MQA DACs ?

[firedog]

You can do the "first unfold" of MQA in software like Audirvana . IMO, that's most of the benefit-if you hear one.

 

I wouldn't buy a DAC on the basis of whether is does the second unfold or not. I'd buy one based on sound, features, and price. Then if it also does the "second unfold" - that's a bonus. 

 

The second unfold is either upsampling and use of an MQA filter, or just the use of the MQA filter built into the DAC. The first unfold in your software gets the file up to 88 or 96k. If the original file was at a higher sample rate, it is then upsampled in the MQA DAC to that sample rate. Then the MQA filters are applied. 

 

There's nothing particularly special about those filters in about 99% of MQA DACs (there area a handful of expensive DACs where the manufacturer has worked with MQA to write DAC specific filters) as most MQA DACs use a standard set of MQA filters - that aren't made especially for that DAC.   You can probably have Audirvana do the first unfold, and then use it's upsampling using SOX to get something indistinguishable from what an MQA DAC does.  There are people who have done this with SOX and published their settings that mimic MQA on the web. 

 

[aussievintage]

Is MQA still a hot thing?       Maybe it's just the circles I run in, but I haven't heard much kafuffle about it lately.

[peppy]

4 hours ago, pretender said:

Hello Peppy,

Can you share some of your experience with MQA to find out if you liked it or not with the SMSL dac?

Cheers

Laurent

@pretender

Dude couldn't agree more with @firedog

The first unfold is good enough. You can hear a difference but only if you are concentrating and maybe its a filter for the 2nd unfold.

Also :

I have ZEN DAC & RME DAC V2.

ZEN is MQA renderer, RME is not. But an inferior DAC to RME for sure by a margin.

An avg MQA DAC will NOT sound better than a good DAC even on MQA tracks.

 

Dont bother too much into MQA. Audirvana unfold is enough.

Focus on getting a very good DAC. If you find yourself in a situation where you are to choose between 2 equally good quality DACs , only then choose based upon features that are more important to you, including MQA.

Don't spend money on a DAC just coz its an MQA DAC.

I sold my M500 for a reason.

Edited June 17, 2020 by peppy

[pretender]

I am on the same page as both of you: the benefits of MQA, if one hears them, are already there in the first unfold and a very good non MQA dac will do better playing MQA music than an average MQA dac doing the second unfold. So indeed buying an MQA dac is really not necessary.

 

Where I disagree is that an average dac playing MQA music files (first unfold or full MQA decoding) can sound better than a much better dac playing the equivalent PCM file. I know I am probably in the minority with this! I much preferred the Meridian Explorer playing MQA to the Chord Qute HD playing PCM playing recent recordings coming from the same master, not old jazz... through speakers or headphones.  Sure enough the Qute images better and is more dynamic but for me MQA brings a coherency and speed of transients and tone of instruments that makes music a lot more believable and palpable on complex/fast music call it string quartet, symphonic, jazz electronica...

 

Truth is with mid fi dacs/cd player (never owned MSB stuff), PCM digital music makes little sense to me. It feels like being bombarded with details which are disjointed from each others and the result is just not involving. So digital was for background listening; I am a vinyl guy and this is where my real enjoyment still is when I have the chance to sit between two speakers which is rare these days. However MQA has changed things a bit and gets my full listening attention. All these little details seem to be musically connected again in a realistic way.

 

Many people don't find significant difference between PCM and MQA files either way but what I hear is what I hear and this is the only thing we have to navigate in audio! What is your take on the sound of MQA Firedog? I guess you have DSP speakers so they probably don't decode MQA but do you get anything different out of them when you play an MQA file  through them?

Edited June 24, 2020 by pretender

[ThirdDrawerDown]

I found this and the prequel explanation very helpful.

 

It's from the early days of MQA. Some of the information in this thread by previous posters supersedes this video

 

 

[sabloke]

Finally, my Fiio M11 Pro is managing to do a full unfold following the latest beta firmware and the latest version of UAPP app. Best rate I have seen is 384 kHz unfolded. Sound wise, fantastic on IER-Z1R. Interesting to see if unfolding works while using this DAP as a DAC with a Windows PC. So far does not but if it did the M11 Pro would be a fantastic desktop DAC and portable DAP solution

[firedog]

19 hours ago, ThirdDrawerDown said:

I found this and the prequel explanation very helpful.

 

It's from the early days of MQA. Some of the information in this thread by previous posters supersedes this video

 

 

Hans is probably one of the worst sources available for this. He has no clue. There is no "third unfold", as he claims somewhere. There is first unfold and then second unfold. The second unfold is actually just upsampling with filtering by the MQA fllters.

Hans is just parroting MQA marketing speak without understanding what he's talking about.

Edited June 19, 2020 by firedog

[peppy]

9 minutes ago, firedog said:

Hans is probably one of the worst sources available for this. He has no clue. There is no "third unfold", as he claims somewhere. There is first unfold and then second unfold. The second unfold is actually just upsampling with filtering by the MQA fllters.

Hans is just parroting MQA marketing speak without understanding what he's talking about.

Totally agree.

I like Hans but this time he's just peddling the MQA marketing talk.

 

Watch PS Audio video where he explains that MQA is 10 yrs too late as internet speed now allows 4k video streaming at home, and we dont need MQA folding to save bandwidth.

 

Its basically just folding twice, to reduce file size to stream, and gets unpacked at source .

 

Now if you have half decent internet speed you can actually just stream the 200mb file (example) instead of transmitting 50mb only to unpack 200mb at source...

 

[sir sanders zingmore]

24 minutes ago, peppy said:

we dont need MQA

correct, we don't need MQA but MQA needs MQA because it has nothing to do with streaming and everything to to with DRM by stealth

[ThirdDrawerDown]

Quote

Now if you have half decent internet speed you can actually just stream the 200mb file (example) instead of transmitting 50mb only to unpack 200mb at source...

Same with data for the home consumer. Storage nowadays is cheap.

 

This is why I am interested in @Ittaku's upsampling thread and whatever outputs come from it.  I'll happily buy storage to have every CD on my hard drives upsampled to 192kHz and available to play if/when I want it. I'll convert the several terabytes of files, and if it means my terabytes get into double figures, who cares? it's bout the music. Small price to pay.

 

The message I take from Hans is that there's room for methods that provide a bit more inky blackness. I'm here for the music, and if I can get more of that inky blackness and spatial positioning, bring it on.

[nedrum]

30 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

correct, we don't need MQA but MQA needs MQA because it has nothing to do with streaming and everything to to with DRM by stealth

I'm interested in understanding this opinion as I've seen the statement made over and over but nothing I read suggests MQA is the bandit. DRM for streaming is usually applied by the vendor (Spotify, Tidal, etc...) across their entire catalogue. Care to elaborate?

 

I only ask as I know DRM as a 'feature' was removed prior to being officially launched but I suspect there is something I'm missing!

[Ittaku]

The USB module I bought for my DAC included full MQA support. I would have happily saved a few bucks and not gotten it since it's useless and some ransom money goes to Meridian for nothing.

[Ittaku]

By the way, if your DAC supports MQA, highres PCM, and DSD, you can do direct comparisons of a few sample files here:

http://www.2l.no/hires/

[aussievintage]

4 hours ago, ThirdDrawerDown said:

I'll happily buy storage to have every CD on my hard drives upsampled to 192kHz and available to play if/when I want it. I'll convert the several terabytes of files, and if it means my terabytes get into double figures, who cares?

It's funny, but good, how these ideas spread across multiple threads.   I would ask, why not upsample on the fly as you play the files.  Just as sorage has improved over the years, so has processing capability.  I suspect we can do it, as and when needed.

[ThirdDrawerDown]

Good question

1 minute ago, aussievintage said:

why not upsample on the fly as you play the files

Because I am using as my buffer a Cubox, which I bought in 2015 due to its Optical Out, and Volumio, which promised in 2014 that it was stable for Cubox and finally delivered in late 2019 with v2.0.

 

It turns out that Volumio is unstable through many generations and hangs with anything more than 2^14 or 16,384 files.

 

It turns out that Cubox was built badly and the optical cable doesn't seat properly in the Cubox unless it's it's a cheap thin cra*p cable.

 

No, I haven't got it to work yet.

 

You will understand that the last thing I want is further complexity in the Library, such as a transformation on the fly.

 

 

[aussievintage]

1 minute ago, ThirdDrawerDown said:

Good question

Because I am using as my buffer a Cubox, which I bought in 2015 due to its Optical Out, and Volumio, which promised in 2014 that it was stable for Cubox and finally delivered in late 2019 with v2.0.

 

It turns out that Volumio is unstable through many generations and hangs with anything more than 2^14 or 16,384 files.

 

It turns out that Cubox was built badly and the optical cable doesn't seat properly in the Cubox unless it's it's a cheap thin cra*p cable.

 

No, I haven't got it to work yet.

 

You will understand that the last thing I want is further complexity in the Library, such as a transformation on the fly.

 

 

Sorry but I don't see the issue as remotely related.  Anyway, some of us gave up on Volumio.  If you want a simple image like that, Moode is much better.

[ThirdDrawerDown]

Moode was not available until very recently by the timelines I have come to expect in digital audio. You will be unsurprised to hear I am switching to Moode now, after having confirmed as recently as last night that my DAC's Optical In is working correctly, and that the problem has been with the Cubox. Such a shame that the cubox is not recognised on my network at the alleged ISP address, but that's a side issue. (Working on it)

 

Which brings me to the other thing:

 

It turns out that my DAC, in the Marantz SA14S1 CD player, will choke and stop if even just one file in a Library is not the same bit rate as all the others. The error message is : "Optical: Unlock".

 

As a result I am working on the hypothesis that I must upsample all my files to the maximum the DAC will accept and that way there will be no exceptions, the Optical: Unlock message will go away, and I *might* finally play music from this computer, which I've been working towards since 2005. Thank you.

 

NAS Library>PC>Cubox headless>DAC in Marantz >preamp> amp> speakers

[ThirdDrawerDown]

Allegedly Moode for Cubox is not a thing.

 

From the Moode Forums

 

 

Quote

If you want a simple image like that, Moode is much better.

I would welcome your advice about how to put Moode onto a Cubox without mucking around with code.

 

My goal is simply to play songs. If I wanted to be a computer hobbyist, I would be hanging out on computer forums. So please, no code advice.

[pretender]

On 19/06/2020 at 6:43 PM, Ittaku said:

By the way, if your DAC supports MQA, highres PCM, and DSD, you can do direct comparisons of a few sample files here:

http://www.2l.no/hires/

That’s right. I think anyone interested in digital format and hires should start there not just for MQA but for listening to a file at the same format at different sampling rate.

Edited June 24, 2020 by pretender

[davewantsmoore]

Quote

MQA IS NOT LOSSLESS

Note that the original 24-bit signal is never recovered. MQA does not losslessly preserve the original 24-bit signal. For this reason MQA is not truly a lossless system. At best, the MQA system losslessly conveys 17-bits at 96 kHz.

LOL

 

I wish people would stop saying "MQA is not lossless".

 

Quote

the MQA system losslessly conveys 17-bits

So.... it IS lossless.

 

There's nothing below those 17 bits.... and even if there were, real world playback systems (eg. with a background noise of 30dB .... and a max SPL of 120dB, or whatever) can't render it anyways.

[keinesorge]

I'm looking forward to MQA releasing a vinyl compensation module to reverse the distortion involved in the process of vinyl creation and playback.

It might be a good day for the purist when they release this to the LP end of town.

 

Just imagine the delight in having a blue light on the front fascia of a phono stage with the MQA authenticated and unfolded sound.  Why is digital having all the fun.

 

As a business, MQA have left vinyl owners in the dark.  Please MQA release something for the vinyl playback chain, its been so long already.  I'm trying to hold back the heavily triggered feelings of offence and despair knowing that my prized stack of vinyl cannot be given the same blue light, authenticated and unfolded sound which some of my friends so freely enjoy.

[pretender]

Is the reduction from 24 to 17 bits a result of MQA’s compression scheme to keep the files smaller?

[ThirdDrawerDown]

Maybe just say that MQA is not lossless above 20kHz?

 

All those people with hearing above that point will just have to handle lossy signal! 

[keinesorge]

6 minutes ago, pretender said:

Is the reduction from 24 to 17 bits a result of MQA’s compression scheme to keep the files smaller?

 

17 is more than 16 (to keep it above red book from a marketing perspective).

Every one of those bits is for eventual DRM and a proprietary sound morph which they hope you will like.

[pretender]

On 20/06/2020 at 6:59 PM, keinesorge said:

 

17 is more than 16 (to keep it above red book from a marketing perspective).

Every one of those bits is for eventual DRM and a proprietary sound morph which they hope you will like.

The days of feeling threaten by a global MQA take over are behind us  by a few years now. It is just a streaming format. No one buys MQA files, I don’t even know where we can. And the overwhelming majority of music with MQA is there on Tidal as well as PCM.

MQA is not a format for audiophiles; people with super duper computers up sampling PCM in real time to DSD 512 or with fancy FPGA or R2R DACs who want to control everything in their DSP chain. Most audiophiles hate it conceptually because it is degrading the “purity” of their "immaculate" 24 bits PCM stream even though it is possible to prefer it sonically.

I get that point and I would not want just one proprietary format preventing high-end innovation or limiting PCM/DSD availability.

But at this stage MQA is actually becoming a format for the masses giving better sound from a smartphone or a low-cost/midfi dac/receiver when streaming. It is the type of clever DSP that we used to find in multi thousand dollar DACs available for everyone and this is progress.
A LG V30 smartphone streaming MQA into Focal Elegias gives darn good sound when commuting. 

 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2020 by pretender