pirad
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2018
- Messages
- 178
- Likes
- 61
Hello everybody, it’s my first post here. I am not an engineer,
so I am asking for your understanding and leniency.
To the subject matter:
I tested* MQA fairly early, both with the dedicated MQA DAC (Mytek)
and the Tidal app, which offers 96/24 decode. (Also www.2L.no is a good source of
MQA and hi-res files). I also used extensively Dirac room correction installed on
the same computer as my file playing apps. It could correct the decoded MQA.
After a year of experimenting I pretty much lost my interest both in MQA
and room correction. The main problem with MQA is still the very limited
titles offer. Also, I grew the suspicion that the differences between redbook and
MQA files can be attributed more to remastering than to the codec. And I mean
„differences”, not „sound quality”; as in "different" , not "better".
Caveat: staying on the objectivist ground it would be good to agree on
the definition of "Sound Quality" at the reproduction end.
My adventure with DSP started with building Linkwitz's LX521 loudspeakers which
use miniDSP platform (4x10HD). It continued with room correction applications,
mostly Dirac. The initial observations were positive. But with time and the continuous
tests with sound professionals, my final conclusion was: different, not necessarily better.
I could say now that my quest has been to reach the heart of the recording, not to
improve it at the reproduction end . I believe the digital manipulation should be taking
place only once: at the DAC converting the digital file into analogue. This conversion
should be of the highest quality. If any DSP is introduced, it should be before DAC.
Downstream of DSP/DAC I prefer: passive attenuation, a wire with gain and top transducers.
And last but not least: good room acoustics.
* My tests are of two kinds:
electroacoustic- with REW and DATS software, and occasional oscilloscope ,
auditory- with an AB switch box and the bunch of usual suspects: musicians,
producers (some Grammy winners ), critics and golden ears. My system is very
resolving and by true audiophiles can be labeled as "clinical clean". Pros like it.
so I am asking for your understanding and leniency.
To the subject matter:
I tested* MQA fairly early, both with the dedicated MQA DAC (Mytek)
and the Tidal app, which offers 96/24 decode. (Also www.2L.no is a good source of
MQA and hi-res files). I also used extensively Dirac room correction installed on
the same computer as my file playing apps. It could correct the decoded MQA.
After a year of experimenting I pretty much lost my interest both in MQA
and room correction. The main problem with MQA is still the very limited
titles offer. Also, I grew the suspicion that the differences between redbook and
MQA files can be attributed more to remastering than to the codec. And I mean
„differences”, not „sound quality”; as in "different" , not "better".
Caveat: staying on the objectivist ground it would be good to agree on
the definition of "Sound Quality" at the reproduction end.
My adventure with DSP started with building Linkwitz's LX521 loudspeakers which
use miniDSP platform (4x10HD). It continued with room correction applications,
mostly Dirac. The initial observations were positive. But with time and the continuous
tests with sound professionals, my final conclusion was: different, not necessarily better.
I could say now that my quest has been to reach the heart of the recording, not to
improve it at the reproduction end . I believe the digital manipulation should be taking
place only once: at the DAC converting the digital file into analogue. This conversion
should be of the highest quality. If any DSP is introduced, it should be before DAC.
Downstream of DSP/DAC I prefer: passive attenuation, a wire with gain and top transducers.
And last but not least: good room acoustics.
* My tests are of two kinds:
electroacoustic- with REW and DATS software, and occasional oscilloscope ,
auditory- with an AB switch box and the bunch of usual suspects: musicians,
producers (some Grammy winners ), critics and golden ears. My system is very
resolving and by true audiophiles can be labeled as "clinical clean". Pros like it.