The future of streaming?

machone

Have any of you guys heard about this?

http://www.stereophile.com/content/ive-heard-future-streaming-meridians-mqa

rooftop59

Just skimmed it, but that looks very cool! Hope it trickles down!

Moose68Bash

As we used to say, when I was working in the computer industry, "It's only a matter of software!"

sgtmick63

Anybody hear anything more concerning MQA?

tonyb

I dig it, sounds like the solution for limited bandwidth and higher rez audio. Only downside is now you have to buy dacs with that licensed technology or it will just play cd quality.

steveinaz

Very interesting....

madmax

Big article on it in The Absolute Sound this month.

madmax

I just searched "tas mqa" on google and found tons of info on it. Couldn't find the article as written in the magazine though.

Legender

Article from January:
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/from-the-editor-mqa-on-the-threshold/
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/mqa-explained-in-short-videos/
and from March:
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/master-quality-authenticated-mqa-the-view-from-30000-feet/
Nothing from this month on a quick search.

sgtmick63

How do you add MQA to a 2 channel system and what equipment will I need? Or is this just for computers?

steveinaz

sgtmick63 wrote: »

How do you add MQA to a 2 channel system and what equipment will I need? Or is this just for computers?

The way I understand it, it's basically a new codec (software driven).

K_M

I suppose good in theory, but sadly the reality is CD quality is more than good enough already.
Sounds like a solution to a problem that does not really exist.

The levels they are talking about in the examples, are way below a normal home noise level to begin with.

I get why using a wider and deeper signal could be better, but only in theory.
When people A/B them, many claim to be able to hear some big difference, but are never able to prove it.

There are numerous examples where audio engineers and audiophiles are not even able to tell MP3 From CD quality, let alone from Higher than necessary resolutions.

txcoastal1

^^^only assumption or quality of your system, or just your ears

Just 2 weeks ago after uncrating a $50k system as soon as we got it plugged in we starting pushing steams from the NAS and dac. I have layers of duplicate recordings as well we were demo'ing Streaming services. It was way apparent the increase in tonal dynamics as we moved up the food chain. We could tell immediately just as we were walking around cleaning up the boxes and such.

We were a little disappointed in the system originally, sounded alright but not really great as we were expecting...were started using a well known streaming service as it was the first thing that we could get going.

Then we pulled up the higher resolution stuff, bam!!! Like a slap in the face, there was the dynamics we were looking for, same Db level, same track, just higher res

K_M

^^^^^

All the proof I need.

Hey guess what! some guys I know down the road, unboxed a $100,000 set up and said they heard no difference??

When asked to prove anything, anecdotal evidence seems to be all most can deliver.

txcoastal1

Come on down to LSAF and I will duplicate the scenario

Not here to debate with you as you are trolling to start up a debate as we have seen you do before

You expressed your opinion and I have mine. If you want to challenge me, come do it person, the door will be open

heiney9

K_M wrote: »

I suppose good in theory, but sadly the reality is CD quality is more than good enough already.
Sounds like a solution to a problem that does not really exist.

The levels they are talking about in the examples, are way below a normal home noise level to begin with.

I get why using a wider and deeper signal could be better, but only in theory.
When people A/B them, many claim to be able to hear some big difference, but are never able to prove it.

There are numerous examples where audio engineers and audiophiles are not even able to tell MP3 From CD quality, let alone from Higher than necessary resolutions.

Everything matters and supposition doesn't cut it here. Either get out and do a fair in depth evaluation, or you should probably not comment. Your comments are baseless since you are just assuming things.

You'd be very surprised (if you ever took the time to learn how to evaluate audio) at how quickly the cumulative effect of many small (seemingly insignificant) things really do matter and make a difference on the whole.

If you are not quite there or really don't care to get there, that's fine, but then you should probably stop commenting as much of what you state is baseless.

H9

K_M

heiney9 wrote: »

K_M wrote: »

I suppose good in theory, but sadly the reality is CD quality is more than good enough already.
Sounds like a solution to a problem that does not really exist.

The levels they are talking about in the examples, are way below a normal home noise level to begin with.

I get why using a wider and deeper signal could be better, but only in theory.
When people A/B them, many claim to be able to hear some big difference, but are never able to prove it.

There are numerous examples where audio engineers and audiophiles are not even able to tell MP3 From CD quality, let alone from Higher than necessary resolutions.

Everything matters and supposition doesn't cut it here. Either get out and do a fair in depth evaluation, or you should probably not comment. Your comments are baseless since you are just assuming things.

You'd be very surprised (if you ever took the time to learn how to evaluate audio) at how quickly the cumulative effect of many small (seemingly insignificant) things really do matter and make a difference on the whole.

If you are not quite there or really don't care to get there, that's fine, but then you should probably stop commenting as much of what you state is baseless.

H9

No everything does not matter.


I respect your opinions and thoughts.

If "EVERYTHING MATTERS", maybe..... proving things, beyond anecdotal stories, matters also?

K_M

txcoastal1 wrote: »

Come on down to LSAF and I will duplicate the scenario

Not here to debate with you as you are trolling to start up a debate as we have seen you do before

You expressed your opinion and I have mine. If you want to challenge me, come do it person, the door will be open

The high res thing is debated or argued on every audio forum in the world.

Someone that disagrees is not a troll.

The challenge thing sounds cool, but we all know in reality it rarely happens.
I expressed very little opinion.

I have never seen any evidence to support a listener being able to determine high res from regular, when unaware of the source.

That may say something.
Carry on!

txcoastal1

Ok your point is made... You are always right, and everyone Else is always wrong, got it

So let me guess, you will always be trolling cable and resolution threads?

One more thing... I guess that your opinion is screw all new development in recording and distribution of music because MP3 is where everyone needs to be because that's all we need

K_M

txcoastal1 wrote: »

Ok your point is made... You are always right, and everyone Else is always wrong, got it

So let me guess, you will always be trolling cable and resolution threads?

One more thing... I guess that your opinion is screw all new development in recording and distribution of music because MP3 is where everyone needs to be because that's all we need

I was not saying anyone is right or wrong.

There simply is not real evidence it matters.
I think for Recording it does matter, for the end listener, not at all.

Big difference.
As far as MP3, I do not consider it the best obviously, but again, when put to an actual test, the huge adjectives turn to "hard to say for sure" in many cases.

I think the differences are very minor in all of these cases. **my reality anyways**

There just seems to be very little backing any of it up, beyond stories. Nothing personal against you for real.

You realize we are now in the realm of questionable audio arguments.
This is not new, not invented by me, nor does it mean someone is a troll.

Every audio forum I have read, they debate this stuff.
That is why it is called "Questionable"

It means the common consensus, is there is no agreement.

motorhead43026

^^^Are you male, female or an it? I just need to know what type bait I need to troll you^^^

lightman1

My cat has three legs.

lightman1

Anti-gravity bunny!!!!!

txcoastal1

Dude they are actually "flying bunnies"
I've seen them on the internet

steveinaz

Don't ya just love "johnny-come-lately" know-it-alls? Like we haven't been doing this hi-fi thing for 30+ years.....

K_M

steveinaz wrote: »

Don't ya just love "johnny-come-lately" know-it-alls? Like we haven't been doing this hi-fi thing for 30+ years.....

Prove it!

lightman1

Hey kids! I'm gonna fire up the grill. Place your orders now!

motorhead43026

Sausage.

ken brydson

motorhead43026 wrote: »

Sausage.

You can't say sausage here... REPORTED!!

K_M

tonyb

LMAO

Nobody needs to prove anything. Either I prove things do matter, or you prove they don't ?

Audio is an interactive sport, takes involvement, not conjecture or baseless opinions. As usual, those that don't play on a certain level of audio can't digest why there are levels above what they are used to. Dive in, get involved, go listen, have fun. Whats not to get ?

CD quality may be fine for you, then rock on, but others with a more refined system may want to indulge in better quality streaming services. Which is what this technology hopes to bring about. Win-win in my book.

Yes, this appears to be software driven, and to take advantage of it, you'd need a dac who has licensed the software, or whatever piece your streaming to. Who knows what streaming services will charge also. Bottom line is, more money all around.