I can understand your viewpoint, having invested good money in a DAC.
I bought my Bluesound Node2…knowing they had promised a firmware upgrade to decode MQA file formats.
Since MQA has already signed on Pioneer and Onkyo (as well as NAD)…it seems the more affordable home market can expect MQA decoding in future home receivers or AV processors. Cross my fingers, this helps make it mainstream and gets the ball rolling for MQA and encourages Sony and Universal to join Warner!
I like to climb up the ladder of spending and I too am not ready to jump up to $4K for a PS Audio DS jr.
If Auralic Altair shows support for MQA, I will probably try that next at $1899. But only after I see Tidal offer a hi-rez “MQA” streaming subscription.
Or if Paul puts the Jr up for sale this Christmas at $2.5K…I could be tempted ;-). I want to hear “better than MQA” sound without MQA implementation for myself!
On the topic of John Siao also being “sincere”…I would like to say the approach Paul has taken is quite different.
Different, but no more or less “sincere.” John’s concern is grounded in the technology and its implementation, a fully legitimate approach. Instead of focusing on your belief as to psychological mindset, do you have any criticisms of his technological analysis and its impact on recording and playback?
Not taking a cheap shot, but the distinction you draw appears to be founded more upon your beliefs, assumptions and bias then on the content of John’s critique.
Okay - to your question on side-by-side listening of Non-MQA versus MQA music. I have downloaded and listened to multiple tracks offered by 2L in this regard. I listened to Non-MQA carefully, then MQA, then Non-MQA. When I first played the MQA version, the benefits jumped out on my system.
Neat. This is more extensive than I originally thought it might be.
My highly trained ear . . .
Of course, as opposed to our plebeian appendages. :)
This observation has been made before, but MQA and its time alignment DSP would seem to be of most benefit to lower to mid level DACs that can do at least 24/96. The benefits of the DSP seem to diminish as the DAC itself gets better. Interestingly enough, the apparent difference between Redbook and High Res also seems to diminish as the DAC gets better.
That said, MQA would appear to be of benefit to the myriad of consumer level DACs produced by Pioneer, Onkyo, NAD, Bluesound and the like. In this vein, it could well be a good thing, introducing the general consumer market to better quality reproduction.
MQA might be of benefit to higher level DACs when using a streaming service, PARTICULARLY if they separate the compression and DSP components and allow the player to do the unfolding to a higher sample rate (as they currently appear to do with the Bluesound Node) and leave the higher end DACs to do their own thing. There does not seem to be much promise of this happening, except for the fact that at least one manufacturer appears to have broken this otherwise forced combination of processes.
Still, I find it difficult to believe that MQA is better than well produced fully lossless high-res downloads. I will stick with the DAC of my choice without consideration of the presence or absence of MQA, and if MQA finds its way into my player (computer software, streamer or whatever) then so be it and I hope that it actually is of benefit. I don’t see it as a deciding factor in my life.
To the other recent subject of this thread, it is interesting how we so easily accept and support those whose thoughts mesh with our own and can dismiss out of hand those with whom we disagree. An unfortunate human condition that some try to rise above. Seriously considering and accepting ideas with which we disagree is not easy, even though considering and accepting conflicting arguments does not mean that we do or will ever agree with them.
Don’t be afraid, Paul. MQA can work. I hope you get the chance!
Q49. I have a DAC I built myself with a custom filter implemented in an FPGA which upsamples to 352.8/384 which turns off the internal filter in the DACchip. How will MQA work with such a DAC? I have spent a LOT of effort getting this filter in the FPGA just right, will MQA be messing this up and adding what IT thinks is the best filter?
A49. If you are a company asking us to optimally connect to such a DAC we would be happy to integrate it. In principle, that is a good way to make a DAC and we have several MQA decoder implementations that can drive the DAC at 8x or higher. In [1] we explain that the way to get maximum quality is to minimise temporal blur using a hierarchical cascade and this isn’t a matter of subjective tuning. The MQA decoder need not alter the way your DAC plays back regular PCM or DSD.
Uthaman, have you read the thread “MQA Controversy” under the “DirectStream DAC” forum? My apologies if this was already pointed out, but there is a lot of general discussion that might interest you. My perspective is MQA is an audiophile thing, the general public will not care (they’re happy with MP3). If it helps streaming TIDAL, then that’s a good thing, I guess. I’m not a TIDAL subscriber and don’t plan on it, but I bet a lot of folks here would like it. I use some free streaming services for background listening, but don’t intend to pay significant amounts to get higher quality. I’m also leery of the control MQA encoding puts on the music and the playback of it, but it’s probably more of a misunderstanding on my part.
I should also add that I trust Paul on this one (and a lot of other things!).
Paul McGowan said
I can tell you our point of view, if you're interested. So far, we too will not support MQA.
We have taken a great deal of time to play with MQA. Their hardware’s been available to us for quite some time - and in every case our DAC sounds worse. That’s why we haven’t implemented it. There’s nothing anyone could say that would make us add a feature or perceived benefit that would in any way damage what we do. Ain’t gonna happen.
Bob Stuart has an open invitation to show us MQA can work in our DAC. If he or his team does, we’d be the first in line.
It isn’t about cost. It’s about performance. And if the performance isn’t there, then we’re not interested.
Paul, have you been able to compare the ‘best’ DAC that Bob Stuart thinks is available running a track on MQA with DirectStream running the same track non-MQA on Torreys and compare the two in room 1? That’s a possible indicator of how well MQA can perform without having to get involved with a lot of engineering time trying to make MQA work on the FPGA. If it sounds as good or better than Torreys, it has promise. If not, it would appear MQA is a very nice mid-grade improvement for a select (read: budget conscious) market.
I have not. My experience to date has been with our own DACs and the MQA Dev board. I have also been to numerous MQA controlled demonstrations, but not sure how much those count.
Another problem I have is I have never been a fan of Meridian based products. They’re not for me, their sound somewhat too analytical for my tastes.
Paul McGowan said
I have not. My experience to date has been with our own DACs and the MQA Dev board. I have also been to numerous MQA controlled demonstrations, but not sure how much those count.
Another problem I have is I have never been a fan of Meridian based products. They’re not for me, their sound somewhat too analytical for my tastes.
So I am likely not a good judge.
I’m sorry, I beg to differ. Your judgment has kept a company alive for years in an ever shrinking market as witnessed by sales of everything you make. You voice every product, so your judgement has to count for something.
I wasn’t aware the Meridian was the only MQA product out there. Are there no better? If not, it’s still a valid comparison, but you need to get Bob Stuart in the same room at the same time. Point to the Torreys DS and say “Bob, you have to do better than that.” If he can’t, then it’s not worth our consideration.
Paul McGowan said
I can tell you our point of view, if you're interested. So far, we too will not support MQA.
We have taken a great deal of time to play with MQA. Their hardware’s been available to us for quite some time - and in every case our DAC sounds worse. That’s why we haven’t implemented it. There’s nothing anyone could say that would make us add a feature or perceived benefit that would in any way damage what we do. Ain’t gonna happen.
Bob Stuart has an open invitation to show us MQA can work in our DAC. If he or his team does, we’d be the first in line.
It isn’t about cost. It’s about performance. And if the performance isn’t there, then we’re not interested.
Paul, have you been able to compare the ‘best’ DAC that Bob Stuart thinks is available running a track on MQA with DirectStream running the same track non-MQA on Torreys and compare the two in room 1? That’s a possible indicator of how well MQA can perform without having to get involved with a lot of engineering time trying to make MQA work on the FPGA. If it sounds as good or better than Torreys, it has promise. If not, it would appear MQA is a very nice mid-grade improvement for a select (read: budget conscious) market.
Just a thought.
–SSW
Even if the MQA version sounded better in this comparison it would still not make sense for PS Audio to embrace this technology if the DS architecture disfavor the implementation of MQA, IMO.
Okay - to your question on side-by-side listening of Non-MQA versus MQA music. I have downloaded and listened to multiple tracks offered by 2L in this regard. I listened to Non-MQA carefully, then MQA, then Non-MQA. When I first played the MQA version, the benefits jumped out on my system. I have a deep love for music as I’m a musician and I mix music as a hobby. My highly trained ear that is accustomed to the sound of natural instruments, immediately picked up the improvement in timing/decay of the signal. What I heard was much more “natural” decay of cymbals, strings, percussion transients and other instruments. The perception of both depth and air improved. The music sounded less “hard” more relaxed and organic. That is what I heard.
Pretty small sample set! Those are fairly crazy airy recordings to begin with. Your nice sound improvement descriptions sound really similar going from bad noisy USB or bad/jittery SPDIF to perfect i2s or SPDIF -- maybe they've solved that problem?!?
Schiit thinks it’s sh*t also (to be clear, not the tech!, everything else): (little more kindle to throw on the fire :D) Don’t let the name fool you, it’s Mike Moffet behind THETA Digital.
“Authenticated” in the name scared me away right off the bat!
Hopefully this will fail, but they’ll salvage the tech & contribute it to flac 'er mp3 (it’s lossy) or open source, like the 24/192 folding into 16/44. Rejiggering everyones Dac seems a little heavy handed.
Even if the MQA version sounded better in this comparison it would still not make sense for PS Audio to embrace this technology if the DS architecture disfavor the implementation of MQA, IMO.
Frode,
If there is wide acceptance of MQA by not only the audiophile community but also the core user community (i.e., if smartphone music listeners turned to MQA in droves) and if there are many recordings made available in MQA format (large library) and if Paul can make MQA sound good, then I see no reason for Paul to not implement and sell MQA hardware.
I’m not saying it sounds as wonderful as PS DS or DSjr…just saying a nice little ditty for $500 USA.
Paul: notice the nod to “fatigue-free” sound.
The Bluesound NODE 2has scooped Europe’s most prestigious audio accolade, winning the EISA award for Europe’sBest Network Media Player 2016-2017.
EISA, the European Imaging and Sound Association, is an independent body of 50 specialist interest magazines across the continent. The award winners are chosen as the best of the best in their category from the thousands of products tested and reviewed by EISA member magazines over the year. The Bluesound NODE 2 stood out against a large and extremely strong field of network audio players and streaming devices, delivering outstanding performance, Hi-Res Audio compatibility and unrivalled versatility.
In an official statement the EISA Awards panel commented of the NODE 2: “The latest version of this versatile network media player has not only gained sleek-looking casework but now sports more inputs, including wired and wireless Ethernet, USB, aptX® Bluetooth and a combo optical/3.5 socket. The NODE 2 is also easier to use, with playlists being compiled automatically, and is more responsive thanks to an increase in processing power. Support for Spotify, Qobuz and Tidal, among others, plus compatibility with MQA means listeners can enjoy easy access to web-streaming in lossless sound quality. Best of all, the NODE 2 sounds dynamic, three-dimensional and fatigue-free, making for a performance that belies its deceptively modest appearance.”
Frode said
Even if the MQA version sounded better in this comparison it would still not make sense for PS Audio to embrace this technology if the DS architecture disfavor the implementation of MQA, IMO.
Frode,
If there is wide acceptance of MQA by not only the audiophile community but also the core user community (i.e., if smartphone music listeners turned to MQA in droves) and if there are many recordings made available in MQA format (large library) and if Paul can make MQA sound good, then I see no reason for Paul to not implement and sell MQA hardware.
Lots of ‘ifs’ there . . . . .
–SSW
I hear you Streets, but my point is that the selling point for the DS is that Ted's atchitecture and implementation keeps the DS apart (and above) it's competition, while implementing MQA could possibly mean that the DS will sound virtually identical to most other DAC's out there, even at a lower price point. Then the DS will lose it's competitive edge and sales might be plummeting.
Frode said
I hear you Streets, but my point is that the selling point for the DS is that Ted's atchitecture and implementation keeps the DS apart (and above) it's competition, while implementing MQA could possibly mean that the DS will sound virtually identical to most other DAC's out there, even at a lower price point. Then the DS will lose it's competitive edge and sales might be plummeting.
Again, I am just thinking out loud here…
Frode,
Sales will drop on the DS when either: 1) everyone who’s going to buy has done so, or 2) something else comes along that’s better. Hopefully Paul will be the one to provide the latter. It’s just the normal lifecycle of a product.
For me, at the moment MQA doesn’t appeal to me because every album I like to listen to must be ‘remastered’ for MQA and the music I like to listen to (soundtracks) aren’t popular enough for the rights owners to want to spend $$ to remaster them as they most likely wouldn’t get their investment back. So I’ll stick with DS as it sounds pretty darn good even with redbook CDs and I don’t have to ditz with MQA or wait for albums to get remastered. I’m not into rock for critical listening as a lot of other folks are, but that’s just me.
So MQA is fine for other folks, but I already have a viable solution that I don’t have to even consider MQA. And that will actually save me $$ as I don’t have to replace my entire libraries with recordings that I already have.
Well, I guess it is only up to us to speculate, but I still believe that there is a chance that MQA not only brings ‘nothing’ to the DS, but rather hurts its performance. In the event that MQA lower the bar, i.e. making most DAC’s sound the same, this will benefit mid-fi DAC’s.
Frode said
Well, I guess it is only up to us to speculate, but I still believe that there is a chance that MQA not only brings 'nothing' to the DS, but rather hurts its performance. In the event that MQA lower the bar, i.e. making most DAC's sound the same, this will benefit mid-fi DAC's.
And that's totally fine for the mid-fi market. But for those of us who already have DS, there's no need to downgrade so that leaves us out of the MQA sales pool, and, therefore, out of the pool to buy MQA recordings. That, in turn, doesn't help MQA as a product system because of the chicken-and-the-egg problem of if-there-are-no-MQA-records-then-people-won't-buy-MQA-DACs-and-if-there-are-insufficient-MQA-DAC-sales-then-no-remastered-recordings-will-be-released. Like quadrophonic of days of yore. (I still have my Dad's Marantz CD-4 decoder in my closet) The big question is whether or not there will be enough demand for MQA to warrant all the remastering that needs to be done.
Streets Still Works said
The big question is whether or not there will be enough demand for MQA to warrant all the remastering that needs to be done.
Don't the MQA folks claim that existing recordings will sound better through MQA playback (though not as good as albums recorded or remastered for MQA)? I think they call it 'deblurring' or something like that. I have a very hard time believing that such a thing is possible without knowing and compensating for the specific ADC that was used to make the recording, but then my technical knowledge is limited. (For the record, I am open to the possibility that an MQA-recorded track would sound better played back on MQA equipment. I have not yet heard MQA for myself.)
A apodizing filter can indeed chop a little “badness” off of the high frequencies of a recording. By being the filter with the lowest HF cutoff in an audio processing chain a filter can get rid of some of the phase distortion of the other filters and can also, at times, lessen other artifacts like preringing.
But you don’t need MQA to get an apodizing filter.
What troubles me about MQA is, first of all, HDCD. Anyone remember that? Another proprietary codec, and one that is now almost impossible to decode properly. And today, reputable critics are saying they have compared non-decoded HDCD to ordinary PCM through a modern DAC, and they find the HDCD artifacts noticeable.
The press were gaga over HDCD at first, too.
Second, MQA gives its owner a piece of everything. That bothers me, even if it sounds great.
Third, the possibility that it will make some systems worse. Benchmark raised that issue, and PS Audio confirmed it.
Fourth, the fact that MQA DACs are forbidden from outputting decoded digital data. As someone who is very interested in DSP, and who thinks some of the most interesting parts of modern audio involve DSP, I dislike a DSP proposal that would shut out all other forms of DSP. I don’t want to be forbidden from using digital EQ or room correction or crossovers unless my MQA DAC happens to have them built in. In this respect, I think that MQA would stifle progress in audio.
I say: it’s proprietary, it is ONE view of how things should sound, and an ordinary user can’t get back to the original data from an MQA stream. I say to hell with it!
