AudioQuest adds MQA Support to Dragonflies via firmware

[crenca]

2. Tidal knows this is an MQA dac and regardless of setting, will send the original file to the explorer 2. I know tidal can tell the explorer 2 is an MQA dac because when I plug it in, tidal pops up a message detecting an MQA dac and asks if you want to switch to it. This doesn't happen with any other DAC I have that is non-MQA.

 

Very interesting...now why would this be? Simply enabling the end-to-end philosophy with a bit of UI convenience/help for the end user?

[crenca]

It appears this announcement was a bit optimistic - "available end of January . . . " which has come and gone by over two weeks now.

 

Anyone hear any updates on this?

 

Roon also jumped the gun a bit (software decoding was to be in 1.3 when it came out couple of weeks ago but it wasn't). I wonder if this is the normal setbacks of industry or is it specific to MQA?

[crenca]

2 hours ago, Wavelength said:

 

 

Look everyone, you can guesstamate all you want about what is or what isn't done here. OR!!! you could sit down and listen and judge for yourself.

 

No more misinformation from people who don't know what's going on here. I have 33 emails in my inbox about people asking questions from users and links to your posts.

 

Be sane, have fun!

Gordon

 

 

No - we will not just shut up and listen.  Your arrogant underbelly is showing through (you might want to cover it back up).  Your problem is an old one - you want to sell "art" in a mathematical and digital world.  MQA enables you to do that - it covers up a formally open format and formally semi-open process (internals of DACs) in IP and then you get to come along and say "you don't know what you are talking about".  

 

Well, through a slow process we will uncover the voodoo one way or another (rather it turns out to be all that Bob says it is, or something much much less).  Those boys in Russia and China will (sooner or later) let it all hang out.

 

I have an AudioQuest cable being shipped to me right now.  It will be my last AudioQuest product I purchase for the foreseeable future based on your response here.  The choice has been made for your and your company - you have decided to hide behind IP and yell at your customers who will always (always always) look for at the "information" you give out and question it.  

 

Speak of "misinformation" all you want - it's your doing!  YOU have chosen the voodoo (i.e non information) path of MQA!  You brought this all on yourself.

 

I suspect you will be seeing many more emails in your inbox in the future...

[crenca]

2 hours ago, Wavelength said:

Plissken,

 

No the metadata is not sent over USB in a wrapper. It's also not decompression, what ever that means.

 

Applications can send MQA material to any DAC for playback. The output just will not benefit from the MQA decoding if the DAC and application is not MQA enabled.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

 

 

 

Keep yelling at your customers...let me know how that works out for ya.

[crenca]

11 minutes ago, plissken said:

Hear is my next question:

 

When I have 10MByte / second connection what is my upside for streaming MQA vs 24/192? Or even DSD for that matter? 

 

And if the 'Cell Data' angle is going to be provided... I'm listening on a freaking cell phone for pete's sake. 

 

This whole 'origami', 'unfolding', etc... etc... is simply marketers. 

 

MQA doesn't solve a problem and it certainly isn't going to transcode and fix poor PCM or Tape Masters. 

 

How can AudioQuest/Gordon answer this or any other question about MQA with substance?  All they can do (because of the very nature of MQA as a legal and IP entity) is claim you don't know what you are talking about, that your "speculation" (though it is often much more than that) is "misinformation" (though it is often the very truth of the matter) and answer you with complete and total marketing speak/non-information.

 

With MQA, it's just as Gordon says and just shut up and listen...don't worry, he and Bob have it ALL under control.  

 

Like he says, it is "stupid questions" that is the biggest problem in computer audio

 

 

 

[crenca]

Just now, DarwinOSX said:

 

You are not helping.

 

And you are?  Tell me, what ARE the answers to the substantial questions raised by several here?

 

Are you saying Gordon has in any way actually answered those questions - if so, how did you confirm this?  Have you signed the (apparently several) NDA's MQA requires and if so, are you part of the "just shut up and listen/trust us" now?

[crenca]

39 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

 

mansr,

 

The reason I get frustrated with you is simple. Your making assumptions about products that you either don't have or don't know enough about. This in the end will mislead users and causes false claims.

 

For instance your claim about 100MHz ARM processor is very vague. There are a boat load of different ARM processors and they vary vastly in performance and Audio capabilities. I can think of M series, A series, 9 series processors with some that have great capabilities and others that don't. Some have HS USB, others only FS USB. Some have cable I2S, others have really poor implementations. The poor ones require significantly more MIPS than a 100Mhz version would have and therefore would preform less than any Microchip MX processor would.

 

Take for instance most XMOS single core (what marketing calls 8 core, really 8 threads) that are the basis for a number of products in the industry. Six of those cores are used for USB & I2S, and almost 90% of the MIPS of those processors are used up and therefore are not really good candidates for MQA.

 

In the DragonFly line with the Microchip MX32 processor we wanted to make a product that was really low power that would work with all platforms. Something both the XMOS and ARM processors cannot do. When we started to work with MQA, we talked to the engineers at Microchip and they sent us DSP algorithms written in assembler. The reason being is that these processors have specific DSP functions which standard programming under C/C++ would not have access to. The engineers at MQA took that source code and optimized it for this implementation.

 

MIPS don't equal MIPS when you are talking about processors. You have to look at the entire system as a whole.

 

Heck take an iMX7 ARM processor from NXP/Freescale and compare it to say an iMX6UL. The iMX6UL will beat the pants on the 7 because of the IP it has for Audio. Just like the MX270 from Microchip will beat the pants off the MX795. You can't just make blanket statements about performance and suggest you know what's going on here.

 

That leads to misinformation and everybody that reads your posts will get confused.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

 

Hhhmm, all true but what is the relevance to the specific implementation of MQA we are talking about on this thread - the particular Dragonflies produced by AudioQuest? 

 

Sure, "it depends" (within limits) but how does it depend in your implementation (i.e. your "entire system as a whole")?  

 

Besides, your wrong - mansr is both knowledgeable about the chips you are referring to (and are found in your products) and is in no way "misleading" or "making false claims" or sowing "confusion".  I would say if anything, your generalities above lean far more in the direction - certainly in the "confusion" dept.  This appears to be a kind of regular cloud hanging over almost everything about MQA.

 

So get specific - what is it about your specific implementation and the MIPS involved that are relevant to the substantial questions raised in this thread by several (which I won't repeat for brevity's sake)?

[crenca]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

Maybe I was thinking of getting one. After witnessing your behaviour here, I certainly won't be, that's for sure.

Clearly you do not have even basic knowledge of ARM. Really, if you don't know, don't say anything. Better to remain silent and be suspected of ignorance than to speak and remove all doubt.

 

Ah, don't get too upset at him - he is hamstrung by the boxed in world of IP/MQA no doubt.  He can only answer with generalities, and failing that accusations.

 

Did you notice how he complained of your "generalities" which lead to "confusion" and then says that "/A7 processor that takes a ton more!"?  What exactly is a "ton" in relation to MIPS and these questions?

 

Hope I am wrong, and some substantial answers to the specifics of AudioQuest's particular MQA implementation will be forthcoming...

[crenca]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Dither is by definition itself low-level noise that attempts to allow you to "hear past" the noise floor by randomizing the noise.  Perhaps it might lead to an impression of a lower noise floor, but by how much I'm not sure.

 

Some figures would be nice.  Haven't looked, but I imagine the DF has specs....

 

Perhaps this Dolby like noise floor reduction to which Gordon refers is the reason some of us hear a bit of Dolby like "digititus" in good (usually modern) recordings that have suffered the MQA treatment...

[crenca]

16 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Dolby?!!

 

Dolby involves tape noise.  That's not happening with digital files.

 

Just noticing a correlation (i.e. two processes that "lower the noise floor" and at the same time add a bit of artifact/digititus to the sound).

 

Of course, others around here have noted that MQA is a kind of Dolby for digital and it's particular set of problems - some of them merely alleged.

 

 

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, bobbmd said:

WOW such vile/bile, all that guy Gordon is doing is trying to 'splain' something and all you do is rip him a new anal sphincter hole...

 

He explains very little.  That's fine, he does not have to divulge anything on the technical side if he/Audioquest does not wish.  When he however alleges others of spreading "misinformation" when they in fact speak the truth, well then he has an agenda.  The agenda is "shut up and listen", but that does no fly in a voodoo prone industry such as this one.  Might be fine for you, but there are plenty of us (who admittedly lean toward the "objectivist" side of things) who are simply not going to be satisfied with empty and contradictory marketing speak, particularly with DRM products like MQA

[crenca]

3 hours ago, Wavelength said:

 

Peter,

 

Really go troll somewhere else.

 

~~~

 

I am under NDA as anyone would be working with MQA.

 

I am not an employee of AudioQuest. I am a hired designer, like I do with the other 18 companies I do work for including Ayre, Berkeley, MBL...

 

crenca, Why do you follow guys like mansr? You know if he is so great then why is he wasting time trying to reverse engineer and put down MQA. Why isn't he out there making a product that is better than all of this? Why because he probably can't and if he can, great it would lend credibility to who ever he is.

 

All this bickering about "HOW" MQA works is useless. The main reason is that you have no idea what is done on the file side of things. What and how the files are encoded and what actually is in the format. Oh sure you can sit around and think as any engineer would about the possibilities. But to truly know what's going on is creating misinformation.

 

Look I say if you don't have a DragonFly, you shouldn't even be on this thread.

 

I have pretty much laid out how it works on the DragonFly, probably more than I should have. If you having issues or want to know how to set it up and stuff then I would be happy to answer it. Or if you are having problems I can help you out.

 

I am not getting paid for this, I am not a spokesperson for AudioQuest or MQA. I am just an engineer who has been programming my whole life. My bio is pretty well known... I designed PC's for a living (540K last count), wrote BIOS code in assembler, developed IC for communications (Ethernet, Token Ring, USB, 802.11 bridges). I left the six largest hardware software company as the Chief Engineer to work on my passion in Audio. Well that and I had 2 Class A products in Stereophile and received product of the year in Absolute Sound. Two jobs was one too many and I had other products to finish like dual DSP SPDIF DACs, preamps and yea even speakers. I have designed and worked on and sold over 165 products since then. It's been a lot of fun...

 

But really posts like this are just too disturbing. It really doesn't make any sense Peter why you even say things like this. It's one of the reasons I don't frequent here more often.

 

Thanks,
Gordon

 

 

Gordon,

 

You have answered some of the question of substance today - thanks!

 

Why we follow guys like mansr is because they are the yin to your yang.  Your yang is the slightly (or more) manic, ambitious, successful, take-no-prisoners engineer.  You are proud of your products and success (with good reason) but you think the rest of us should be really really really impressed.  In a sense we are, but then it is YOUR success and it is only of value to us to the extent that it helps us.  To state the obvious, your self interest does not necessarily align with ours. 

 

What is "disturbing" is your myopic vision around MQA.  You don't appear to understand the industry and market motivations for its adoption, and if you do you don't seem to care how this effects the consumer.  MQA just might be a real advancement in the SQ dept (I readily admit that it is too some extant - though so far it is way over-sold).  MQA-in-Dragonflies/etc. might be a real engineering success on your part and another notch on your gun - congratulations.  MQA is also a DRM Trojan designed to fundamentally change the consumers musical digital ecosystem at the root (i.e. format) level.  You and many others are "ok" with that, but many consumers are not and we are able to see through the obfuscations of MQA.  When you repeat those obfuscations or attack our attempt to identify and characterize certain facts of MQA and its implementation(s) as "misinformation" then all your engineering success and mojo counts for nothing.  At that point you are in Bob's world - the world of the Big Fat Liar.  

 

You have stepped back from this a bit today, even admitting what you do not know (though you might but are forced into such "white lies" by the NDA).  I would urge caution on your part - MQA forces you into a social context in a way your previous engineering work probably has not.  MQA is not just another encoding, nor is it an audio product like any other audio product.  It is a legal entity at the root of our digital musical lives, and it's IP nature and DRM reality (it IS DRM in it's current form v. 1.2).  We the consumer ARE going to look at, evaluate, and discuss this aspect as well.  We will not be duped into looking at it as just another engineered product - which is to say we will not just shut up and listen...

 

 

 

 

[crenca]

5 hours ago, ShawnC said:

Here's his apology

 

Good for him...but he is still an MQA evangelist

 

If one believe as he does, that there is something fundamentally wrong with PCM ("in the midrange" as he says) that can only be fixed with tech of the psycho-acoustic variety, then why MQA?  Why an "end to end" and all the drawbacks that incurs for everyone in the industry and consumers?  Why a proprietary and not an open solution?  

 

As he admit's, he wants MQA to "succeed" so I am weary of his affirmations that he is willing to criticize it. 

[crenca]

21 hours ago, firedog said:

So you are saying that the claimed "deblurring" is simply the use of minimum phase filter, nothing else?

 

Sure seems that way to me.  The only caveat is that MQA does claim magic at the ADC side of things - but as a practical and technical matter on the consumer side (software/hardware playback) "deblurring" appears synonymous with minimum phase filtering.

 

 

[crenca]

3 hours ago, Fokus said:

To literally move the preringing of the original filter to after the impulse. A bit bonkers.

 

44 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Ah, so "blurring" *after* the impulse is fine.

 

which is what a min phase filter does no?