Jump to content
IGNORED

AudioQuest adds MQA Support to Dragonflies via firmware


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Isn't that what I've been saying all along?

Yes it is. And as much as I respect Gordon Rankin, he needs to be a little less dogmatic here. For example, someone used the term decompress to refer to embedded information in the pcm stream to set such filters. And no, there is no real information other than vagaries and mumbling in MQA Co's pages.

 

I would like to understand how filters are tagged and selected. The MQA file must have a universal dictionary of these than the specific DAC implementations translate into the actual filters for each DAC API.

NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono 

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo

Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono

Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul

system pics

Link to comment
1 hour ago, abrxx said:

Well Gordon did say that the microcontroller is doing DSP as well.

Is the microcontroller doing the DSP or setting DSP params in the ESS chip? Not the same. 

NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono 

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo

Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono

Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul

system pics

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, miguelito said:

Is the microcontroller doing the DSP or setting DSP params in the ESS chip? Not the same. 

 

I am software developer not a hardware guy but it seems to me highly implausible that custom assembly code had to be written by the micro-controller's manufacturer purely to set ESS filters. Gordon has kindly divulged this info, so I can only assume that certain DSP is being done by the controller, as well as the setting of the ESS filters. As to what DSP that might be doing, I suggest we all go back and re-read the patent on how to implement the second and third folds. I posted the link to this is another thread.

 

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?

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, miguelito said:

Yes it is. And as much as I respect Gordon Rankin, he needs to be a little less dogmatic here. For example, someone used the term decompress to refer to embedded information in the pcm stream to set such filters. And no, there is no real information other than vagaries and mumbling in MQA Co's pages.

 

I would like to understand how filters are tagged and selected. The MQA file must have a universal dictionary of these than the specific DAC implementations translate into the actual filters for each DAC API.

miguelito,

 

First decompressed was used out of context. Tidal downloads in FLAC you don't decompress FLAC, you uncompress it. This was the wrong term and confused several people.

 

I don't know exactly how MQA determines which filter to use or how to unfold the data. The USB stream has some identifier in it that tells the MQA library in the DragonFly that it is MQA and what filter to load into the ESS DAC chip and also how to unfold the data DSP and other things.

 

If any of you remember Pacific Microsystems HDCD format what they did was embed in the LSB a signature for their custom filter and output level. MQA maybe doing the same thing.

 

Really why do we need to know details like this? Why don't you just enjoy what we spent months creating for you.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, abrxx said:

 

I am software developer not a hardware guy but it seems to me highly implausible that custom assembly code had to be written by the micro-controller's manufacturer purely to set ESS filters. Gordon has kindly divulged this info, so I can only assume that certain DSP is being done by the controller, as well as the setting of the ESS filters. As to what DSP that might be doing, I suggest we all go back and re-read the patent on how to implement the second and third folds. I posted the link to this is another thread.

 

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?

I am not suggesting ANY custom assembly code of any kind. What I am suggesting is that the MQA pcm data has information embedded that chooses a particular filter type. All the controller needs to do is have a table that maps that generic MQA specification to a setting in the DAC. 

 

Example: the MQA data might say "MIN PHASE ORDER 7". The controller translates that to ESS speak, which for this might be "O7 MP", as it hands over the pcm stream to the ESS DAC. 

NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono 

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo

Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono

Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul

system pics

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, abrxx said:

 

I am software developer not a hardware guy but it seems to me highly implausible that custom assembly code had to be written by the micro-controller's manufacturer purely to set ESS filters. Gordon has kindly divulged this info, so I can only assume that certain DSP is being done by the controller, as well as the setting of the ESS filters. As to what DSP that might be doing, I suggest we all go back and re-read the patent on how to implement the second and third folds. I posted the link to this is another thread.

 

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?

abrxx,

 

In most cases when building a system that is efficient in programming with time sensitive data it's best to code at the lowest level. In DSP functions there is a standard TAP function that uses pointers and multiples the sample(x#) times coefficient(x#) and adds that to the accumulated value. In that same function the pointer for samples and coefficients is increment by 1. A loop or unroll of the the length of the operation is done for speed. The output of the tap function becomes the new sample presented to the DAC chip.

 

In C/C++/C# this is coded and not done to the best of the abilities of the compiler->assembler unless there are specific functions declared for the microprocessor or DSP chip.

 

In the case of the DragonFly we did this to pack as much functionality into the product as we could without sacrificing the power usage.

 

~~~~

 

In regards to the noise removal, you will have to go to the MQA website to understand how that is done. The files on the server have already gone through this portion of MQA before they are downloaded to the application.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

abrxx,

 

In most cases when building a system that is efficient in programming with time sensitive data it's best to code at the lowest level. In DSP functions there is a standard TAP function that uses pointers and multiples the sample(x#) times coefficient(x#) and adds that to the accumulated value. In that same function the pointer for samples and coefficients is increment by 1. A loop or unroll of the the length of the operation is done for speed. The output of the tap function becomes the new sample presented to the DAC chip.

 

In C/C++/C# this is coded and not done to the best of the abilities of the compiler->assembler unless there are specific functions declared for the microprocessor or DSP chip.

 

In the case of the DragonFly we did this to pack as much functionality into the product as we could without sacrificing the power usage.

 

~~~~

 

In regards to the noise removal, you will have to go to the MQA website to understand how that is done. The files on the server have already gone through this portion of MQA before they are downloaded to the application.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

 

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 

Link to comment
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.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Just now, Jud said:

 

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.

 

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

Link to comment
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....

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

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.

Which means a 15th version of.....

 

Patricia Barber

Steely Dan

Bob Dylan

The Band

Diana Krull

 

wait for it......  up in comes........

Link to comment
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...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, miguelito said:

I am not suggesting ANY custom assembly code of any kind. What I am suggesting is that the MQA pcm data has information embedded that chooses a particular filter type. All the controller needs to do is have a table that maps that generic MQA specification to a setting in the DAC.

Yes, that is how it works.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, mansr said:

Well, I do.

That added absolutely nothing 

Computer setup - Roon/Qobuz - PS Audio P5 Regenerator - HIFI Rose 250A Streamer - Emotiva XPA-2 Harbeth P3ESR XD - Rel  R-528 Sub

Comfy Chair - Schitt Jotunheim - Meze Audio Empyrean w/Mitch Barnett's Accurate Sound FilterSet

Link to comment
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.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Wavelength said:

miguelito,

 

First decompressed was used out of context. Tidal downloads in FLAC you don't decompress FLAC, you uncompress it. This was the wrong term and confused several people.

 

I don't know exactly how MQA determines which filter to use or how to unfold the data. The USB stream has some identifier in it that tells the MQA library in the DragonFly that it is MQA and what filter to load into the ESS DAC chip and also how to unfold the data DSP and other things.

 

If any of you remember Pacific Microsystems HDCD format what they did was embed in the LSB a signature for their custom filter and output level. MQA maybe doing the same thing.

 

Really why do we need to know details like this? Why don't you just enjoy what we spent months creating for you.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

 

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.

Link to comment
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.  

Computer setup - Roon/Qobuz - PS Audio P5 Regenerator - HIFI Rose 250A Streamer - Emotiva XPA-2 Harbeth P3ESR XD - Rel  R-528 Sub

Comfy Chair - Schitt Jotunheim - Meze Audio Empyrean w/Mitch Barnett's Accurate Sound FilterSet

Link to comment
3 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.  

 

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.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Wavelength said:

 

Chell2772,

 

As I stated above in my post the standard DragonFly colors apply to sample rates. When the DragonFly goes to purple it is playing back via MQA.

 

If you are having a problem with getting it to purple a couple  of things maybe happening:

 

1) Check to see you have a HiFi / Master account in Tidal->Settings->Streaming:

2) Make sure you have version 1.06 DragonFly. You can run the Device Manager again and it will tell you that and serial number and other stuff.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

Thanks guys, on the tidal app I needed to set it to exclusive mode and it is now working. All smooth with Audirvana as well.  Sounding great!

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...