If I had the Berkeley Reference dac(yum, yum), I would most certainly do the same.
MQA Discussion
- Thread starter still-one
- Start date
If I had the Berkeley Reference dac(yum, yum), I would most certainly do the same.
Yes! Smart.
CPP
Active member
I like this little tidbit of information from that article "" Because it's very complicated to develop, and not easy to explain,
" "In a nutshell they take the audio, and everything that is above 48kHz and 96kHz, they take that portion of the data and they hide it below the noise floor of the 48kHz/24-bit section, and then you draw a line where 48kHz sampling is hidden kind of like a watermark below the noise floor of the main file, then anything above 96kHz is reduced to a small number of bits.") ""
CDLehner
New member
If your MQA indication does not light up, check that every component (music server software, transport, etc.) before the MQA DAC is NOT doing anything that destroys the bit-perfect nature: digital volume, format conversion (*), resampling, DSP processing, etc. And verify that your DAC is indeed running the MQA-certified version of firmware.
* note: MQA should survive lossless conversion from one format to another.
CDLehner
New member
Yeah; I wouldn't think...the Aurender would do so?
As for the Brooklyn; I'm at v2.05...and even though there's a 2.07, it's showing MQA-compatible since v2.0
https://mytekdigital.com/support_docs/BrooklynDAC_firmware_readme.txt
radioactive
New member
So just to be sure, you should make a video and post it on youtube so we can all hear the sound difference ourselves! (J/K -- I'm quoting a guy who trolled RH from AS on one of his reviews).
Mike, did you ever say you were going to do this shootout or have you been voluntold
? No matter, I'm also interested to hear your thoughts on the difference.
Mike, did you ever say you were going to do this shootout or have you been voluntold
? No matter, I'm also interested to hear your thoughts on the difference.
radioactive
New member
This is a very important piece of information. For streaming services it will only be smaller because they won't be including the full lossless file with the MQA encoded version "folded" in. For everyone else buying a digital version of a FLAC file from your favorite site, it will have the standard FLAC compressed & encoded lossless PCM signal PLUS the MQA version so file size will be larger. One would think you could get the option to just download the MQA only version if you want, but I have no idea how they're going to do delivery for download services. It's easy for streaming since you know what the client is. Also, mathematically, one would think if the original PCM signal were there they could do a "diff" with their algorithm and layer on a "map" to process the file and the increased overhead would be negligible but it would require a bit more processing cycles.
BTW, Jim, you were right. I got a Tidal subscription and it does sound very good. I haven't done any A/B comparison with the exact same lossless files just yet, but I am impressed. With the integration of Roon, this is indeed an interesting time now that MQA stands to potentially improve matters (I'm still not buying MQA and will wait on investing in it until it's fully adopted by the market).
BTW, Jim, you were right. I got a Tidal subscription and it does sound very good. I haven't done any A/B comparison with the exact same lossless files just yet, but I am impressed. With the integration of Roon, this is indeed an interesting time now that MQA stands to potentially improve matters (I'm still not buying MQA and will wait on investing in it until it's fully adopted by the market).
CDLehner
New member
So...can anyone confirm; these MQA files http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html light the magic-light, in their set-up?
And what is that set-up?
And what is that set-up?
As explained before, it's larger than redbook FLAC but smaller than hi-res PCM. If you get a MQA 24/44.1 from Tidal, it will have the folding included.
(In the unlikely event Tidal decide to use MQA 24/88.2 or MQA 24/96, then they do not need to have folding because it's already hi-res.)
Could you connect your MQA DAC to a computer temporarily to try that? At least you can confirm it's not your DAC problem (but you will have to make sure your computer software player is setup to send bitperfect audio.)
CDLehner
New member
I thought about that...as I have a couple of CAPS streamers still. But it would be an awful lot of work; and I find it hard to believe...the Aurender would somehow render MQA files, not MQA to the Brooklyn.
CDLehner
New member
:blush: :blush: :blush:
:blush:I can't be positive, mind you; but I think setting my Brooklyn...to MQA decoder 'disabled'. Might have had something to do with it.
Hey...in my defense: when I first set it up, I thought "I'm not using this processing; let's defeat it, from being in the signal chain".
So...my heart was in the right place; just not me head :facepalm: :mock: :tutu:
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,106
:blush: :blush: :blush:
I can't be positive, mind you; but I think setting my Brooklyn...to MQA decoder 'disabled'. Might have had something to do with it.
Hey...in my defense: when I first set it up, I thought "I'm not using this processing; let's defeat it, from being in the signal chain".
So...my heart was in the right place; just not me head :facepalm: :mock: :tutu:
Gump!
:blush: :blush: :blush:
I can't be positive, mind you; but I think setting my Brooklyn...to MQA decoder 'disabled'. Might have had something to do with it.
Hey...in my defense: when I first set it up, I thought "I'm not using this processing; let's defeat it, from being in the signal chain".
So...my heart was in the right place; just not me head :facepalm: :mock: :tutu:
Congrats on having solved the Mystery of the Missing MQA in Brooklyn.
So, tell us, how goes the Brooklyn with MQA vs non- MQA files?
lallygagger
New member
Since I got this in an email but now cannot find it in this thread I am assuming that this is the one that was deleted
---Quote (Originally by j2020)---
Downloaded MQA files from the 2L website and the verdict is in.
All the MQA files are breathtakingly superior to the non-MQA versions.
One MQA 96/24 file sounds better than the 192/24 non-MQA version.
But even without considering hi-res with or without MQA, the 808v6 is brilliant on its own with redbook.
---End Quote---
If it is this one, why would you delete it? This thread is entitled ''MQA Discussion'' not ''Brooklyn and Aurender Discussion.''
Personally I would like to hear more about how MQA is breathtakingly superior to non MQA. Could you please give some more descriptive details?
I recently got the Esoteric N-05 dac/network player and I wanted to break in both coaxial and usb inputs adequately before sharing my experience. What has the N-05 to do with MQA? A lot actually, which I will come to presently. I shall break up my posts into parts to highlight the salient points.
1. What has equipment got to do with MQA?
Equipment is needed to play MQA files and these can be played only via usb or ethernet inputs. So, a lot about how MQA sounds depends on these 2 inputs and how well they are implemented.
2. How does the Meridian 808v6 sound via its usb vs coaxial vs ethernet inputs?
The 808v6 sounds very good via usb but not as good via coax due to the limitation of the iFi usb-spdif converter used in my experiment. I cannot comment on the ethernet input as I could not try this in my set-up.
3. How does the 808v6 sound for redbook vs non-MQA hires vs MQA hires?
The 808v6 sounds excellent for all 3 formats and each format is a step-up in SQ but generally it is the "same" sound in that there is an incremental increase in quality for all sonic parameters but all cut from the same cloth. This makes me wonder whether Meridian which makes much of its powerful DSP engine has developed an algorithm that pulls deviations from its "idealised" response curve towards it. I find redbook from different labels like Sony, Reference Recordings, Mercury Living Stereo, Telarc, ECM, Concord Jazz, Verve, MoFi, etc sounding the "same" in that the differences in recording techniques/venues don't change much. Likewise for non-MQA hires and MQA.
1. What has equipment got to do with MQA?
Equipment is needed to play MQA files and these can be played only via usb or ethernet inputs. So, a lot about how MQA sounds depends on these 2 inputs and how well they are implemented.
2. How does the Meridian 808v6 sound via its usb vs coaxial vs ethernet inputs?
The 808v6 sounds very good via usb but not as good via coax due to the limitation of the iFi usb-spdif converter used in my experiment. I cannot comment on the ethernet input as I could not try this in my set-up.
3. How does the 808v6 sound for redbook vs non-MQA hires vs MQA hires?
The 808v6 sounds excellent for all 3 formats and each format is a step-up in SQ but generally it is the "same" sound in that there is an incremental increase in quality for all sonic parameters but all cut from the same cloth. This makes me wonder whether Meridian which makes much of its powerful DSP engine has developed an algorithm that pulls deviations from its "idealised" response curve towards it. I find redbook from different labels like Sony, Reference Recordings, Mercury Living Stereo, Telarc, ECM, Concord Jazz, Verve, MoFi, etc sounding the "same" in that the differences in recording techniques/venues don't change much. Likewise for non-MQA hires and MQA.
4. How does the Esoteric N-05 sound?
Excellent, more so for the usb input than the coaxial input after adequately burning in both(apologies to wklie in another thread for jumpng the gun). Again I cannot comment on the ethernet input. That the usb input is superior to coaxial is significant for hi-res exceeding 24/192 such as DXD, DSD and MQA. But the N-05 cannot play MQA for now.
5. How does the N-05 sound compared to K-01 and 808v6?
The N-05 via its usb input beats the K-01 spinning CD/SACD in its transport and handily beats the K-01's usb input too. This is important to me after having lived with the K-01 for almost 3 years and being very familiar with its sound. Compared to the 808v6, the N-05 beats it in all sonic parameters for redbook and non-MQA hires files. And the N-05 retains the different sonic qualities of the different labels/recording techniques/venues/etc. This is not to say the 808v6 does not sound good. It does and more so if you like its "idealised" dsp algorithm.
I also have to qualify here that the 808v6 sounds better direct to power amps while the N-05 needs a preamp as it has no digital volume control. Does the analog preamp play a role in this SQ?- certainly. So with Jim's Momentum preamp/Soolos/ethernet set-up, his experience with his soon-to-be-upgraded 808v6 could be vastly superior to mine with the N-05.
Excellent, more so for the usb input than the coaxial input after adequately burning in both(apologies to wklie in another thread for jumpng the gun). Again I cannot comment on the ethernet input. That the usb input is superior to coaxial is significant for hi-res exceeding 24/192 such as DXD, DSD and MQA. But the N-05 cannot play MQA for now.
5. How does the N-05 sound compared to K-01 and 808v6?
The N-05 via its usb input beats the K-01 spinning CD/SACD in its transport and handily beats the K-01's usb input too. This is important to me after having lived with the K-01 for almost 3 years and being very familiar with its sound. Compared to the 808v6, the N-05 beats it in all sonic parameters for redbook and non-MQA hires files. And the N-05 retains the different sonic qualities of the different labels/recording techniques/venues/etc. This is not to say the 808v6 does not sound good. It does and more so if you like its "idealised" dsp algorithm.
I also have to qualify here that the 808v6 sounds better direct to power amps while the N-05 needs a preamp as it has no digital volume control. Does the analog preamp play a role in this SQ?- certainly. So with Jim's Momentum preamp/Soolos/ethernet set-up, his experience with his soon-to-be-upgraded 808v6 could be vastly superior to mine with the N-05.