Tintinabulum Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 Challenge rejected then. Link to comment
Tintinabulum Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said: Meridian's products were square pegs trying to fit into round holes. Yeah, like Sooloos, which turned into Roon, stupid idea right? Currawong 1 Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted August 20, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said: Yeah, like Sooloos, which turned into Roon, stupid idea right? ha. They of course bought Sooloos and were too unsmart to keep it. MikeyFresh, crenca, 4est and 1 other 1 1 2 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Tintinabulum Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said: no stand alone DAC until 2017??? Except the one in 1990? Really, you guys are blinded by the hate. Pretty sad stuff. Good night, it's late here. MikeyFresh, Ishmael Slapowitz and Currawong 1 2 Link to comment
Tintinabulum Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said: They of course bought Sooloos and were too unsmart to keep it Smart enough to spot the idea though. This is in no way a sensible discussion, your combined hate blinds you to all the good stuff that there's been. Too unsmart to keep it? Smart move to let is go and to develop into what it is, if you kept a stake? Two ways to see a thing but with you guys you always try to turn good into bad. Sad. Don't forget to have the last word though...Night Ishmael Slapowitz and Currawong 2 Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said: Smart enough to spot the idea though. This is in no way a sensible discussion, your combined hate blinds you to all the good stuff that there's been. Too unsmart to keep it? Smart move to let is go and to develop into what it is, if you kept a stake? Two ways to see a thing but with you guys you always try to turn good into bad. Sad. Don't forget to have the last word though...Night If you only knew the real story behind the scenes. I have no hate for Meridian, just think some products don’t sound good. Ultra DAC is good. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Ishmael Slapowitz Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 48 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said: Yeah, like Sooloos, which turned into Roon, stupid idea right?A FACT: Stuart rejected ROON. He thought the idea of software was ridiculous. He wanted to profit from hardware. How did that work out?🤩 lucretius 1 Link to comment
Ishmael Slapowitz Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 46 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said: Except the one in 1990? Really, you guys are blinded by the hate. Pretty sad stuff. Good night, it's late here. Except nothing from the 90s to to 2017? Ok, read for the spin....were they waiting for the market to "mature"? LOL. lucretius 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Currawong Posted August 20, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 20, 2019 8 hours ago, mansr said: How would you know what the recording format was? This information is rarely provided by the labels. All we can spot with any certainty is 44/48 kHz material upsampled and tagged as a higher original rate in MQA. That's possible since MQA does preserve at least some content up to 48 kHz. Above that it's all fake, even if the recording was in fact done at the advertised rate. I recall a couple of comments where the original resolution of a recording was, say, listed as 96k, when the digital recording or mastering equipment used for it was only 48k. 5 hours ago, John_Atkinson said: Perhaps you are misreading what I wrote. In the example wrote that was quoted on this forum, the PCM data fed to the DAC chip has a bit depth of 24 bits and is sampled at 192kHz. Nothing more, nothing less. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile I read it fine. My point is that the 192 kHz data the DAC chip is seeing is the result of up-sampling, and that the original MQA file doesn't have data beyond 96 kHz. That's why MQA separates the supposed "unfolding" into "decoding" and "rendering". The former is actually "unfolding" (extracting the high-res data from the 3 bits of encoded noise) and the latter is "up-sampling". If you can show me a DAC that can recover the full 352k of the 2L file I posted, from the MQA track, including the high-frequency noise (good luck fitting that into 3 bits!) then I'll apologise, and correct all my posts. Kyhl, lucretius, botrytis and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted August 20, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 20, 2019 6 hours ago, John_Atkinson said: Perhaps you are misreading what I wrote. In the example wrote that was quoted on this forum, the PCM data fed to the DAC chip has a bit depth of 24 bits and is sampled at 192kHz. Nothing more, nothing less. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile And you are still obfuscating and dancing around the truth. The MQA algorithm throws out anything above 96k, when it samples it’s source file. Therefore it isn’t a real 192 file. There are no 192k samples in the MQA file. Somewhere in the playback chain it upsamples the file to 192 - doesn’t matter if it is before the DAC chip or not - it’s still an upsampled file. Why is it so hard for you to admit - and write - that MQA files that they call 4X or 8X rates are all upsamples from 2X rate MQA files? Is that beyond the pale for a Technical Editor of an audiophile publication? 4est, askat1988, Ran and 9 others 10 2 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post lucretius Posted August 21, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 21, 2019 8 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said: And when did John Dark get a middle initial? Like in Jesus H. Christ. sandyk, MikeyFresh and Ishmael Slapowitz 1 2 mQa is dead! Link to comment
lucretius Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 8 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said: Interesting. Thanks I did not see that. Another DOA Meridian product. I thought it was 2014. mQa is dead! Link to comment
lucretius Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 2 hours ago, firedog said: that MQA files that they call 4X or 8X rates are all upsamples from 2X rate MQA files? Yes. But I wondering why 2L even bothers to MQA 24/352.8 files. mQa is dead! Link to comment
Currawong Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 The high-frequency noise pattern makes me wonder if the original file wasn't actually DSD. Link to comment
Popular Post Fokus Posted August 21, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 21, 2019 12 hours ago, John_Atkinson said: In the example wrote that was quoted on this forum, the PCM data fed to the DAC chip has a bit depth of 24 bits and is sampled at 192kHz. Nothing more, nothing less. And with the same reasoning we can write of the Philips CD-100, 1982 "the PCM data fed to the DAC chip has a bit depth of 14 bits and is sampled at 176.4kHz." So why write it at all, except to shine a light on MQA? Hugo9000, MikeyFresh and mansr 2 1 Link to comment
firedog Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 5 hours ago, lucretius said: Yes. But I wondering why 2L even bothers to MQA 24/352.8 files. Apparently because they decided they like the sound of it, and agree that it gives 8X sound in a 2X package. Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post John Dyson Posted August 21, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 21, 2019 9 hours ago, lucretius said: Yes. But I wondering why 2L even bothers to MQA 24/352.8 files. I am starting to believe that there is a visceral dishonesty in the audio world from the beginnings of 'digitial'. Imagine all of the commonly available 192k/24bit material that is so poorly mastered (or not mastered), yet is being sold as implied premium product. The situation is kind of sick all of the way around. All of the upsampling/extreme excess-precision stuff (I mean, truly upsampled or in-some-cases unneeded high bitrate to sell, not for DSP convenience) is deception, pure and simple. There is SOME true high quality 192k/24bit material for sure, but my expectations for POP material are very, very low now. I am wondering if this dishonesty is a simple and cynical extension from the music distributors world of deception (or maybe im some cases, ignorance.) I am ALL for the best quality being distributed, but frankly poorly mastered material being sold as 192k/24bit is NOT 'gilding a lily', but rather the more gross 'polishing a t*rd.' Again -- I know that the main discussion is about MQA -- but this very short diversion is about the systemic marketing dishonesty about bitrate. There is also GOOD 192k/24bit out there, but there is a lot of specsmanship about 192k/24bit (or higher) also. I am hazarding a guess that the 'specsmanship' is more prominent than true high quality material -- MQA only makes the situation worse. If your equipment plays pop material realtime better with raw 192k/24bit PCM, then in some cases, go ahead and up-convert your own 'best' material from 44.1k,48k or 96k or from flac/other lossless compression. However, paying even a $5 premium for someone else to do the upconversion for you -- well, in some cases, the audiophile can do it better than what is too-often sold. Apparently, MQA nonsense about providing better the 96k (when even the 96k is in question) is a bit embarassing for all involved. It is also likely that the audiophile doing his own dithering and upconversion is just as good or better than what anyone else can do -- esp when the target is human hearing. Anything other than true pseudo-random noise or actual signal in the lower precision and/or higher frequencies is tantamount to distortion. John lucretius, Currawong, STC and 3 others 6 Link to comment
STC Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, John Dyson said: I am starting to believe that there is a visceral dishonesty in the audio world from the beginnings of 'digitial'. Not limited to digital files only. crenca 1 ST My Ambiophonics System with Virtual Concert Hall Ambience Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 21, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 21, 2019 9 hours ago, lucretius said: Yes. But I wondering why 2L even bothers to MQA 24/352.8 files. I wonder why they even bother recording in anything above 96 kHz. There's nothing but noise at those high frequencies. lucretius and esldude 2 Link to comment
StephenJK Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 49 minutes ago, mansr said: I wonder why they even bother recording in anything above 96 kHz. There's nothing but noise at those high frequencies. I suppose it's the modern capitalist ideal of ever increasing market share at the expense of your competitors and of your customers. If you want to sell something to somebody who already has one it needs to be "better", and it's been proven many times that your average bear firmly believes that 24/192 is quite obviously better than 24/96. It's a bigger number, see? It goes to 11. Link to comment
FredericV Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 2 hours ago, mansr said: I wonder why they even bother recording in anything above 96 kHz. There's nothing but noise at those high frequencies. This is probably why MQA gets away with their fake 24/192 upsampled output (and anything above 24/88.2 or 24/96), internally it's 17/88.2 or 17/96. 17/96 is probably enough for most music content, and in the ultrasonics you don't need even 17 bits of resolution. You can get away with 8 bits after band splitting and normalizing the ultrasonics and store those with 8 bits of resolution, and at playback, attenuate it back. MQA debunks the need for those very high samplerates. Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 21, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, FredericV said: MQA debunks the need for those very high samplerates. And in so doing, it also debunks itself. esldude, MikeyFresh, Rt66indierock and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment
botrytis Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 16 hours ago, Tintinabulum said: Challenge rejected then. What challenge and to whom? Cryptic posts like this mean nothing. MikeyFresh 1 Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
botrytis Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 35 minutes ago, FredericV said: This is probably why MQA gets away with their fake 24/192 upsampled output (and anything above 24/88.2 or 24/96), internally it's 17/88.2 or 17/96. 17/96 is probably enough for most music content, and in the ultrasonics you don't need even 17 bits of resolution. You can get away with 8 bits after band splitting and normalizing the ultrasonics and store those with 8 bits of resolution, and at playback, attenuate it back. MQA debunks the need for those very high samplerates. No, it is because audiophiles read that MQA is good and trust the Audiophile press as an 'informed' source, like reading any of the car magazines to buy a car. The difference is, the car magazines tell you when they are waxing poetic and the audiophile press do it in the middle of testing (sometimes with no testing at all like with MQA but they test high res files) and never say, this is 'MY OPINION'. They post everything as fact (like Fox News does). This is the issue. Once a person's mind is made up, it is very hard to change it. Very few people make their minds up by looking for facts, they make it by using 'trusted' sources and other's opinions. Well, the audiophile should not be trusted. As I have said in the past, I have listened to recent LP's in both MQA and non-MQA versions, that I know only had one master (like Melody Gardot's - Lie in Europe). This showed me the damage MQA can do to the overall sound of an LP. MQA adds noise to a file that was never there before so how can that be good? Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
Dr Tone Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, botrytis said: Once a person's mind is made up, it is very hard to change it. Very few people make their minds up by looking for facts, they make it by using 'trusted' sources and other's opinions. Well, the audiophile should not be trusted. It seems the MQA discussion also has the following: Buy Meridian Think Bob Stewart is god. Read MQA isn't all that Bob says it is, simply refuse to believe it. Must attach all posters against MQA and fight to death in Bob's honor even when Bob knows better than try to defend his own $invention$ in a technical discussion. Roon Rock->Auralic Aria G2->Schiit Yggdrasil A2->McIntosh C47->McIntosh MC301 Monos->Wilson Audio Sabrinas Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now