<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/12/17 11:17 AM, Robert Ludwig
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:95CBB976-9228-4365-8663-F8A39AEC34C6@mac.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
Hi Bob K!
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">I cannot
justify a Tidal subscription each month so I am not
subscribed. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>But Bob K. you CAN <u class="">test out</u> the TIDAL
Hi-Fi/ TIDAL-Masters for free for 30 days. </div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">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. <br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
Just playing devil’s advocate:<br class="">
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? <br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Fair enough. I must admit that having friends turned me onto it and
I was reluctant to jump into Tidal. If the other service doesn't get
lots more titles I should go with Tidal. <br>
<br>
"So much time, so little to do". Yeah, I'll add a 30 day trial of
Tidal when I get the time :-)<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:95CBB976-9228-4365-8663-F8A39AEC34C6@mac.com">
<div class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""> 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…</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
<div>I completely agree here, I would not want to be the one to
bring it up.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>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!</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Best!</div>
<div>Bob L.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Bob L, I have very little experience yet with MQA. For technical
reasons I cannot enjoy the full unfolding on my loudspeakers. The
reason is that I am using a superb PCM-based digital crossover and
correction filter (Acourate Convolver). For 5 point 1 it feeds 8
channels of DAC, that is, 6 channels plus low pass crossover to
stereo subs. Bob Stuart has intimated that they have an
architecture that could handle that (perhaps not fully implemented
at this point) but I shudder at the idea of having to replace 8
channels of Cranesong Avocet (superb DACs, by the way) with 8
channels of MQA-compatible. The cost would be enormous, just to get
8 channels of deblur ????? Scary, huh?<br>
<br>
I can use an MQA-compatible DAC on my headphones though I haven't
bought one yet because I want to use loudspeakers for most of my
pleasure music listening. So I have only experienced (on my
loudspeaker system) the half-way Tidal decode. The first decoding
happens in the player and that comes out 2496 if the source is 2496
or higher. What I hear in this room at 96k is very pleasing,
compared with the 2496 masters that they were made from. I haven't
detected any artificial transient emphasis, in fact, I actually
cannot hear a difference between a 2496 original master and the MQA
96k stream (first decode, no unfold). If it's audible, it's damn
subtle! Perhaps if I ever get the full unfolding to 192 I'll be able
to answer your question about the transients and there may be a
detectable audible difference in that case.<br>
<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
<br>
<br>
Bob<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div class="moz-signature">
<div class="moz-signature">
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<div class="moz-signature">
<div class="moz-signature">
<div class="moz-signature">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="80"><font face="Courier">
If you want good sound on your album, come to
Bob Katz 407-831-0233 </font><font face="Courier">DIGITAL DOMAIN MASTERING STUDIO
Author: <b>Mastering Audio </b></font><font face="Courier">
<a href="http://www.digido.com/">Digital Domain Website</a>
No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number
of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.<font color="#ff0000">
</font></font></pre>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>