|
|
Post by rhale64 on May 23, 2017 15:16:36 GMT -5
Stereophile - Munich Milestones for MQA
Additional hardware partners, computer playback software announcements and Merlin Network is onboard. (Link)
I guess It is time to take mqa seriously. Emotiva, you need to be the first to put this in s processor. And that processor will be mine approximately three days after they start shipping. And that processor is, drum roll please, the RMC1. Hehe |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on May 25, 2017 12:38:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jamco on May 25, 2017 18:17:15 GMT -5
Nugs.net Offers Live Concerns in MQA (Link) |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on May 26, 2017 10:19:01 GMT -5
First off, the obvious long term solution, and also the one that's obviously already occurring, is that ADCs are continually being improved to reduce the errors they introduce. (Remember that NO conversion or storage process can ever be perfect; but, as long as it's a lot more perfect than the microphones used to make the recording and the speakers used to play it then it's good enough). Second, the analogy with Photoshop actually holds up rather well. (I should mention that the term "reconstruction filter" is a technical term that refers to the place of the filter in the process of "reconstructing" an analog signal from digital data. The word "reconstruction" does not have connotations of fixing or repairing the signal... just of "putting the pieces back together in their original form". Reconstruction filters are not intended to "repair" the signal.) My point, however, is that there is always some loss of perfection when a photo is converted into digital format, and even when the light coming into the lens of a digital camera is converted into numbers by the sensor. Likewise, virtually all Photoshop "sharpening" filters perform a specific form of "optical processing" to make the picture look sharper. Note that, while the action of the sharpening algorithm, while it may seem to reverse the flaws of the original image capture process, is really INDEPENDENT of it. It doesn't "know" how the picture was originally blurred. (And it will cheerfully sharpen a picture that the photographer INTENDED to be blurry - and so ruin it - if you "crank it up".) Even though, if you happen to know what lens was used to take the picture, you can make a pretty good guess about what damage was done, and what alteration will make it look better, you are not intelligently correcting specific known problems. (Imagine using the latest "click and pop remover" to "fix" an album - including the part where the producer WANTED it to sound like an old record played on an old phonograph.) Essentially, you can look at the audio, pick out certain types of signals that "typically" don't have ringing and assume that, if you see any, it doesn't belong there. You can then do some mathematically process that removes that ringing (to some degree) - and assume that the result will make things more like "they're supposed to be". (It's equivalent to, in Photoshop, assuming that any part of the picture that's blurred is supposed to be sharp... which would NOT be a great assumption for an artsy photo.) In theory, the "full up MQA process" works at various steps in the process to improve things.... - an MQA certified ADC is presumed to make fewer and smaller errors to begin with - the MQA "processing", when applied to existing content, is assumed to do a pretty good job of guessing what damage has already occurred, and correcting some of it - the MQA CODEC is assumed to protect the (either good quality or now well repaired) content from being munged up again along the way by a poor compression scheme - the MQA certified "renderer" and DAC are assumed to minimize any additional damage that might be caused by the DAC during the final conversion back to analog In general, reconstruction filters relate to how the DAC that does the final conversion handles transients (ringing). - a well-chosen reconstruction filter will help to minimize any damage during the final digital-to-analog conversion process - certain "apodizing" filters can actually correct for certain conversion flaws by "shifting pre-ringing to post ringing" (they "convert" audible pre-ringing that may have been caused by the ADC into less audible post-ringing) (Essentially, what MQA is promising to do with their "processing step" is a more sophisticated form of this sort of correction.) An important thing to note, however, is that we're talking about complex alterations of the signal. This is NOT nearly as simple as "turning the treble up 3 dB to correct for a 3 dB droop" or "adding a yellow filter to correct for a blue tinge". It's more like "restoring" an old painting that has some paint chipped away in places and a few suspicious looking spots here and there. (There will be some guesswork and approximations involved.) So then here's a question: The idea that Analog-to-Digital and Digital-to-Analog Conversions have inherent Error Signatures is probably not news to the designers of ADCs and DACs. And some of the Error Signature is probably inherent in the very process as opposed to being specific to one ADC or DAC or another. Therefore I'd be Really Surprised™ if DAC designers weren't already designing their Reconstruction Filters to accommodate for these common ADC & DAC Error Signatures. For instance, I see that the AK4490 has five Reconstruction Filters and the new AK4497 has six. Are these already trying to fix things up? I.e. the "Photoshop Sharpening Filters" in your metaphoric example? Or is it the case that each ADC brings its own unique Error Signature which a DAC can't "reverse" because it doesn't know which ADC was used? Casey |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on May 26, 2017 10:29:14 GMT -5
Unfortunately, there's always a significant cost, and a significant risk, to being the first to do anything. And we want to spend our money where it will provide the most benefit for the largest number of our current and prospective customers. (Would you be willing to pay an extra $500 for an "MQA option"?) I keep hearing about "who's on board" but, to be honest, the overall industry acceptance of MQA seems to be luke warm at best. I'm still waiting to see the list of all of my favorite old albums that have been remastered in MQA - and sound sooooo much better that way. And I'll be waiting fro wide agreement that all the new MQA releases really sound a lot better when played back in MQA instead of regular PCM. However, as I said, my personal opinion isn't the issue here.... When enough of our customers want MQA to justify the extra cost and effort, we will no doubt consider adding it to our products. Here's a thought....... Over in the forum where people post what they're listening to now...... DO mention if what you're listening to now happens to be in MQA......(and tell us if it really sounds better). (And be sure to mention if you're listening to an MQA recording in PCM because you can't find anything with MQA to play it on yet.) That will give us all a good idea about how popular it REALLY is. Stereophile - Munich Milestones for MQA
Additional hardware partners, computer playback software announcements and Merlin Network is onboard. (Link)
I guess It is time to take mqa seriously. Emotiva, you need to be the first to put this in s processor. And that processor will be mine approximately three days after they start shipping. And that processor is, drum roll please, the RMC1. Hehe |
|
|
|
Post by repeetavx on May 26, 2017 11:15:42 GMT -5
I think that Emotiva should enter the MQA market with a DAC. And not necessary a fancy one. MQA seems to be directed at the streaming market, and one of the most popular gateways to this market seems to be the Meridian Explorer2 DAC.
So I believe Emotiva should reissue an Ego style DAC with MQA fully implemented in it. Personally I would prefer a small box form factor, but whatever is most cost effective would be ok with me. (As long as it has a big, solid volume knob on the front (just kidding)).
|
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on May 26, 2017 12:09:28 GMT -5
Audioquest Dragonfly fully unfolds MQA with their new firmware
|
|
|
|
Post by repeetavx on May 26, 2017 13:19:02 GMT -5
I found This List of MQA encoded albums available on Tidal's service. I may have to buy a Dragonfly Red and do some comparisons against my SACDs. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on May 26, 2017 13:21:43 GMT -5
It would appear that at least Tidal has a pretty good selection - and quantity. It will be interesting to hear what you think of the way they actually sound. I found This List of MQA encoded albums available on Tidal's service. I may have to buy a Dragonfly Red and do some comparisons against my SACDs. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on May 26, 2017 13:58:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Jun 5, 2017 21:35:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by earthboy on Jun 12, 2017 14:30:07 GMT -5
If MQA makes music sound better, then I'm thinking that the improvement comes from the analyzing and "fixing" of specific "issues" supposedly caused by the original encoding process. The special MQA-encoded data streams and licensed decoders are probably not needed except for creating an easy way to license and monetize the process.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthboy on Jun 12, 2017 16:04:46 GMT -5
And another thing, lossy files? After all we music lovers have been through to finally get to lossless codecs, MQA comes along and claims that their secret sauce is so good they can throw away bits of music and make it sound better at the same time. Something smells fishy here.
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jun 16, 2017 11:16:57 GMT -5
I didn't realize they were recording MQA CDs now! Did you? "MQA CD reissue of this 1994 release. One of the most iconic audiophile recordings of all time, Rebecca Pidgeon's The Raven is now released on MQA CD. Reflective yet contemporary, Rebecca's lovely voice rings with honest, unpretentious confidence and vivid tenderness. While her Celtic melodies set the mood, her lyrics tell stories, full, rich, textured, and open hearted. This amazing talent made her U.S. debut with The Raven, Chesky Record's most striking, powerful and fully realized vocal record to date. MQA is an award-winning technology that delivers the sound of the studio. The master MQA file is fully authenticated and is small enough to stream, while also being backward compatible, so you can play MQA music on any device. Imagine being present at the original studio performance of your favorite recording artist. Every nuance, every subtlety, every tiny drop of emotion delivered to your ears. MQA CD plays back on all CD players. When a conventional CD player is connected to an MQA-enabled device, the CD will reveal the original master quality." www.icontact-archive.com/ujqQxFvfuc5K5xj4dauUZC-3fwG-Ec0Y?w=4 |
|
|
|
Post by adaboy on Jun 16, 2017 15:31:11 GMT -5
I didn't realize they were recording MQA CDs now! Did you? "MQA CD reissue of this 1994 release. One of the most iconic audiophile recordings of all time, Rebecca Pidgeon's The Raven is now released on MQA CD. Reflective yet contemporary, Rebecca's lovely voice rings with honest, unpretentious confidence and vivid tenderness. While her Celtic melodies set the mood, her lyrics tell stories, full, rich, textured, and open hearted. This amazing talent made her U.S. debut with The Raven, Chesky Record's most striking, powerful and fully realized vocal record to date. MQA is an award-winning technology that delivers the sound of the studio. The master MQA file is fully authenticated and is small enough to stream, while also being backward compatible, so you can play MQA music on any device. Imagine being present at the original studio performance of your favorite recording artist. Every nuance, every subtlety, every tiny drop of emotion delivered to your ears. MQA CD plays back on all CD players. When a conventional CD player is connected to an MQA-enabled device, the CD will reveal the original master quality." www.icontact-archive.com/ujqQxFvfuc5K5xj4dauUZC-3fwG-Ec0Y?w=4Not buying another dac dang it! |
|
|
|
Post by rhale64 on Jun 16, 2017 15:55:56 GMT -5
I keep reading numerous reports of new MQA support. Google searches it out for me.
All those big power players that don't like it I feel are just in a power struggle.
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Aug 24, 2017 20:54:41 GMT -5
Worth looking into soon, (Emo Soon) There will either be many many MQA DAC options or it will just die. Ive been listening to many MQA albums and they sound devine. Perhaps too soon to put big money on a DAC that is great as well as playing MQA files.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 25, 2017 13:53:51 GMT -5
There is a third possibility..... and it's the one I'm putting my money on. Trying to cut through the haze and mirrors..... there are two parts of the "MQA decode". The "first unfold" is the actual main decode step... and that first step can be done in hardware OR SOFTWARE (the Tidal client does it). They then talk about a "second unfold" - but what actually happens there is somewhat more vague. They describe some sort of upsampling or decoding, but the descriptions are sort of vague, and it is unclear whether it is actually "further decoding" or "upsampling". (Remember that almost all modern DACs do some type of oversampling.) However, now that the option of doing the first main decode in software is available.... The real question is going to be whether, AFTER DOING THE FIRST UNFOLD IN SOFTWARE, you actually get an improvement by playing the result through an MQA certified DAC or not. If it turns out that the first unfold, which you can now do in software, makes a big difference, but that playing the result through "an MQA renderer" doesn't make much difference.... then it's pretty obvious that people are going to opt to have their player software do the MQA decoding, but won't bother with MQA hardware. In other words, does Tidal, doing the first decode in software, actually sound significantly better on "a DAC that is an MQA renderer" than on a plain old good quality DAC? Unless the answer to that question is a resounding "yes, the MQA renderer still makes a significant improvement" nobody is going to bother to buy MQA-certified hardware. My guess is that MQA will stick around - as a form of encoding - but that most people will simply buy a player that supports and does the first unfold, and won't bother with MQA-certified hardware. Worth looking into soon, (Emo Soon) There will either be many many MQA DAC options or it will just die. Ive been listening to many MQA albums and they sound devine. Perhaps too soon to put big money on a DAC that is great as well as playing MQA files. |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Aug 25, 2017 14:34:23 GMT -5
There are four steps that could be happening with MQA.
1. First unfold like the one happening in Tidal desktop app.
2. Second unfold, which can bring it all up to 384 kHz
3. Acknowledging it’s authenticated MQA
4. Forcing the DAC to choose an MQA filter.
In theory, the first three could easily be done in software.
However, it seems like MQA for one or the other reason
doesnt allow step 2 & 3 in software.
Interestingly enough, the MQA filter is measur quite bad.
At least if you look at Stereophile’s measurements from
for instance Mytek Manhattan II. Where the other filters
from the same DAC measures really well.
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Aug 25, 2017 14:39:31 GMT -5
There are four steps that could be happening with MQA. 1. First unfold like the one happening in Tidal desktop app. 2. Second unfold, which can bring it all up to 384 kHz 3. Acknowledging it’s authenticated MQA 4. Forcing the DAC to choose an MQA filter. In theory, the first three could easily be done in software. However, it seems like MQA for one or the other reason doesnt allow step 2 & 3 in software. Interestingly enough, the MQA filter is measur quite bad. At least if you look at Stereophile’s measurements from for instance Mytek Manhattan II. Where the other filters from the same DAC measures really well. And the world was flat once, its a new approach and most likely wont be accepted untill the old thinkers all die off! Guess whom Im quoting now. 😁 |
|
