vhiner1 said
I'll defer to Paul on that, but I wonder out loud whether it would be possible to give users an on MQA on/off switch. If you prefer the FPGA performance without the MQA engaged, do that. If you don't, "push the button." When I read Stewart's response, it almost sounds like that's what he's implying . . .
I read Stuart's comment very differently. I read him to say if the file is MQA, your MQA approved DAC must decode it as we require. If the file is non-MQA, manufacturer do what ever you want. (How gracious of him.)
His quote: “If a DAC uses custom DSP (maybe in an FPGA) then for non-MQA playback we encourage manufacturers to do their own thing.” That is, do what you want when playing non-MQA.
But note, he is silent on MQA playback. MQA requires the DAC manufacturer to play by MQA’s rules when decoding MQA files.
I see your point, but I'm not really sure I see why there's anything wrong with the proposition that if you want to offer MQA, you have to do it according to their rules and that if you don't want to, you can convert how you like. That's what I meant by the "switch." If your customers want both, offer them the option of engaging the MQA switch or disengaging it.
The bigger question, and one that will be decided by the consumer, is whether MQA encoded music sounds better or not. Warner group is already on board. When they start encoding their music with MQA, then I suspect Tidal will flip its switch. Then we’ll all get to decide what we want. If I’m missing something, please be patient with me. My only opinion is based upon a couple of listening sessions with one DAC. I stress again that I’m not ready to “endorse” MQA but I also have no interest in killing it.
A completely selfish and simple perspective. If the development for MQA within the DAC is going to slow progress on further improvements to what we all ready have? Sack it.
Tim said
A completely selfish and simple perspective. If the development for MQA within the DAC is going to slow progress on further improvements to what we all ready have? Sack it.
With all due respect, there's no reason to "sack" something if you don't have to use it. Nothing proposed by MQA requires anyone to do anything or buy anything. It does "not" require DAC designers to adopt it or do anything. Non MQA files will always be available.
Did I miss something? If ps audio wanted to utilize MQA within the DS would it not take resources to do so? If that is the case…and time is being miss directed for this format - and further improvements to the DS are slowed because of the workload…I stand by my statement.
Tim said
Did I miss something? If ps audio wanted to utilize MQA within the DS would it not take resources to do so? If that is the case...and time is being miss directed for this format - and further improvements to the DS are slowed because of the workload...I stand by my statement.
I respect that perspective, Tim. It may, in fact, be what PSAudio opts to do. What I object to are the voices of others in the audiophile community who are actively lobbying to kill the format. I think that is misguided. Thanks for clarifying your position.
I think Lavorgna’s MQA review is the most balanced and reasonable view of MQA I’ve yet encountered. He’s proved his even handedness by publishing Paul’s view and distributing it to a wider audience.
vhiner1 said
I'm not really sure I see why there's anything wrong with the proposition that if you want to offer MQA, you have to do it according to their rules and that if you don't want to, you can convert how you like. That's what I meant by the "switch." If your customers want both, offer them the option of engaging the MQA switch or disengaging it.
A nice idea, but MQA will not allow an MQA-approved DAC to have this option; they require MQA-encoded files to be played back with MQA decoding engaged.
MQA will not allow an MQA-approved DAC to have this option; they require MQA-encoded files to be played back with MQA decoding engaged.
Are you *certain* that is off the table? You're saying that if I have an MQA compliant DAC that there is no "off" switch for MQA decoding? If so, I'm not pleased. I was under the impression that it would be like Dolby, which you could choose to engage or not engage.
Is there a reference for the specific language released by MQA to say what you’re saying? I only ask because I’d like to re-read it if I missed it.
Tim said
Did I miss something? If ps audio wanted to utilize MQA within the DS would it not take resources to do so? If that is the case...and time is being miss directed for this format - and further improvements to the DS are slowed because of the workload...I stand by my statement.
I respect that perspective, Tim. It may, in fact, be what PSAudio opts to do. What I object to are the voices of others in the audiophile community who are actively lobbying to kill the format. I think that is misguided. Thanks for clarifying your position.
I think Lavorgna’s MQA review is the most balanced and reasonable view of MQA I’ve yet encountered. He’s proved his even handedness by publishing Paul’s view and distributing it to a wider audience.
Yes vhiner. I did not mean to kill the format. I’m not a format killer!!
Elk said
Not as certain as my acceptance of the theory of gravity, but from everything I read this appears to be the case.
MQA wants a great deal of control over other manufacturer’s DACs, as well as ADCs. As well as substantial licensing fees.
I expect they'll have a considerable adoption problem if they do not allow the "on/off" switch for the MQA decoding. My knowledge of the history of this kind of thing is by no means expert, but I don't recall an encoding program that did NOT allow for disengagement of decoding. I'm thinking about DTS for movies. On my surround processor, even if the movie was mastered in DTS, I can still opt to listen in simple stereo if I wish. If Stuart and company are planning on reducing listener choice, I think the push back will definitely hurt their bottom line.
Ted Smith said
No, I'm not accusing Apple of deliberately or nefariously deleting files. On the other hand there's no possible way for them to avoid deleting the wrong files now and then it if they don't either promise to only delete files they created (and that I didn't pay for), or promise to ask about each file that they want to delete and pay attention to the answer, or otherwise document the algorithm that they will use to decide what files they will delete (e.g. that the audio data is identical to a file that they provided, or that the metadata is identical to a file that they provide or that x% of the audio is identical or that the so and so audio fingerprinting program also says the files are identical...) Until they specify specifically which files they will delete and under what circumstances I can't allow their software on my computer as a matter of principle: my files are my living.
Ted I want to thank you for this for myself and my son who is a composer.
Audio.bill, thanks for the TONEAudio reference. It’s stuff like this that makes MQA impossible to ignore. They write:
“Moving the 818v3 from my home listening room to main listening room at TONEAudio proves equally illuminating, where a direct comparison between MQA and a few other very good DAC’s but to make the ultimate comparison; MQA and vinyl. Again, this is where MQA really shines. For all the vinyl lovers in the audience (myself included), constant comparison between the recent 45 rpm LP remasters of the Neil Young catalog and the tracks available on MQA are nearly a dead heat. Nearly all of my non audiophile friends with no predisposed agenda prefer the sound of the MQA files to even LP, yet the same comments are made by everyone with no audiophile language; MQA sounds more relaxing, more real, more like music. So Mr. Stuart has hit a home run.”
I understand people’s cynicism and skepticism, but I’ve never seen so much agreement among so many reviewers about whether something sounds “good” as I have among those who have actually heard MQA. The devil is definitely in the details and execution, but there is something here worth fighting for. I hope there’s a way to overcome the obstacles and hurdles so that everyone can enjoy this format’s potential.
That is my take on it as well and why I am leaning towards not supporting it. No decisions have yet been made but whatever happens, there’s no way I would do anything that compromised, even in the least, the performance of our products to satisfy a format - or anything for that matter.
This isn’t like a pollution control where for the benefit of the planet we’re willing to give up performance.
Tim said
A completely selfish and simple perspective. If the development for MQA within the DAC is going to slow progress on further improvements to what we all ready have? Sack it.
With all due respect, there’s no reason to “sack” something if you don’t have to use it. Nothing proposed by MQA requires anyone to do anything or buy anything. It does “not” require DAC designers to adopt it or do anything. Non MQA files will always be available.
With great respect as well here’s where we differ. TIDAL. That Warner music or any other label adopts MQA is meaningless to me. But TIDAL is different. If TIDAL remains the premier streaming service and they switch to MQA streaming exclusively, where does that leave TIDAL fans (like me) who don’t have DACs supporting TIDAL?
Remember, encoded MQA files are lossy.They may have 16 bits worth of data, but it’s not the original 16 bits we’re getting now through TIDAL’s FLAC decoder. These new bits are purported to be “better” than their original counterparts, even though they are lossy. That has not been my experience so far and one of the reasons I am so worried about this.
If it weren’t for TIDAL and the notion that MQA requires an all or nothing approach (no switches permitted) I’d happily support it.
Currently they are, in my opinion, threatening the quality of TIDAL and placing DAC manufacturers who care about sound quality in a tough position.
I would support a more relaxed position. If TIDAL offered a choice between the original lossless FLAC streaming AND MQA - and if we could choose to route the signal through an MQA encoder or not. Then I’d be in.
MQA will not allow an MQA-approved DAC to have this option; they require MQA-encoded files to be played back with MQA decoding engaged.
Are you certain that is off the table? You’re saying that if I have an MQA compliant DAC that there is no “off” switch for MQA decoding? If so, I’m not pleased. I was under the impression that it would be like Dolby, which you could choose to engage or not engage.
No, they will not allow a switch. Further, manufacturers are required to add an indicator light and their branding on the front panel either through the display or nomenclature under the light.
So far, it’s all or nothing. But they may soften their stance. I’d love to see Bob Stuart ease up a bit and make it more comfortable for audio manufacturers who would be happy to support him if he did. Us included. So far, it’s a heels dug in stance.
I am and always have been in favor of adding anything to our products that makes our user’s experience a better one. Why not? What I am against is messing with the lossless nature of the music and forcing DAC manufacturers to tailor their sound and technology to fit a format.
Think how you’d feel if all of a sudden all ice tea came with sweetener added and you could not longer get it any other way (like what might happen at TIDAL). Might taste better to a lot of folks but not everyone. Give me mine pure and untainted -I’ll add sweetener if I need.
I understand people’s cynicism and skepticism, but I’ve never seen so much agreement among so many reviewers about whether something sounds “good” as I have among those who have actually heard MQA. The devil is definitely in the details and execution, but there is something here worth fighting for. I hope there’s a way to overcome the obstacles and hurdles so that everyone can enjoy this format’s potential.
