[MLA] TIDAL & new beta site

[Bob Katz]

The best response to an audiophile concerned about bit transparency is 
that a loudness normalization method is already available in MQA to the 
best of my knowledge. Since they have their faith in MQA then they 
should trust its volume control  :-)


BK


On 12/12/17 11:49 AM, Kevin Gross wrote:
> Audiophiles can have anxiety about bit transparency so could shun 
> loudness normalization on those grounds. But MQA is not bit 
> transparent so that doesn't seem to be a reasonable objection in this 
> context. Is there some nice story we  can tell about a symbiotic 
> relationship between high resolution or MQA and loudness normalization?
>
> Kevin
>
> On Dec 12, 2017 8:19 AM, "Robert Ludwig" <gatewaybob at mac.com 
> <mailto:gatewaybob at mac.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Bob K!
>
>>     I cannot justify a Tidal subscription each month so I am not
>>     subscribed.
>
>     But Bob K. you CAN _test out_ the TIDAL Hi-Fi/ TIDAL-Masters for
>     free for 30 days.
>
>     It should sound identical to the MQA site you are beta testing.
>     You can compare buffering algorithms when used for DSL and
>     less-than fast internet hook-ups.  Tidal used to work well on my
>     home DSL, now not as much after the last software revision.  The
>     new beta site seemed to be better in that regard.
>
>>     But I am currently beta testing a new high resolution MQA
>>     streaming service that has not yet become public. The sound
>>     quality of the MQA on the stream made from good 2496 and higher
>>     resolution masters is astounding. If this service can obtain more
>>     high resolution masters and have a good selection, I would
>>     subscribe to them at $19.99 a month.
>
>     Just playing devil’s advocate:
>     So, being that TIDAL already HAS lots more high resolution masters
>     than the beta site, and the fact that they are BOTH $19.99 a
>     month, why favor the beta site?
>
>>     I have not yet brought up the issue of loudness normalization to
>>     them, as I suspect the director of the company will hit the roof…
>
>     I completely agree here, I would not want to be the one to bring
>     it up.
>
>     As a matter of curiosity, have you come across titles that do NOT
>     seem to benefit from MQA?  For me, I have found quite a few pop
>     titles and even some  classical titles where they sounded better
>     without clearer transients.  Just curious!
>
>     Best!
>     Bob L.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     MLA mailing list
>     MLA at grimmaudio.nl <mailto:MLA at grimmaudio.nl>
>     http://grimmaudio.nl/mailman/listinfo/mla_grimmaudio.nl
>     <http://grimmaudio.nl/mailman/listinfo/mla_grimmaudio.nl>
>
>

-- 

If you want good sound on your album, come to Bob Katz 407-831-0233 
DIGITAL DOMAIN MASTERING STUDIO Author: *Mastering Audio *Digital Domain 
Website <http://www.digido.com/> No trees were killed in the sending of 
this message. However a large number of electrons were terribly 
inconvenienced.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grimmaudio.nl/pipermail/mla_grimmaudio.nl/attachments/20171214/326f1b5c/attachment.html>