BugPowderDust Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 3 hours ago, davewantsmoore said: As I've said a gazillion times. I think this line of enquiry, (while it does have merit, of course) has a danger ...... it leads the groupthink to the point where it says "if MQA has acceptable performance then everything is ok, and we'll go along with it" ....... and/or "MQA is flawed, but if another performant system was introduced (or MQA fixed the performance) then that would be fine". This is my concern too. We're rationalising if it makes a negative difference rather than outright objecting to it because it is superfluous to any need anyone has right now.
wklie Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Eggcup the Dafter said: 3) How are they really adapting MQA to the particular DAC? If they really are adapting the DACs to MQA, I would assume that all MQA DACs would sound the same with high resolution masters. I assure you we have different rendering profiles for our different hardware by sending different models to MQA Ltd. to do profiling. It created additional work for me since some of our models share the firmware binary and therefore the profile needs to be set at run time instead of compile time. I have worked on integration with DAC chips from four semiconductor manufacturers. Different MQA DAC should achieve the same "deblurring" characteristic but they will not sound the same or eliminate a price difference between a USD99 DAC and a USD90000 DAC. Think of it as a very optimized form of filter, e.g. similar to minimum phase. All Lumin products only feed MQA music to MQA decoder. Non-MQA music does not go through the MQA decoder. Edited April 30, 2021 by wklie 4
Guest Eggcup the Dafter Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 14 minutes ago, wklie said: I assure you we have different rendering profiles for our different hardware by sending different models to MQA Ltd. to do profiling. It created additional work for me since some of our models share the firmware binary and therefore the profile needs to be set at run time instead of compile time. I have worked on integration with DAC chips from four semiconductor manufacturers. Different MQA DAC should achieve the same "deblurring" characteristic but they will not sound the same or eliminate a price difference between a USD99 DAC and a USD90000 DAC. Think of it as a very optimized form of filter, e.g. similar to minimum phase. Thanks for that, it clears up a lot in my mind. Out of interest, are the rendering profiles transparent for you to examine, or are they "black box" code libraries? As far as "sounding the same" goes, I wouldn't expect it to level out performance regardless of price difference, but I would expect a very similar overall response if the DACs concerned have been "compensated for". A dramatic difference, say, such as two MQA DACs showing very different levels in the lower midrange, shouldn't happen - should it?
muon* Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 (edited) Wow! Ishmael Slapowitz doesn't pull any punches! https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/page/889/#comments Edited April 30, 2021 by muon* 1
NonPlayableCharacter Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 2 hours ago, wklie said: All Lumin products only feed MQA music to MQA decoder. Non-MQA music does not go through the MQA decoder. I'll tell you this, Peter, you have just put the Lumin T2 back into my list of possible upgrades. I have said before that your contributions are an absolute treasure - thank you. I enjoyed the T2 a great deal when I heard it first time a few months ago. Again, when I tested it along with the Vega G2.1, a Mytek Brooklyn Bridge and my own RME ADI-2 FS all in one afternoon a few weeks ago, it was a fine performer. As much as I loved my brief flirt with the Auralic Vega G2.1 and money-no-object, it would be my choice, but the fact is that it is 4 grand more than the T2. My only real nagging doubt with the T2 (and why I thought the extra 4k could be justified for the Vega) was nothing more than the uncertainty that others are having now: what will various MQA DACs do with non-MQA streams? The biggest fear is having lossless hi-res PCM being throttled by nefarious means through an alternative decoder and I am not alone in this suspicion. I have seen that there have been unsubstantiated(?) rumours that MQA are seeking a way to ensure that all streams, not just MQA, go through the MQA decoding path as part of a DAC manufacturer gaining MQA certification at some point in the future; anecdotally this is to avoid some of the distracting relay clicks from DACs being heard when moving between MQA and non-MQA material - I think many sceptics might suggest that it is just a cover story for hobbling PCM in order to tilt the balance of preference back towards the MQA ecosystem. 1
BugPowderDust Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 I had a T2 until a few months ago @El Tel. I recommend. They are a great unit and @wklie was a very helpful hand in getting it set up when I posted a few questions on the Roon forum. 2
tripitaka Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 On the strength of the commentary here, I have 'downgraded' my Tidal to HiFi. I will consider Qobuz as a fallback position should there be any further MQA-related revelations. 1
frednork Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 (edited) I am trying to follow this but am having trouble understanding. If I want same output from Tidal to files at the same res say from qobuz 44.1, Is that possible? If so what do I need to do to achieve that , my dac is not mqa capable and I use ROon? Edited April 30, 2021 by frednork
NonPlayableCharacter Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 18 minutes ago, frednork said: If I want non modified output from Tidal to non MQA files at the same res say from qobuz, Is that possible? Based on initial tests, it does not seem that you will get anything other than a hobbled MQA stream (high sample/bit rates will be throttled). Where Tidal has nothing but MQA versions of a track/album (and that is increasing with time along with the removal of PCM simultaneously), you'll mostly get a 44.1/16 MQA stream, I believe. I may be oversimplifying, but this is bloody complex and hard to keep up with. I think there is only one way to guarantee streaming lossless PCM (standard and hi-res) in Australia without resorting to VPN tricks, and that's to go to Qobuz. 2
wklie Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 2 hours ago, El Tel said: what will various MQA DACs do with non-MQA streams? This depends on the brand, and in some cases, firmware version. Some brands pass non-MQA to MQA decoder, Lumin does not. There is a well documented case in a Stereophile review of a certain USB DAC. I recognized really early on that some customers would not want everything pass through MQA decoder, so we checked a stream is MQA before passing it to the MQA decoder. 2
wklie Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, frednork said: I am trying to follow this but am having trouble understanding. If I want same output from Tidal to files at the same res say from qobuz 44.1, Is that possible? If Tidal offers the same non-MQA version of the album as Qobuz, then yes. If your particular album is available only as MQA (Tidal master or MQA CD) on Tidal, then no. If you use Roon, check the different versions. Edited April 30, 2021 by wklie 1
tripitaka Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 1 hour ago, El Tel said: Based on initial tests, it does not seem that you will get anything other than a hobbled MQA stream (high sample/bit rates will be throttled). Where Tidal has nothing but MQA versions of a track/album (and that is increasing with time along with the removal of PCM simultaneously), you'll mostly get a 44.1/16 MQA stream, I believe. I may be oversimplifying, but this is bloody complex and hard to keep up with. I think there is only one way to guarantee streaming lossless PCM (standard and hi-res) in Australia without resorting to VPN tricks, and that's to go to Qobuz. Well once everybody stops paying extra for MQA for this Australian trial they'll have to make a choice. Qobuz suddenly has the best premium business model - 'No MQA'!! 1
awayward Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 (edited) 32 minutes ago, tripitaka said: Well once everybody stops paying extra for MQA for this Australian trial they'll have to make a choice. Qobuz suddenly has the best premium business model - 'No MQA'!! There are many factors to choosing a streaming service, I agree that Qobuz is non MQA and pays its artists more, but for me Qobuz doesn’t have all the music content I want so unfortunately I’m forced to have both at the moment to get better than mp3 SQ and the music I want, it sucks actually. I’ll just have to buy half a record less each month to afford Qobuz and Tidal. Edited April 30, 2021 by awayward 3
Stereophilus Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 11 hours ago, Ittaku said: Right about now I can smugly say I'm glad I've always bought my own high-res audio files and not succumbed to the temptation to stream. I understand your perspective, but I disagree with the sentiment. I would much rather have access to a (virtually) unlimited supply of lo-res music in preference to a very limited supply of hi-res music. The sound quality trade-off is not bad enough to justify limiting the experience of new and different music IMO. 2
PKay Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 47 minutes ago, Stereophilus said: I understand your perspective, but I disagree with the sentiment. I would much rather have access to a (virtually) unlimited supply of lo-res music in preference to a very limited supply of hi-res music. The sound quality trade-off is not bad enough to justify limiting the experience of new and different music IMO. Thankfully the options aren’t mutually exclusive. 1
Stereophilus Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 10 minutes ago, PKay said: Thankfully the options aren’t mutually exclusive. No, I agree, but the quote I was replying to implied one approach at the expense of the other.
LHC Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 1 hour ago, Stereophilus said: I understand your perspective, but I disagree with the sentiment. I would much rather have access to a (virtually) unlimited supply of lo-res music in preference to a very limited supply of hi-res music. The sound quality trade-off is not bad enough to justify limiting the experience of new and different music IMO. 46 minutes ago, PKay said: Thankfully the options aren’t mutually exclusive. There should be a third options: unlimited supply of lo-res but very well recorded and mastered music.
PKay Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 53 minutes ago, Stereophilus said: No, I agree, but the quote I was replying to implied one approach at the expense of the other. Apologies, my comment was tongue in cheek.
Guest Eggcup the Dafter Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 12 minutes ago, metal beat said: WOW. digital and BS. who would have thought Don’t gloat for too long. Just as PCM is at the cutting lathe now, so will MQA be. And MQA wants everything from the mic onwards. No hiding place!
metal beat Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 one day, full bandwidth will be available. imagine that in the meantime, I will continue to play full bandwidth vinyl.
Guest Eggcup the Dafter Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 1 minute ago, metal beat said: one day, full bandwidth will be available. imagine that in the meantime, I will continue to play full bandwidth vinyl. Full bandwidth? Explain. Pretty sure the digital I listen to is full bandwidth. And I’m pretty sure most modern vinyl is cut from 16/44.1. The cutting heads don’t like ultrasonic noise either!
metal beat Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, Eggcup the Dafter said: Full bandwidth? Explain. Pretty sure the digital I listen to is full bandwidth. And I’m pretty sure most modern vinyl is cut from 16/44.1. The cutting heads don’t like ultrasonic noise either! 24/96 most likely. as you know analog mastering takes a lot more skill and the results are generally superior.
LHC Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 7 minutes ago, metal beat said: 24/96 most likely. as you know analog mastering takes a lot more skill and the results are generally superior. MQA is supposed to deliver the digital mastering that rivals analog. I assume those were Bob Stuart's original intention with MQA. He and Meridian know a thing or two from the early days about making digital sound acceptable to those who ears were trained on vinyl. https://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/285meridian
metal beat Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, LHC said: MQA is supposed to deliver the digital mastering that rivals analog. I assume those were Bob Stuart's original intention with MQA. He and Meridian know a thing or two from the early days about making digital sound acceptable to those who ears were trained on vinyl. https://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/285meridian Bob's had many trys at making digital sound like analog. remember DVD-A? the guy is more about $$ than sound. Pass. Edited April 30, 2021 by metal beat 1
Recommended Posts