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

CPP said:
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]
Click to expand...

There are two very different definitions of Reference when discussing audio. First there is your definition which in my mind is spelled with a capital "R". Then there is the definition when you are comparing a new or alternate product to one you are familiar with (and does not have to be considered "state of art" and are probably using in your system. That would be reference with a small "r. This is the definition a print or online reviewer should be using in their review.
 
still-one said:
There are two very different definitions of Reference when discussing audio. First there is your definition which in my mind is spelled with a capital "R". Then there is the definition when you are comparing a new or alternate product to one you are familiar with and are probably using in your system. That would be reference with a small "r. This is the definition a print or online reviewer should be using in their review.
Click to expand...

Agree, all depends on the use of the word reference.
 
CPP said:
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]
Click to expand...

I think you nailed it Chris: current thinking is that I might try to get my hands on a PS Audio DSD DAC or an MSB Analog DAC. But let’s see what else this thread might unearth.

The Berkeley RS2 could be a candidate as my next DAC anyway, but it is too pricey for this purpose.

As to the reference, one man’s floor is another man’s ceiling. I might be hanging somewhere in the middle, so there is room in both directions. Someone with a MSB Select DAC might think the stereo should not even be switched on below a 5-Series Bimmer. And I think Auralic have been using the Neve console as their Reference to voice DACs, while Meitner might refer back to his Sonoma station or Olive days.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Testmaterial ordered: First two MQA CDs I have ever seen. Was not really aware there already are such in existence.

db02c18474950dc09b855a7e92faebba.jpg


2e31a69ca75815c647733c7e157784ce.jpg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
wklie said:
Basically, MQA attempts to turn the impulse response from red to blue, by processing both the output from ADC (or an existing master) and the input to DAC, and configuring the DAC in the most optimal way as determined by MQA:

From article:
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality
Click to expand...

Peter,

There is nothing really new in that article. Apart from trotting out the usual digital chestnuts, it in fact frames MQA as a lossy format (see section on "Convenience"). The rest of it confirms that MQA is just a customized digital filter.

The only thing I would agree on is authenticating the provenance of the material. But then that would apply for any format out there regardless of it being MQA or not.

Regards.
 
Nikhil said:
Peter,

There is nothing really new in that article. Apart from trotting out the usual digital chestnuts, it in fact frames MQA as a lossy format (see section on "Convenience"). The rest of it confirms that MQA is just a customized digital filter.

The only thing I would agree on is authenticating the provenance of the material. But then that would apply for any format out there regardless of it being MQA or not.

Regards.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with the second sentence of yours that I bolded, but I don''t agree with the first sentence. Having a blue light turn on doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. The link I provided earlier in this thread was from a mastering engineer whose previous work has shown up on MQA releases and he was never consulted. Nobody has really explained what authenticating the master really means.
 
[SUP]I was reading an older article August this year that there are some studios doing MQA adjustments. Airshow Mastering for one.

"[/SUP][SUP]Airshow is now MQA-equipped, so that if a client requests Airshow can now prepare a master and specify the parameters for MQA encoding. To do this Airshow added two new additions to their production chain, a Mytek Brooklyn DAC and a plug-in for the SoundBlade mastering software that lets David and engineer Anna Frick preview, listen to, and select which MQA filters and settings for the encoding process. The actual encoding is done by MQA, but the plug-in allows David to specify the settings and listen to them, real-time. It also allows for a direct, real-time A/B comparisons of the original file and MQA-encoded versions of that file. [/SUP]The Mytek Brooklyn also has a toggle that lets you go from decoded MQA to undecoded MQA for comparison. So, Airshow now has two ways to compare MQA files - via the Soundblade plug-in and via the Mytek Brooklyn. "

So it appears an engineer can select which MQA filters are used, but in the end, MQA still has to do the encoding at another location. .

PS: I sent Sonic Studio a email asking which Soundblade plugin is used, and they told me to contact MQA, which I found odd.
 
Just because an engineer can doesn’t mean that is always what happens, in fact given the (announced by Warners) fact that their entire catalog has been converted to MQA it seems highly unlikely if not impossible.
 
rbbert said:
Just because an engineer can doesn’t mean that is always what happens, in fact given the (announced by Warners) fact that their entire catalog has been converted to MQA it seems highly unlikely if not impossible.
Click to expand...

Can you say hocus pocus?
 
mep said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ludwig and Massenburg are onboard - so what gives there?

to me, its all about being able to stream hi res at any place, any time which is awesome stuff. And there are almost more MQA albums on Tidal than hdtracks.com and more than on SACD in 10 years.

i'm just waiting on MSB to release its roon/mqa network renderer and i'm done.
 
KeithR said:
Ludwig and Massenburg are onboard - so what gives there?
Click to expand...

I give. What does "what gives there?" mean?

KeithR said:
to me, its all about being able to stream hi res at any place, any time which is awesome stuff. And there are almost more MQA albums on Tidal than hdtracks.com and more than on SACD in 10 years.

i'm just waiting on MSB to release its roon/mqa network renderer and i'm done.
Click to expand...

All that matters is that you and everyone else who enjoys the effect of listening to a lossy codec are having a good time.
 
mep said:
I give. What does "what gives there?" mean?



All that matters is that you and everyone else who enjoys the effect of listening to a lossy codec are having a good time.
Click to expand...


Since the "lossy" sounds better than the 16/44 version, why wouldn't you listen to it? Oh yeah, your spending your time on vinyl.
 
mep said:
I totally agree with the second sentence of yours that I bolded, but I don''t agree with the first sentence. Having a blue light turn on doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. The link I provided earlier in this thread was from a mastering engineer whose previous work has shown up on MQA releases and he was never consulted. Nobody has really explained what authenticating the master really means.
Click to expand...

Mark, my first sentence was addressing the Sound on Sound article that Peter linked to.
To me the major content of that article seemed like it was ghost written by MQA.

I was expecting a little more in terms of an explanation as to how the impulse resonse is improved by MQA.

Regards
 
still-one said:
Since the "lossy" sounds better than the 16/44 version, why wouldn't you listen to it? Oh yeah, your spending your time on vinyl.
Click to expand...

I have told you before to send me your table since you don't listen to it anymore. I will take that terrible analog rig off of your hands and give it a good home.
 
CPP said:
[SUP]It also allows for a direct, real-time A/B comparisons of the original file and MQA-encoded versions of that file.[/SUP]
Click to expand...
This makes zero sense. If not MQA, how is the "original file" encoded? >24/96 PCM (ADC) like almost everything over the last 2 decades?
What is MQA "fixing" there? >48kHz "ringing"??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top