AudioQuest adds MQA Support to Dragonflies via firmware

[Jud]

58 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

GUTB,

 

Thanks, I would agree with your assessment.

 

Do remember everyone what MQA is about and the lowering of the noise floor. If you look at the MQA site you can see how more of the music is going to be revealed by removing the unwanted noise associated with the track.

 

Some of the real early stuff is stunning to hear in MQA. The other nice thing is the MQA Masters library is not limited to audiophile tracks. There is a ton of stuff for everyone to listen too.

 

I would again suggest for MAC users to also try out the new Audirvana 3.0, Damien did a great job on that and it allows MQA and Tidal users a great experience.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

 

Can you point me to some specifics on lowering noise (in the process of remastering for MQA, I assume?) on the MQA site?  And can you recommend a few tracks/albums that you are referring to in terms of "some of the early stuff"?

[Jud]

11 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

GUTB,

 

You can find that information on the MQA site. It explains how MQA works.

 

http://www.mqa.co.uk/

 

Thanks,

Gordon

 

I'm not him, but thanks.

[Jud]

59 minutes ago, abrxx said:

 

One thing that is not clear to me is this issue of lowering the noise floor. Exactly what part of the MQA process is responsible for this? Does avoiding un-necessary sample rate conversions give us a better noise floor?

 

Since an MQA file requires more processing, not less, than a file that never saw MQA's compression, any noise reduction must be in remastering, I would think.

[Jud]

53 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

Really why do we need to know details like this?

 

I agree with miguelito.  And of course I am happier to spend my money on, for example, a car with four wheel disc brakes than one that uses The! Most! Marvelous! Braking! System! but-we-won't-tell-you-how-it-works.

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, abrxx said:

 

Yeah, and its probably in the custom noise-shaping dither algorithm they are using.

 

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....

[Jud]

19 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

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...

 

Dolby?!!

 

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

[Jud]

2 hours ago, Donzauker said:

Hi.

Being an owner of a DFR I'm interested in this discussion but in the end I'm a little bit confused about MQA files and their differences respect FLAC files.

Forgive my ignorance but: is an MQA file a compressed FLAC file?

HighResAudio sells Pink Floyd's Division bell as MQA but you buy in the end a FLAC 24/96.

https://www.highresaudio.com/en/album/view/iaif88/pink-floyd-the-division-bell-remastered

And it is the same that Tidal proposes as a master album to stream from a PC (not mobile devices) I suppose.

So it seems that Tidal decompress an MQA master in a FLAC file that the PC or a DAC like the DFR can reproduce it...

 

 

No.  FLAC is lossless compression (the original uncompressed file can be recovered).  MQA uses lossy compression (the original can never be recovered).

[Jud]

6 hours ago, ShawnC said:

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.

 

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.

 

It is possible that MQA processing during encoding gives files a sound you prefer, or it is possible you're hearing better masters.  (I've heard obviously different and better Tidal masters.). Of course the same is true without Tidal, that is, better masters sound better.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, ShawnC said:

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.

 

What happens is this:

 

- Maybe there's a remaster, maybe not.  I've heard Tidal MQA recordings that were obviously remastered, and others that were just as obviously not.

 

- MQA filtering is applied at the ADC stage.  No one other than MQA knows just what this is.  Maybe it's something like the Meridian apodizing filters that have been around for years, maybe not.  If there is an analog master this doesn't add an extra step.  If there's already a digital master, then it does.

 

- MQA lossy compression is applied.  This is an extra step.  Note this can't possibly be more accurate than lossless compression like FLAC or ALAC, or no compression at all, like AIFF or WAV.

 

- "Unfolding" or "uncompression" or decompression or whatever you want to call it is applied by the DAC or software player.  We can consider this part of the same extra step as the lossy compression.

 

- From there the steps are I suppose the same number through internal processing by the DAC and conversion to analog (music).

 

 

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I start to understand better why music recordings may s*ck these days.

 

That's why DSD is clearly superior, it forces minimal processing.

 

;) (Just kidding, folks!  But certainly you can see the care taken in recording by particular labels, some of which do record for DSD output.  And there are a handful of bigger name artists who take a lot of care with their sound.  Mark Knopfler comes to mind.) 

[Jud]

9 hours 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-I love AQ's product- do as he suggests JUST listen to the music and enjoy it who gives a rat's ass how it got there-but you probably can't listen because you are probably a millennial or wish you were one( can you tell time with an analog watch,make change in your head, have ever answered your phone recently have you recently talked to anyone and looked them right in the eye?) bobbmd

 

9 hours ago, crenca said:

 

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

 

I don't think I lean toward the objectivist side of things, but Gordon's tack here was very surprising to me, since he has usually been someone who has liked to talk about data and measurements where they exist.  In this instance he can't (he would certainly be under an NDA concerning MQA and the Dragonflies), but I was still surprised and, to be frank, rather put off by a message that came across to me as "don't look too closely."

 

Of course the overreaction doesn't help - for example, referring to AudioQuest as Gordon's company (he wishes!).  It's Bill Low's company and always has been.  Gordon was brought on at least to help with the design of the Dragonflies; what else he may have worked on, I don't know.  I don't know if he's an employee or a contractor.  What he's probably most famous for is coming up with a way to do async USB that popularized the interface and pretty well made it the leading interface among DACs that it is today.  So if you really wanted to boycott Gordon's products, I suppose you'd swear off all modern USB DACs.

[Jud]

18 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

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.

 

Hi Gordon -

 

There is an easy solution to that, you know. 

 

(And yes, I should be saying this to the MQA folks rather than to you, but you're here in effect criticizing people for not knowing more, and who's responsible for that state of affairs?  Yes, in fairness folks don't know how a lot of their audio equipment and software work and many of them don't get too bothered about it, but some of us here are just curious.  We're being told on the one hand we don't need to satisfy our curiosity, and on the other hand we're being criticized for not knowing the info we're so curious to learn.  Curious, isn't it?  )

[Jud]

19 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Completely correct. But this doesn't mean that #2 is upsampling.

Upsampling = fake. And this is not what MQA provocates (same as a native 96 file which is unfolded to that, taking distance from how lossy that is or not). OK ?

 

19 hours ago, mansr said:

It wouldn't have to be, but it is.

No matter what MQA tries to claim, "rendering" to higher sample rates than 96 kHz is upsampling. Because of the leaky filters used, the upsampled signals contains strong images of the 0-48 kHz frequencies which might be mistaken for restored content. The original high frequency-content is simply not stored anywhere in the file, so there is no way to reconstruct it.

 

19 hours ago, Wavelength said:

Peter,

 

Thanks, this is exactly what I have been saying!

 

OK @PeterSt, a little confused with you "liking" @mansr's post, then Gordon agreeing with you but apparently disagreeing with @mansr, but let me see if I've got your original meaning correct: Upsampling would be done with the intention of accurate reconstruction (perhaps concentrating primarily on frequency response), but certainly for anything above a 96KHz sample rate and very possibly even below that rate, MQA's concentration is not on that sort of reconstruction.

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, miguelito said:

guess higher frequency information

 

For MQA above 48K it apparently isn't even doing that.  But for non-MQA more typical upsampling situations, the information is much better than a guess, and does not involve frequencies that would have been "illegal" at the original sample rate.

[Jud]

7 hours ago, Fokus said:

Sorry guys, but no.

 

MQA's deblurring is first and foremost the use of short, shallow, leaky anti-alias and anti-imaging filters during music production (downsampling from an ADC running at max rate to 2x rate for storage and distribution) and replay (upsampling to a particular DAC's max rate). That some or all of these filters are minimum phase is not that relevant, since the filters are so short.

 

The rationale is to marry a 2x channel with a 4x or 8x or 16x or whatever x impulse response width. This has been spelled out in MQA literature from day one.

 

 

On top of this, and for low rate original recordings, they have a patent for an all pass filter with a large group delay centered on the ADC's transition frequency. It is not clear if this filter is actually being used.

 

 

 

If I'm understanding correctly, it doesn't matter much that with a minimum phase filter, time through the filter depends on frequency, because with the short filter that's being used, the time difference won't be much.

 

Regarding the all pass filter: What might this be used for?  To "correct" group delay in the opposite direction from the ADC?  To add group delay and thus a feeling of depth?  Unknown?

[Jud]

2 hours ago, Fokus said:

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

 

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

[Jud]

5 hours ago, Fokus said:

The all-pass filter in MQA's patent does not attenuate anything, it only delays the signal at the original AA filter's transition frequency, literally moving that one's ringing around.

 

Fokus, you’re a marketing genius.

 

”MQA - Movin’ that ringin’ around.”