advertisement


MDAC First Listen (part 00110101)

Status
Not open for further replies.
JohnW said:
Django,

Please remand me what is the story with your unit its history and fault?

Ser # will be good - I have about 5 MDAC's waiting for my attention.
Click to expand...

Reminder from somebody else: 2 of those are mine' caps & dead IRs/remotes. Your suggestion was "wait for MDAC2"; I'm fine, but would actually prefer one of them (the black one) back in a "fixed & working & potentially upgraded" version ASAP.

Michael.
 
Michael,

Ok, I'll have the black unit repaired and shipped out to you on Monday :)

Thanks for reminding me about the remote's
 
Not just MQA but other acronyms too which are out there doing the rounds to baffle us.

Why when these new creations claim to be the "purest" and most lifelike reproducers of music ever do audio manufacturers deem the need to then add user swappable filters on to the end product.

You know yourself John the 2 Transient filters on MDAC are the best, the others make them sound even better due to their awful nature:D

If MQA was the grail surely no user input is needed to alter the sound, it wouldn't be needed.
 
AndyU

You start with a 24/192 file
It contains a lot of unnecessary empty space
So you can fill the empty space with information that can be used do define the encoding/decoding system without getting "less than" the original audio information.

The question is: which bits of a"spacious" 24/192 file can be thrown away, and which bits of extra encoding are important to the audio quality of the final decoding process.

To these ears, the majority of DACs do not do "real" well with regards (for example) cymbals, brass, sibilance. Some do. And I don't believe it's simply to with frequency response.

So I'll happily let others continue to experiment and work out what's going on and why.

If you don't want MQA, turn it off and choose a different source
 
Julf said:
There is a whole patent and intellectual property protection system in place to deal with that dilemma.
Click to expand...

Somewhat naive

The international patent process is long winded, time consuming and expensive

And once you have a patent or copyright, the financial and time burden is on the patent/copyright holder to defend it.
(International) (specialised) Lawyers - expensive
 
JohnW said:
I'll ignore the first line as it totally non constitutive.

I'm in no position to speak for MQA, but I believe MQA's stance is something like this:-

Well for many, Turntable and Master Tape sounds sonically superior to the human auditory system then PCM 192KHz so MQA has concentrated on the Time Domain. There are "hidden" methods that can be applied that can help mitigate inherent TD limitations due to a systems bandwidth restrictions etc.

The MQA rendering operates at least x8 (352.8KHz / 384KHz) and the faster the better. You DONT get the full effectiveness of MQA without the MQA render block.
Click to expand...

The premis of your statement here is that turntable has superior time domain properties than 192 pcm. Can you elaborate and explain this assertion?

What does an analogue recorded (tape) impulse response look like by the time it has been cut on to vinyl and replayed by the turntable?
 
ChrisPa said:
You start with a 24/192 file
It contains a lot of unnecessary empty space
So you can fill the empty space with information that can be used do define the encoding/decoding system without getting "less than" the original audio information.

The question is: which bits of a"spacious" 24/192 file can be thrown away, and which bits of extra encoding are important to the audio quality of the final decoding process.

To these ears, the majority of DACs do not do "real" well with regards (for example) cymbals, brass, sibilance. Some do. And I don't believe it's simply to with frequency response.
Click to expand...

Chris,

A very good post! Especially "To my ears" section, I could not agree more!
 
ChrisPa said:
The international patent process is long winded, time consuming and expensive
Click to expand...

Yes, I am pretty familiar with the process. Not worth it for minor stuff, definitely worth it if you have something that you think is a genuine, significant improvement or innovation.
 
clivem2 said:
That might work in the west, even that is debatable. You forget that John has experience of working in China.....your Finnish and technically honourable way of thinking doesn't apply everywhere.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - if your main market is China. If your main market is in the west, there are pretty good ways to stop pirated products being sold here.
 
Julf said:
Fair enough - if your main market is China. If your main market is in the west, there are pretty good ways to stop pirated products being sold here.
Click to expand...

There are quite a lot of DACs being bought by people in the west directly from China. It's the internet you know....
 
Julf said:
Fair enough - if your main market is China. If your main market is in the west, there are pretty good ways to stop pirated products being sold here.
Click to expand...

Sold from Western stores/websites perhaps, but that doesn't cover direct sales from China. Try searching AliExpress.com for "LP guitar".
 
clivem2 said:
There are quite a lot of DACs being bought by people in the west directly from China. It's the internet you know....
Click to expand...

Of course. I buy cheap stuff directly from China all the time. Do I buy more expensive high-end stuff that way? Nope...

I acknowledge it is an issue, but is it a reason to withhold information of significant technical and scientific interest? I don't think so, but that is just me. I just think that if everyone took that attitude, scientific journals and conferences would get rather boring.

"We have made huge progress in this field. Sorry, can't tell you more, because we are afraid someone will copy it - or even worse, ridicule it."
 
Many, many moons ago we supporters incl. JohnW agreed (what's an agreement worth these days considering this thread history) that Detox was supposed to be first product out.

Is this still the case and when is the Detox to be produced and released? Having PM'ed projects with a complexity magnitude 1000 fold of this I'm amazed of the amateurism & lack of drive encountered here!
 
JohnW said:
2. Insures the "BEST" available Master - so not an MP3 conversion, Mastered for iTunes, Watermarked or some such - but the VERY best available studio Master.
Click to expand...

I honestly can't understand this statement. The quality of music is not in the format: I mean just because it is hires doesn't mean the quality is good. Why are people so focused on hires and not on the recording / mastering proces?
The latter is where the big issues lies. A well recorded album will sound a lot better in MP3 @ 320 quality than a poorly recorded / mastered album on hires format !
I understand the quest for high resolution formats in the professional studio but not in consumer space.
 
delange said:
I honestly can't understand this statement. The quality of music is not in the format: I mean just because it is hires doesn't mean the quality is good. Why are people so focused on hires and not on the recording / mastering proces?
The latter is where the big issues lies. A well recorded album will sound a lot better in MP3 @ 320 quality than a poorly recorded / mastered album on hires format !
I understand the quest for high resolution formats in the professional studio but not in consumer space.
Click to expand...

The idea is to prevent Re-sampled, MP3, Watermarked, Mastered for iTunes etc. being passed as "Masters" - simply to insure the customer has the excess to the studios "Master" recoding.

Each studio should have a "Master recording" many are physically signed and approved by the artist - the aim of MQA "Master Quality assured" is to filter out the many levels of Post processed recordings on streaming services etc.

I personally dont want a recording that has since been re-sampled or Watermarked or Mastered for iTunes etc.

If MQA is not for you - then OK, but then leave the option open for others.

I'm sure there are many here like myself that wait with baited breath for "improved" audio quality... I hope that MQA lives upto its claims and I will in return support with MQA enabled hardware.

Many new streaming services this year will support MQA - lets see (hear).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top