How badly do you really want MQA?

[KeithL]

We have at least a few users here who want MQA really badly.
(We've already said that we aren't going to consider it unless there's significant interest.)

So, please tell us, how much would you be willing to pay to see MQA added as a feature in the next Emotiva DAC or pre/pro you buy?

[AudioHTIT]

Sept 15, 2017 9:51:13 GMT -5 KeithL said:

We have at least a few users here who want MQA really badly.
(We've already said that we aren't going to consider it unless there's significant interest.)

So, please tell us, how much would you be willing to pay to see MQA added as a feature in the next Emotiva DAC or pre/pro you buy?

I voted, but I'm interested if the cost is 'engineering / parts / development' or licensing (probably both). I'm wondering if this potentially a feature (like full Dirac) that could be 'turned on' for a fee? I suppose you're still going to have to put a lot of time into it. I'm not likely to re-buy anything, but if I hear it and like it might buy new material in MQA (or stream it).

[Loop 7]

If demand becomes substantial, I still don't think unfolding should be done in a DAC but completely in software or in another piece of hardware. PS Audio refused to implement MQA in their DACs but, instead, offer it in their network "bridge."

It's big brother and intrusive that MQA currently wants access to a DAC's design in order to implement.

[novisnick]

Asking ME how much I would pay for MQA is rather abstract IMHO. I have no idea what the cost or licensing fees are or would be. What I do know is that My Maridian Explorer 2 which sounds almost identical to my DC-1 when fed the same signal cost me $200.00 full retail with a 60 day no questions asked return policy. I am NOT comparing the two DAC's as to their functions, the DC-1 has many more inputs/outputs. But when I play most of the MQA Master Studio files from my Mac Mini they do sound better, some are much more so, others not so much.

So whats the cost of the hardware tech to decode/unfold the second step? Thats the question.
The little Ego goes for what, $200..00, Thats a no brainer purchase if it includes MQA decoding. Would I prefer a DC-2 with 4 filters plus MQA? You bet! Where do I place my order?

Asking ME How much more would I pay? How much more Does DSD? Dolby? MQA? THX? Charge a manufacturer to include it in their products?

Not trying to be a smart ars, I just don't see how its a fair question when I donhave more facts.

Thanks for your interest @kiethl ,

[goodfellas27]

It'll be great if Emotiva can add MQA. I would buy the DAC in a heartbeat.

[KeithL]

The answer to that depends on the particular product you're talking about - and the "MQA level" you're talking about.
And this is where it gets confusing in the extreme.

Without getting into some very complicated, and also very hazy, technical details......
The "MQA decode" has sort of three parts to it:
The "first unfold" is the major part of the decode - and should give you most of the benefits (this can be done in hardware or software).
The "second unfold" is supposed to improve the decode quality somewhat more (this is done in the DAC).
The DAC itself is also supposed to be "profiled" - so the decoding process can compensate for quirks and weaknesses there (this is related to the DAC itself).

With "a full MQA DAC", the DAC would include all three of these parts in hardware - and so would be able to play any MQA file or stream.
However, in many cases, the first unfold can now be done in the player (the computer clients for Tidal do this; and the new version of the Amarra player will do it).
In those cases, you can simply play the result on a regular DAC, and get most of the benefits... (so you're getting that first level "free" with the software; unless they decide to charge for the license).
Or you can play the result on an "MQA renderer", which will add the second and third parts of the process to the first part (which the player already did), but won't do the first part itself.

Each of these steps has different technical and licensing requirements.... which are also different depending on the hardware involved (and I don't know the licensing details).
For example, the "first unfold" is a decoding process which requires actual "computing power".
Therefore, in order to add it to a DAC which didn't already have a DSP processor in it, would require a major hardware change.
However, in order to add it to a pre/pro, which already has lots of processing power available, would require significant code changes, but probably not hardware changes.
(And some DACs do already have a DSP in them.)
Simply adding the processing necessary to enable a device to be an "MQA renderer" should be a lot simpler.

The short answer is that we simply haven't looked into the details yet.
It seems obvious that both the coding and licensing overhead would be "significant" - which is why we aren't even going to look into it unless there is serious interest.
I don't honestly know at this point if it would make sense to offer it as an "optional feature".

In the case of Dirac, Dirac Live is considered to be an important "core feature", and there was a LOT of work done on the Dirac processing engine in the XMC-1.
Because Dirac Live LE is considered to be a very important feature, it does ship with ALL XMC-1's (and we pay a per-unit license for it).
The upgrade (Dirac Live FULL) uses the same engine in the XMC-1, but different computer software.....
This makes it practical to simply license the upgraded software to those who want to pay for it.
(If Dirac itself was a feature that only a few customers wanted, rather than an important core feature, we would NOT have expended the development effort.)

At this point, it looks like MQA is probably a lot simpler to implement than Dirac, but implementing the "full" version would still entail a lot of expensive effort.
Also, because the Tidal client currently does the first unfold, as will the next release version of Amarra, and others will probably follow suit, it doesn't make much sense to bother implementing that in hardware.
(So it might only make sense to implement the functionality of "an MQA renderer" - which seems like it might be far simpler - but also seems as if it might not be especially beneficial either.)

THIS is where we currently seem to lack any significant amount of useful information......

We've seen comparisons between MQA and other lossy compression methods like MP3, and AAC, and Ogg Vorbis (Spotify).
And we've also heard about comparisons between "MQA versions" and "regular versions" of some albums.
However, we haven't heard of comparisons between MQA files played with only "the first unfold" and those played with "full decoding".
This is REALLY IMPORTANT - because you get the first unfold for free with your Tidal software - WITHOUT needing any sort of special support in the DAC at all.
(So, if the first unfold is really where all of the important benefits lie, then we shouldn't even be having this discussion, because the Tidal client or player software does that for you without anything special from the DAC.)

This is why I phrased the poll in a VERY generalized way..... literally as "how much extra would you be willing to pay for a new product to convince us to bother looking at this as a possible option?"

Sept 15, 2017 10:07:27 GMT -5 AudioHTIT said:

Sept 15, 2017 9:51:13 GMT -5 KeithL said:

We have at least a few users here who want MQA really badly.
(We've already said that we aren't going to consider it unless there's significant interest.)

So, please tell us, how much would you be willing to pay to see MQA added as a feature in the next Emotiva DAC or pre/pro you buy?

I voted, but I'm interested if the cost is 'engineering / parts / development' or licensing (probably both). I'm wondering if this potentially a feature (like full Dirac) that could be 'turned on' for a fee? I suppose you're still going to have to put a lot of time into it. I'm not likely to re-buy anything, but if I hear it and like it might buy new material in MQA (or stream it).

[ÈlTwo]

I'm still waiting for the MQA gang to let us see some objective results. I'm all with Keith on this Informative post by KeithL; no reason for me to re-post, click the link and you'll know what I think.

(Of course Keith posts while I'm writing this  , but still take a peek at his other post I referenced)

[audiobill]

Speaking of Tidal, Groupon has a FREE three month trial subscription.....not clear if that includes their highest resolution/MQA option.

BTW, lots of "Master" (MQA) titles showing up there.....

[Casey Leedom]

KeithL, isn't part of the MQA "process" compensating also for the original ADC?

My vote (so far) is that "I know what it is and I'm not interested" ... until objective analysis is offered. The audio industry is filled with crazy claims and snake oil. Fuzzy claims like those raised by the MQA folks set my alarms off.

Casey

[Loop 7]

Sept 15, 2017 11:21:24 GMT -5 audiobill said:

Speaking of Tidal, Groupon has a FREE three month trial subscription.....not clear if that includes their highest resolution/MQA option.

BTW, lots of "Master" (MQA) titles showing up there.....

Here's a shared spreadsheet with the current MQA albums offered by TIDAL (link)

[brubacca]

I have never heard it and have zero interest in it. Its the DAT (Digital Audio Tape) of our time. (DAT being the only audio/video format I have skipped before 4k video).

[KeithL]

I disagree entirely with your initial statement.

As a manufacturer, we have to decide what price to sell products for, and we make that decision based on what we believe our customers will be willing to pay.
When we look at an extra feature, we look at what it costs us, and what it's worth to our customers.
We expect our customers to look at the price of the product, and the performance and features it offers, and decide whether they consider it a good deal or not.
So, when we're thinking about adding a new feature to one of our products, we want to know what it will cost us, and how much it will increase the value of the product.
(Of course, those calculations may lead us to charge more for the product with that feature, or simply suggest that we'll sell a lot more of them at the same price.)

We are the seller and you are the buyer...... therefore, the ONLY thing that we two need to agree upon is a fair price for a given product.
(Or we can "agree to disagree" - in which case you won't buy it.)

I see nothing unusual about asking: "How much would you be willing to pay us to add this feature you've been asking for?"
To answer that question, all you need to know is how much you'd be willing to pay to add that feature.
(You have no need to know what the development or licensing cost us.... )
It's no different than if the manufacturer of your car were to ask: "How much extra would you be willing to pay for fancy alloy rims".

Incidentally, I can tell you that the DC-2 is currently in prototype (we had a pair of them at EmoFest).
As planned, it will include several user-selectable filters, support for PCM at least up to 24/384k, and support for DSDx1 and DSDx2 via DoP.
It also includes a subwoofer output.
All of those were features that a lot of our users asked for.
(But it does not currently include MQA.)

I would also mention that the differences in sound between good quality DACs is often not dramatic.
And the difference between good quality DACs is quite often less than the difference between different re-masters of the same album.
So, for example, I would say that "a Little Ego sounds 90% as good as a DC-1" (I haven't heard the Meridian).

Incidentally, the Big Ego is currently selling for $219
But the Little Ego is only $99 (which we think is quite a bargain).

I'm curious.....
When you mentioned playing files from your mac Mini.....
Were you playing the same files on the DC-1 and the Meridian - after having the "first unfold" done on the Mac in the player software for both?
Or were you actually comparing a fully decoded MQA file (on the Meridian) with an UNDECODED MQA file (on the DC-1)?
Or were you comparing the most recent non-MQA version of the CD to the newest MQA-mastered version?
(I would expect slightly different results from all of those comparisons.)

Sept 15, 2017 10:54:52 GMT -5 novisnick said:

Asking ME how much I would pay for MQA is rather abstract IMHO. I have no idea what the cost or licensing fees are or would be. What I do know is that My Maridian Explorer 2 which sounds almost identical to my DC-1 when fed the same signal cost me $200.00 full retail with a 60 day no questions asked return policy. I am NOT comparing the two DAC's as to their functions, the DC-1 has many more inputs/outputs. But when I play most of the MQA Master Studio files from my Mac Mini they do sound better, some are much more so, others not so much.

So whats the cost of the hardware tech to decode/unfold the second step? Thats the question.
The little Ego goes for what, $200..00, Thats a no brainer purchase if it includes MQA decoding. Would I prefer a DC-2 with 4 filters plus MQA? You bet! Where do I place my order?

Asking ME How much more would I pay? How much more Does DSD? Dolby? MQA? THX? Charge a manufacturer to include it in their products?

Not trying to be a smart ars, I just don't see how its a fair question when I donhave more facts.

Thanks for your interest @kiethl ,

[monkumonku]

Seems to me it boils down to making sure you are comparing apples to apples, and MQA has made this very confusing, perhaps intentionally so.

A comparison should be made using the same source, with the only modification or alteration being the encoding/decoding process itself with no remastering, remixing or other alteration to the original source's mix. Then let your ears be the judge. When people post "reviews" of MQA-encoded material they should be able to verify that the material has not been altered in any way except for the actual encoding/decoding process used.

[KeithL]

Yes, that is absolutely one of their claims.....  but, as with a lot of their claims, when you start digging into the details, it gets somewhat dubious.

As I understand the claims - in summary -
- if the original ADC is known, the encoder can eliminate many or all of the issues caused during the original encoding process
- even if the original ADC is not known, the encoder can sort of recognize and correct common errors
- there is some sort of "premium white glove" version of the encoding correction process which can be purchased

And here are my personal misgivings on those claims:

1) There seems to be an assumption that any and all errors can be corrected after the fact; I'm not sure I believe that.
2) I'm also not convinced that an automatic process can always tell the difference between errors and things that belong there.
(I'm sure it looks for - and removes - things like pre-ringing, which are generally accepted to never occur in nature, and so must be an error,)
3) With many multi-track recordings, different tracks may well have been encoded by different equipment, and processed differently afterwards.
(This suggests that, in many recordings, even hoping to pick out individual corrections, or errors that need correction, would be quite hopeless.)
4) Obviously NONE of that has any meaning with analog masters......
(So the "correction aspect of the process" is only relevant with digital masters.)
 
I'm going to resort to my favorite analog - Photoshop.
Photoshop can do an absolutely amazing job of repairing and restoring poor quality images.
However, in many cases, it can't do much of anything.... and sometimes it even makes a bad situation worse.
There are also limitations (I don't know many pros who have given up their expensive cameras in favor of a smart phone "because the picture will be just as good after I finish with it in Photoshop").

On that note, I've worked with a number of "restoration" plugins in Photoshop.
Without fail, even the best and most expensive ones produce results that are scary-good sometimes, meh sometimes, and downright nasty sometimes.
(You keep the scary-good ones, do your best to tweak up the meh ones by hand, and, for the really awful ones, that's what "undo" is for.)

Of course, when you're talking about audio files, there's a hazy line between "it's wonderful because it's MQA" and "someone did a really great job re-mastering this... and the output happens to be in MQA".
As you've noticed, they seem to have no desire to, for example, perform the correction, and THEN offer us the result in 24/192 PCM and MQA so we can compare them.
They REALLY don't want to split up pieces of the package.
(Although the current ability to "do the first unfold in software" obviously demonstrates that they are being forced to move in that direction.)

The problem is that they aren't satisfied to JUST sell a new batch of (possibly better) re-masters; they want to sell the whole enchilada....
So they're doing their best to mix the pieces together so thoroughly you won't even try to separate them.

Sept 15, 2017 11:33:34 GMT -5 Casey Leedom said:

KeithL , isn't part of the MQA "process" compensating also for the original ADC?

My vote (so far) is that "I know what it is and I'm not interested" ... until objective analysis is offered. The audio industry is filled with crazy claims and snake oil. Fuzzy claims like those raised by the MQA folks set my alarms off.

Casey

[mountain]

I am only interested in mqa as it relates to streaming tidal masters.  I do not see myself purchasing mqa cd's or files.  I'm paying for HiFi streaming anyway and I like playing the best available master period.  

[novisnick]

Thanks for continuing the dialogue KeithL, I do appreciate you. If I haven't made it clear I do appreciate your time and effort, also, I haven't a clue as to how to bring a manufactured product such as yours to market.

You are correct when stating that value is in the eye of the beholder, no argument here! 😁

Comparisons, Ive made more then a few.

Ive used the Meridian, DC-1 and a Rega RP-6 with an Exact II cartridge through SS/Tube amps and preamps. Almost a comparitive study. Im not a wordsmith by any stretch but some of my findings can be found throughout my posts,

Some QMA tube tracks are just shy of a vinyl sound IMHO, others not so much. But after endless hours of listening Ive shut down my DC-1, which Ive run for years always on to be ready to play. Yes, its off.

Weather or not someone can hear the difference or its in their head, at this time I can hear appreciable improvement in enough tracks to be a fan. If the DC-2 has MQA ill send my money now.

More as time allows, again, thanks so much

[ludi]

I selected 'I know what it is and I just don't care.', but that is because I have no idea how much of an improvement I can expect or how much of an improvement I will experience. If there is proof of significant improvement than I might go for the $50 or $100.

[creimes]

Myself using Tidal HIFI it's there and saying I can tell a difference I'm not sure, it does sound great on most Master albums I have listened to, I think depending on your equipment if your gonna hear a difference or not, I have the Little EGO in my system but I doubt my lower end Shure headphones are capable of letting me hear any differences. But i do listen to a Masters album if there is a choice on my PC and my main system.

My question for Keith is what is the difference between hardware and software decoding as in would hardware decoding be superior to the software decoding in Tidal ?

Chad

[Bonzo]

You missed a choice for me.

"I know what it is, have yet to hear it, but yes I'm interested."

I say this because I think (just my opinion) that it will become another "standard" to have around if necessary, or wanted. I think it's shown enough growth already to have some staying power, which means in this current world, it could bloom. But I don't think it will ever become the "X-Facto" only thing around. I think it will just become "one of the guys." But to not have it available will be considered as a definite downside. An error by omission.

[hemster]

I may be in a different camp than most here. I have heard MQA and on some albums I can tell a difference. On others, not so much. I would pay $100 if most albums could be differentiated with MQA.