I don't think they regard it as a problem.Has Tidal sorted the problem with the same file source for both lossless FLAC and MQA?
Like ... this 'much' ... ?
https://ifi-audio.com/products/zen-dac-v2/
Proof, if anything, that adding MQA does not need to cost the earth.
Of course, if Hifi manufacturers decide to make this a USP and increase RRP disproportionately ...
Has Tidal sorted the problem with the same file source for both lossless FLAC and MQA?
I don't mind having MQA as a filter choice on a DAC so people can use it if they prefer that sort of equalised sound profile. To make that lossy filter the only choice for music would be a major set-back.
My DAC doesn't do MQA. Replacing it would mean losing money on the sale and again when buying a replacement. And I'd have to find an MQA-able DAC with identical level of performance (or presentation to some people).
I don't enjoy changing gear (unless there's something audibly wrong that I know can be improved with an affordable replacement) or wasting money.
Has Tidal sorted the problem with the same file source for both lossless FLAC and MQA?.
I don't think they regard it as a problem.
What I meant was that it's probably intentional.They should. If I bought lossless FLAC and received lossy MQA I would not be a satisfied customer.
Measured performance.How do you know some of these are not as good as yours?
You do understand that to hear this you need excellent hearing AND a super high resolution system?The above 'summary' is incomplete. The additions are not simply 'noise'. They are deterministic patterns which include anharmonics. And neither the patents nor yet tests show this is fully undone by decoding. Indeed, what we have thus far (and implied by the appoach MQA use) make it likely that this cannot be fully undone, and the bulk of the changes may remain. This is something I am in process of investigating, though. Say more when I have results.
Don't let JimA mislead you.I enjoy it, just listening to this. Yes, it is different to the FLAC, it is silky, ear friendly but subtle enough to not be sickly sweet. If that’s anharmonic distortion or whatever then that’s fine by me, so long as there is a choice of standard FLAC as well. I don’t like the idea of tarring all music with the one brush. I suspect the MQA process works better for this type of music.
An excellent point that I have made as well.I wish 1/2 of the effort people put in here to defeat the bogeyman could be put into feeding the hungry, doing something about the millions of refugees out there without adequate shelter (et.c). Such hate for a piece of software? Even within our countries there's huge moral problems and abuse going on. Can you care a bit more about humanity and less hate for a thing? Just saying, a lot of effort here going nowhere really, so many problems to solve...
A point that you can prove or disprove by using mansr's software decoder.That is something I have suspected for some time. However if people like anharmonics generated by (in IT terms) imperfect conversion then they can DIY whatever processes they like without MQA. Indeed some DACs essentially offer this, sometimes as a one reconstruction filter from a range offerred. It's fine with me because people can choose for themselves. You buy the dac/amp/speakers that you prefer. My only interest in that would be shedding light on the reasons, as knowing that may aid their future choices as they may know what to look for.
Hence, yes, I *suspect* some prefer MQA *because* of the changes the encode-decode process makes to the audio they hear. If so, the use of 'slow' or 'leaky' or 'lazy' or 'whatever you want to call them' reconstruction filters is a user choice. But it need not be included in the source material.
While I do hear it on some material (if undecoded), it would be inaudible for 95-99%.I don't think they regard it as a problem.
wish 1/2 of the effort people put in here to defeat the bogeyman could be put into feeding the hungry, doing something about the millions of refugees out there without adequate shelter (et.c). Such hate for a piece of software? Even within our countries there's huge moral problems and abuse going on. Can you care a bit more about humanity and less hate for a thing? Just saying, a lot of effort here going nowhere really, so many problems to solve...
An excellent point that I have made as well.
Can you hear above 16 KHz? I do but barely.They should. If I bought lossless FLAC and received lossy MQA I would not be a satisfied customer.
I simply think that hate-filled pile-ons with no understanding or experience are unfair.Admirable and universal, just like the answers at a beauty contest! but please, both, tell us more how you do it by passing time in this beautiful conversation?
or is it that may be spending your time to defend a software is increasing the world’s supply of clean water?
This is entirely untrue.For you reasons does not matter, you like it and that is end of your interest. For some other people reasons matter. And they have right to express it, even repeatedly, without calling them names, like you expressing your liking here repeatedly.