|
|
Post by novisnick on Jan 7, 2017 20:20:29 GMT -5
I'm profoundly uninterested in the business of MQA (which is, most assuredly, designed to make money). Nor am I particularly curious about the mechanics of MQA. What I want to know (and haven't been able to hear for myself, yet), is how MQA SOUNDS. If it's as good as some reviews say, then i want some. If it's as bad as some other reviews say, then I don't want to bother. And if it's good enough, then I don't care if they make money on it. Good for them. You have Tidal, why don't you stream from you PC or Mac. You can hear it for yourself??   |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Jan 7, 2017 20:20:32 GMT -5
I'm profoundly uninterested in the business of MQA (which is, most assuredly, designed to make money). Nor am I particularly curious about the mechanics of MQA. What I want to know (and haven't been able to hear for myself, yet), is how MQA SOUNDS. If it's as good as some reviews say, then i want some. If it's as bad as some other reviews say, then I don't want to bother. And if it's good enough, then I don't care if they make money on it. Good for them. Did you get my message about MQA releasing a software MQA decoder for specific applications? It means you do not need a MQA enabled DAC to get the benefit of MQA playback. It will work on a regular DAC as long as the application supports it. Not sure which applications they are though. Tidal, Roon and BluOS (Bluesound and NAD), to mention a few. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 7, 2017 20:45:46 GMT -5
Will you be doing a DBT off MQA vs any other codecs? Maybe flac? LOL - I love humor! |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 11, 2017 10:55:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Jan 11, 2017 13:10:34 GMT -5
An MQA encoded file can be played back in four ways; with no decoding, software decoding, hardware decoding, and a combined software/hardware decode. If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file using iTunes through a regular DAC (i.e. a non-MQA DAC), you will get a 24/48 file. If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file through an MQA software decoder like Tidal HiFi, Audirvana, or (soon) Roon, and you are using a regular DAC (i.e. a non-MQA DAC), you will get a 24/96 file. A software decoder does not offer the ability to 'unfold' the original file to resolutions higher than 24/96 (or 24/88.2). If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file through an MQA-enabled DAC, you will get a 24-bit/192kHz file. If you are also using a software decoder like Tidal HiFi, Audirvana, or (soon) Roon, you can have the software decoder perform the first 'unfold'. Read more at www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-decoding-explained#ehw82q9glUV3Fh2K.99 |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 11, 2017 14:22:08 GMT -5
If you read the fine print.... they're claiming that you should get some of the benefits with a software decoder..... but that, "for best results", your DAC should also be "MQA optimized". They're basically saying that, unless your DAC is MQA certified, it will just muck it up again after it's decoded.... at least to some degree. At other points they've essentially claimed that a hardware-based decoder in the DAC will have been optimized to work with that particular hardware. In short, and you really can;t separate the claims from their business model, they've got a bunch of separate "pieces" and they're claiming that, while any one or two pieces will give you an improvement, for the best improvement you really want ALL the pieces. I'm profoundly uninterested in the business of MQA (which is, most assuredly, designed to make money). Nor am I particularly curious about the mechanics of MQA. What I want to know (and haven't been able to hear for myself, yet), is how MQA SOUNDS. If it's as good as some reviews say, then i want some. If it's as bad as some other reviews say, then I don't want to bother. And if it's good enough, then I don't care if they make money on it. Good for them. Did you get my message about MQA releasing a software MQA decoder for specific applications? It means you do not need a MQA enabled DAC to get the benefit of MQA playback. It will work on a regular DAC as long as the application supports it. Not sure which applications they are though. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 11, 2017 14:30:30 GMT -5
I would remind yet again that NONE of those options will actually return a bit-perfect copy of the original input file. An MQA encoded file can be played back in four ways; with no decoding, software decoding, hardware decoding, and a combined software/hardware decode. If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file using iTunes through a regular DAC (i.e. a non-MQA DAC), you will get a 24/48 file. If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file through an MQA software decoder like Tidal HiFi, Audirvana, or (soon) Roon, and you are using a regular DAC (i.e. a non-MQA DAC), you will get a 24/96 file. A software decoder does not offer the ability to 'unfold' the original file to resolutions higher than 24/96 (or 24/88.2). If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file through an MQA-enabled DAC, you will get a 24-bit/192kHz file. If you are also using a software decoder like Tidal HiFi, Audirvana, or (soon) Roon, you can have the software decoder perform the first 'unfold'. Read more at www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-decoding-explained#ehw82q9glUV3Fh2K.99 |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Jan 11, 2017 14:51:25 GMT -5
I would remind yet again that NONE of those options will actually return a bit-perfect copy of the original input file. An MQA encoded file can be played back in four ways; with no decoding, software decoding, hardware decoding, and a combined software/hardware decode. If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file using iTunes through a regular DAC (i.e. a non-MQA DAC), you will get a 24/48 file. If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file through an MQA software decoder like Tidal HiFi, Audirvana, or (soon) Roon, and you are using a regular DAC (i.e. a non-MQA DAC), you will get a 24/96 file. A software decoder does not offer the ability to 'unfold' the original file to resolutions higher than 24/96 (or 24/88.2). If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file through an MQA-enabled DAC, you will get a 24-bit/192kHz file. If you are also using a software decoder like Tidal HiFi, Audirvana, or (soon) Roon, you can have the software decoder perform the first 'unfold'. Read more at www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-decoding-explained#ehw82q9glUV3Fh2K.99For me, it doesn't have to be "Bit-Perfect" in the classical definition. It preserves what your ear hears and eliminates temporal blur. All I know is that it sounds great and better that my HDTRACKS downloads. I am hearing it with Tidal. New master quality albums added every hour, for those who asked about content, see the list below...  docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10VtON9VjMAt3uyHC2-Oo2MjIa3orv9DKZfwiRQKmTAA/htmlview# |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 11, 2017 16:08:52 GMT -5
I would remind yet again that NONE of those options will actually return a bit-perfect copy of the original input file. An MQA encoded file can be played back in four ways; with no decoding, software decoding, hardware decoding, and a combined software/hardware decode. If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file using iTunes through a regular DAC (i.e. a non-MQA DAC), you will get a 24/48 file. If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file through an MQA software decoder like Tidal HiFi, Audirvana, or (soon) Roon, and you are using a regular DAC (i.e. a non-MQA DAC), you will get a 24/96 file. A software decoder does not offer the ability to 'unfold' the original file to resolutions higher than 24/96 (or 24/88.2). If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file through an MQA-enabled DAC, you will get a 24-bit/192kHz file. If you are also using a software decoder like Tidal HiFi, Audirvana, or (soon) Roon, you can have the software decoder perform the first 'unfold'. Read more at www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-decoding-explained#ehw82q9glUV3Fh2K.99MQA is Analog-to-Analog. The bit-perfect copy of the original input file contains unwanted audible ringing artifacts introduced by the digital anti-alias filter in the ADC, and *because* they're unwanted, the fact that a bit-perfect copy of that original file is not returned is a good thing if that's what it will take to reduce those artifacts so higher accuracy measured at the analog output is still higher accuracy no matter what bits are like. |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Jan 11, 2017 16:43:26 GMT -5
I got a 30 day trial for tidal so i can stream mqa songs, let's see if i pick a difference compared with my regular cds
|
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Jan 11, 2017 23:36:33 GMT -5
I got a 30 day trial for tidal so i can stream mqa songs, let's see if i pick a difference compared with my regular cds please let us know what you think make sure is async via usb the tidal desktop app is the only method of playing mqa from them |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Jan 12, 2017 0:02:24 GMT -5
I got a 30 day trial for tidal so i can stream mqa songs, let's see if i pick a difference compared with my regular cds Does your DAC decode MQA? |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Jan 12, 2017 2:21:42 GMT -5
First, thanks for adding the link to the TIDAL MQA/high resolution content. I've been impressed so far listening to the 24/48 tracks and they sound darn swell to my ears. I do wonder how much better they might sound if I had an MQA DAC. Roon's software solution might get me halfway there. Second, I'll keep an open mind about the bit perfect issue. If there's a new way to enjoy superior sound without being bit perfect, I can handle that. Still skeptical about the proprietary nature and business model of MQA. |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Jan 12, 2017 9:36:18 GMT -5
please let us know what you think make sure is async via usb the tidal desktop app is the only method of playing mqa from them Well, i did some listening yesterday. I got the desktop app and connect the pc to my oppo 105 asynchronous usb. The oppo doesn't decode mqa so probably i'm not getting the "full" experience of mqa. I found some differences between redbook cd and the "master" version on tidal. First i compared "loud" sounding cds like red hot chilli peppers/green day and they have a little better dynamic range but is not night and day difference. Then i compared Fleetwood Mac rumours sacd against the mqa version and i preferred the sacd version, the mqa version doesn't have the dynamics of the sacd. I can say that mqa doens't sound better on my system at least. It can be that my oppo doesnt give me the full experience of mqa and also that the usb in the oppo is not as good as other dacs out there. |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Jan 12, 2017 9:58:30 GMT -5
I got a 30 day trial for tidal so i can stream mqa songs, let's see if i pick a difference compared with my regular cds Does your DAC decode MQA? It does not. I'm aware that i'm not getting the "full" experience of mqa |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Jan 12, 2017 10:15:23 GMT -5
please let us know what you think make sure is async via usb the tidal desktop app is the only method of playing mqa from them Well, i did some listening yesterday. I got the desktop app and connect the pc to my oppo 105 asynchronous usb. The oppo doesn't decode mqa so probably i'm not getting the "full" experience of mqa. I found some differences between redbook cd and the "master" version on tidal. First i compared "loud" sounding cds like red hot chilli peppers/green day and they have a little better dynamic range but is not night and day difference. Then i compared Fleetwood Mac rumours sacd against the mqa version and i preferred the sacd version, the mqa version doesn't have the dynamics of the sacd. I can say that mqa doens't sound better on my system at least. It can be that my oppo doesnt give me the full experience of mqa and also that the usb in the oppo is not as good as other dacs out there. It would be great if Oppo supports native MQA for the final step, so we could compare apples to apples. Check out the list below for "Master" found so far. Add some if you find more. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10VtON9VjMAt3uyHC2-Oo2MjIa3orv9DKZfwiRQKmTAA/htmlview# |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 12, 2017 10:24:18 GMT -5
Second, I'll keep an open mind about the bit perfect issue. If there's a new way to enjoy superior sound without being bit perfect, I can handle that. Still skeptical about the proprietary nature and business model of MQA. I agree. If the bits were mangled to begin with by the ADC (and it seems that they ALL were), then being "bit perfect" only means that we're exactly reproducing the filter errors that were there to start with. Therefore, "bit-perfect" is not only useless, it's worse than useless because it was an imperfect conversion to begin with. IF MQA can repair that initial damage (an unverified claim, at this time), then an MQA-remastered and decoded recording will be superior to a bit-perfect copy of that original recording. Yes, the MQA business model is its own worst enemy. But that said, if MQA delivers what it promises, then I want to hear it for myself. If I can hear improvements, then I'm willing to spend extra for an MQA-decoding DAC and also to spend extra for MQA-encoded/remastered source material. In fact, whether or not I "upgrade" to the new Oppo UDP-205 or keep my existing BDP-105 may well be dependent on whether or not Oppo includes MQA on their new model. If they don't, then do I really want to spend extra for "better" video performance alone? I'm not sure that I do. My money (and a roughly equal amount) might be better spent on a DAC that includes MQA. But if Oppo makes the 205 a MQA-decoding DAC, then the upgrade becomes a no-brainer. So the ball's in Oppo's court - MQA or no? My dollars hang in the balance. Boomzilla |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 12, 2017 11:13:48 GMT -5
I don't disagree with YOUR STATEMENT at all. MY PROBLEM is this: It's quite simple to demonstrate that a digital audio signal or CODEC is bit-perfect - you just compare what you got to the original. Either the bits are exactly the same or they are not; the result is quite definitive - and not at all open to dispute; and we already know that MQA is NOT digitally bit-perfect. HOWEVER, no two analog signals are ever identical - so it's always going to be a matter of minimizing the differences. (And, especially with audiophiles, there's always going to be the question of how audible various differences are.) HERE'S MY PROBLEM WITH THE CLAIMS CURRENTLY BEING MADE FOR MQA:
1) MQA is NOT digitally bit-perfect (this is not in question). 2) Many people claim that they believe that MQA files sound better than those reproduced by other formats (this is a subjective judgment).
3) MQA CLAIMS that their final delivered result is closer to the analog original than the end result provided by other methods.However, what seems to be entirely missing are the various tests CONFIRMING that the decoded MQA-encoded content really is closer to the analog original. I don't know of anybody who has actually compared the analog original to the MQA copy and an equivalent PCM copy in a controlled test environment. I can only think of two ways to confirm this.... 1) We could take measurements about how the MQA copy and the PCM copies at various sample rates vary from the original and see how they compare. (Of course, since we already know that the results won't be identical, we could be right back to needing to determine if they sound audibly different.) 2a) We could do some serious double blind tests to confirm that the MQA copy sounds indistinguishable from the original. 2b) We could do some serious double blind tests to confirm that the MQA copy sounds more like the original than the various PCM versions. (If it turns out that both the MQA copy and the PCM copy sound indistinguishable from the original, then we're just wasting our time arguing.) As of now, there is NO PROOF that the MQA-reproduced copy is closer to the ANALOG ORIGINAL than a PCM copy. The fact that "a lot of people think MQA sounds better than PCM" is NOT proof that is is in fact more accurate to the original. (And, obviously, it's going to be impossible for most end users to compare anything to that analog studio original - which they don't have access to.) In other words, we've got a bunch of logical arguments about why MQA "should" sound really good. And a bunch of people who like it better than the specific PCM versions they've compared it to. But saying that you "like the MQA processed copy better than the PCM copy" is not at all the same as comparing it to the actual analog original. In fact, it seems to me an awful lot like when audiophiles claim that this or that system sounds "more like live sound" - even though they haven;t actually compared it to live sound. (Which means that, if you want to be accurate, it just sounds more like what they imagine it ought to..... ) So, to be very blunt, while MQA MIGHT BE more accurate to the analog original, I haven't seen any proof of that yet. I would remind yet again that NONE of those options will actually return a bit-perfect copy of the original input file. MQA is Analog-to-Analog. The bit-perfect copy of the original input file contains unwanted audible ringing artifacts introduced by the digital anti-alias filter in the ADC, and *because* they're unwanted, the fact that a bit-perfect copy of that original file is not returned is a good thing if that's what it will take to reduce those artifacts so higher accuracy measured at the analog output is still higher accuracy no matter what bits are like. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 12, 2017 11:35:47 GMT -5
... HERE'S MY PROBLEM WITH THE CLAIMS CURRENTLY BEING MADE FOR MQA:
1) MQA is NOT digitally bit-perfect (this is not in question). If we all agree (and we do) then why is this a problem? 2) Many people claim that they believe that MQA files sound better than those reproduced by other formats (this is a subjective judgment). So anything that can't be measured is a problem? 3) MQA CLAIMS that their final delivered result is closer to the analog original than the end result provided by other methods. Same comment as for No. 2 ...As of now, there is NO PROOF that the MQA-reproduced copy is closer to the ANALOG ORIGINAL than a PCM copy... Agreed 100%. Until a valid listening test is conducted between the analog source recording, a bit-perfect PCM copy, and a remastered & decoded MQA copy, nobody will ever know which is closer to the source. No matter how you cut it, MQA is a second or third generation kludge intended to repair known defects in the digitization process. But as a consumer, I'll never have the opportunity to run such a comparison. The best I could do would be to compare a consumer PCM copy to the MQA version. And that would only tell me which "sounded better" to my ears. Nevertheless, what "sounds better" is the goal that I pursue in audio, period. Since I have no "original experience" to compare a recording to, I have no choice but to discern what sounds better. Now garbulky, being a recordist, COULD record a digitized performance. But without the MQA encoding / decoding, he'd never be able to assess the veracity of the MQA copy vs. his PCM copy. In short - verification of MQA's claims is beyond what the average person can do. The only thing we can do is to decide whether (to our own ears) the MQA version sounds subjectively better than a non-MQA copy. The (vast) majority of those who HAVE heard MQA agree that (in their subjective opinions) the MQA is an improvement. Who am I to blow against the wind? I reserve personal judgement until I've personally heard MQA - but despite my (and your) valid reservations, I believe it deserves a chance. Cordially - Boom |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 12, 2017 12:07:25 GMT -5
Boys and girls, It's popcorn time again!
|
|
