Audirvana Plus 3 (official thread)

[OldBigEars]

With very very few exceptions, DACs upsample, so unless you are listening with a non-upsampling override setting (which will sound horrible due to aliasing and other artifacts), your expectation bias is what you are hearing. Having software do so instead (or in addition) simply gives you more control. If you don't like those options, no one is suggesting you have to use them, but telling other people that it is damaging to the music is kind of ill-informed, despite the fact that you "could [sic] care less."

 

Upsampling is generally caused by an obsessive compulsion to fiddle, in a hopeless quest to extract another 0.1% of "sound quality" from your audio equipment. It's the very definition of expectation bias.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Dyson]

Unfolding is upsampling. Compressed information tells the renderer what resolution to upsample/unfold to, among other things.

 

Sorry Jud, I do not agree. If unfolding is what MQA allows/is doing then it is not equal to upsampling. MQA allows to rebuild the original sample rate from the content of the file (all the data is stored), there is no guessing/calculation of missing information.

If my description if wrong, then I haven't understood what MQA is and even worse I would not see the interest of it.

[Dyson]

With very very few exceptions, DACs upsample, so unless you are listening with a non-upsampling override setting (which will sound horrible due to aliasing and other artifacts), your expectation bias is what you are hearing. Having software do so instead (or in addition) simply gives you more control. If you don't like those options, no one is suggesting you have to use them, but telling other people that it is damaging to the music is kind of ill-informed, despite the fact that you "could [sic] care less."

 

iFi Audio DAC's have a BitPerfect setting where they do not upsample. It is even the best sounding setting!

[wgscott]

iFi Audio DAC's have a BitPerfect setting where they do not upsample. It is even the best sounding setting!

 

So does my DAC.

 

It might sound the "best" to you, but do you know what happens with the digital to analogue conversion when neither software nor hardware upsampling is used?

[Dyson]

So does my DAC.

 

It might sound the "best" to you, but do you know what happens with the digital to analogue conversion when neither software nor hardware upsampling is used?

 

It needs a well designed analog filter.

 

Add-on: that's the main reason why up sampling was introduced: easier and cheaper filter

[wgscott]

Upsampling is generally caused by an obsessive compulsion to fiddle, in a hopeless quest to extract another 0.1% of "sound quality" from your audio equipment. It's the very definition of expectation bias.

 

That is certainly one point of view.

[pl_svn]

iFi Audio DAC's have a BitPerfect setting where they do not upsample. It is even the best sounding setting!

 

all sigma-delta dac chips (Wolfson, Burr Brown & Co.) do upsample internally

there's been , in the past, a lot of misleading claims by DAC manufacturers about their "non upsampling" DACs

truth is they do not upsample *before* the DAC chip itself which then.. *does*

[wgscott]

It needs a well designed analog filter.

 

Add-on: that's the main reason why up sampling was introduced: easier and cheaper filter

 

If you don't filter or upsample before the conversion to analogue, you will have high-frequency roll-off. (That might be why it sounds better.)

 

 

(White and pink curves are NOS and not filtered). Archimago's Musings: MEASUREMENTS: Tascam UH-7000 USB Interface (Part II: As an ADC)

[Dyson]

all sigma-delta dac chips (Wolfson, Burr Brown & Co.) do upsample internally

there's been , in the past, a lot of misleading claims by DAC manufacturers about their "non upsampling" DACs

truth is they do not upsample *before* the DAC chip itself which then.. *does*

iFi Dac's is hybrid, only least significant part is reproduced with sigma-delta converter.

[fbczar]

Do yourself a favor and forget about upsampling. Just enjoy the organic sound of the native file. Won't be long before upsampling is filed away with "loudness buttons" and graphic equalizers.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

I would gladly forget about upsampling if it did not sound better. The only frustration I have is that finding a good starting point is so difficult. I love to tinker, but I am sure there are many who would give up pretty quickly. The amount of reading and experimenting I have done to get to a good place has been enormous. HQPLayer has the right idea with several sophisticated presets that are well done. It's interface is just too sparse. If Audirvana offered several presets designed for different types of DAC's and still allowed manual adjustments I think it would really help new users and would likely expand Damien's market share.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

[OldBigEars]

I would gladly forget about upsampling if it did not sound better. The only frustration I have is that finding a good starting point is so difficult. I love to tinker, but I am sure there are many who would give up pretty quickly. The amount of reading and experimenting I have done to get to a good place has been enormous. HQPLayer has the right idea with several sophisticated presets that are well done. It's interface is just too sparse. If Audirvana offered several presets designed for different types of DAC's and still allowed manual adjustments I think it would really help new users and would likely expand Damien's market share.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

 

Sounds good. Please proceed, as you feel fit. Glad you enjoy the improvements in sound you are experiencing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[mansr]

iFi Audio DAC's have a BitPerfect setting where they do not upsample. It is even the best sounding setting!

That setting bypasses the DAC's upsampling to 384 kHz, replacing it with simple sample repetition (zero-order hold). This is then fed to the sigma-delta conversion stage as usual. Of all the possible modes, this has by far the highest distortion levels.

[mevdinc]

Unfolding is upsampling. Compressed information tells the renderer what resolution to upsample/unfold to, among other things.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

I thought unfolding was like unzipping since MQA is some kind of lossless compression, whereas up-sampling is very different, it actually creates more samples from the existing info.

 

However, MQA software unfolding is still limited to 88.2 kHz or 96 kHz regardless of what Audirvana displays for the MQA. I have up-sampling turned off at Audirvana end, on my DAC the MQA music appears either as 88.2 or 96.

[Jud]

Sorry Jud, I do not agree. If unfolding is what MQA allows/is doing then it is not equal to upsampling. MQA allows to rebuild the original sample rate from the content of the file (all the data is stored), there is no guessing/calculation of missing information.

If my description if wrong, then I haven't understood what MQA is and even worse I would not see the interest of it.

 

 

Hi Dyson. This is not actually something subject to disagreement. If you look at MQA's patents or technical papers or any technical descriptions of it, you will find that "unfolding" and "upsampling" are the same thing. You will also find that whereas there is a method of upsampling ("closed form") that, though not commonly used, does not lose any information, the method used by MQA is not this method and does in fact lose information. MQA's method of compression, unlike FLAC or ALAC, is also lossy. So information is lost when the file is "folded down" to 16/44.1 or /48 or whatever, and it is lost again when the file is "unfolded." MQA does not claim otherwise; rather it claims that its methods are *audibly* lossless.

[mansr]

Sorry Jud, I do not agree. If unfolding is what MQA allows/is doing then it is not equal to upsampling. MQA allows to rebuild the original sample rate from the content of the file (all the data is stored), there is no guessing/calculation of missing information.

If my description if wrong, then I haven't understood what MQA is and even worse I would not see the interest of it.

I have done some reverse engineering of the MQA decoder, and I can confirm that Jud is right. Only the first stage decoding restores any high-frequency content from the original. The rest is mere upsampling with a very poor filter.

[fbczar]

That setting bypasses the DAC's upsampling to 384 kHz, replacing it with simple sample repetition (zero-order hold). This is then fed to the sigma-delta conversion stage as usual. Of all the possible modes, this has by far the highest distortion levels.

 

Mansr, I use an Emotiva XMC-1 with a Burr Brown DSD 1796 DAC. Can you suggest some settings, as a starting point, for such a DAC?

[Dyson]

Hi Dyson. This is not actually something subject to disagreement. If you look at MQA's patents or technical papers or any technical descriptions of it, you will find that "unfolding" and "upsampling" are the same thing. You will also find that whereas there is a method of upsampling ("closed form") that, though not commonly used, does not lose any information, the method used by MQA is not this method and does in fact lose information. MQA's method of compression, unlike FLAC or ALAC, is also lossy. So information is lost when the file is "folded down" to 16/44.1 or /48 or whatever, and it is lost again when the file is "unfolded." MQA does not claim otherwise; rather it claims that its methods are *audibly* lossless.

 

I have done some reverse engineering of the MQA decoder, and I can confirm that Jud is right. Only the first stage decoding restores any high-frequency content from the original. The rest is mere upsampling with a very poor filter.

Thanks both of you for clarifying. Should we conclude that all around MQA launch is very a well orchestrated campaign? And that in fact with regards to real hi-res streaming, it's a step backwards?

Glad that I finally know.

[mevdinc]

I have done some reverse engineering of the MQA decoder, and I can confirm that Jud is right. Only the first stage decoding restores any high-frequency content from the original. The rest is mere upsampling with a very poor filter.

 

This is exactly my point, I'm only talking about the first stage of unfolding, which Audirvana is allowed to perform i.e either 88.2 or 96, this is exactly what my DAC displays regardless of what Audirvana shows.

[Jud]

Thanks both of you for clarifying. Should we conclude that all around MQA launch is very a well orchestrated campaign? And that in fact with regards to real hi-res streaming, it's a step backwards?

Glad that I finally know.

 

My thinking, based on what I have read and what I have heard, is this: (1) Where I own hi-res recordings that are the same mastering as the Tidal MQA, I prefer the recordings I own. (2) Where MQA has made better mastering available, regardless of whether I own a less well mastered RedBook or hi res version, I prefer the better mastered MQA version. So as pretty much always, I like the better mastering, regardless of resolution.

[matthias]

My thinking, based on what I have read and what I have heard, is this: (1) Where I own hi-res recordings that are the same mastering as the Tidal MQA, I prefer the recordings I own. (2) Where MQA has made better mastering available, regardless of whether I own a less well mastered RedBook or hi res version, I prefer the better mastered MQA version. So as pretty much always, I like the better mastering, regardless of resolution.

 

+1

Source first rules!

 

Matt

[Innocent Bystander]

I thought unfolding was like unzipping since MQA is some kind of lossless compression, whereas up-sampling is very different,

 

Erm, MQA is not lossless.

[TommyCat]

Moving away from the MQA focus, I am run across a strange behavior after upgrading to 3.0.1. Not sure if just on my end or a global issue. I use A+ for library management (do not use iTunes integrated mode). Use the "search bar" to search for an artist where you have more than one of their recordings (this problem only happens when find the artist via the search bar). Start playing a song from the first album you select - the album and track list appear at bottom in the viewer. Now switch over to another album of the artist and select a song. That song will play but the album and track list of the "first" album you selected pops back up in the viewer at bottom.

Just me?

 

I sent an email to Damien as well.

[Innocent Bystander]

My thinking, based on what I have read and what I have heard, is this: (1) Where I own hi-res recordings that are the same mastering as the Tidal MQA, I prefer the recordings I own. (2) Where MQA has made better mastering available, regardless of whether I own a less well mastered RedBook or hi res version, I prefer the better mastered MQA version. So as pretty much always, I like the better mastering, regardless of resolution.

Hardly surprising, as MQA is a compromise, and isn't lossless even if they claim the effect is inaudible. To my mind the only potential value is when online streaming with a borderline internet connection, as if the connection is high enough speed then hi res streaming would be better (from somewhere making available of course). Personally I'd rather just download the hi res, when MQA contributes nothing. But of course it is good for Tidal, because it reduces their bandwidth for streaming hi res - and maybe otherwise they wouldn't do so.

[TommyCat]

Hardly surprising, as MQA is a compromise, and isn't lossless even if they claim the effect is inaudible. To my mind the only potential value is when online streaming with a borderline internet connection, as if the connection is high enough speed then hi res streaming would be better (from somewhere making available of course). Personally I'd rather just download the hi res, when MQA contributes nothing. But of course it is good for Tidal, because it reduces their bandwidth for streaming hi res - and maybe otherwise they wouldn't do so.

Not sure if anyone has read this article re MQA from John Siau at Benchmark Media; at a minimum, worth a quick read:

 

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa

[mgaluzzi]

@damien78

@AudioDoctor

 

Damien after following yours instructions A+ v3 special build is working perfectly with Luxman DA06!

The key was unplug & plug!

 

Thanks a lot!