advertisement


MDAC First Listen (part 00110101)

Status
Not open for further replies.

gints

pfm Member
Over the years I've realised that others' musical tastes don't match my own. I no longer query others' musical tastes, I simply try to avoid or filter out the music I don't want to listen to, and indulge in the music that I do.

If someone's going to make a buck because the punters want to stream Like a Virgin, then that's fine by me

I think John probably said that because of the nature of that music. There simple isn't much benefit in hi-res version anyway.
 
With regards mqa, and not wanting to start or continue an mqa discussion in this thread, if it's truly correcting for anomalies in the input/recording chain, then I can't see why that's bad.

Let it do that, and leave it doing that.

For sure I'll give MQA a chance even though I remain to be convinced -apart from my objection to the DRM aspects and not really understanding what it brings to the table apart from DRM & reduced download file size...

If it enables the record company's to open there High Res. catalogues for download then its not all bad...

But give me DSD from Master Tape ANYDAY.

Interestingly MQA also supports packaged DSD but there little information on exactly what this means for the future...
 
John, Hints

I fully understood the point.

But this feels prejudicial based on musical tastes. I can't believe any of us referring to Madonna's recordings have actually taken the time to listen in detail to the existing recordings let alone comparing them to the master recordings to be able to make a judgement based on audio quality.

I've reached the point where it's not worth knocking other peoples tastes.

If the original (Madonna) recordings are in high enough resolution, and if we can hear the differences present in (any) high resolution material, then it does not matter what the music is or who the artist is.
 
John, Hints

I fully understood the point.

But this feels prejudicial based on musical tastes. I can't believe any of us referring to Madonna's recordings have actually taken the time to listen in detail to the existing recordings let alone comparing them to the master recordings to be able to make a judgement based on audio quality.

I've reached the point where it's not worth knocking other peoples tastes.

If the original (Madonna) recordings are in high enough resolution, and if we can hear the differences present in (any) high resolution material, then it does not matter what the music is or who the artist is.
I think someone on another thread said that like a virgin was originally recorded in 14/44. Obviously everyone knows that because it would be obvious when listening the the MQA that it wan't actually hi-rez because, y'know......
 
I think someone on another thread said that like a virgin was originally recorded in 14/44. Obviously everyone knows that because it would be obvious when listening the the MQA that it wan't actually hi-rez because, y'know......

Thats interesting as I recall having the CD when I was very much younger and even today recall how bright and forward it was!!! Oh the shame of it!!!

Could you trust a "HiFI" designer who purchased such a CD?
 
Thats interesting as I recall having the CD when I was very much younger and even today recall how bright and forward it was!!! Oh the shame of it!!!

Could you trust a "HiFI" designer who purchased such a CD?
Ah youthful indiscretion! Mind you weren't there 8 bit drum machines around in those days?
 
Ah youthful indiscretion! Mind you weren't there 8 bit drum machines around in those days?

8-bit drum machines, yes. I still have a Yamaha TX16W sampler from 1988, it was considered bleeding edge, being 12 bits...
 
Ah youthful indiscretion! Mind you weren't there 8 bit drum machines around in those days?

I built drum machines for friends that used 8Bit DAC + Analogue "companders / Expanders"...

One board for each "drum" with drum samples stored in individual Eproms...
 
Despite the dismissal of Steve Silberman's tutorial, imo his main argument is central to achieving great sound from a computer. (OK, he does mention right at the end the Audioquest mains filter unit that costs $8,000, but in response to a question from the audience and not as part of a sales pitch.)

Some of his theory may be shaky too, for all I know, but all the improvements I've heard here have been brought about by chipping away at the noise floor. Maybe folk have trouble with the term 'noise' because its normal usage implies an audible addition to the sound, like surface noise on a record, or tape hiss; it's harder to grasp the fact that noise so low that it doesn't register as sound can mask some or all of that tiny percentage of the audio signal that the brain interprets as 'the real thing'.

His views on wireless streaming also make perfect sense to me - if RF contamination is one of the noise contributors you are trying to defeat, why would you re-introduce a radio signal into the process? (Fine if we're talking background music or (maybe) hard rock, but not for 'serious' listening.)

If classical music is your thing (or one of them) I reckon BBC Radio3 is a useful benchmark: a high quality tuner + strong FM signal will sound sweet and detailed and cause no fatigue for hours on end. If your digital music is less enjoyable and less pleasant to listen to for long periods then the system needs to be improved. Equally, if an HD online broadcast doesn't sound significantly more realistic than the FM programme, then your source isn't up to the job.
Another thing Steve mentions is that the isolation/clean-up process is incremental - a single step may be hard to notice on its own, but add them all together and you have a significant improvement in sound. 'Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?' Of course he's in business to sell products to customers, but he strikes me as someone who believes in his products and cares as much about the music as he does about the bottom line.

And I can hardly wait to get my hands on the Detox - many of us are in for a pleasant surprise.
 
Like a Virgin is actually pretty good Italo-Disco influenced pop-record. The self-titled debut is better though.
 
Like a Virgin is actually pretty good Italo-Disco influenced pop-record. The self-titled debut is better though.

...and digital rips from the original EPs provided to DJs, etal., are even better. Plus there are extended mixes, dance mixes, etc. Really quite fun.
 
If classical music is your thing (or one of them) I reckon BBC Radio3 is a useful benchmark: a high quality tuner + strong FM signal will sound sweet and detailed and cause no fatigue for hours on end. If your digital music is less enjoyable and less pleasant to listen to for long periods then the system needs to be improved. .

Hate to break it tovyou but the transmitter feeds have been digital since the early 70s. 13 bit pcm followed by 14 bit nicam. however I beleive it has been updated fairly recently.
 
I just recently read that there is a commonality between FM stereo and vinyl:

The stereo channels in both are not held seperately in the encoded program material, but are encoded "intermingledly" (if that's a word) by mid/side encoding.

There has been talk on this thread a few years ago that there were folks in Germany who did the same with digital: Encode mid/side before the DAC and then decode after - with the result that the channel jitter, that is so disturbing to pleasant listening, was gone.

I have the very big hunch that this is something to look into - and would be easy to incorporate into the FDAC, I think, as it's a balanced design with some DSP in front.
 
Hate to break it tovyou but the transmitter feeds have been digital since the early 70s. 13 bit pcm followed by 14 bit nicam. however I beleive it has been updated fairly recently.

Yes, I know. I asked JohnW months ago how they were able to transmit such a clean digital + fm signal with none of the artifacts that cause so much grief in domestic systems. He replied something like: 'It's complicated.' :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top