MQA is Vaporware

[Samuel T Cogley]

15 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I wasn't thrilled about that, although you can install firmware that doesn't do DSD (and allows DSD512 into the bargain).  It's the reason I haven't "upgraded" to firmware that would eliminate my ability to upsample/convert to DSD512, while enabling MQA that I don't listen to.

 

I think you mean "although you can install firmware that doesn't do MQA" .  I have an iDSD Micro and a couple of iDAC2s.  Indeed, the MQA-enabled firmware kills the ability for DoP256 and that has been fairly well documented.  But the iDSD Pro is a different beast and to my knowledge, there is no way to apply non-MQA firmware or otherwise disable MQA functionality.

[firedog]

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I think you mean "although you can install firmware that doesn't do MQA" .  I have an iDSD Micro and a couple of iDAC2s.  Indeed, the MQA-enabled firmware kills the ability for DoP256 and that has been fairly well documented.  But the iDSD Pro is a different beast and to my knowledge, there is no way to apply non-MQA firmware or otherwise disable MQA functionality.

My understanding is that on the iDSD pro iFi is one of the only manufacturers that has implemented MQA separately from non MQA. In other words, only MQA files are sent to the MQA filters. Regular PCM isn't. So there is only MQA functionality if you playback MQA.

AFAIK, dCS is the only other company to do this.

iFi said they spent considerable man hours building this functionality (software coding) into the DAC. It is only implemented in the iDSD Pro. With their other DACs your only choice for non MQA is to load the pre MQA firmware.
At least iFi is giving us a choice - the other manufacturers aren't.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

My understanding is that on the iDSD pro iFi is one of the only manufacturers that has implemented MQA separately from non MQA. In other words, only MQA files are sent to the MQA filters. Regular PCM isn't. So there is only MQA functionality if you playback MQA.

AFAIK, dCS is the only other company to do this.

iFi said they spent considerable man hours building this functionality (software coding) into the DAC. It is only implemented in the iDSD Pro. With their other DACs your only choice for non MQA is to load the pre MQA firmware.
At least iFi is giving us a choice - the other manufacturers aren't.

 

I mostly agree, but purchasers of the iDSD Pro aren't given the choice to decline the MQA licensing fee.

[rickca]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Please continue the DSD discussion here, if you so choose. 

Thanks to @mansr and @The Computer Audiophile for cleaning up this thread.

[Lee Scoggins]

15 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I should have stayed because it would have been good for me to ask questions? That's laughable. I had Bob calling my mobile phone and I had direct access to anyone on that team in the months and years leading up to the presentation. They had nothing to say that I hadn't heard in the past. 

 

I'm still waiting for your evidence of my biased presentation and evidence of where I was "called out."

 

Keep twisting my comments about money Lee. I hear there may be an opening for the MQA Press Secretary. 

 

Chris, link to a copy of your slide deck and I will point out areas I felt were biased.

[Jud]

33 minutes ago, firedog said:

My understanding is that on the iDSD pro iFi is one of the only manufacturers that has implemented MQA separately from non MQA. In other words, only MQA files are sent to the MQA filters. Regular PCM isn't. So there is only MQA functionality if you playback MQA.

AFAIK, dCS is the only other company to do this.

iFi said they spent considerable man hours building this functionality (software coding) into the DAC. It is only implemented in the iDSD Pro. With their other DACs your only choice for non MQA is to load the pre MQA firmware.
At least iFi is giving us a choice - the other manufacturers aren't.

 

Does the MQA firmware remove the ability to do DSD512 on the ifi Pro as well (as my iFi micro-iDSD)?

[MikeyFresh]

44 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I mostly agree, but purchasers of the iDSD Pro aren't given the choice to decline the MQA licensing fee.

 

Thats true, and I can't help but wonder how much that licensing fee, along with all of the associated long man hours iFi spent in implementing MQA caused the retail price of the iDSD Pro to skyrocket from an initially estimated $1,500, to the eventual $2,500 msrp.

[firedog]

53 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Does the MQA firmware remove the ability to do DSD512 on the ifi Pro as well (as my iFi micro-iDSD)?

It's not MQA firmware, there is only one firmware. And the answer is no. In fact it has a setting for upsampling internally to DSD 1024 and will accept DSD 1024.

[firedog]

43 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Thats true, and I can't help but wonder how much that licensing fee, along with all of the associated long man hours iFi spent in implementing MQA caused the retail price of the iDSD Pro to skyrocket from an initially estimated $1,500, to the eventual $2,500 msrp.

Doubt it was a big part of it. They kept reworking it as  they were designing it. At one point I think they showed a prototype and then developed something with a whole additional  set of features.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

It's not MQA firmware, there is only one firmware. And the answer is no. In fact it has a setting for upsampling internally to DSD 1024 and will accept DSD 1024.

 

So there must be more storage space for the firmware in the iDSD Pro then, since I'm assuming space limitation is the reason they can't keep both DSD512 and MQA capability in the firmware for the micro-iDSD.

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, firedog said:

It's not MQA firmware, there is only one firmware. And the answer is no. In fact it has a setting for upsampling internally to DSD 1024 and will accept DSD 1024.

 

Firedog, do you have the unit and if so have you done a review?

[firedog]

Just now, crenca said:

 

Firedog, do you have the unit and if so have you done a review?

Nope. Just have read about it here and other places.  The sponsored forum here has quite a big thread about it.

[firedog]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

So there must be more storage space for the firmware in the iDSD Pro then, since I'm assuming space limitation is the reason they can't keep both DSD512 and MQA capability in the firmware for the micro-iDSD.

Well on my DSD iOne NANO if you use the MQA firmware you lose the SPDIF output (USB to SPDIF converter). When I asked them why, they said the number of functions they could run on  8 cores was limited and they decided that having a firmware with MQA meant they had to eliminate something else. I don't remember exactly how they phrased it, but they said this is a common problem on their smaller devices.
They also said that they could have left the SPDIF out as part of the package, but that would mean the MQA would be limited to first unfold. And that can be done externally anyway in software, so what would be the point?

Just one of the reasons I bought it and downgraded to the non-MQA version. I was only really interested in it for the package of functions (also does DSD and is a BT receiver).

 

 

[Lee Scoggins]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

Yeah, after Chris was rudely and repeatedly interrupted, false and irrelevant accusations were repeatedly made, and he was basically the victim of a "denial of service" attack during his own presentation - yeah, he should have stuck around.
I've yet to find anyone who isn't an MQA person or a known MQA apologist/fanboy who doesn't think that the reaction to Chris' presentation was any other than extremely rude and unprofessional.

 

Firedog, with all due respect, you weren't there and I was.  It was pretty civil outside of Derek's desk pounding.  The discussion after Chris left was pretty good.  You should watch the extended video so you get the tone of the whole event.

[Samuel T Cogley]

18 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

The discussion after Chris left was pretty good.

 

I think Scoggins inadvertently proved everyone's point.

[Jud]

22 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

The discussion after Chris left was pretty good.

 

This is like going to a concert and saying a bad review of it was incorrect because the music played over the PA system as people were leaving was really nice.

[botrytis]

25 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Firedog, with all due respect, you weren't there and I was.  It was pretty civil outside of Derek's desk pounding.  The discussion after Chris left was pretty good.  You should watch the extended video so you get the tone of the whole event.

We WATCHED THE VIDEO. I don't know what planet you are from, but the constant nastiness to Chris in that video is plain as the nose on your face. Saying anything else is disingenuous. I would not have put up with crap like that and I have done quite a few of presentations at International Meetings (science background here). These gents should have been shown the door as they were just there to disrupt.

 

Chris was very open that he was giving BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVES to MQA in the talk.

[Lee Scoggins]

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

This is like going to a concert and saying a bad review of it was incorrect because the music played over the PA system as people were leaving was really nice.

 

Nope.  The discussion at the end was a key part of it with lots of good information exchanged.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Nope.  The discussion at the end was a key part of it with lots of good information exchanged.

Did you exchange theories regarding the identity of Archimago?

[botrytis]

 

5 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Nope.  The discussion at the end was a key part of it with lots of good information exchanged.

 

ORLY? You mean one sided, with the people that constantly interrupted Chris having the floor all to themselves. That is NOT an EXCHANGE that is a data dump and not a good one.

 

Please stop Lee. Continually going down this road just proves that you are: 1. possibly on the MQA payroll. 2. A shill, plain and simple. 3. Not wanting to understand HOW this will affect the music buying public as a whole.

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Nope.  The discussion at the end was a key part of it with lots of good information exchanged.

 

People can have good discussions anywhere. You could have them here if you were willing to engage and admit you might have got something wrong once in awhile.

 

But the fact that you thought the good discussion was only possible after Chris was done with his oft-interrupted "biased" presentation makes me think you were after reinforcement of what you already thought, rather than a genuine interchange of ideas.

[Samuel T Cogley]

8 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Nope.  The discussion at the end was a key part of it with lots of good information exchanged.

 

Wasn't the "discussion" comprised entirely of MQA employees and sycophants?

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Firedog, with all due respect, you weren't there and I was.  It was pretty civil outside of Derek's desk pounding.  The discussion after Chris left was pretty good.  You should watch the extended video so you get the tone of the whole event.

Wasn’t there? So what, it’s all on video. And it wasn’t civil outside of the pounding. I’ve never been in any seminar or business meeting like that - with the constant interruptions, shouting, and refusal to listen. Repeating the same points to Chris after they’d already been answered - I think the intent was to disrupt him, and not to actually discuss. I’m willing to bet at your workplace it isn’t like that either. 

Your “good discussion”actually proves my point - once any challenge to MQA left the room, the discussion got civil. 

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

People can have good discussions anywhere. You could have them here if you were willing to engage and admit you might have got something wrong once in awhile.

 

But the fact that you thought the good discussion was only possible after Chris was done with his oft-interrupted "biased" presentation makes me think you were after reinforcement of what you already thought, rather than a genuine interchange of ideas.

 

You are misleading here. I did not imply that good discussion was not possible with Chris in the room.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

You are misleading here. I did not imply that good discussion was not possible with Chris in the room.

To paraphrase, by your own admission, you chose to be bullies rather than engage meaningfully with Chris.