iFi Audio Micro iDSD Black Label (released on the 30th of November 2016)

[asdf1000]

2 hours ago, Totsipaki said:

Well hopefully!.. That would be a top move by ifi!..

 

Absolutely and since the iDAC2 and silver iDSD use the same DAC chip, a firmware update for those to enable MQA would be incredible.

 

[guerph]

21 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

Absolutely and since the iDAC2 and silver iDSD use the same DAC chip, a firmware update for those to enable MQA would be incredible.

 

 

Wouldn't count on it based on info on their Facebook page. Looks like an entirely new design Micro iDSD. 

 

 

[asdf1000]

11 minutes ago, guerph said:

Wouldn't count on it based on info on their Facebook page. Looks like an entirely new design Micro iDSD. 

 

Hmmm looks the same on the outside, no? @AMR/iFi audio ?

Unless I'm missing something that I can't see.

 

[Totsipaki]

Hmm It is called exactly the same and down on the right on the table It looks definitely the same eventhough the picture on the wall looks a bit distorted (another black labeled device maybe? ) and since this magnificent product is not yet a year old I believe fingers crossed we can hope for the best..

[AMR/iFi audio]

13 hours ago, Totsipaki said:

Hmm It is called exactly the same and down on the right on the table It looks definitely the same eventhough the picture on the wall looks a bit distorted (another black labeled device maybe? ) and since this magnificent product is not yet a year old I believe fingers crossed we can hope for the best..

 

It's our nano iDSD BL on the picture behind our crew member. We aim at the last days of October launch, yet the official announcement will be released once we're in 100% sure.

 

[Totsipaki]

So no MQA for the micro black (for  the time being I hope..) and a downsized (in terms of cost of manufacture new nano with MQA) 

 

I Just hope the Micro with that ability is not a new one with the same "less is more" approach. Despite being a fan of MQA and of Ifi, definitely I at least will not be interested.

 

The lack of proper Line out takes away one of the things that made It so special..

[AMR/iFi audio]

On 3.09.2017 at 11:37 PM, Totsipaki said:

So no MQA for the micro black (for  the time being I hope..) and a downsized (in terms of cost of manufacture new nano with MQA) 

 

I Just hope the Micro with that ability is not a new one with the same "less is more" approach. Despite being a fan of MQA and of Ifi, definitely I at least will not be interested.

 

The lack of proper Line out takes away one of the things that made It so special..

 

There was no room to make regularly sized line out happen, but nano iDSD BL has it still (3,5 mm line-out).

 

As for MQA, we neither say 'yay, nor 'nay' to MQA on our already released devices. We're looking into it.

[crenca]

3 hours ago, AMR/iFi audio said:

As for MQA, we neither say 'yay, nor 'nay' to MQA on our already released devices. We're looking into it.

 

Just say no!  Seriously, with the DRM/proprietary implementation restrictions/weird filter silliness I will not be purchasing any MQA enabled device if there is any way to avoid it...

[firedog]

11 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Just say no!  Seriously, with the DRM/proprietary implementation restrictions/weird filter silliness I will not be purchasing any MQA enabled device if there is any way to avoid it...

Find the DAC that makes the most sense for you regardless of MQA. If the DAC has MQA, you don't have to use it.

[witchdoctor]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

Find the DAC that makes the most sense for you regardless of MQA. If the DAC has MQA, you don't have to use it.

+1, I want more choices not restrictions. Any DAC without MQA I wouldn't buy. I think it is better to leave those choices to the customer. My currrent DAC has DSD, I never use it but who knows what the future will bring?

[crenca]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

If the DAC has MQA, you don't have to use it.

 

I don't believe anyone knows that.  Just what does MQA do to the software/hardware architecture, and can any reverse engineering be 100% reliable as to the REAL inner workings?  What sort of "nasty" DRM can not be bypassed by the end user either now or in the future (a mandatory MQA "update")?  How does planning and implementing MQA effect the DAC's ability to optimize PCM?  How much $extra$ did you as a consumer pay for the DAC because of MQA licensing?

 

In the end, it is probably a prudent move for the consumer to avoid MQA and MQA enabled hardware/software entirely if he can...

[witchdoctor]

34 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I don't believe anyone knows that.  Just what does MQA do to the software/hardware architecture, and can any reverse engineering be 100% reliable as to the REAL inner workings?  What sort of "nasty" DRM can not be bypassed by the end user either now or in the future (a mandatory MQA "update")?  How does planning and implementing MQA effect the DAC's ability to optimize PCM?  How much $extra$ did you as a consumer pay for the DAC because of MQA licensing?

 

In the end, it is probably a prudent move for the consumer to avoid MQA and MQA enabled hardware/software entirely if he can...

That makes 0 sense. MQA is higfh def for music. Would you do that in video?

"In the end it is prudent for consumers to avoid high definition televisions if he can"

Consumers buy what they want and what they don't want goes off in a corner to die (like DSD?)

Let the market decide and the vendors provide.

You have decided for YOU, please don't decide for iFi.

 

[AMR/iFi audio]

MQA is yet another option available for music enthusiasts these days. Needless to say, products able to handle as many scenarios as possible are attractive to many people. There's no real downside to have MQA ready if one wishes to use it. At least that's how we see it. 

 

This has been said several times already, yet if one doesn't want to go the MQA route, he doesn't have to. Still, it's good to have a choice. 

 

And lastly, if MQA would cripple our software, hardware or sound quality in any way, we wouldn't do it. It's as simple as that and here's why: enthusiasts equipped with our products would notice this (which would be a very bad thing for us as a company) and we know it.

 

Fair enough? 

 

Cheers!

 

 

[crenca]

26 minutes ago, AMR/iFi audio said:

MQA is yet another option available for music enthusiasts these days. Needless to say, products able to handle as many scenarios as possible are attractive to many people. There's no real downside to have MQA ready if one wishes to use it. At least that's how we see it. 

 

This has been said several times already, yet if one doesn't want to go the MQA route, he doesn't have to. Still, it's good to have a choice. 

 

And lastly, if MQA would cripple our software, hardware or sound quality in any way, we wouldn't do it. It's as simple as that and here's why: enthusiasts equipped with our products would notice this (which would be a very bad thing for us as a company) and we know it.

 

Fair enough? 

 

Cheers!

 

 

 

Appreciate your response and your perspective. However it is a little more complicated than that for us consumers. Because of the "end to end", proprietary and DRM nature of mqa we'd simply cannot think of it as "yet another choice"

 

 Also, as a famous politician here in America once said "trust but verify".  I want to trust you when you tell me that mqa is truly been benign for me as a consumer, but then I have no way of knowing for sure and so far all reverse-engineering has indicated that it is a bit of a scam. So in the end you simply cannot be trusted. don't take this personally as it is simply a fact of the industry you're in, in that what you believe is best for the consumer is not always the case in reality.

[4est]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Appreciate your response and your perspective. However it is a little more complicated than that for us consumers. Because of the "end to end", proprietary and DRM nature of mqa we'd simply cannot think of it as "yet another choice"

 

 Also, as a famous politician here in America once said "trust but verify".  I want to trust you when you tell me that mqa is truly been benign for me as a consumer, but then I have no way of knowing for sure and so far all reverse-engineering has indicated that it is a bit of a scam. So in the end you simply cannot be trusted. don't take this personally as it is simply a fact of the industry you're in, in that what you believe is best for the consumer is not always the case in reality.

Not that I have ANY love for MQA (I agree its a scam), but then they would simply lose their MQA certification or something. They cannot "force" AMR/iFi to do anything.

[motberg]

I have bought at least 10 DAC's over the past few years, my current DAC was about 2500 USD and is powered by an equally expensive power regenerator and fed by an equally expensive USB chain.

 

I also have or have had over 20 iFi devices and have been happy with every purchase from them. 

 

MQA or no MQA would not in any way influence my decision for a future purchase. I guess that MQA might actually offer me an option for streaming high res in my current location which normally has relatively slow bandwidth available.

[asdf1000]

Hi @AMR/iFi audio

 

Any news on ifi the iDSD and iDAC2 owners will be able to firmware upgrade, for MQA? Would be really appreciated!

 

Cheers!

[AMR/iFi audio]

19 hours ago, Em2016 said:

Hi @AMR/iFi audio

 

Any news on ifi the iDSD and iDAC2 owners will be able to firmware upgrade, for MQA? Would be really appreciated!

 

Cheers!

 

We're looking into this.

[asdf1000]

58 minutes ago, AMR/iFi audio said:

 

We're looking into this.

 

:-) it would make thousands of people happy - if it can be done.

 

[crenca]

It would make many of us unhappy - unless there was a DRM (which means no MQA) free firmware provided as well.

[asdf1000]

On 31/10/2017 at 12:08 PM, crenca said:

It would make many of us unhappy - unless there was a DRM (which means no MQA) free firmware provided as well.

 

MQA support is an additional playback/listening option, not the only option.

 

Even if MQA enabled DRM in the future (so that only MQA certified devices could play MQA streams), I can't imagine that would mean you can't play your DRM-free music with your iFi device, ie. I can't imagine it would turn your iFi DAC into an MQA-only DAC.

 

Don't forget this is the iDSD DAC, meaning it plays DSD (non MQA stuff). I can't imagine if MQA enabled DRM one day that the iFi iDSD DAC would become an "iFi non-iDSD DAC - Black Label Edition".

 

So I'm still hoping for a free MQA firmware upgrade!

 

PS: if such an firmware became available to enable MQA unfolding, you don't have to upgrade your own DAC's firmware if you want to stay far away from MQA, for whatever reasons.

 

[crenca]

3 hours ago, Em2016 said:

k

MQA support is an additional playback/listening option, not the only option.

 

Even if MQA enabled DRM in the future (so that only MQA certified devices could play MQA streams), I can't imagine that would mean you can't play your DRM-free music with your iFi device, ie. I can't imagine it would turn your iFi DAC into an MQA-only DAC.

 

Don't forget this is the iDSD DAC, meaning it plays DSD (non MQA stuff). I can't imagine if MQA enabled DRM one day that the iFi iDSD DAC would become an "iFi non-iDSD DAC - Black Label Edition".

 

So I'm still hoping for a free MQA firmware upgrade!

 

PS: if such an firmware became available to enable MQA unfolding, you don't have to upgrade your own DAC's firmware if you want to stay far away from MQA, for whatever reasons.

 

 

Not to sound snotty, but I can imagine an "almost but not quite defeatable" DRM quite easily.  This sort of thing is the status quo in video.  It would be speculation as to how all this would work, but that is the problem with DRM/IP obfuscated software such as MQA and the equipment that runs it - there is always a "grey" area at the very least.  Usually, there is a dark area as well.

 

I (as many others) draw the line at the firmware (pros and cons of any line of course).  I don't want MQA enabled firmware processing my PCM, no matter how many reasurrances I get for Big Fat Liars such as Bob S/MQA/Stereophile/TAS/insert_manufactuer_here that it is all "ok".  So far not much of anything around MQA has revealed itself to be "ok" at all...

[Totsipaki]

On 3/11/2017 at 3:42 AM, crenca said:

 

no matter how many reasurrances I get for Big Fat Liars such as Bob S/MQA/Stereophile/TAS/insert_manufactuer_here that it is all "ok".  So far not much of anything around MQA has revealed itself to be "ok" at all...

 

Some strong words here that If true..  they would induce serious legal trouble for Bob Stuart and MQA since regulations do not allow any company especially a very aspiring one and Internationally expanding like MQA to lie to It's potential customers and especially to Its experienced and careful collaborators..  

 

Not liking something for whatever reasons is perfectly OK and calls for respect but calling somebody a liar with nothing solid to prove It (otherwise serious profit would be probable through legal action) is simply naive..

[crenca]

20 hours ago, Totsipaki said:

 

Some strong words here that If true..  they would induce serious legal trouble for Bob Stuart and MQA since regulations do not allow any company especially a very aspiring one and Internationally expanding like MQA to lie to It's potential customers and especially to Its experienced and careful collaborators..  

 

Not liking something for whatever reasons is perfectly OK and calls for respect but calling somebody a liar with nothing solid to prove It (otherwise serious profit would be probable through legal action) is simply naive..

 

Apparently you have not been following the analysis of MQA here at CA.  You might want to dig through threads such as the MQA Technical Analysis, MQA is Vaporware, etc.  MQA is DRM (a good example of it), a lossy encoding, non-DAC specific (and thus not "end top end" in any sense other than as a $royalty$ collection scheme), limited in effective bit depth, etc. etc. The lies propagated by Big Fat Liars such as Bob S and MQA and their useful idiots in the trade publications are objective facts and not about rather myself or anyone  "likes" something or not.

 

As far as regulatory agencies having the consumers back....if only it were so.

[Totsipaki]

I don't and I won't. I am one of the first adopters of MQA and I really Like It. Also I do not feel the need to convince anybody about what I experience unlike most of the posters In these threads who write a lot assuming about something they haven't even experienced. So each to his own.