R1200CL Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Apparently there is going to be a "general DAC profile" in software for systems where the DAC isn't known. I read this yesterday, in some of the CES coverage, don't remember where. One of the manufacturers has confirmed this too in an email to me. That is why I'm quite hardheaded about that point in discussion. Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 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). I have made a small misinform. The compressed file will keep it's original bit. So in most 2L cases that means 24 bit not 16 as indicated above. Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I always try to buy the original resolution, what ever it is. Regardless of my DAC(s) capabilities. And let playback software convert the content to a format most suitable for the DAC I am currently using. A very good advice. Thanks. Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 But in case of the currently available demo track it is 44.1/16 which is the original recording resolution? Miska. Not sure if I understand your question. There are several demo tracks made available in different original recording resolution. Even a 16/44 as well as 96, and DXD. So I'm 99,9% sure the original bit (16 or 24) is kept untuched during transport, but the sampling frequenzy base is either 44.1 or 48 during transport. (The latter confirmed by 2L) When unpacked you will get back the original sampling frequenzy. 2L stats: (I translate from Norwegian, my native language) "Then it unpacks to the optimal sampling frequency for your specific DAC." Which may open for some interpretations. And rise new questions. Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Any suggestion who will benefit from this horrible decition. I can only see DAC manufacturers. Can it be a temporary restriction ? Is Apple hiding behind the scene, if so what could they acquire from this ? Are they suffering from hangover Will it make more profit to MQA, and if so how ? Where is the logic ? I could see a very smal technical reason to MQA decition. I think it has been discussed in the AES paper. As an example most of the 2L MQA files are 24/352.8. If Auralic should follow my understanding of keep the file pure, they could only deliver the MQA unpacked file in it's original format. That would probably limit the numbers of DAC's that could be used ? And I guess only USB could be the carrier. No spdif ? As spdif 24/192 ? Then Auralic and others could downsampled by 2 or 4 and open for several more present DAC's, but this may not be according to MQA strict requirements ? Any thoughts to all my questions ? Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I have my doubts that Meridian at this point will allow this Tidal scenario to happen through an Auralic streamer . Why do you all blame Meridian. Is it MQA and Bob the ones to blame ? (Even though almost same owners). Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Well, to wax philosophical, no it is not a "win" for most folks. Getting 16/44 and above locked into an "authentication" (DRM is such a dirty word) scheme (whether by hardware, software, or a combination) is not a "win", excepting of course for those who it is (i.e. part of the music industry and their investors/owners). This of course gets into the debate about open vs closed formats, software, and systems. Those of us who value open systems probably will not value what SQ improvement MQA brings over and above 24/192PCM/DSD with good filters and open playback hardware and software. My music collection is far larger (which means the industry and artists have more of my $money$) than my DVD/Blueray collection (Hollywood has a lot less of my $money$), and the reason is DRM. I will not be $investing$ in a closed system for a SQ tweak... I'm still not sure your statment about 16/44.1 is correct. To my best knowlegde confirmed by 2L you get one of the following MQA streams: 16/44.1 16/48 24/44.1 24/48 not sure if 32 is an option. Has it not been confirmed by others that these formats is what you get when download MQA ? Am I wrong ? Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Well, any MQA encoded file (no matter the original resolution) can only play at 16/44 as that is all a non-MQA DAC (i.e. standard PCM DAC) can "see". That is why the user upstream who downloaded the 2L MQA files is only hearing 16/44, because that is all his DAC can see in the data without MQA hardware or software "awareness". If you have MQA playback software (the kind that Tidal will allegedly supply you through an app) that can "unpack" the high res data from an MQA encoded file, then your regular old PCM DAC will be able to process the high res content, because the software will make it look like a standard PCM file. No one has such software yet as far as I am aware because none has been released. The above sentence probably just means that whether you have an MQA DAC, software MQA decoding to regular DAC, or simply are playing a MQA file to a regular DAC without any hardware/software "awareness" of MQA, the MQA file will "play" because it is backwards compatible and "works" (in the sense that you hear sound) in these 3 scenarios... why can't the DAC see 24 if you get 24/44 ? Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Look what they did to Auralic ! And at the CES show to boot . I'm missing something here. What did Meridian do ? Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Well, this aspect of it is obscure to me. I think it was Miska who explained that the MQA encoding process borrows the lower bits (to encode the utrasonic data) so it is not therefore technically 24 bit, but I could be wrong. OK, let's spot them 24/48 as opposed to 16/44 (bit rate of MQA encoded PCM through a non "Authenticated" DAC) - not all that significant to me personally but perhaps to others... 16/44.1 16/48 24/44.1 24/48 OK ? It should be as one could be redbok, the others is hi- res:D www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/mqa-ces-27127/index9.html#post500298 I think it is crucial to understand this, as this also is why you at the end get hi-res streaming from Tidal. (Even though of no interest to U) Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I am pretty sure a regular PCM DAC can only "see" an MQA encoded file as a 16/44 PCM file. Someone correct me if I am wrong... Where is the logic behind a 24/44.1 FLAC file coded with MQA is decoded as 16 bit FLAC. Remember I'm not making things up. I got these things confirmed by others, still you keep on deny what I at my very best try to present as a fact. IIRC others also that downloaded MQA state they got 24 bit. Still you deny MQA deliver 24 bit in FLAC, or deny the DAC see 24 bit, but in a to me magic way transform 24 bit to 16. Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Meridian them self has a similar product as the Auralic mini with MQA. Media Core 200. Maybe they share technology with Auralic. Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 I just downloaded a sample file from 2L and it was showing up on Audirvana+ as 24/44.1. So one can claim better than CD but just barely. Thanks, then I hope this close the discussion about if you get 16 or 24. However what seems strange to me is that the recording from 1993 with that DAT is also 24 bit. Could you download and verify as well ? Carl Nielsen: Chaconne op 32 Christian Eggen http://www.lindberg.no/hires/mqa/2L-120_01_stereo-44k-24b.mqa.flac As far as I understand that file should be 16 bit, as the original is 16. http://www.lindberg.no/hires/test/2L-120_stereo-44k-16b_01.zip Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 [h=2][/h] https://www.facebook.com/auralic.ltd Correction to previous posting RE: MQA, written by someone not at CES.) During CES, MQA discovered that wireless high-resolution Music Streamers without built-in DACs (i.e., AURALiC’s ARIES, ARIES LE & ARIES MINI) require a slightly different implementation of its technology. MQA has not yet completed finalizing the definitive version of the technology; no MQA partner has yet to receive the actual final version of this emerging technology, which will be downloadable to any product in the very near future.) Because of this, AURALiC’s original plan to include TIDAL/MQA capability in the v3.0 firmware being issued today will not occur. Xuanqian Wang President & CEO --------------------------- Just so more readable. Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 (what if target generic 24/192 dac can't do sample rate that MQA streamer decodes into, like 2L's DXD stuff) Exactly. The SW or Streamers must have a setting to allow for downsamling for those with a max 96 or 192 DAC. The Meridian Explorer is 192, so how does it deal with 352,8. Why nobody ever even asked.... https://www.meridian-audio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Meridian_Explorer2.pdf I wonder if Auralic fired that poor one, who more or less told the truth first (Cause hi did, just left out some facts) Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Correction to previous posting RE: MQA, written by someone not at CES.) During CES, MQA discovered that wireless high-resolution Music Streamers without built-in DACs (i.e., AURALiC’s ARIES, ARIES LE & ARIES MINI) require a slightly different implementation of its technology. Why mention wireless...... The new wireless EarPods ? And rumers also says no more 3,5 mm jack. Just speculate, but I'm not sure I buy the given explaination. I do not believe someone did discover something in the very last minute. And they wrote without a DAC, but include the Mini which has a DAC. Do we stream hi res wireless ? Well I don't. Phones may like to do... There is a new IoT standard also.... Ted_b explaination may be closer, as I read it once more. Still Meridian Explorer does downsamplig... Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 http://www.head-fi.org/t/787020/review-comparison-of-5-high-end-digital-music-servers-aurender-n10-cad-cat-server-totaldac-d1-server-auralic-aries-audiophile-vortex-box/240#post_12240206 Totally agree. Sold my Vadia 581SE. Streaming is the future. Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Is Roon rolling out MQA? Or is the rollout botched by this turn on Meridian's part? YES. Roon is planning to support MQA. Says Danny Dulai. At no extra cost as well. https://community.roonlabs.com/t/mqa-support-by-roon/88/25 Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/mqa-ces-27127/index12.html#post500444 The confusion is that MQA has now realized that providing manufacturers like Auralic with general software decoding (unlike Mytelk's dac-based one) doesn't yet include settings for targeted normal dacs. Example: your dac is a 24/192 PCM dac. You pick a 2L MQA'd track from Tidal and have Aries decode it. What happens? The decoded material is 24/352.8k! Clearly the Tidal settings on Aries would require a "24/192 max" setting, which is currently unavailable in the demo product (and then a decision on who/where this downsampling work occurs). There are likely other scenarios too. Your explaination is very credible. And it would gain MQA to admit this, and not let Auralic look like the foolish one. Also even Meridian Explorer downsamples. Or 2L will not play. An other interesting issue may be Apple AirPlay most likely can't stream the MQA format. 24/44.1 and 24/48. And latest comming firmware Auralic is about better AirPlay support. According to Auralic FB. "One big improvement on firmware 3.0 is to improve the synchronization of AirPlay. Be sure to check it out if you have not yet used this function." I have not verified if those new reased products from Pioner/Onkyo/HTC support AirPlay. Probably does not matter, since they all have a DAC. Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 I will quit my Tidal subscription if they start using MQA for all their "HIFI" streams, because it is much worse than RedBook. Then I can as well keep on using Spotify (which I'm also subscribing) at about same quality, but half the price and more content. Realy ? Now you sound very anti MQA. Is this based on your listing of a pure downloaded MQA vs redbok form 2L ? Which to me is the only way at the moment to "verify correct". I do not have the technical knowlegde to argue against your analysis posted here : Some analysis and comparison of MQA encoded FLAC vs normal optimized hires FLAC - Blogs - Computer Audiophile But how can you do a correct analysis without a MQA decoding available ? Would you take your time to explain the basics. If you can't hear the difference between Tidal and Spotify, well ..... (Aka CD vs MP3). And even clame a future hi res coded MQA streaming is worse than todays offered quality before the service goes online..... At the moment we may not even know 100% for sure if the MQA redbok will be 16 or 24 bit. Only the fact that 2L convert 16 to 24. Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 ...., the MQA version has background noise at best at 16-bit level at best on some frequency areas, but above 15 kHz it begins to drop significantly below that of 16-bit. So compare noise levels especially between 15 - 20 kHz. How do you explain where the noise went after that MQA file is decoded to 24/352,8. How can a "noisey"24/44.1 convert to a much better 24/352.8. Can your analyse SW have a bug ? Does your software analyses after DAC as your ears do ? (Cause it is the digital signal you are looking at?) Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 What would it take to do the reverse engineering, and make a decoder ? Is it possible ? Like DVD-John did ? Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 The interesting here is that MQA is released also in 16 bit. So then we at least have a confirmation that MQA is delivered in 4 resolutions. (Or 6 if we add 32 bit) That also tells me that most likely the record company can choose how to implement MQA. A possible problem with Onkyo music, is that they do not tell us the original resolution of at least those 16/44.1 tracks. Or it could mean that is the original resolution. Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 The MQA Flying Circus Is it only me ? Please correct me if I'm the insane one. First it the was that poor HW manufacturer. Now we pass it over to the webshops and record companies. Onkyo is first out. The 2L MQA stereo files are sold as FLAC 24/352.8. Other MQA are sold as 16/44. Costumers may start to wonder what they are buying. If they buy at all ? Ever ? The 2L store was very clear about the different formats sold, except about resolution of the MQA file. And it is a very nice gesture to allow people to test the formats. Bob now seems to copy Apple's communications strategy, and only gives interviews to people who do not ask critical questions. Bob says MQA is a philosophy, it's many thing. You can't purchase that. (Sell maybe to a CEO?) Before we used to understand the meaning of MP3, CD format, and 24/96. You knew what you purchased. Now we have a something with hidden requirements in both ends, in an end to end game changing technology. Are there a Guinness in confusion ? You are hereby nominated. Now they (Onkyo/7Digital) do not tell you that the 352.8 actually is a 44.1 compressed file. Or that the 16/44.1 is a Redbok encoded CD. (I guess, cause are the master really in that format). Remember 2L sell Redbok as 24/44.1 They do not tell you that the transport in this philosophy can take 6 forms, and that even if your MQA DAC is only 192, it can eat 384, cause that is our (MQA) faith. Original Redbok can be both 16 and 24. Proven so by the two webshops. What are the requirements for a record company to be allowed to use the MQA logo? Is it a commercial secret ? We for sure discovered one requirement on FB! when it came to transporting and decoding the format. Will an US solicitor claim that the webshop are selling something not according to the description. Hey, these guys has money. Lets sue them. For us (me) that has tried to understand the format for some days, it maybe clear, but does the average person understand that purchase a MQA FLAC 24/352.8 or a 24/88.8, will in both cases give him a 24/44.1 unless he has a MQA DAC ? Roon may has a solution to some of this as they would like to implemt a DAC multiprofile SW. (Not a default one). Possible based on auto negotiation and/or user select. Will they be allowed ? Link to comment
R1200CL Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 MQA lost out to DXD again. Thanks for sharing your listing experience with us. Your result is exactly what to expect at the present stage. Agree ? If you ever get a MQA device, we should expect minimum as good as DXD and most likely better. Correct ? Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now