MQA at CES

[R1200CL]

That's how I understood Fitzcaraldo215's post; in order to take advantage of MQA a compatible DAC is needed, not just a software player. This requirement doesn't exist with FLAC however.

 

You don't need a MQA enabled DAC. Just look at Auralic streamers. However a SW player or a pure streamer only has a default DAC profile.

 

So if you are a very hard core audiophile, you purchase an expensive MQA DAC just to have the very last mile of correct decoding.

 

At this time the public probably do not know how important or not it will be to have a MQA DAC vs a reasonable player. But I gues this will bring a endless future discussion about SQ.

 

you may like to read this thread as well:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-music-downloads-and-streaming/tidal-high-res-mqa-news-26734/

[R1200CL]

Deleted. See next post.

[R1200CL]

There's a very interesting thread on the Roon forums about MQA. Worth a read, IMO:

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/tidal-to-launch-mqa-hi-res-audio-streaming-in-2016/5408

 

--David

Even more interesting Roon intend to support MQA.

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/mqa...-by-roon/88/24

[R1200CL]

Actually, the biggest promise of MQA (as far as I'm concerned) is that fully non-compressed streaming Internet radio will be possible from around the world while taking-up no more bandwidth than MP3 does now. I'm imagining "tuning-in" to WCRB in Boston on a Saturday night and getting to listen to a live concert of the Boston Symphony or listening to the Proms live on the BBC in 24/96 using an MQA equipped DAC. MQA downloads and perhaps MQA encoded discs will be nice too, but allowing the Internet to finally realize it's promise of high-quality music from around the world without lossy compression is what has me excited about the possibilities of MQA!

 

I like your vision ?

 

Are broadcasters allowed to send in CD quality or hi res ?

 

Which also has made me wonder why SQ is so bad on Netflix and similar vs BD...

[R1200CL]

Netflix is streaming 4K video at reasonable monthly cost. And the bitrates we are talking about in that context are much higher than 192/24 FLAC compressed audio streaming would be (even if it were 5.1 channel).

 

So bandwidth usage in regards to audio is nonsense.

 

Well, the sound on those files is not the same as from you BD player

[R1200CL]

I don't see any point in having "MQA DAC". DAC's purpose is to just convert sample to analog and that's all. For example the Mytek DAC currently having MQA support is using stock standard ESS Sabre DAC chip. Nothing special on that front. All the processing can be performed in software before the DAC if one wants to.

 

For apodizing filters one doesn't need MQA though.

 

You are a bit wrong, but also right. The standard SW for decoding MQA has a general DAC "signature". This I know for sure, but I do not know if the same signature will be used by everyboddy for MQA streamers and MQA SW players.

 

So normally if you like to go the very last mile, you need to be DAC spesific in decoding. That will normally be put into the DAC SW. However you could of cause make MAQ SW player's for the different DAC's available. I assume MQA will not deny you that.

 

I predict that in future discussions there will be a lot of arguing for and against the need of a MQA spesific DAC or not. How much will it affect the SQ ? Time will tell.

 

But Miska, you that are a commersial participant, why not email MQA as they request on their website, and offer the HQPlayer with MQA functionallity or as an addon ?

 

For me MAQ has only value when I use Tidal. Not sure if I can play Tidal through your player though ?

In some future I may purchase MAQ files as well. I may even get it through my B&W subscription. My DAC is based on TI PCM1792 PCM1792A | Audio DAC | Audio Converters | Description & parametrics, and since it cost a fortune, I would not mind a DAC spesific MAQ SW player.

[R1200CL]

If MQA has some magic processing, it could be all performed before encoding the thing as FLAC. Heck they could encode the "fancy" result as DXD FLAC. Then the listener doesn't need to have any special decoding stuff at their side.

 

You may like to learn a bit from here:

http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20160105/17501.pdf

[R1200CL]

If MQA has some magic processing, it could be all performed before encoding the thing as FLAC. Heck they could encode the "fancy" result as DXD FLAC. Then the listener doesn't need to have any special decoding stuff at their side.

 

Download here Miska and test it out

High Resolution Music DOWNLOAD services .:. FLAC in free TEST BENCH

 

Edit I was to quick. No MQA download yet. But at least DXD.

[R1200CL]

Interesting reading (over morning coffee), but I'm still not convinced.

 

If you like to buy a trac in order to test an old recording from 1993 restored with MQA : https://shop.klicktrack.com/2l/468051

(Also available on Tidal)

 

If the marketing BS is true, you should hear a huge? difference even without a MQA enabled streamer/player/DAC.

 

Have you tried Tidal hi-fi subscription ? I found it better than CD, as others have done. So I sold my expensive Vadia 581SE GNS.

 

Of cause this is also about how you play your stream. I think the value of Tidal is great. I will also test out Roon later. I'm looking forward to the Tidal MQA streaming.

[R1200CL]

After firmware update Auralic players will support MQA with a general DAC profile,

 

The Auralic mini will have a DAC profile based on filters and timing that are profiled for the Auralic mini DAC.

 

I do not know if Auralic mini on spdif use the same profile or the default one.

So you do not need a MAQ DAC to play MQA code FLAC, since a streamer or SW player can decode the MQA file based on a preset general DAC profile.

 

Anyone state that you need a MQA DAC in order to decode MQA content, is not correct.

How much this will imply on SQ, I do not know, but I would guess that most DAC's are not so different in filters and timing. This is things I do not have any knowlegde of.

 

Also we do not know if players and streamers will use the same DAC profile all over.

 

Maybe in the future you can order tuned profiles to your DAC. (If allowed?)

Se also post #90

[R1200CL]

So, it's all about upsampling rbcd content and offering it as "Hi-Res" after all. Just as I predicted/feared... I can't understand why some folks are so hyped by this lossy, upsampled, proprietary format.

 

As far as I have understood MAQ, there is no upsampling. If I bought one of those song from 1993, I suppose it could be verified by the size of your downloaded file.

 

Has Bob Steward said any place upsampling ? He has said use the original master tape/recording.

[R1200CL]

 

I would certainly listen to more of Tidal, if it natively worked in Chromecast Audio. Right now though, most of my listening is limited to my music collection.

 

Tidal has said they will support Chromecast Audio. Should be a good option.

I use Squeezebox Touch with iPeng app on my iPad.

[R1200CL]

So they could decode it before streaming and delivery and deliver just ordinary standard FLAC, nothing of MQA needed at playback side.

 

Very interesting point, but that is the same as when Tidal offers MQA, and SW players also do, or streamers,,then we are there.

 

After all they must be allowed to earn a bit. Why take the effort to implement MQA if you don't get some in return.

 

Also in any case you would still missing the endpoint DAC profile optimisation. Right ?

(And we do not know how much that will count for a long time)

[R1200CL]

I know and have those files. So I still don't understand where you need MQA. They have the MQA files here:

https://shop.klicktrack.com/2l/468051?

 

Now tell me why there's no non-MQA hires (already decoded) download available there to compare? MQA version is remastered and upsampled version of the original:

Recorded in 44.1kHz/16bit by Lindberg Lyd, Norway, May 1993

 

Maybe because you would still need you local DAC profile in the decoder. Still they claim you would benefit from the MQA file without a MAQ supported playback device.

 

I would suspect the MQA file you purchase has no compression. If it has, it is as you indicate almost meaningless to purchase MQA download files.

 

As said first one, on this forum that spend the $3 on one track can enlight us all about if the file is compressed or not.

 

Yesterday I email MQA and ask why not any free MQA files also could be downloaded from the test area.

[R1200CL]

In addition to nobody even asking for it, for three reasons:

1) They would want some serious $$$ for it

2) I'm not interested (I'm not interested on AAC or MP3 either, so it is not just MQA)

3) There's no way for me to make verification that it doesn't negatively impact sound quality/technical performance

 

Of cause nobody ask yet. MQA went online this week. And I was suggesting it as a benefit for your product and potensial costumers. As well as the present ones that would like MQA.

 

1) That you do not know yet. Roon has confirmed to implement support with no extra cost. You have to email them in order to know.

 

2) Fair enough maybe, but you seems like a person very interested in good quality. (Within open standars)

 

3) Yes, if you email them as I suggest. They will give you neccessary support. Read their FAQ.

 

I can understand it seems useless to implement mp3 support. HQ do have a meaning . I guess you could avoid the license fee by using similar solution as LMS.

[R1200CL]

 

I say all this but when I got into my car last night I had been streaming some Linda Oh to my phone via Tidal. In the house, I go ahead and stream it 16/44 as it is on wifi (and I can hear the difference during my workout with decent earbuds). In the car, it switches to "normal" (128 I am guessing) as my phone data is capped. My phone is bluetoothed to the car stereo. Soooo, I heard about 30 seconds of Linda Oh at Tidal 16/44 (processed down through bluetooth to car stereo), then a pause, then the track started over as lossy. I could hear a bit of a difference, which surprised me as I would have thought bluetooth's compression would have ruined any advantage of the Tidal source. Linda's bass lost a bit of transient snap and detail. Would anyone but an obsessive budding "audiophile" such as myself have noticed? I tend to think the answer is no, but....

 

you do know there are some settings to adjust streaming quality. ?

Anyway what I like to say, you can download music to your phone in full lossless quality from Tidal in case you did not know. Works very vell over Bluetooth.

[R1200CL]

I believe Mr. Stewart said in the interview with Chris a few months back, that only MQA hardware DACs would do the subtractive dither.

 

Did you read my posts?

Or do you not accept the facts I'm telling ?

Again a SW player or a streamer has a default DAC profile. If you dispute that fact, well then I do not know what to say.

 

Of cause it is not to expect that SW players will offer different DAC profiles, but technical it could be done.

 

If you are not happy with that profile offered, yes you need a MQA DAC. Very simple.

[R1200CL]

Not sure what your problem is with what I posted, especially as it was quoted from Robert Stewart. Wasn't something I decided. Do you understand how subtractive dither works and that it is different than additive dither the latter being the norm in audio gear? Do you understand that subtractive dither which is part of MQA is only one part of it, and not the whole? You could have software MQA which does everything except not the subtractive dither (which seemed to be what Mr. Stewart was implying).

 

No I'm not into dither. I do know DAC profile compensate for timing and filter issues. Please explain why that (dither) can't be applied in player streamer SW ?

[R1200CL]

No it doesn't.

 

FLAC (typically) has a bit rate of 800 kbps to 1100 kbps, while Bluetooth is limited to 384 kbps.

 

There is no way you can stream FLAC content via Bluetooth. It buffers and stutters no end. You are limited to playing/streaming the likes of Spotify and MP3 rips over Bluetooth speakers.

 

Precisely the reason why folks (like me) are loving Chromecast Audio.

 

Sorry I was wrong then. Now I know why I should not purchase a expensive Bluetooth headset. Thanks for correct me.

 

http://www.aptx.com/howitworks2

Almost CD quality then

[R1200CL]

Not sure when made available, but MQA is here and can be downloaded. 2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH

 

And the file is compressed, which I did not expect. I think a purchase of MAQ for download is quite meaningless, as streaming gives you exactly the same SQ then.

 

Edit:

francisleung, the MQA files you phurchased was also in less size, like 1/5 equal to those free download ones and 16/44,1 as well ?

 

And thanks for sharing this with us.

[R1200CL]

To work correctly and not cause problems the exact identity and filtering of the DAC must be known.

 

You are correct. And I have never said anything else myself.

[R1200CL]

While this could be chosen in software if known, from what I can tell, at least initially, Robert Stewart does not intend to allow this because he wants to eliminate the possibility of someone choosing incorrectly and getting compromised sound.

 

As I also indicated, it can be done, but most likely not. So that is why a streamer like Auralic offer a "universal" DAC optimised profile.

 

So do we now agree on what is technical possible and also what so far is known done ?

[R1200CL]

If you don't have MQA decoding you are getting 16 bit performance. Bob Stewart says even without the decoding you will get something that sounds better than plain 16 bit 44.1 because the de-blurred filtering upstream in the process is still beneficial. So a redbook CD file and a non-decoded MQA file allegedly will have the MQA still a better sounding file.

 

I'm surprised (if true) that a 24/352,8 is downsampled to 16/44,1 or 48 when phurchased from the store. 2L states original resolution.

 

Well if decompressing in streamer or SW player gives 24/352,8 it may be OK, but does it ?

My DAC has max 24/192, so I would not want 352,8.

 

I understand that MQA can be applied to any master quality, but when sold as original recorded in 24/352,8, well then I expect to get that.

Well if I had a MQA player I could verify. Still this is important to know, cause then DAC requirements has changed. And in worst case that could apply to streaming as well.

 

Now I'm confused.

 

Anyone know what DAC was used in privious demos and their specs ?

[R1200CL]

I don't know. What is technically possible is of course plenty open ended. What is known is somewhat obscured by Bob Stuart being careful about not saying all. As the MQA people will get to decide what is and is not allowed who knows yet. They have indicated the various parameters of what is allowed will change over time that is part of the plan and why getting definitive answers is so hard right now.

 

As neither of us can be exactly sure I am not going to be too hard headed either way about very many things in regard to MQA. It is part of an 18 month rollout and much confusion has been allowed or even encouraged about it so far. I have seen where the Meridian Explorer 2 DAC said to be an MQA DAC is still on .9 version firmware and won't really fully do MQA until they release 1.0 firmware which hasn't yet happened. Someone downloaded those 2L MQA files and don't get the MQA indicator lit.

 

I only wanted you to accept the fact that you do not need a MQA DAC, and that a streamer like Auralic has a universal DAC profile.

 

I agree with you in the rest you say. Things are open. To me hi-res was 24/96 via Tidal. Maybe 24/192. Now as we know that any type og studio master file can be MAQ coded, and sold, I'm starting to wonder how many different MQA versions is offered, and if I in worst case would get into DAC limitations with using a SW player / streamer.

 

I would expect there must or should be some minimum requirements to a MQA DAC, but then again this is not a standard. Rater a filosofi Bob has stated.

[R1200CL]

I've got an email from 2L confirming all MQA is coded / implemented in the original recording resolution. ((Which I understand will apply for all record companies)

 

Before decoding it will look like 44,1 or 48 depending on the original studio file samplerate.

I did also understood that the file will allways look like 16 bit before decoding. (Cause I framed my question that the file looks like 16/XX.)

http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20160110/18046.pdf

 

It is also confirmed the unpacked file will be equal to the original one. So for 2L it would in most cases be 24/352,8.

 

Which I guess would also apply to Tidal files, but I would like to have that confirmed as well. As we then understand some DAC limitations may occor. (Your present DAC).