MQA Users & Discussion Thread

[davewantsmoore]

@davewantsmoore has already discussed the temporal resolution stuff here, and pointed out that that should be inaudible as well.

 

I wouldn't rely on this....   I feel this way because I'm of the opinion that there are so many more things which matter SO MUCH more in audio reproduction.     It's a bit like saying if I were to drive a F1 car around the track that the special wing they're using on the back makes ZERO difference to MY laptime.

 

I understand enough to follow roughly what MQA are doing, that's all.      I'm happy to be proved wrong about MQA ....  <shrug>   We'll see.

[davewantsmoore]

they aren't really aiming at audiophiles

 

I don't agree..... they just understand that for any format to be adopted in any major way, that it will have to have something that the mass market find attractive  (which is what every other new format since CD has failed to do).

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

I don't agree..... they just understand that for any format to be adopted in any major way, that it will have to have something that the mass market find attractive  (which is what every other new format since CD has failed to do).

But if they get it right so the masses adopt it and it becomes standard fare, they get us regardless. If all they get on board is a percentage of the current audiophile community, they just repeat DVD-A, and I'm sure Bob Stuart doesn't need to be reminded how that went.

[davewantsmoore]

But if they get it right so the masses adopt it and it becomes standard fare, they get us regardless.

 

Sure.   Their primary concern is 'increasing quality', which most average consumers are said to be not too concerned about (perhaps they would be if they heard quality, heh) .... but they know to be more than just an accepted format, but  the next format, then they need to cpture the mass market.

 

BS - I sincerely hope that all those frustrating delays mean that its release will be something special including major support from the Real music Industry and not just Niche audiophile labels. If it doesn't come to the music most people like to listen to it will not go far I am afraid, and I would like to think that it will.

[Guest Sime]

From Bluesound

If you bypass our CL (Gen1) or Burr Brown (Gen2) DAC and select Optical or COAX out, we decode and the file and provide the content but the 3rd party DAC unfolds it to the best of it's ability. If that DAC is not MQA certified, it will be limited to how much it can open the file and will play at it's best. That's the beauty of MQA, if you do not have MQA certified equipment, you can still at least play the file - just not to the best of it's ability. It would be like watching a BluRay disc in a DVD Player and it still work... just not at 1080p... (yeah yeah, 4K I get it - I digress).

[powerav]

It's all making sense.....All I need is a MQA compatible DAC coming out of my Kodi PC. BUT the question goes back to. Is MQA only for audiophiles? by the looks of the prices of the dacs it is clearly YES. You would think the latest generation of Yamaha receivers fro example would already have MQA dacs as they are normally first to the punch with latest formats.

Edited June 3, 2016 by powerav

[davewantsmoore]

I still prefer Cd to Hires anyway

 

If the CD and the higher rate versions are exactly the same content below 20khz .... then any audible difference is going to be purely equipment specific.

 

If they're not the same content (ie. some sort of "remaster", or processing, or whatever) ..... then this can easily be completely dominant (of course, depending on the what the difference actually is).

 

 

Which is the whole point of MQA in the first place.    Get a good copy of the audio, and do good filtering on it.    It is fair to say what we typically have released today is not 'that' a lot of the time.

[powerav]

http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=DP-X1&class=Accessory&source=prodClass

This would be pretty awesome! MQA ready.

[davewantsmoore]

From Bluesound

If you bypass our CL (Gen1) or Burr Brown (Gen2) DAC and select Optical or COAX out, we decode and the file and provide the content but the 3rd party DAC unfolds it to the best of it's ability. If that DAC is not MQA certified, it will be limited to how much it can open the file and will play at it's best. That's the beauty of MQA, if you do not have MQA certified equipment, you can still at least play the file - just not to the best of it's ability.

 

Wow.   This is an extremely confusing quote from Bluesound.I still don't understand if audio they send out the digital output is decoded MQA or not.

 

"we decode and the file and" .....   could mean they are decoding the MQA, or could just be them saying they are unpacking the container format (eg.  FLAC, WAV, ALAC, etc.)

 

"but the 3rd party DAC unfolds it to the best of it's ability" .....   "unfold" is a term used by MQA to explain how the MQA decoder uses the encoded information to add back in the high-frequency content" ..... implying that the 3rd party DAC is not receiving decoded MQA   (it is left to "unfold it" itself)

 

" If that DAC is not MQA certified, it will be limited to how much it can open the file and will play at it's best.  That's the beauty of MQA, if you do not have MQA certified equipment, you can still at least play the file - just not to the best of it's ability. "  ... Further supports the notion they are not sending out decoded MQA via the digital output

 

 

So their comments are strongly implying to me, they're not decoding the MQA before sending it out the digital output....    Which leaves the question about why the MQA light was on in the player, and why the DAC showing 88.2khz  (ie. oversampled 2x).     Are you sure the DAC isn't configured to do 2x oversampling?    When you play redbook audio, does it show 44.1khz?

Edited June 4, 2016 by davewantsmoore

[powerav]

All they are saying is (i think) if you don't use a MQA dac you will get a hires flac output at a reduced file size. The light would be on because it's MQA that is coming in but not going out if outputted thru digital outputs. It's just exactly the same when I played a MQA file on my KODI Pc, comes thru as FLAC and sounded just like most of the HiRes stuff I have.

I'm am now very excited by it especially for portable devices, the downside to HiRes DAP's would be that you would need 2 128g SD card for all your HiRes files now you now you can squeeze the same amount on 64G card or less.

Edited June 4, 2016 by powerav

[Guest Sime]

The Chord 2qute cannot be user adjusted in anyway. It's plays only what it receives.

Here's what we see on its display when each frequency is Inputted (the pic is the mojo's box, but same system)

When I play Redbook, I get a red light, these MQA tracks that are 352 are displaying a yellow light.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Sime

[Guest Sime]

All they are saying is (i think) if you don't use a MQA dac you will get a hires flac output at a reduced file size. The light would be on because it's MQA that is coming in but not going out if outputted thru digital outputs. It's just exactly the same when I played a MQA file on my KODI Pc, comes thru as FLAC and sounded just like most of the HiRes stuff I have.

I'm am now very excited by it especially for portable devices, the downside to HiRes DAP's would be that you would need 2 128g SD card for all your HiRes files now you now you can squeeze the same amount on 64G card or less.

But the thing is, the node will never know if the outboard DAC is MQA or not, impossible for it to know. So by default, it has to be sending out exactly the same data regardless of what's on the other end of the toslink/coax, only then will a DAC handle what it gets if it's capable or not.

[Guest Sime]

So their comments are strongly implying to me, they're not decoding the MQA before sending it out the digital output.... Which leaves the question about why the MQA light was on in the player, and why the DAC showing 88.2khz (ie. oversampled 2x). Are you sure the DAC isn't configured to do 2x oversampling? When you play redbook audio, does it show 44.1khz?

But if they were not sending out the MQA to the digital output, then no DAC, MQA or not,can read it.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Sime

[aechmea]

Wow.   This is an extremely confusing quote from Bluesound.I still don't understand if audio they send out the digital output is decoded MQA or not.

 

"we decode and the file and" .....   could mean they are decoding the MQA, or could just be them saying they are unpacking the container format (eg.  FLAC, WAV, ALAC, etc.)

 

"but the 3rd party DAC unfolds it to the best of it's ability" .....   "unfold" is a term used by MQA to explain how the MQA decoder uses the encoded information to add back in the high-frequency content" ..... implying that the 3rd party DAC is not receiving decoded MQA   (it is left to "unfold it" itself)

 

" If that DAC is not MQA certified, it will be limited to how much it can open the file and will play at it's best.  That's the beauty of MQA, if you do not have MQA certified equipment, you can still at least play the file - just not to the best of it's ability. "  ... Further supports the notion they are not sending out decoded MQA via the digital output

 

 

So their comments are strongly implying to me, they're not decoding the MQA before sending it out the digital output....    Which leaves the question about why the MQA light was on in the player, and why the DAC showing 88.2khz  (ie. oversampled 2x).     Are you sure the DAC isn't configured to do 2x oversampling?    When you play redbook audio, does it show 44.1khz?

 

I agree.  Very confusing.  And the "...we decode and the file and provide the content but... " bit isn't even an understandable sentence.

 

If it is anything like its predecessors HDCD, SACD, DVD-A et al then you won't get pre-processed anything (ie. expanded or converted or hirez or raw) out of a S/PDIF digital output.

 

I reckon that there is no way that MQA and the record companies will let pre-processed hirez PCM out into the wild in this way (ie. essentially by-passing the need for an MQA DAC).  It will still be folded or downsampled or knackered in some way.

[davewantsmoore]

The Chord 2qute cannot be user adjusted in anyway. It's plays only what it receives.

Here's what we see on its display when each frequency is Inputted (the pic is the mojo's box, but same system)

When I play Redbook, I get a red light, these MQA tracks that are 352 are displaying a yellow light.

 

Right.     Then the Bluesound is either decoding the MQA (and choosing to render at 88.2) .... which seems unlikely given their comments

 

.... or the Blusound is oversampling 2x  (44.1 to 88.2)

[davewantsmoore]

If it is anything like its predecessors HDCD, SACD, DVD-A et al then you won't get pre-processed anything (ie. expanded or converted or hirez or raw) out of a S/PDIF digital output.

 

MQA haven't said this won't happen (ie. decoded MQA out a digital output) ..... they've implied loosely that it will happen ....  and implied fairly strongly that there are no products which do it yet.

 

Becuase the MQA filtering really needs to know about the DAC to be the most effective ..... then they (say they) don't want MQA out a digital output, because you might not get the quality intended.

 

 

Seems what we're seeing here, is the MQA light signifying "authentication"  (ie.  it's detected MQA) .....   but it's not decoding the MQA for the digital output.

Edited June 4, 2016 by davewantsmoore

[Guest Sime]

But remember @@davewantsmoore that 88 is for the 352 tracks, if you play a 96 intended MQA, you get 96 at the DAC. I haven't found or looked for an official 192 MQA track yet, being as 192 is the highest frequency the node can handle.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Sime

[davewantsmoore]

I reckon that there is no way that MQA and the record companies will let pre-processed hirez PCM out into the wild in this way (ie. essentially by-passing the need for an MQA DAC).  It will still be folded or downsampled or knackered in some way.

 

Without adding extra measures to the system, then there isn't any way to prevent it from happening.

 

... but what will happen  (eg.  if you capture decoded MQA in <high rate> PCM)  at playback is:

• The MQA light will not turn on
• You will have audio which was rendered with no DAC optimisation  (or a different DAC to what you are using)

 

 

THIS is where we read the technical papers in detail ....  and then put out tin foil hats back on.    MQA talk about filtering the original audio, in a way which specifically needs to be "uncompensated" for in the decoder.    It is possible, that this filtering could be used to degrade the audio quality ..... and then only "fix" the audio quality if a (non-generic) MQA decoder was used.   ie.  only a proper licensed MQA product.

 

They won't do this to begin with.   To begin with, they need their claim that unprocessed MQA will sound as good, or likely better, than redbook audio.

 

 

.... but in the future, the possibility is real, that the landscape could be distorted, so when you playback audio on a non-compliant MQA device (or even a generic-MQA decoder), that it sounds "bad"....  A compliant MQA decoder will compensate the "bad" to bring back the "high quality".

 

Everyone will say "See!!! ....  MQA is wonderful patented magical technology which we all need"....   and the prophecy will be complete, so to speak.     It would even be possible for MQA to allow certain manufacturers access to different filters which improve the intentionally crippled audio, to greater or lesser extents.    Encryption allows these things to be secret.

 

MQA strongly deny that this is even remotely their intention.

Edited June 4, 2016 by davewantsmoore

[powerav]

But remember @@davewantsmoore that 88 is for the 352 tracks, if you play a 96 intended MQA, you get 96 at the DAC. I haven't found or looked for an official 192 MQA track yet, being as 192 is the highest frequency the node can handle.

Maybe I'm missing something or dumb but it all makes sense to me. A non MQA DAC picks up the FLAC part and if you have a MQA DAC it should pick up the MQA part hence why the file name is xxxxx.mqa.flac. Just like when you rename a JPEG picture file to PNG or in my case TBN so my media player detects them as cover art for DVD's. Windows won't recognise tbn but the media player does.

[davewantsmoore]

But remember @@davewantsmoore that 88 is for the 352 tracks, if you play a 96 intended MQA, you get 96 at the DAC. I haven't found or looked for an official 192 MQA track yet, being as 192 is the highest frequency the node can handle.

 

The "352 original rate" MQA .... comes in a 44.1 container.   If it were not decoded and simply oversampled 2x by the bluesound.... the result is 88.2

 

The "96 original rate" MQA .... comes in a 48 container.   If it were not decoded and simply oversampled 2x by the bluesound.... the result is 96

 

The "192 original rate" MQA .... comes in a 48 container.   If it were not decoded and simply oversampled 2x by the bluesound.... the result is 96

[Guest Sime]

So I should hunt down a 192 and see what it does or do you know it'll be 96? @@davewantsmoore

[Guest Sime]

So this over sampled signal, is it doing that by default and will an MQA DAC handle that over sampled signal different to mine, or is it possible Bluesound are only catering to their internal DAC?

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

But remember @@davewantsmoore that 88 is for the 352 tracks, if you play a 96 intended MQA, you get 96 at the DAC. I haven't found or looked for an official 192 MQA track yet, being as 192 is the highest frequency the node can handle.

Try the Neilsen piano piece from the 2L test bench... the one recorded at 44.1 where the MQA is bigger than the straight file.  If you get 88.2 out then the Bluesound is outputting at 2x. If you get 44.1 it suggests your 96 file is in fact being decoded.

 

I have a couple of devices that play back files beyond their stated resolution at a lower rate, for example a Panasonic hard disc video recorder that plays back up to 96kHz and beyond that downsamples 192 to 48. Your Bluesound may be doing that to the 352 tracks....

 

Can you set the Bluesound to do 2x upsampling? I suspect not, but don't have time to download the manual right now to check myself.

[aechmea]

"but don't have time to download the manual right now to check myself."

 

 

I did.  The manual is only a couple of pages and describes how to plug things in and how to do a factory reset.  Thats about it.

 

The Specifications page on the web site says nothing about the output digital sample rate.

 

-------------

 

The Bluesound has no idea what the external DAC is capable of, so, unless there is some sort of parameter set by the user, I bet that the Bluesound guesses that 24/96 will be OK and up or downsamples accordingly.  It sees 48k (or 44.1) as the sample rate of the MQA file and upsamples that to 96 (or 88).  I also bet that there has not been any "unfolding" processing done to the digital output.  So even though it says that it is 96 (or 88), that is different data to the original 96 data, the top half of which still remains hidden inside the 8 bits of noise.

 

I reckon the MQA compliant blue light only applies to the analog outputs via the Bluesound internal DAC.

 

-----------------

 

The more I read and think about this stuff the more I think that it would be money better spent to buy big sticks with which to whack masterers who overuse the compression knob.

Edited June 4, 2016 by aechmea

[Guest Sime]

I agree, I think it's all been catered for for its own DAC.