MQA already dead in the water? No full decoding DAC alternatives...

Jack said:
While I may agree, not having heard a Meitner DAC, that the comparison "may" not be fair on equal material that is not what we are discussing. We are trying to see if you think MQA is worth a five figure investment. For that purpose trying the "lower priced" components for MQA is not unreasonable. There is only one way to do MQA if you believe in Bob Stuart's philosophy. Even he put out a $300 DAC as an example of how great his invention was. You need to remember that OPPO and Mytek are at heart Internet Direct companies without the 3x-5x distributor/dealer and advertising mark-ups. If they were dealer only items their pricing would be more inline with the Meitner like Esoteric and others that are MQA certified. If you have to have the pricing closer to make you feel better about the contest then order the new Manhatten II at 5995 Euros.
Click to expand...

Jack, I am thinking along the same lines. Just want to be cautious not to judge based on an uneven comparison.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
wklie said:
MQA is not trying to correct the work by the mastering engineers. It is done to improve (correct) the impulse response of the ADC, for timing measurements not previously considered important by the industry but is now determined to be really important by MQA.
Click to expand...

This was a view represented by this high profile mastering engineer, who’s interview was shared on the thread.

He is a much better judge of MQA impact on an original mastering than I am.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kuoppis said:
Please help me out here, are there realistic DAC alternatives available to try out full decoding?


On the other hand, it might not be a fair fight to put an acclaimed Meitner against an also running DAC an then conclude MQA does not sound as good.
Click to expand...

You are shifting the goal posts here. Your original post clearly spells out you wanted to hear the effect of "full decoding".
Your latter statement is totally different, i.e., a comparison of DACs themselves.
No one is claiming, for example, that a Mytek Brooklyn is the ultimate DAC. IF you actually wanted to do what you initially claimed - compare non-MQA, or partial MQA to "full unfold" MQA, it is more than sufficient for that task. ***
If you want to compare what is deemed (by the usual audiophile street rumor) what is "best" PCM DAC vs "best" MQA DAC, that is another matter entirely.

*** Please keep in mind that any such comparison is whatever Tidal et al is positing as non-MQA vs MQA, which has been exposed as possibly coming from 2 different masters entirely(!) and nothing to do with "time smear" and other such specious claims.
The only valid comparison of "MQA" vs say 16/44, is to take the actual MQA file, output via dual output DAC, send one output through a 16/44 ADA loop...and compare via the original, in real time via quick switching.

cheers,

AJ
 
wklie said:
MQA is not trying to correct the work by the mastering engineers.
Click to expand...
Huh?
IF the sound changes as MQA claims, it absolutely is trying (claiming) to "correct" the work of mastering engineers.
You can't have it both ways. The "sound" of that "impulse incorrect" ADC would have been part and parcel of the original, approved "intent".

wklie said:
determined to be really important by MQA.
Click to expand...
Exactly

But when Bruno asked Bob where exactly this scientific supporting evidence could be found, Bob confessed to having zero, none. :rolleyes:
It is clear to anyone that understands sampling that all MQA does with the "leaky"/"lazy" filter is allow aliasing distortion (and requisite re-equalization from the folding processes) to "spice up" the sound.
Then that "spiced" vs unspiced sound becomes a matter of personal taste. YMMV.
 
People should read the link I posted on this thread with Brian Lucey who is a mastering engineer. I think he is spot on.
 
wklie said:
MQA is not trying to correct the work by the mastering engineers. It is done to improve (correct) the impulse response of the ADC, for timing measurements not previously considered important by the industry but is now determined to be really important by MQA.
Click to expand...

Peter, could you elaborate a little more on this?

Regards
 
Mike said:
Has anyone stopped to ask WHY a Mastering Engineer might be against MQA?
Click to expand...
Yes, as I posted a while back http://www.audioshark.org/showthread.php?t=9651&page=109&p=219865&viewfull=1#post219865
He doesn't like the sound or the DRM scheme under the guise of "authentic" sound. He's obviously not alone.

Mike said:
Oh yeah, it's because before AES a few weeks ago, he/she would have been out of a job. MQA is considering creating a "sandbox" for Mastering Engineers to do mastering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_engineer
Click to expand...
Huh? Your link contradicts your claims. A MQA black box can't replace human mastering engineering skills.
What is this "sandbox" MQA is claiming now that will put all mastering engineers out of jobs? They are big on fantasy, but this one seems a bit over the top. Link to this claim?

Is it like my cats litter box, full of......?
 
Mike said:
This is entertaining. Has anyone stopped to ask WHY a Mastering Engineer might be against MQA? Oh yeah, it's because before AES a few weeks ago, he/she would have been out of a job. MQA is considering creating a "sandbox" for Mastering Engineers to do mastering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_engineer
Click to expand...


Mike,

What is MQA going to do that established DAWs don't offer already?
If you are referring to their authentication process then that is just adding a filter.

That's a far reach in calling that replacing the mastering engineer/process.
 
Mike said:
This is entertaining. Has anyone stopped to ask WHY a Mastering Engineer might be against MQA? Oh yeah, it's because before AES a few weeks ago, he/she would have been out of a job. MQA is considering creating a "sandbox" for Mastering Engineers to do mastering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_engineer
Click to expand...

Because they don't like the sound of it? Because they have seen their previous mastering work being issued as MQA files and they were never consulted which calls into questions the claims from MQA that the people responsible for the original recordings are signing off on the MQA version? I have always doubted the second claim was true for obvious reasons and now there is some proof that MQA isn't living up to their claim.

There is a lot of hocus pocus going on with MQA and none of it matters if you love the sound of digital music that has been sheep-dipped through the MQA process. The audio world is full of solutions in search of a problem. I can see a new device in the future that will run a reverse algorithm to remove the MQA artifacts from digital files so that you can hear what the mastering engineer truly intended you to hear. How's that for irony?
 
Kuoppis,

Congratulations for kicking the hornets nest! I am enjoying the debate; it is actually very informative. But I do hope everyone turns the heat down a notch...

Andrew
 
AJ Soundfield said:
You are shifting the goal posts here. Your original post clearly spells out you wanted to hear the effect of "full decoding".
Your latter statement is totally different, i.e., a comparison of DACs themselves.
No one is claiming, for example, that a Mytek Brooklyn is the ultimate DAC. IF you actually wanted to do what you initially claimed - compare non-MQA, or partial MQA to "full unfold" MQA, it is more than sufficient for that task. ***
If you want to compare what is deemed (by the usual audiophile street rumor) what is "best" PCM DAC vs "best" MQA DAC, that is another matter entirely.

*** Please keep in mind that any such comparison is whatever Tidal et al is positing as non-MQA vs MQA, which has been exposed as possibly coming from 2 different masters entirely(!) and nothing to do with "time smear" and other such specious claims.
The only valid comparison of "MQA" vs say 16/44, is to take the actual MQA file, output via dual output DAC, send one output through a 16/44 ADA loop...and compare via the original, in real time via quick switching.

cheers,

AJ
Click to expand...

AJ, not sure whether you have read the full thread, this might be why you missed something.

No, I am not intending to compare DACs.

Yes, I would not like to dismiss MQA because of testing it with an inferior DAC compared to my current solution (Meitner).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
AJR said:
Kuoppis,

Congratulations for kicking the hornets nest! I am enjoying the debate; it is actually very informative. But I do hope everyone turns the heat down a notch...

Andrew
Click to expand...

Thanks Andrew, I suspected this might happen [emoji3]. Nevertheless, as you point out, the purpose is to identify viable MQA solutions which I am so far lacking.

Already some interesting data:
- MSB: not only the ludicrous category supports MQA (Select, Reference), but all MSB DACs can be upgraded by replacing the USB module
- Oppo: UDP-205 has a new SW release which will support MQA; Sonica appears not to be ugradeable due to memory/ CPU constraints
- PS Audio: Recent Huron release + Bridge II update renders DirectStream DACs MQA capable



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kuoppis said:
AJ, not sure whether you have read the full thread, this might be why you missed something.
Click to expand...
I did and I also quoted you verbatim for brevity.
I'll do it again, your original post:

Kuoppis said:
Please help me out here, are there realistic DAC alternatives available to try out full decoding? I was looking for one I could buy just to try it out.
Click to expand...

Nothing ambiguous there. You want to hear "full unfold" MQA, vs non MQA, or partial decode as done in Tidal software, etc, etc.
You then provided a list of options, including the Mytek I suggested.

Kuoppis said:
No, I am not intending to compare DACs.

Yes, I would not like to dismiss MQA because of testing it with an inferior DAC compared to my current solution (Meitner).
Click to expand...
:). You need to make up your mind.
For comparing "full decode" vs "not full decode", something like the Mytek will do just fine. There is nothing "inferior" about it for this task. (Unless you have done so already??)
If you are comparing "full decode Mytek" vs your "Meitner", you are comparing DACs, not "full decode".
 
AJ Soundfield said:
I did and I also quoted you verbatim for brevity.
I'll do it again, your original post:



Nothing ambiguous there. You want to hear "full unfold" MQA, vs partial as done in Tidal software, etc.
You then provided a list of options, including the Mytek I suggested.


:). You need to make up your mind.
For comparing "full decode" vs "not full decode", something like the Mytek will do just fine. There is nothing "inferior" about it for this task. (Unless you have done so already??)
If you are comparing "full decode Mytek" vs your "Meitner", you are comparing DACs, not "full decode".
Click to expand...

Maybe I am not such a specialist in terms of terminology, hence I was referring to MQA unfolding (not full decoding) vs. MQA decoding (full decode). But let’s try to rephrase the purpose of this thread:

1) I do indeed want to use Tidal streamed MQA only, that is what is of interest to me. If buying files, I still would go for DSD (I actually mostly buy vinyl).
2) I do agree that I could compare a) Mytek Tidal vs. b) Mytek Tidal MQA. There is however a catch: whether Mytek MQA or non-MQA is better, is not too much of interest to me personally, as that is below my reference level.
3) My reference is Meitner Tidal, that DAC costs 4x the price of the Mytek Brookyn. Meitner Tidal is considerably better than Mytek Brooklyn Tidal.
4) While Mytek Tidal MQA might be better than Mytek Tidal, I still would not know whether the MQA advantage also does apply on my reference level.
5) Ergo, I am trying to identify a suitable reference DAC to compare Tidal MQA vs. Tidal non-MQA.

I hope that helps.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kuoppis said:
3) My reference is Meitner Tidal, that DAC costs 4x the price of the Mytek Brookyn. Meitner Tidal is considerably better than Mytek Brooklyn Tidal.
Click to expand...
Aha, I did miss where you have/had the Mytek as well and have done such a comparison. My bad.:)

Kuoppis said:
5) Ergo, I am trying to identify a suitable reference DAC to compare Tidal MQA vs. Tidal non-MQA.
Click to expand...
For that I can't help you with, as "reference" is subjective and can mean anything to anyone (although I now understand it starts around $8k ;)).
For that I give you...MIke! :D
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Aha, I did miss where you have/had the Mytek as well and have done such a comparison. My bad.:)


For that I can't help you with, as "reference" is subjective and can mean anything to anyone (although I now understand it starts around $8k ;)).
For that I give you...MIke! :D
Click to expand...

Thanks for bearing with me AJ [emoji3].

And I agree on two things:
a) the reference is subjective
b) for anything in terms of superb audio there’s Mike


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kuoppis said:
Thanks for bearing with me AJ [emoji3].

And I agree on two things:
a) the reference is subjective
b) for anything in terms of superb audio there’s Mike


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


When a person starts using the term reference I look towards those devices that manufactures have spent considerable time and money in the design and component makeup to "mark them as Reference" . As AJ noted reference is subjective. You seem to be driven in that direction. Maybe you should look at the Berkeley Audio RS2 with MQA or one of the MSB DACS. Both are about as reference as one can get.


[h=1][/h]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top