ of that same song MQA-d but converted to analogue by an AudioQuest DragonFly ($200-$300).

    Beware of those now kicking Redbook and CDs as a means to sell us on the benefits hi-res audio. Many consumers won’t have the hardware to resolve the improvements. Many more won’t even care.
    Last edited by DanSmedra; 2017-02-07 at 11:06.
    Source: TIDAL HiFi, Pandora One > MySqueezebox.com using iPeng 9.2.1 app on iPhone6s/iPad
    Great Room: SB Touch(1) > AudioQuest TOS > PS Audio DL3 DAC > Audio Envy 10' cables > 200w powered Martin Logan (ML) Purity speakers, SB Touch(2) >JVC 110w amp > ML Motion 4 & AudioEngine 5.
    Garage: SB Touch(3) > CullenCoax > Wyred mINT > Cullen Cables > ML Motion 12
    Carry Anywhere: TIDAL >iPhone 6s > Bose Mini BT speaker.
    Streaming Media: https://www.facebook.com/groups/535747176592597/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •