Randy Myers
Well-known member
I would hope that they would release the capability of adding MQA decoding to software suits like Roon.
MQA Discussion
- Thread starter still-one
- Start date
radioactive
New member
I would not be heartened by what they said. Consider DSD. If you download DSD files you need a player that can support them. If you don't have a DAC that can natively support DSD (via DoP) then your software player must support converting it to PCM on the fly (which is currently problematic with 2x DSD and higher on some players, but I digress). So if you really want to hear DSD at its full resolution, or "as it is" your DAC must support it. The same thing applies to MQA. It's a format that must be supported by the DAC to play it back natively (from everything I read -- If anyone knows something I don't please chime in).
As for Auralic, MQA pulled their demo and gear because they (MQA) claim that converting it to PCM degrades the quality of MQA and doesn't take advantage of the inherent advantages of doing the decoding in an approved DAC (thus the little light telling you the complete signal is "end to end certified as the artist intended" -- you would lose that verification/validation of the "integrity" of the signal.) Whether or not you believe their statement is another thing. This could be them protecting their Intellectual Property - if you could pass MQA to a PCM capture device you could theoretically easily pirate the audio and remove their proprietary encoding.
On a side note, it's interesting to see everyone come out and admit that MQA is trying to solve for a problem that only exists in time-aligned systems (loudspeakers). I know my Alexia's are time-aligned, and a lot of other high-end speakers are, but what about headphones? Aren't they targeting the mass market who are using their mobile phones and playing back via headphones? And what about the rest of the 98% of listeners who don't have a time-aligned system? Are they going to tell the difference (assuming they could do an A/B comparison)?
lallygagger
New member
In my email to MQA I specifically asked if they had any intention of releasing a software version which could be used as a plug in with players such as Audirvana or if it was always going to be necessary to buy hardware such as DACs encoded for MQA playback and I got back the answer that they were going to issue a''software player''...
Since I specifically asked about the necessity of a new DAC, in her answer to me I think Lisa would have confirmed the necessity of having an MQA supporting DAC if indeed that were the case.
I then shot her back an email telling her that was great news for me because I did not want to have to get rid of my present DAC. Since then I have received no email correcting my perceptions.
I may be wrong about this (please correct me if I am), but I think I read a while back that MQA is a proprietary software for which DAC manufacturers who wish to incorporate it in their products must pay the licensing fee. If that is the case, the perhaps it does not make any difference if the software is actually in the DAC or in the music server/computer prior to the DAC.
still-one
Active member
- Thread Author
- #464
I am wondering if the response you received actually answered the question you were asking. From everything I have read MQA is supposed to deliver a analog output and not a digital output that could be accepted by a DAC. That does not mean the MQA will not evolve depending upon how many "partners" are willing to come aboard.
Ii is very, very unlikely that an MQA file will be allowed to be output digitally to a non-MQA dac.
The licensing fees would dictate that an MQA file can only be decoded by an MQA dac to its analog outputs as rightly said.
This is to protect the proprietary digital code, which is quite a straightforward business decision.
lallygagger
New member
All very valid points. So what do you think she meant when she said that they were going to release a software player?
She gave you an answer that you like to hear and hoped you would go away after that.
Roon users have been asking for a software MQA decode solution for the longest time, and if there's any chance, they would be the first to know, and there's no announcement so far.
A software player is not necessarily what one hopes it to be. It could simply be a software component supplied to partners for further integration. I'll be glad to be proven wrong though.
A software player is not necessarily what one hopes it to be. It could simply be a software component supplied to partners for further integration. I'll be glad to be proven wrong though.
still-one
Active member
- Thread Author
- #471
This is just a guess and others may have better ideas. They might develop a software based player that they insert in a "portable" device. The portable device might be able to receive streamed MQA files (if the ever arrive). The software could process and output those files to the "analog" headphone jack of the portable device.
lallygagger
New member
A rather pessimistic way of looking at things.
What possible advantage would she have for not answering my question fully and honestly? It takes her just as long to write one thing as it would to write another. And I would be just as likely to ''go away'' if she had told me, ''no, you are still going to have to either modify your hardware or purchase new hardware. ''
So I see no reason for her to give me the ''answer that you like to hear.''
lallygagger
New member
I sent her another email today asking the question with more specific terminology so there can be no equivocation. I have yet to receive an answer.
radioactive
New member
I am not as cynical about her answer. I just think she didn't understand the question fully. It's likely they will have software players, they just won't output a signal that is "un-proprietary". In this case it would be playing back MQA AND bitstreaming out an MQA encoded signal (who knows, they may even encrypt/protect the signal like HDMI does - we just don't know what that will look like yet on the wire between MQA Player and MQA Dac). It's a 99.9999% certainty you'll need an MQA-Capable DAC - almost like DSD (except you can convert DSD to PCM and get a large amount of the benefits -- DoP anyone?).
And like I said, there will certainly be software players. How else do they expect the masses to play back their proprietary files? They're not going to put them on silver discs anytime soon that I know of. There are only so many ways to play them back:
1. Via some sort of software component
2. Via some kind of hardware streamer that supports MQA
3. Via putting them on a USB drive and attaching that to your DAC/Player.
In the 2nd case, you'd potentially need to buy two components: the streamer hardware and the MQA DAC. In the 1st and 3rd case, you'd just need an MQA DAC. The point here is that the more mechanisms of securely playing back MQA they can engineer/socialize the more market penetration they will get. I assume they're doing full market analyses based on all the press and blunder they're spewing out.
still-one
Active member
- Thread Author
- #475
I may be wrong but as I understand DoP doesn't covert DSD to PCM. Maybe this is what you meant but used convert inadvertently.
It involves taking groups of 16 adjacent 1-bit samples from a DSD stream and packing them into the lower 16 bits of a 24/176.4 data stream. Data from the other channel of the stereo pair is packed the same way. A specific marker code in the top 8 bits identifies the data stream as DoP, rather than PCM. The resulting DoP stream can be transmitted through existing 24/192-capable USB, AES, Dual AES or SPDIF interfaces to a DoP-compatible DAC, which reassembles the original stereo DSD data stream COMPLETELY UNCHANGED.
Let's wait for her next response. She would have to check with BS first.
It is unlikely to be BS's wont to respond personally in internet fora unlike the head honchos at Ayre, Bryston or PS Audio.
Saying that audiophiles won't be able to listen in the right context in an A/B would garner much bombardment if and when he does appear.
lallygagger
New member
lallygagger
New member
If the only way to play back MQA will be through an MQA capable DAC, then I don't understand your logic here with respect to software players for getting the masses to accept MQA.
It seems to me that we audiophiles are the only people interested in great sound quality to the extent that we are actually willing to spend the money to have things like stand alone DACs in order to get it.
The average person questions our sanity when/if they find out how much we spend chasing down ''perfect'' sound.
Do you really think that the masses are going to give up the players that they have and pay not only for software but also an MQA Capable DAC?
radioactive
New member
Bad choice of words. Meant "encode" not convert. You're correct about how DoP is encoded.
radioactive
New member
The Meridian Explorer is very affordable and does MQA. I would expect MQA (as previously stated here) will support mobile phones and have direct analog out to headphones. The real question is if the quality will be that noticeable under those circumstances.