when is Naim going to update streamers for MQA?

As I said before, I mainly listen to Tidal nowadays, I cannot be bothered to compare my local albums to the ones from Tidal.
Based on what I see on the Audirvana GUI, Tidal master comes in at various sample rates (24/192, 24/96, 24/88.2, 24/44.1). The reason I always up sample to 32/364 because it sounds better to my ears, and the Mac Mini is much more powerful than the DAC, so why not let the Mac Mini / Audirvana do the "real" work?

FYI - This is my system at my (2nd) home - Mac Mini/Audirvan -> Chord Hugo -> Linn Akurate DSM -> Naim NAP 135s -> Dynaudio  S5.3.

I use Linn Sound Optimisation so I feed the Linn Akurate DSM from the Chord Hugo's analog out.

banzai posted:

As I said before, I mainly listen to Tidal nowadays, I cannot be bothered to compare my local albums to the ones from Tidal.
Based on what I see on the Audirvana GUI, Tidal master comes in at various sample rates (24/192, 24/96, 24/88.2, 24/44.1). The reason I always up sample to 32/364 because it sounds better to my ears, and the Mac Mini is much more powerful than the DAC, so why not let the Mac Mini / Audirvana do the "real" work?

FYI - This is my system at my (2nd) home - Mac Mini/Audirvan -> Chord Hugo -> Linn Akurate DSM -> Naim NAP 135s -> Dynaudio  S5.3.

I use Linn Sound Optimisation so I feed the Linn Akurate DSM from the Chord Hugo's analog out.

Oops, a slight crossover, my original question was following Dayjay's comment about comparing Tidal MQA through Audirvana with local files, and it was with that in mind that I asked what I did after your response, so my reference to comparing a specific album and knowing its resolution was irrelevant to you, sorry!

The original question still stands to Dayjay.

Phil Harris posted:
Bananahead posted:
Simon-in-Suffolk posted:
Bananahead posted:

Why are people selling highres downloads for more than the un-lossed equivalent? Is it a scam?

It might be just me, but what are you trying to ask here?

There tends to be a strange hierarchy in prices. Lossy MP3 being cheaper than WAV/FLAC(24/96) being cheaper than lossy MQA. I know which way my credit card votes.  

I think that one thing a lot of people miss - and this cropped up a lot of times at Bristol - is that MQA is a lossy format ... I know that they're not hiding this fact but it does seem that it's just not being realized. I was trying to explain file formats to someone on the Friday on the stand and referred to MQA as "think of it a bit like a hi-res capable MP3" and they swore blind that MQA was lossless.

Phil

I think the cat is now well & truly out of the bag on this...

G

GraemeH posted:
Phil Harris posted:

I think that one thing a lot of people miss - and this cropped up a lot of times at Bristol - is that MQA is a lossy format ... I know that they're not hiding this fact but it does seem that it's just not being realized. I was trying to explain file formats to someone on the Friday on the stand and referred to MQA as "think of it a bit like a hi-res capable MP3" and they swore blind that MQA was lossless.

Phil

I think the cat is now well & truly out of the bag on this...

G

Judging by the conversations that I had over the weekend at the Acoustica event it still isn't widely understood that it isn't lossless...

 Phil

Phil Harris posted:
GraemeH posted:
Phil Harris posted:

I think that one thing a lot of people miss - and this cropped up a lot of times at Bristol - is that MQA is a lossy format ... I know that they're not hiding this fact but it does seem that it's just not being realized. I was trying to explain file formats to someone on the Friday on the stand and referred to MQA as "think of it a bit like a hi-res capable MP3" and they swore blind that MQA was lossless.

Phil

I think the cat is now well & truly out of the bag on this...

G

Judging by the conversations that I had over the weekend at the Acoustica event it still isn't widely understood that it isn't lossless...

 Phil

Or perhaps isn't believed...   maybe because MQA apparently say it is "audibly lossless". That of course means you can hear it is lossless (?!) or maybe they intend it to mean you can't hear that it isn't lossless - or maybe its designer's ears can't.

HiFi+ published Highresaudio's press release last week, stating their pulling out of MQA, and citing their reasons (apparently it isn't lossless). Maybe the message will start to get around.

Innocent Bystander posted:
Phil Harris posted:
GraemeH posted:
Phil Harris posted:

I think that one thing a lot of people miss - and this cropped up a lot of times at Bristol - is that MQA is a lossy format ... I know that they're not hiding this fact but it does seem that it's just not being realized. I was trying to explain file formats to someone on the Friday on the stand and referred to MQA as "think of it a bit like a hi-res capable MP3" and they swore blind that MQA was lossless.

Phil

I think the cat is now well & truly out of the bag on this...

G

Judging by the conversations that I had over the weekend at the Acoustica event it still isn't widely understood that it isn't lossless...

 Phil

Or perhaps isn't believed...   maybe because MQA apparently say it is "audibly lossless". That of course means you can hear it is lossless (?!) or maybe they intend it to mean you can't hear that it isn't lossless - or maybe its designer's ears can't.

HiFi+ published Highresaudio's press release last week, stating their pulling out of MQA, and citing their reasons (apparently it isn't lossless). Maybe the message will start to get around.

It's the Highresaudio press release I was thinking of too.

G

Innocent Bystander posted:
banzai posted:

The Tidal Master is a mixture of 24/192, 24/96 and 16/44.1, I always up sample to 32/384.

I meant, on the album you mentioned as being very difficult to differentiate between MQA and your local 24 bit file, what was the original resolution of that Tidal Master and what was it reconstructed to by Audirvana, and what was the resolution of the local file as saved? (And have you compared the same album in 16/44?)

And, as Simon asks, why do you upsample?

Also, to put in context, it would be helpful to know details of your system.

I think some of that question was for me.  I don't up sample at all, prefer it without to be honest although I did up sample to DSD for a time.  I've tried a number of local 24 bit albums re their MQA equivalent on Tidal/Audirvana.  Don't recall how they were reported by Tidal but the local files were 24/96 - next time I play them I'll check in Audirvana what Tidal is reporting them as.  The SQ is close, if pushed I'd say local files may have a very very slight edge but it's not obvious.  From what I have heard, given that it is free, if I didn't own a 24 bit copy I would much prefer the MQA from Tidal to a local 16/44 although I'm sure that the recording quality has just as big an impact.  Frankly I don;t care if it's technically lossy or not, just care how good it sounds.  I wouuldn't buy an MQA albuum for a variety of reasons but I would happily stream it for free.

HighResAudio seems confused. First they were to remove MQA at the beginning of March - but they're still available to purchase on the site. Then I heard that the owner was questioning if certain albums were not truly authenticated. It's become quite a debacle.

Whichever way you slice it, HighResAudio is not behaving very professionally or doing their customers any favours. Either sell MQA or don't but stop the crap.

Likes (1)
StefanS
×
×
×
×