Jump to content

Rexp

  • Content Count

    1250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United Kingdom

About Rexp

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. How about Warner (hires) masters streamed at the Hifi setting? Thanks!
  2. So you agree that measurements can determine the accuracy of audio reproduction?
  3. Take a real world example, if I record a voice at 24/192 and compare to the original, it sounds close enough to be deemed an accurate reproduction. No doubt the measurements would be similar. Now if I downsample to 16/44 it doesn't sound like the original but the measurements won't reflect this will they?
  4. 'Measurement equipment allows us to determine the accuracy of audio reproduction' from @Archimago Which measurements determine whether a sound has been reproduced accurately or not?
  5. So if you play a Tidal Master at the Hifi setting, you're streaming MQA CD, do you need an MQA DAC or will the player software decode it fully? What happens if you don't have any decoder?
  6. Out of interest, what are you using to listen to non-decoded MQA?
  7. Here is an example of a record that is now only available in MQA and below is the same artist in FLAC, do you detect a marked difference?
  8. Well undecoded MQA sure sounds crap to me (via a Chromecast). Means I have to remove all favourited albums from Tidal that are now MQA only.
  9. It sounds nice and glare free in this video, of course the server manufacture claims alot of the credit:
  10. Yes, yet Tidal are still descibing their Hifi tier as lossles, which is a lie. Maybe we can we force them into changing it to 'lossless unless you play MQA tracks'
  11. Tidal MQA sounds crap through non MQA DAC's. So hopefully its not too difficult to understand the problem if they make all their ouput MQA'd.
  12. They don't promote it for some reason, just google 'Tidal store'
×
×
  • Create New...