Nearly bewildered

Dac streams at 48hz

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Warszawa said:

I've seen people raving about it when they're not even using an MQA DAC that "unfolds" it properly.

I think at least some of the time the mix is different for the MQA version, so it may sound better for reasons that have nothing to do with MQA...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MartinC said:

I think at least some of the time the mix is different for the MQA version, so it may sound better for reasons that have nothing to do with MQA...

Is it? I find that hard to believe. I compared some Bowie and it sounded like the same master to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Warszawa said:

Is it? I find that hard to believe. I compared some Bowie and it sounded like the same master to me.

Not sure why it's hard to believe.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'd be happy to be corrected and give it a second chance. In its Tidal Masters incarnation it seems to me like an unnecessary (and arguably lossy) form of compression designed to shift kit with an MQA badge on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, MartinC said:

I think at least some of the time the mix is different for the MQA version, so it may sound better for reasons that have nothing to do with MQA...

Some of the MQA albums are definitely different from the CD quality version. One that I looked at in some detail, The Nightfly by Donald Fagen, is clearly a different transfer from analogue tape, and some tracks are several seconds longer. On this and a few other showcase albums, they've pulled out all the stops to demonstrate the "superior" sound of MQA. For the bulk of the catalogue, however, there isn't much, if any, difference.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Warszawa said:

Well I'd be happy to be corrected and give it a second chance. In its Tidal Masters incarnation it seems to me like an unnecessary (and arguably lossy) form of compression designed to shift kit with an MQA badge on it.

Don't get me wrong I agree MQA is flawed compared to true high-res. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Warszawa said:

Well I'd be happy to be corrected and give it a second chance. In its Tidal Masters incarnation it seems to me like an unnecessary (and arguably lossy) form of compression designed to shift kit with an MQA badge on it.

MQA is definitely lossy, no argument to be had. The most ridiculous part of it is that it doesn't even save any bandwidth compared to lossless compression (FLAC) at the same sample rate and bit depth as actually delivered by MQA, not to be confused with what they want you to believe it does. It is a scheme designed to make money for Bob Stuart, nothing else. The record labels are on board because they were sold it as a means of "protecting their crown jewels" as an MQA exec put it. In plain speak, that means they're hoping to put DRM on everything.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PuritéAudio said:

The rate stays the same unless you go into Audio Midi and change it, this has been a bug for at least the last 12 years.

Keith

Just assumed it changed automatically?  What was i thinking! Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, PhotoMax said:

Are you sure the content you are streaming is higher than CD res?

Yes quite sure..fixed now..if it wasnt for new dac showing streaming quality,  i think i wouldnt have noticed! I thought i listened carefully?  Guess i didn't!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Warszawa said:

I wonder how many people out there raving about high res aren't actually listening to high res because of their setup, or even the files themselves being upsampled in the first place. Same goes for MQA. I've seen people raving about it when they're not even using an MQA DAC that "unfolds" it properly.

It might be their kit is so good, they didn't notice?. If it wasnt for my new dac telling me the stream quality?  i would still be streaming at 48kHz! My jolida dac is my go to dac and it has no indication of streaming quality,  i bought this other dac out of curiosity..good job i did!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nearly bewildered said:

It might be their kit is so good, they didn't notice?. If it wasnt for my new dac telling me the stream quality?  i would still be streaming at 48kHz! My jolida dac is my go to dac and it has no indication of streaming quality,  i bought this other dac out of curiosity..good job i did!

Alternatively, 44.1 kHz is all anyone actually needs...

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MartinC said:

Alternatively, 44.1 kHz is all anyone actually needs...

Im not sure? On cd stream quality its very good..( to be honest mp3 is amazing considering its the poor relation)  but when i finally got hi res working!  I listened to the same tracks..it wasnt a night/day moment, but listening carefully i noticed more going on in the sonic landscape..i think if my kit was less resolving it difference might have been more obvious? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lawrence001 said:

Is that because the computer is upsampling or is it indicating the wrong rate?

Neither ( as far as I am aware? ) i hadnt set up the stream quality in the advanced sound setup on windows..i think it's worth anyone who uses a dac to check this..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nearly bewildered said:

Im not sure? On cd stream quality its very good..( to be honest mp3 is amazing considering its the poor relation)  but when i finally got hi res working!  I listened to the same tracks..it wasnt a night/day moment, but listening carefully i noticed more going on in the sonic landscape..i think if my kit was less resolving it difference might have been more obvious? 

I wasn't meaning to sound like I was definitely saying higher sample frequencies are pointless but I do think its in the highly questionable camp. My speakers don't have any meaningful output above 20 kHz and I wouldn't be able hear it if they did, so any possible benefits need to lie elsewhere as far as I'm concerned. The significant complicating factor in judging any of this is if different masters are used for the higher res versions, just like I believe was found to be the case on at least some hybrid SACDs. Now you could of course argue that if you get a better sound that it doesn't matter why but I at least would find it annoying, in the same way that I do about some vinyl releases sounding better due to using a less stupidly compressed master.

Most music files with higher sample rates also typically have greater bit depth (20 or 24 bit vs 16 bit), which is an entirely independent way of them sounding different. Although a combination of mastering dynamic range and real-world system performance probably renders this moot.

My main DAC can only handle up to 96 kHz though so to be honest I'm just going to ignore the high-res thing and focus on optimising 'standard' resolution performance.

Edited by MartinC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MartinC said:

I wasn't meaning to sound like I was definitely saying higher sample frequencies are pointless but I do think its in the highly questionable camp. My speakers don't have any meaningful output above 20 kHz and I wouldn't be able hear it if they did, so any possible benefits need to lie elsewhere as far as I'm concerned. The significant complicating factor in judging any of this is if different masters are used for the higher res versions, just like I believe was found to be the case on at least some hybrid SACDs. Now you could of course argue that if you get a better sound that it doesn't matter why but I at least would find it annoying, in the same way that I do about some vinyl releases sounding better due to using a less stupidly compressed master.

Most music files with higher sample rates also typically have greater bit depth (20 or 24 bit vs 16 bit), which is an entirely independent way of them sounding different. Although a combination of mastering dynamic range and real-world system performance probably renders this moot.

My main DAC can only handle up to 96 kHz though so to be honest I'm just going to ignore the high-res thing and focus on optimising 'standard' resolution performance.

I have a 10 inch double album of radiohead ' kid A'..side by side with my CD version.. They sound almost identical? Share same master? I have spent agesgetting mp3s from qobuz to sound as good as possible..i thought i was doing ok till i got hi res ( before i figured out advanced settings on windows)  so even at 48kHz it beat my mp3s..i still think a well recorded track will sound great in any format..but having qobuz hi res/ cd quality for £14.99 a month clinched it.

I was thinking of Amazon HD at £15.00 a month but I heard its a drag navigating it..and HD is the same as cd quality i believe..but at the end of the day if your liking what your hearing..its the important thing..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.