AudioQuest adds MQA Support to Dragonflies via firmware

[ShawnC]

4 hours ago, mrvco said:

Has any more information been released by AQ or Tidal regarding the MQA update for the Dragonfly DACs?

They lied to increase sales during the initial MQA release on Tidal, brilliant!  J/K

[ShawnC]

Dragon fly's don't support MQA yet. 

[ShawnC]

Crenca, grow up!

[ShawnC]

13 minutes ago, citsur86 said:

 

I just did the same this morning.  The desktop Tidal App is actually doing the first unfold, or the Core Decoding.After that, the Dragonfly is unpacking once more.  So the MQA masters I am listening to all show in Magenta coloring and display as 96,000Hz in my Mac's Audio MIDI Setup.  When I have Passthrough MQA, I get 44,100Hz.  So it seems something is going wrong somewhere.  I was expecting with the MQA update for the Dragonfly Red, that I would be getting 192,000Hz for the Tidal Masters.   Anyone able to shed some insight here?

Not all Tidal Masters are 24/192, many if not most would be 24/96.  This is still the problem with TIdal, your not exactly sure what version of a Master your getting.  There could also be 24/14, 24/48 like on HDtracks.

 

Nice screen shots above

[ShawnC]

10 minutes ago, citsur86 said:

I see!  Do you happen to know of any of Tidal's songs offhand that are 24/192?  I'd like to try some out.  Also, how would I even know if I was listening to 192,000Hz if the Audio MIDI Setup only goes to 96,000Hz?

 

Unfortunately with the Dragonfly it's hard to figure out what exactly your getting.  It would help if Tidal listed what it was sending you if you could unfold it to it's maximum potential.  I think something like Audirvana shows this and the Mytech Brooklyn DAC does this too.

[ShawnC]

3 hours ago, Chel2772 said:

Hello, 

 

I have updated my DF red but am confused about the bitrate display colors.

 

I thought that any MQA flie should show blue, but my DF changes color according to the bitrate shown in Audirvana streaming Tidal Masters.

 

So should it shine Blue for every MQA file or does it follow the old bitrate color scheme?

 

Thanks!

The Dragonfly should look (Purple) if your getting MQA

 

21 hours ago, citsur86 said:

Ah never mind - I see the Dragonfly Red can only go up to 96,000Hz, though I could have sworn that I read the update would open it up to 192,000Hz for MQA....

 

Anyways I can see the difference between "Purple" and Magenta when I turn the lights off.

 

MQA Purple

 

96,000Hz Manually set for lower bitrate output music.

 

[ShawnC]

17 minutes ago, mansr said:

Well, I do.

That added absolutely nothing 

[ShawnC]

19 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Gordon,

 

We need to know more because all the people who really know can’t talk because of NDAs with MQA. All the people talking have proven they don’t know much about MQA. MQA involves record companies who don’t treat artists and customers fairly. MQA has group of journalists pushing it that have shown over the years we should take what they say and promote with caution.

 

I believe we should ask questions until we get answers that make sense, are repeatable across the readers of Computer Audiophile and allow those of us want the technical details to get them. The evasion of straightforward questions and the lack clarity in the promotion MQA just raise more questions.

Doesn't MQA have the right to it's trade secrets or patents?  Wouldn't that be the competitors quest to figure out what's going on and try to make it better/cheaper.  Just asking.  

[ShawnC]

5 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

ShawnC

My first questions were about which masters they were using. I thought it was common knowledge there was no master of “Riders on the Storm.” This signed off by the artist marketing pitch has a few problems when say Foghat has no one left alive who can properly sign off on the master. Or in the recent past I’ve been around negotiations where the actual owner of the music is a family partnership not the artist who passed away many years ago. Hard to have the artist sign off on any new version of his work.

 

I’ve asked about recording an MQA master and never received a satisfactory answer.

 

And of course whenever I’ve asked about downloads in the United States all I get is crickets.

 

None of these questions involve trade secrets or information they patented.

I was responding to your response from which Gordon was talking about the filters and ESS DAC chip.  Gordon gave us plenty of information on how the Dragonfly operates, he doesn't have too.  From the MQA side though CA members keep asking questions that don't need to be answered by the MQA team.  This is what I was referring to. Sorry the confusion.

 

I'm neither pro nor con for MQA.  I've listened to it and I enjoy it.  I like the answer about lowering the noise floor, that seems like a good response to what I'm hearing.

 

I find it interesting that MQA is trying to delivery a package, that they think is the best version of a recording, give to the public, only to have audiophiles who you would think would only want to hear this original file but insist on upsampling and changing it DSD or some other format and say this is the version you should have released.  But they can't do this and it angers some.  Should they allow DSP? Sure, why not but I'm personally not one who changes the files when listening.  I've tried it on my DAC, meh.

[ShawnC]

2 hours ago, miguelito said:

It's my prerogative to ask as much as I wish and conjecture as much as I feel like about anything. That's called freedom and the scientific enquiry. Yes, of course MQA has a right to their protected IP. I have every right to backward engineer that. I don't have the right to market a lossy compression mechanism that can be proven to be identical to MQA. 

 

I also have the right to raise my voice and complain when there is deceitful advertising, when I see that a technology could result in us being worse of on the whole at the expense of someone getting license money, etc.

 

So don't question the freedom we have to ask, conjecture, and voice concerns.

 

Thank you.

Good luck with that.  It seems the folks at MQA don't respond here and the ones that do get torn apart by the naysayers.

[ShawnC]

2 hours ago, miguelito said:

Disagree. @mansr is just saying he's actually looked at the detail and understands what is happening. There's plenty written by him to look into if you so wish.

I don't think Gordon follows every thread here, so to say I do, added nothing.  Maybe he should have gave us some links or something.

[ShawnC]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

This is actually pretty much the opposite of what is happening.  MQA actually requires more processing of, and creates more difference from, the original digital file than the non-MQA process.

More processing - are you talking about the folding/unfolding process?  From what I understand MQA takes that Master, eliminates the faults that were inherent with ADC back then (gets rid of some noise) then adds there filter (which people hate) as part of the process.  That in a nut shell is the way I see it.  The deep technical notes is way beyond my comprehension. Now DRM is entirely different animal.  I still don't see the uproar over all this. Understanding it is one thing but losing your sanity is another (not saying your losing it) but some sure have been rude to those professionals who've tried to chime in.

[ShawnC]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

 

How about Meridian take the 24/192 tracks from Mark Waldrep, put it in their chain and turn the crank and supply him with the resultant files.

 

17 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Today I had an opportunity to sit down with Peter McGrath from Wilson Audio. He has been a recording engineer for 40 years. He had several of his tracks encoded as MQA versions and gave me a proper A/B using an MQA enabled dCS DAC. 

 

There was no denying the positive difference MQA made in each track. There were substantial audible benefits on all five tracks we played. I asked him to flip back and forth several times so I could make sure of what I heard. In this case, MQA made the music sound much much better. 

 

I was in the room with someone else who is quite skeptical of MQA, and he heard the same very positive differences.

 

Our listening was done after show hours, so the noise level was substantially lower and the conditions were good. 

Not Mark Waldrep but still very reputable.

Not arguing with you guys, just trying to keep an open mind

[ShawnC]

Here's Han's review

 

 

[ShawnC]

Here's his apology

[ShawnC]

...and his finally.  This concludes Han's video trilogy