(UHQCD format x MQA technology). Disc's-DAC's-Streamers and Tidal

[kfbkfb]

I don't have any MQA encoded content (yet), has anyone tried a surround sound decoder on "unpacked" MQA stereo content (Surround Master, DPL2 Music, QS)?


Kirk Bayne

 

[cbmmm3]

MQA vs. SACD...which is better?

both formats are fantastic

 

[cbmmm3]

I don't have any MQA encoded content (yet), has anyone tried a surround sound decoder on "unpacked" MQA stereo content (Surround Master, DPL2 Music, QS)?


Kirk Bayne

I have and do. I full unfold MQA and run it through synthesized 5.0. STUNNING - notice I shouted 'stunning'

 

[4-earredwonder]

MQA vs. SACD...which is better?

As I did mention in my post #47 on this thread, in the case of THIS IS THE MOODY BLUES 2 disc MQA set recently released, I thought the MQA discs sounded better than the MOODY BLUES SACD 5.1 remasters. But my rule of thumb, shared by poster MARPOW, I normally don't double dip when there is a SACD release and an MQA~CD of the same title available. And it's probably also player dependent. But I do find that about 99% of the over 60 MQA titles I currently have, coupled with the UHQ mastering, sound brilliant!

 

[cbmmm3]

I always double dip...at the Ice Cream Cone Shoppe.

Seriously though I do have double dippers - titles in SACD and MQA. And SHM, and Platinum SHM, etc etc etc.... quadie dippers ! (?) I find that the MQA in synthesized 5.0 gives ANY 5.1 SACD or DVD Audio a run for the money....neck and neck. Sometimes the MQA wins, sometimes the SACD / DVD-A wins. When it comes to SACD stereo versus UHQCD MQA, I prefer MQA ( as long as its fully unfolded )

 

[4-earredwonder]

I always double dip...at the Ice Cream Cone Shoppe.

Seriously though I do have double dippers - titles in SACD and MQA. And SHM, and Platinum SHM, etc etc etc.... quadie dippers ! (?) I find that the MQA in synthesized 5.0 gives ANY 5.1 SACD or DVD Audio a run for the money....neck and neck. Sometimes the MQA wins, sometimes the SACD / DVD-A wins. When it comes to SACD stereo versus UHQCD MQA, I prefer MQA ( as long as its fully unfolded )

I prefer milk shakes Ricky, so NO double Dipping.

As I said in my above post, it is player dependent. For Stereo SACDs, I utilize Marantz's tank like SA~11S3 player which ONLY plays Stereo SACDs/RBCDs and is infinitely better than any of the Universal Players, OPPOs included, for Stereo SACD playback.

 

[kfbkfb]

I find that the MQA in synthesized 5.0 gives ANY 5.1 SACD or DVD Audio a run for the money

Which surround sound synthesizer(s) are you using?


Kirk Bayne

 

[cbmmm3]

Which surround sound synthesizer(s) are you using?


Kirk Bayne

I have a Classe SSP-60 Surround Processor / PreAmp that does all that dirty work. Ive never really studied what specific electronics / DSP is used

 

[cbmmm3]

I prefer milk shakes Ricky, so NO double Dipping.

As I said in my above post, it is player dependent. For Stereo SACDs, I utilize Marantz's tank like SA~11S3 player which ONLY plays Stereo SACDs/RBCDs and is infinitely better than any of the Universal Players, OPPOs included, for Stereo SACD playback.

Ralphie - you can enjoy Heaven with a double dip Hudsonville Ice Cream Butter Pecan cone

 

[jaybird100]

I have and do. I full unfold MQA and run it through synthesized 5.0. STUNNING - notice I shouted 'stunning'

Through which processor?

 

[4-earredwonder]

Ralphie - you can enjoy Heaven with a double dip Hudsonville Ice Cream Butter Pecan cone

Nah, Ricky. My mother LOVED Butter Pecan ...... me, a coffee milkshake with coffee syrup....blended to perfection! Instant JOLT

 

[cbmmm3]

Through which processor?

Classe SSP-60. She is circa 2002 ish but still is a gem

 

[4-earredwonder]

Fasten your Seatbelts: Just arrived via DHL from CDJapan. Extraordinary UHQ MQA~CD remaster [Island Records/Columbia Records] At 89, Tony is in remarkable voice ...Lady GaGa Superb and the recording/orchestral arrangements TO DIE FOR!

 

[cbmmm3]

whoa. Review please

 

[4-earredwonder]

whoa. Review please

Just BUY IT, Ricky and cut the BS! Sounds better than my domestic RBCD [which did sound great] ...... oopsy, guess I did 'double dip!'

 

[kfbkfb]

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/class233-ssp-60-preamplifier-processor
Looks like DPL2 music and DTS Neo:6 are the Classe ssp-60 surround synthesizer options, once I procure some MQA content (I will have to use a PC based MQA unfolder), I'll try DPL2 music mode on it.


Kirk Bayne

 

[mandrix]

I can't believe people are still falling for MQA's snake oil. When not unfolded it is less than CD quality since it adds noise. When unfolded it is at best lossy high resolution. Lossless CD is better than either.

I've yet to hear any so I just don't know. But I could see no harm in scoping out playback/decoder costs. I definitely don't follow trends, although I'm starting to get enamored of the better Atmos mixes.
I'm assuming you are speaking from your interpretation of the technical aspects, which I respect. Have you listened to any properly decoded/unfolded MQA?

Also makes me curious, do you dislike all 24-96 DTS encoded music? If so why exactly?

 

[kfbkfb]

Just ordered (Amazon): The Best Of Joe Walsh MQA CD (I have the Smoker You Drink... QS LP).

I'll try the still folded MQA CD and my QS LP thru DPL2 music and see how they compare [looks like I have to find some MQA unfolding software now ].


Kirk Bayne

 

[Owen Smith]

Also makes me curious, do you dislike all 24-96 DTS encoded music? If so why exactly?

DTS encoded music can sound excellent, I have some myself. Whether it is plain DTS or 24/96 is largely irrelevant, though 24/96 annoys me a little because this is a lossy format and yet it is wasting bits conveying things no-one can hear. It would be better to use those bits improving the sound quality of what people can hear.

The main reason I am OK with DTS music though is it doesn't claim to be what it isn't, it admits it is a lossy format.

What really annoys me about MQA is they claim it doesn't reduce quality when played back as a regular CD (it does), and that it is lossless high resolution when unfolded (it isn't lossless). They also claim the Authenticated part ensures it is the master and has not been modified, when it does no such thing. You can corrupt about two thirds of MQA data before the players notice and don't light the Authenticated light. It's just snake oil claims from start to finish.

At the time DTS CD came out it was the only game in town. It had better sound quality than any other way of playing digital multi channel music at the time. MQA by contrast provides no such thing, it isn't the best way of playing either stereo CD quality or high resolution lossless.

The only purpose MQA serves is as a licence fee protection racket.

 

[mandrix]

DTS encoded music can sound excellent, I have some myself. Whether it is plain DTS or 24/96 is largely irrelevant, though 24/96 annoys me a little because this is a lossy format and yet it is wasting bits conveying things no-one can hear. It would be better to use those bits improving the sound quality of what people can hear.

The main reason I am OK with DTS music though is it doesn't claim to be what it isn't, it admits it is a lossy format.

What really annoys me about MQA is they claim it doesn't reduce quality when played back as a regular CD (it does), and that it is lossless high resolution when unfolded (it isn't lossless). They also claim the Authenticated part ensures it is the master and has not been modified, when it does no such thing. You can corrupt about two thirds of MQA data before the players notice and don't light the Authenticated light. It's just snake oil claims from start to finish.

At the time DTS CD came out it was the only game in town. It had better sound quality than any other way of playing digital multi channel music at the time. MQA by contrast provides no such thing, it isn't the best way of playing either stereo CD quality or high resolution lossless.

The only purpose MQA serves is as a licence fee protection racket.

Understood! Thanks for your response.