AudioQuest adds MQA Support to Dragonflies via firmware

[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.

[Donzauker]

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...

 

[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.

 

 

[miguelito]

14 hours ago, ShawnC said:

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.  

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.

[miguelito]

Can someone with enough knowledge say whether this conjecture is at all correct?

 

My impression with unfolding is that it effectively accomplishes something similar to DSD. If I recall correctly, DSD dynamic range or effective resolution decreases at higher frequencies. I think this is easy to explain if we think of the high speed of 1's and 0's determine the waveform going up or down by a quanto: the higher the audio frequency, them coarser this process can work. So this means DSD has actually much higher resolution than PCM for lower frequencies, and lower for higher frequencies, which in fact is what is argued to be the case for human hearing. It seems to me that MQA's folding/unfolding is actually doing a very similar thing. Hence the lower noise floor in critical parts of the spectrum that Gordon is talking about.

 

Is there any merit to this interpretation?

 

Thx.

[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).

[miguelito]

16 hours ago, ShawnC said:

That added absolutely nothing 

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.

[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.

[miguelito]

17 hours ago, revand said:

 

Dear Gordon,

 

I read months ago that even if the Dragonflys spec sheets state 24bit/96kHz (USB) capability the DAC chip is capable much more.

My question: What is the maximum resolution the Dragonflys are able to achieve when making the unfolding of the file sent by TIDAL Masters in Flac format after the MQA process?

 

Many thanks

Andras 

The DF specs compared:

 

http://www.audioquest.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/draygonfly-spec-sheet-darktheme.pdf

 

The ESS 9010 and 9016 (Black and Red respectively). Both support up to 384KHz sample rate. Given what I see with various MQA files, it seems that the unfolded MQA data is upsampled by the ESS DAC to some rate indicated in the file itself. Some of Joni Mitchell's albums render at 96KHz (so no upsampling) whereas some of the 2L albums render at 384KHz, at least this is what Audirvana indicates.

[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.

[plissken]

3 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.

 

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, you make a point that deserves it's own bit of attention:

 

FLAC sounds worse then the PCM it contains...  But MQA that does more processing isn't affected. It beggars the imagination.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, ShawnC said:

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 we are having plenty of luck getting information since January 2, 2017 on Computer Audiophile compared to all the other audiophile sources of information combined. You just have to know when, to whom and how much pressure to apply.

[miguelito]

1 hour 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.

Takes the master, eliminates the faults, adds a filter... You are repeating the fairly deceitful pr speak from MQA. Lets break it down:

Removes ADC issues: Just about every current production uses a multitude of ADCs, mixing manipulation, and even no ADC at all (eg electronic synths). So the picture of a mike to an ADC is just about as common as Donald Trump in drag. Then the secret time desmearing sauce. There is no secret. Then the lossy compression then unfolding then the choice of an upsampling algo/dsp. All reasonable choices but nothing that is not available to upsamplers out there. 

[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).

 

 

[plissken]

2 hours ago, ShawnC said:

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.

 

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.

 

I think that is a more than fair way to do some sleuthing and evaluation. I've already read what Archimago, Mansr, Xivero have had to say on the matter I would like to hear what Mr. Waldrep makes of the process as it applies to music he has mastered personally. 

 

The question is I believe they told him they would do it over a year ago. 

[plissken]

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 

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

 

 

 

Thanks for not making a mountain out of a molehill on what term best describes file expansion. Gordon pretending that this was an issue of incorrect terminology is just the wordsmithing that I've come to detest by some outfits in this industry. 

[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

[plissken]

1 hour ago, ShawnC said:

 

Not Mark Waldrep but still very reputable.

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

 

Did he listen or did he make an analysis.

 

I saw a video once of AQ HDMI cables making a difference that you could hear....

[jhwalker]

20 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Did he listen or did he make an analysis.

 

I saw a video once of AQ HDMI cables making a difference that you could hear....

 

Oh, come on!  These are his own recordings, and he prefers the MQA versions to the originals.  No "analysis" is needed.

 

FWIW, I like analyses as much as the next person, but sometimes you just need to accept that people can have opinions (especially about their *own work*) that should be given credence, analysis or not.

[plissken]

21 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

Oh, come on!  These are his own recordings, and he prefers the MQA versions to the originals.  No "analysis" is needed.

 

FWIW, I like analyses as much as the next person, but sometimes you just need to accept that people can have opinions (especially about their *own work*) that should be given credence, analysis or not.

 

You could take the originals, bump them by .75 dB and may end up with the same result. 

 

So do I need an MQA DAC or simply an application that decodes MQA and send it to my existing DAC...

 

What is the effective way for me to evaluate on my current gear?

[jhwalker]

14 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

You could take the originals, bump them by .75 dB and may end up with the same result. 

 

So do I need an MQA DAC or simply an application that decodes MQA and send it to my existing DAC...

 

What is the effective way for me to evaluate on my current gear?

 

Well, you couldn't, not completely.

 

Both Audirvana and Tidal desktop apps will decode MQA files / streams up to the first "unfold" (i.e., as high as 96k) and send them to your existing DAC.  Tidal has many titles both in Redbook and now in MQA, so it's pretty easy to switch between them and compare.

 

But to get the purported full effect, you'd obviously need an MQA-enabled DAC.

[plissken]

10 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

Well, you couldn't, not completely.

 

Both Audirvana and Tidal desktop apps will decode MQA files / streams up to the first "unfold" (i.e., as high as 96k) and send them to your existing DAC.  Tidal has many titles both in Redbook and now in MQA, so it's pretty easy to switch between them and compare.

 

But to get the purported full effect, you'd obviously need an MQA-enabled DAC.

 

2L has a MQA tracks to try along with the originals. I'm assuming they did the mastering. 

 

** Their site says MQA Original Resolution. What the hell does that mean...

[jhwalker]

1 minute ago, plissken said:

 

Great. Is Meridian offering a DAC that I can order and trial out and return if I don't care for it?

 

Pretty sure you know how to use Google to find current available devices, but to be helpful . . . 

 

You can get the Meridian Explorer2 on Amazon for $199:

 

https://smile.amazon.com/Meridian-Explorer2-Digital-Analog-Converter/dp/B00Q6VQGS2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1495326966&sr=8-1&keywords=meridian+explorer2+dac

 

Standard Amazon terms apply (which includes return privileges).