|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Aug 7, 2016 13:47:07 GMT -5
I think it was Time Warner that recently licensed the technology?
If Meridian's "Master Quality Authenticated" (MQA) encoding / decoding is going to be a factor in future music, then it seems prudent to wait on buying ANY new DAC. If not, then it does't matter.
Some (few) DAC makers are embracing it, but the majority (to date) seem to take a "wait and see" attitude.
Boom
And "why you should care" is that most listeners claim a huge increase in sound quality from the MQA encode / decode process.
|
|
|
|
Post by macromicroman on Aug 7, 2016 13:52:21 GMT -5
What is it supposed to do?
|
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Aug 7, 2016 13:57:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Aug 7, 2016 13:58:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Aug 7, 2016 19:09:56 GMT -5
The fact they had to compare MQA to SRS had me in stiitches. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Aug 7, 2016 19:30:23 GMT -5
MQA is a cool thing but not necessarily something that obsoletes dacs in the least. My issue with it is that it is as vague as possible with its descriptions....plus it is lossy.
The selling point of it is:
MQA can deliver sound that is exactly as heard in the recording studio or at least what's on the master tapes or maybe even BETTER than the master tapes.
The way they deliver this magic is bafflingly missing. I have also yet to hear the collection of titles that are available for MQA.
This is all I've heard:
For sure you need MQA. If you don't, the SAME EXACT FILE sounds like a normal file...maybe better than cd quality. But if you have MQA enabled DAC suddenly the file has morphed in to the studio master tapes and it's so much better than anything else out there. Let's disregard how the DAC actually works or is implemented or anything else. It just happens.
So I am skeptical. What I see is this:
MQA is a way to deliver high resolution lossy audio over current bandwith connections especially limited ones....though on most of america's internet, they can still stream high ersolution audio over their current internet. So it really helps the music servers more than the consumer.
If you want to hear it, then you have to throw away your old DAC and replace it with the MQA DAC. And the MQA feature will only work with files that have MQA.
I.e. if your old DAC did better with regular files than the MQA DAC does on the regular files you already own, now your regular files sound worse because you now have an MQA DAC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Aug 7, 2016 20:04:25 GMT -5
The "you have to throw away your old DAC" part is not supposed to be true. Since the MQA encode - decode happens in the digital domain, MQA can be implemented in software. That means that either a flash-update for devices that support that or else a downloaded software plug-in should be able to decode MQA content.
And further MQA encoded files are said to sound better than their red-book 44KHz WAV files - even if you don't have a MQA-enabled DAC. In other words, the encoding is supposed to be 100% backward compatible.
If your DAC is MQA-enabled, it knows which content has the encoding and which doesn't. The MQA decoder is supposedly bypassed for non-MQA content.
So theoretically there is no "sounding worse" anywhere in the system, with or without a MQA DAC.
How, exactly, does the MQA encode process work? The TAS magazine had half an issue devoted to exactly that, but I found it overly general myself...
Supposedly, MQA isn't about bandwidth - although that could be a side benefit. It's about the failure of conventional digital sampling to capture, accurately, the sound of the master tape. Are Meridian's claims accurate? The proof will be in the listening. The majority of those who've heard MQA claim that it works, and is a huge improvement. There are a few internet reviews saying that it's BS and that the Emperor has no clothes. Who's right? I'll have to hear it myself to decide.
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Aug 7, 2016 20:53:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Aug 7, 2016 20:53:50 GMT -5
The "you have to throw away your old DAC" part is not supposed to be true. Since the MQA encode - decode happens in the digital domain, MQA can be implemented in software. That means that either a flash-update for devices that support that or else a downloaded software plug-in should be able to decode MQA content. Yes, if your old DAC is not MQA compatible. Then you throw it away if you want a DAC that does MQA. Which puts one up a creek if they have a very expensive excellent DAC if they are not willing to spend the money to replace it with an equivalent DAC - if there is an equivalent MQA DAC. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Aug 7, 2016 22:06:00 GMT -5
But I agree that listening is the proof! I think it's interesting but I don't like that the DAC HAS to have MQA decoding. Don't see why it can't be implemented in software before outputting an SPDIF signal?
There are some interesting thigns I see and that MQA is supposedly implemented in the analod to digital conversion process. Now that's interesting. And MQA is supposed to have better timing - whatever that means.
Now I agree that better analog to digital is probvably a good thing. Schiit came out a long time ago (before they were SChiit) with unique analog to digital tech. So they didn't just godfather the first DAC, they also came out with ground breaking ADC tech as well. Interesting stuff. We don't hear a lot about the analog digital conversion process. Hopefully this will increase interest in improved converters etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Aug 8, 2016 4:13:09 GMT -5
You aren't getting it, garbulky - ANY DAC will play a MQA file. It won't sound as good as with a MQA-decoding-DAC, but it should (according the the review) STILL sound better than a 44-16 CD file. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Aug 8, 2016 7:07:38 GMT -5
Sounds similar to the old HDCD format, which really hasn't gone anywhere. Manufacturers don't like to pay for licenses if they don't have to!
|
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Aug 8, 2016 7:11:10 GMT -5
I just wished I owned an all Meridian system. My old Meridian 508 CD player was the best sounding unit I have ever owned
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Aug 8, 2016 9:43:41 GMT -5
Warner group purchased it. Apple's sniffing at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Aug 8, 2016 10:45:20 GMT -5
You aren't getting it, garbulky - ANY DAC will play a MQA file. It won't sound as good as with a MQA-decoding-DAC, but it should (according the the review) STILL sound better than a 44-16 CD file. I understand that a DAC will play any MQA file even if it's not an MQA DAC. But if you want MQA quality, you must have an MQA DAC. If you don't but have a very good (expensive) DAC like say a Schiit Ygdrassil then, it won't do MQA quality. So then you must REPLACE your current DAC to take advantage of MQA. That's my issue with it. The Ygdrassil has multibit and filter tech that MQA DACs don't have. Most FPGA DACs out there - the latest tech revolution - also don't have MQA tech. So then I miss out on the latest revolutions in DAC technology that will make my current files sound better - all for MQA capability. For instance you can't download a software MQA player which then passes the MQA decoded stream on to the DAC you already have. You must purchase a MQA DAC to take advantage of it. This is not unheard of....but it does mean throwing away the old DAC unless you are willing to switch wires between the two whenever you want to play MQA, which sounds cumbersome. The same happened with Sony's SACD players. You want SACD quality - you must have a SACD capable HDMI DAC or preferrably buy an SACD player. Most DACs don't have HDMI, and a lot of DACS don't have DSD. So once again your DAC choice becomes limited. It's even happening with blu ray players now. Blu ray 4k needs HDMI 2. You may have a perfectly good TV with 4k capability but if it isn't HDMI 2 HDCP 2.2 compliance (most of them weren't until the recent generation) then you have to throw away your 4k tv and replace it with a 4k tv that does have HDMI 2 HDCP 2.2 if you want to take advantage of it. Same goes for your reciever - hence the $400 charge for HDMI 2 upgrade for the XMC-1....even though it already is 4k capable. Sadly this type of thing is happening everywhere. Two channel DACs are going out of favor for convenience of receievers. A lot of the boxes out there are slowly dropping their coax outputs or TOSLINK optical outputs preferring to rely on HDMI capability. They assume you have a receiver instead which has HDMI. But most DACs out there don't have HDMI - which I think is bad thinking on the DACs part so won't work. So for instance, the Amazon Fire TV, the Apple TV, have all only have HDMI digital outputs. Even though having an SPDIF port of some sort wouldn't really cost them much. This basically rules them out for my DC-1 DAC  And if I want to use them limits my choice of DACs for the few HDMI capable DACs out there. Which aren't many, and most are somewhat on the pricey side for what they bring to the table. Long story short - people have to continuosly pay money to upgrade equipment that is already capable of performing the feature that you are upgrading it/replacing it for. However some red tape or security mechanism or a company refusing to develop full backward compatibility requires one to replace it. |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Aug 8, 2016 11:37:37 GMT -5
I'm confident MQA can offer better fidelity in smaller file/stream sizes but I'm very leery about a private company owning the encoding and conversion format, especially if it becomes ubiquitous. It just seems to surrender over to a single entity.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 8, 2016 11:50:19 GMT -5
Actually.... you're right..... and wrong..... "MQA" is actually a vague thing - or, more accurately, a collection of things, each of which offers benefits. (All this according to the "official information".) 1) The MQA recording itself is supposedly going to be made from "'the best available master copy". 2) The MQA CODEC should preserve more of the "high-resolution detail information" than other CODECS (the CODEC can be done in hardware or software). 3) In addition to the CODEC, an "MQA certified DAC" should be optimized for "really good time domain response". (An "MQA DAC" would BOTH have the CODEC built in AND be "MQA quality certified".) In other words, if you believe all the claims: 1) An MQA recording played on ANY DAC or player should sound better than another (non-MQA) recording. 2) It should sound even better if properly MQA decoded (by the DAC OR by a software player). 3) An MQA certified DAC should sound better when playing anything... and especially when playing an MQA recording (and also has the decoder built-in). So, yes, an MQA recording, decoded by a software MQA decoder, is STILL supposed to sound better on a good regular DAC. (Although how the "filter technology" in Yggdrasil compares to the "specific requirements" of a "MQA hardware DAC" isn't at all clear. Their requirement seems to involve "accurate time response"... although the exact details are somewhat vague. ) NOTES: 1) I haven't heard MQA at all - but I'll take their word for it that it works pretty well.. 2) Since ALL MQA recordings will have been "remastered" - at least somewhat, you're never going to be able to "compare apples to apples". 3) The whole bit about "starting with the best master" means precisely what whoever submits the master wants it to mean (the MQA company says quite specifically that "they aren't the quality police"). 4) The whole concept of "MQA certified equipment" is also somewhat vague... it includes a claim that such equipment, along with including the CODEC, will also have met other requirements (but those requirements have been only described somewhat generally). There is an implication that "an MQA certified DAC" should sound better, even with non-MQA content, because it's just a better DAC. 5) Also note that, at least for now, they are claiming that MQA does NOT include DRM (an MQA file will contain authentication information so you can tell it hasn't been altered but will NOT contain information to identify the owner or purchaser)... they have been very specific about this - at least for now. You aren't getting it, garbulky - ANY DAC will play a MQA file. It won't sound as good as with a MQA-decoding-DAC, but it should (according the the review) STILL sound better than a 44-16 CD file. I understand that a DAC will play any MQA file even if it's not an MQA DAC. But if you want MQA quality, you must have an MQA DAC. If you don't but have a very good (expensive) DAC like say a Schiit Ygdrassil then, it won't do MQA quality. So then you must REPLACE your current DAC to take advantage of MQA. That's my issue with it. The Ygdrassil has multibit and filter tech that MQA DACs don't have. Most FPGA DACs out there - the latest tech revolution - also don't have MQA tech. So then I miss out on the latest revolutions in DAC technology that will make my current files sound better - all for MQA capability. For instance you can't download a software MQA player which then passes the MQA decoded stream on to the DAC you already have. You must purchase a MQA DAC to take advantage of it. This is not unheard of....but it does mean throwing away the old DAC unless you are willing to switch wires between the two whenever you want to play MQA, which sounds cumbersome. The same happened with Sony's SACD players. You want SACD quality - you must have a SACD capable HDMI DAC or preferrably buy an SACD player. Most DACs don't have HDMI, and a lot of DACS don't have DSD. So once again your DAC choice becomes limited. It's even happening with blu ray players now. Blu ray 4k needs HDMI 2. You may have a perfectly good TV with 4k capability but if it isn't HDMI 2 HDCP 2.2 compliance (most of them weren't until the recent generation) then you have to throw away your 4k tv and replace it with a 4k tv that does have HDMI 2 HDCP 2.2 if you want to take advantage of it. Same goes for your reciever - hence the $400 charge for HDMI 2 upgrade for the XMC-1....even though it already is 4k capable. Sadly this type of thing is happening everywhere. Two channel DACs are going out of favor for convenience of receievers. A lot of the boxes out there are slowly dropping their coax outputs or TOSLINK optical outputs preferring to rely on HDMI capability. They assume you have a receiver instead which has HDMI. But most DACs out there don't have HDMI - which I think is bad thinking on the DACs part so won't work. So for instance, the Amazon Fire TV, the Apple TV, have all only have HDMI digital outputs. Even though having an SPDIF port of some sort wouldn't really cost them much. This basically rules them out for my DC-1 DAC And if I want to use them limits my choice of DACs for the few HDMI capable DACs out there. Which aren't many, and most are somewhat on the pricey side for what they bring to the table. Long story short - people have to continuosly pay money to upgrade equipment that is already capable of performing the feature that you are upgrading it/replacing it for. However some red tape or security mechanism or a company refusing to develop full backward compatibility requires one to replace it. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 8, 2016 11:58:56 GMT -5
My sentiments exactly...... I've got a few HDCDs... of those, some sound very good, some not so good, and some about the same. And, more to the point, I can't say that any of them sound good BECAUSE they're HDCD. Likewise, I've heard plenty of SACDs (and DSD files). Many of them sound different... some better, some worse, some about the same. And, more to the point, when I've heard differences, those differences remained when I converted them to PCM (which strongly suggests that it's the mastering that's different). (I can also vouch for the fact that any conversion, in either direction, makes a tiny, insignificant but audible, difference.... so no apples to apples comparison.) And I can say the same for any other format I've heard. At the moment I've heard quite a few high-res recordings that sound very good, so I'm willing to entertain the possibility that there MIGHT be a correlation there. (And, even if they're just mastered better.... then that's OK too.) However, I'll believe that all those MQA files will sound better when I hear it for myself. (And, in the mean time, I don't think they'll "dominate the market" any time soon.) In the mean time, I'm STILL waiting for any movies I really care about showing up in 4k. I'm confident MQA can offer better fidelity in smaller file/stream sizes but I'm very leery about a private company owning the encoding and conversion format, especially if it becomes ubiquitous. It just seems to surrender over to a single entity. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Aug 8, 2016 13:30:28 GMT -5
But if you want MQA quality, you must have an MQA DAC.. That's it in a nutshell. BUT since MQA can be implemented via hardware, software, OR plug-ins, it's highly likely that your existing DAC will decode MQA files (and for only a fraction of what a new DAC would cost). Companies currently producing MQA hardware DACs include: NAD Pioneer Onkyo Mytek Brinkman BlueSound Some of those are very affordable. |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Aug 8, 2016 13:47:15 GMT -5
We have a few DACs in the wild now. We just need MQA encoded files. Tidal is suppose to me streaming it by now.
BTW, MQA is not a new codec, but an encoding method for existing codecs. Exiting PCM codec encapsulation like FLAC, ALAC, WAV, etc could have MQA information embedded. The master file or quality of the file is only access via a compatible DAC. A standard non-MQA DAC will see it as a regular PCM file.
The DAC could have native support of MQA or existing DACs could be upgraded via firmware. The DSP will run the custom MQA code to unwrap the information embedded within the PCM codec.
|
|
And if I want to use them limits my choice of DACs for the few HDMI capable DACs out there. Which aren't many, and most are somewhat on the pricey side for what they bring to the table. 
