MQA Discussion

radioactive said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Meridian Explorer is very affordable by our standards but not necessarily by those of the average joe who has already spent $700 or more for his cell phone.
And due to the fact that the Explorer's performance in other formats has been shown not to be up to par, it is not a DAC that we would want to have as our only DAC.
I would like to have only one DAC and I happen to love the DAC I presently have... the AMR DP 777 SE... which doesn't even do DSD. I have another DAC, the Auralic Vega, which does do DSD, but I don't find anything particularly spectacular about DSD. To my ear, the AMR reproduces many of my 44.1 tracks better than the Vega reproduces most of my DSD tracks (of which I have many). So if I had to get rid of one of these DACs it would be the Vega.

(I seem to remember that someone, perhaps on this thread a while back, expressed the same doubts about DSD after having done some AB testing. I felt that they were expressing my sentiments exactly.)

AMR, however, is not yet convinced that they are going to implement MQA. They want to wait and see what ultimately happens (with respect to how it will be received by the public)... not in the US, but in Europe where, they tell me, DSD has never really caught on (which is why AMR has not yet implemented it in their flagship DAC... although they have in some of their iFi products).

However there is something that I don't understand so I ask those of you who are more technologically hip than I am to help me.

Present day cell phones play digital files. This means that they have their own digital to analogue converter. The DACs in these phones, like my AMR, are not MQA encoded.

But on this forum people are saying that MQA will most likely issue software which will allow cellphones to play MQA files with their non MQA DACs. Also on this forum I am told that software players downloaded on our computers... perhaps as a plug in to use with players like Audirvana... will still not allow us to play MQA with our non MQA standalone DACs.

Can someone please explain this discrepancy to me? Wouldn't a cellphone by necessity have to have an internal MQA encoded DAC in order to play MQA files?

If my reasoning on this is accurate, this would mean that the average person... the masses (as someone put it)... would have to jettison their present cellphones and purchase new cellphones if they want that kind of quality.

Personally, I don't see the masses as being interested enough in sound quality to the point that they will do such a thing. DSD has been around for a while and I am not aware of people clamoring for cellphones that will reproduce DSD, or even 44.1 for that matter.
I am aware of the fact that cellphone memory is limited and thus MP3 is more appropriate but I still think that the average person just doesn't care, plus, if am not mistaken MQA hi res files are about the size of 44.1 files, are they not?

My girlfriend who has been with me since I started my quest for great sound and who by now has a very educated ear (her hearing is actually better than mine) and who loves the sound of my system, is still just as happy to listen to MP3 files on her cellphone. And she certainly would not pay more euro for the privilege listening to hi-res reproduced by it. I know she is a sample of one. But I'll bet there are many many like her.

MP3 files, on an average, are about 8 megabytes, higher quality MP3 gets to about 14 MB. MQA files on an average are 40 megabytes. Someone loading up their cellphone with MQA files would have a lot less of them in the phone's storage.

It is possible that MQA might form alliances with Apple and Samsung and other cellphone manufacturers who will begin incorporating ipso facto MQA encoded DACs in their products. Then when cellphones die and/or people just simply decide to buy a new one they would automatically get one with MQA, and the phones memory would have to significantly be expanded... all of which woud most likely come at higher cost. And then they would also have to pay more for the downloaded MQA files.

Of course, I am not taking into account streaming which might make all the difference. It may be that, at the end of the day, downloading files will become a thing of the past.

I know that my reasoning may not hold water and, if so, somebody educate me, please.
 
Just mentioning this as a case in point, Bluesound recently added full MQA decoding to their product line. The upgrade was performed via a firmware upgrade without any change to their existing hardware. It supports playback of MQA files in your library and streaming via Tidal once they activate MQA streaming.
 
In the ideal case, MQA is (1) decoded and unfolded, by hardware or software or hybrid means, and (2) further processed to de-blur for particular DAC hardware characteristics.

The need for (2) is the argument for end-to-end processing, which implies people have to get a MQA DAC to fully enjoy MQA.

While having (1) only without (2) is still quite useful, apparently MQA did not want this to happen, resulting in the Auralic CES incident.

Conjecture: In case some sort of software-only solutions do appear on a certain platform only, it may imply restriction (2) is relaxed on such platforms, assuming that player cannot possibly de-blur all different DAC chips that may be used in that platform. This discrepancy becomes a business issue rather than a technical issue.

Conjecture: And in case a PC software player does become available to do (1) without restricting support to a list of known USB DAC only, then restriction (2) is lifted entirely.
 
audio.bill said:
Just mentioning this as a case in point, Bluesound recently added full MQA decoding to their product line. The upgrade was performed via a firmware upgrade without any change to their existing hardware. It supports playback of MQA files in your library and streaming via Tidal once they activate MQA streaming.
Click to expand...


wklie said:
In the ideal case, MQA is (1) decoded and unfolded, by hardware or software or hybrid means, and (2) further processed to de-blur for particular DAC hardware characteristics.

The need for (2) is the argument for end-to-end processing, which implies people have to get a MQA DAC to fully enjoy MQA.

While having (1) only without (2) is still quite useful, apparently MQA did not want this to happen, resulting in the Auralic CES incident.

In case some sort of software-only solutions do appear on a certain platform only, it may imply restriction (2) is relaxed on such platforms, assuming that player cannot possibly de-blur all different DAC chips that may be used in that platform. This discrepancy becomes a business issue rather than a technical issue.

And in case a PC software player does become available to do (1) without restricting support to a list of known USB DAC only, then restriction (2) is lifted entirely.
Click to expand...

Ok, what I am getting from from the above is this:

1. New or modified hardware is not strictly technologically necessary, as demonstrated in the case of Bluesound which did not have to substitute or modify any of their hardware.

2. Whether or not we will be required to buy new hardware or modify our existing hardware is a decision that MQA will make based on business considerations, not technological considerations.

Am I understanding it correctly?
 
wklie said:
In the ideal case, MQA is (1) decoded and unfolded, by hardware or software or hybrid means, and (2) further processed to de-blur for particular DAC hardware characteristics.

The need for (2) is the argument for end-to-end processing, which implies people have to get a MQA DAC to fully enjoy MQA.

While having (1) only without (2) is still quite useful, apparently MQA did not want this to happen, resulting in the Auralic CES incident.

In case some sort of software-only solutions do appear on a certain platform only, it may imply restriction (2) is relaxed on such platforms, assuming that player cannot possibly de-blur all different DAC chips that may be used in that platform. This discrepancy becomes a business issue rather than a technical issue.

And in case a PC software player does become available to do (1) without restricting support to a list of known USB DAC only, then restriction (2) is lifted entirely.
Click to expand...


So this is news to me. I wasn't aware they were letting their "end-to-end process" be interrupted. I could see this as a way to lessen the perceived quality of MQA if it's not completely processed as MQA states needs to be done. I can imagine people listening to audio with #1 (as you explained) and not being very impressed and thus telling everyone that MQA sounds bad (or not better). From everything I've ready MQA (BS and company) want to control every aspect of playback, I am shocked they would let this happen. Where did you read this?

FWIW - I'm not an MQA fanboy. Jury is out for me. But I'd still like to be fair and find out if it's ever going to be as good as the marketing claims (and as the Absolute Sound thinks).
 
lallygagger said:
1. New or modified hardware is not strictly technologically necessary, as demonstrated in the case of Bluesound which did not have to substitute or modify any of their hardware.

2. Whether or not we will be required to buy new hardware or modify our existing hardware is a decision that MQA will make based on business considerations, not technological considerations.
Click to expand...

Whether MQA can be added to existing DAC by firmware-only means depends on the hardware capabilities of the DAC and whether the DAC manufacturer is willing to go through and work with MQA on the licensing. Not all DAC can do this (without hardware changes), especially older ones. Whether you'll be able to get a free firmware upgrade for whatever DAC you use is mostly a decision by your DAC manufacturer, it'll involve both technical and business considerations.
 
radioactive said:
I wasn't aware they were letting their "end-to-end process" be interrupted.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying they are. Therefore, I'm not so sure there can be a software player on PC that delivers full benefits of MQA with any unknown generic DAC, because this seems like a contradiction to the end-to-end MQA model and previous MQA claims about de-blurring DAC. This is just my understanding from all the MQA materials I read (and I read quite a bit.) I can still be wrong though. Or perhaps they can be really ambitious and provide user-selectable deblurring for a huge list of popular DAC that people use, but that seems to be too much work without DAC manufacturer cooperation.

About (2), it comes from http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/01/mqa-promises-something-for-everyone/
In order to prevent signal blurring, it must be tuned to each make/model of downstream DAC chip. This is why we don’t yet see MQA-accredited streamers that only output (digitally) to a user-selected outboard DAC box – how does the MQA software know to which DAC chip it is talking? Stuart says an adjustable MQA software decoder will come “eventually”.
Click to expand...
 
Never mind the MQA hardware and the MQA software code to run the hardware, someone tell us when you can buy some MQA music that people are familiar with and love.
 
mep said:
Never mind the MQA hardware and the MQA software code to run the hardware, someone tell us when you can buy some MQA music that people are familiar with and love.
Click to expand...

Yup, a huge issue for sure that may make all this other stuff (as you point out) irrelevant. I think this goes to show that trying to do what MQA is attempting is like pushing boulders up mountains and it's very likely to fail without significant numbers of partners working in unison. I don't see that, rather there are a lot of detractors and the one major content provider (music label) doesn't move quickly for anything/anyone. MQA would have been instantly successful if they would have just changed their stringent implementation dogma. I'm not sure how much they've invested in it, but I highly doubt it requires a cut/take/percentage of everyone's equipment, software, and music; they got greedy in their strategy and frankly I believe that's going to be their downfall. It's truly a shame if it turns out to be a great technology, but they don't seem to be about the greater good of audio as much as profit.
 
radioactive said:
Yup, a huge issue for sure that may make all this other stuff (as you point out) irrelevant. I think this goes to show that trying to do what MQA is attempting is like pushing boulders up mountains and it's very likely to fail without significant numbers of partners working in unison. I don't see that, rather there are a lot of detractors and the one major content provider (music label) doesn't move quickly for anything/anyone. MQA would have been instantly successful if they would have just changed their stringent implementation dogma. I'm not sure how much they've invested in it, but I highly doubt it requires a cut/take/percentage of everyone's equipment, software, and music; they got greedy in their strategy and frankly I believe that's going to be their downfall. It's truly a shame if it turns out to be a great technology, but they don't seem to be about the greater good of audio as much as profit.
Click to expand...

Agree with everything you said and we may never know if it's a truly great technology or another digital flash in the pan that couldn't withstand the bright light of audiophile ears listening to it.
 
Hey, still no audio/listening vs ___
Cool.
Because, you know, if you get 3 audiophiles in the same room they can't change the lightbulb...
 
Here's the latest interview with Spencer Chrislu, MQA's director of content services. It sounds very encouraging but still no dates on when content will become available. :popcorn:
 
Read the interview when the latest issue came out. Didn't learn much, as it did not really say anything.

Even John's comments were rather vague: he heard a difference, but only 4 times out of 7. Not very convincing, sounds to me like it's not even obvious MQA sq is a home run, let alone the other issues addressed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
MQA...

wheres-the-beef1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top