• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Roon support of MQA

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
I believe the requirements for full MQA Master Certified (I may have jumbled the name) requires everything to be MQA-authenticated from the encode ADC to the decode DAC, which requires it be "unmolested" all the way.

Yes. I understand that. But, it is also supposed to play music just fine with a non-MQA DAC. Stuart claims this sounds better than a non-MQA mastered version of the same file into the same DAC because the MQA file contains PCM signal which has been de-blurred, compensating for the original ADC. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Here is my understanding. At 44k sampling, an MQA/PCM file with either 16 or 24 bit depth can be played straightforwardly into a conventional, non-MQA DAC, as we know. Also, the Tidal software app is supposed to provide the - call it what you will - decoding, origami unfolding, etc. into higher sampling rate PCM suitable for a non-MQA DAC. If Tidal's software can do it, other software, codecs, etc. could easily follow. That is what is potentially exciting but also potentially a trouble spot.

However, AFAIK, playback of an MQA file via a non-MQA DAC lacks two things that full MQA Certified playback via an MQA DAC has: (1.) deblurring per MQA specs incorporated into the playback DAC's filtering (but deblurring for the ADC has already been done and is contained in the signal), and, (2.) a little light that lights up in one of two colors saying "Authenticated".

The latter is, of course, an essential and AWESOME, gee whiz feature that will amaze your friends. I had a Theta Digital DAC once that had a little light that turned on whenever I played an HDCD. Gosh, what a thrill to see that little light go on. Yeah, right, like you would not believe.
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
It's the equivalent of a watermark.
Not really, if my understanding is correct, that it just turns the Authenticated light on or off. It does not, apparently, inhibit or prevent playback, as a watermark would. This is what I infer from reports about the Tidal MQA app, which I have not used myself.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
Your getting sold the cure for a fictitious disease..

This is classic marketing, get a smart guy to tell you your suffering from dehydration. Inject some science to tell you why Gatorade is the only answer.. Water is just not as good:D

MQA is the Gatorade here, PCM the water.
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
Your getting sold the cure for a fictitious disease..

This is classic marketing, get a smart guy to tell you your suffering from dehydration. Inject some science to tell you why Gatorade is the only answer.. Water is just not as good:D

MQA is the Gatorade here, PCM the water.

Maybe. But, given Bob Stuart's track record, his published and very credible AES papers, how is it a no brainer that you are right and he is wrong, Mr. Hipshot? He has both more credibility and proof than you do. Or, did I hear somewhere that you had done a thorough, bias controlled, double blind listening comparison of MQA and that you are about to publish your own paper totally debunking it?

Actually, elsewhere in this forum are a discussion and links to some of Stuarts's papers. You might take the trouble of getting beyond the marketing hype as well as the "sky is falling" internet buzz and actually read these papers as well as Amir's comments on them. You might not agree, but I think they are pretty good.

Your opinion based on nothing but a most superficial "gut feel" is really no better than any old subjective nonsense opinion back at dear old WBF. That does not mean you are automatically wrong in your opinion. But, admit it, you have no evidence to support it.

And, of course, aside from the sound quality question is the issue of commercial success in the lack of it. Those two issues might or might not be intertwined.
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,273
Likes
9,789
Location
NYC
This is classic marketing, get a smart guy to tell you your suffering from dehydration. Inject some science to tell you why Gatorade is the only answer.. Water is just not as good:D
I guess you don't believe in electrolyte balance.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
I guess you don't believe in electrolyte balance.
No, that's potentially possible but you don't need a sports drink to keep that within a range that's healthy.

A decent diet is sufficient, drink when your thirsty.

Ah, the fear of dehydration :D
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
Maybe. But, given Bob Stuart's track record, his published and very credible AES papers, how is it a no brainer that you are right and he is wrong, Mr. Hipshot? He has both more credibility and proof than you do. Or, did I hear somewhere that you had done a thorough, bias controlled, double blind listening comparison of MQA and that you are about to publish your own paper totally debunking it?

Actually, elsewhere in this forum are a discussion and links to some of Stuarts's papers. You might take the trouble of getting beyond the marketing hype as well as the "sky is falling" internet buzz and actually read these papers as well as Amir's comments on them. You might not agree, but I think they are pretty good.

Your opinion based on nothing but a most superficial "gut feel" is really no better than any old subjective nonsense opinion back at dear old WBF. That does not mean you are automatically wrong in your opinion. But, admit it, you have no evidence to support it.

And, of course, aside from the sound quality question is the issue of commercial success in the lack of it. Those two issues might or might not be intertwined.
Iv read pretty much everything that's been posted on this forum:)

There is often a schism between purely theoretical advantage and actual practical benefits in a real world scenario eg what one ends up with when listening at home.

I maintain , PCM ( at what ever rate the program was edited/mastered in) is absolutely fine, however if you feel there is some huge problem with it and MQA solves this problem I'm ok with that. By the way How's the HDCD player? :D
 
Last edited:

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
The technology is clever, I'll admit.

But it's also trying to solve a problem that isn't relevant in 2017. Pipes are fatter and faster now, and will only get more so. Even high resolution digital audio streaming bandwidth is low bandwidth compared HD video streaming which, at least in my house, works just fine over the internet.

Oh, it's definitely solving a problem, namely licensing revenue for Meridian.

This is my take on MQA also. I think Meridian has realised that the market for high end audio is only going to diminish and need new revenue streams. To a large extent I think high quality audio has been commoditised.

MQA in terms of bandwidth saving just isnt relevant, its a non issue, and the alleged audio quality benefits of the regime appear to be somewhat trivial in my listening so far.
 

Don Hills

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
708
Likes
464
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Don, not sure what the render control bitstream does other than control the "authenticated" light on the DAC. I do not think that is important myself. But, maybe my understanding is incomplete or inaccurate.

It also selects one of 16 resampling filters. The "best" filter for the job was determined when the file was originally MQA encoded.
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,273
Likes
9,789
Location
NYC
No, that's potentially possible but you don't need a sports drink to keep that within a range that's healthy.
I note the qualification which acknowledges the value of something more than pure water. Mebbe the analogy is apt in that, under certain conditions, MQA has value. :D
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
Not really, if my understanding is correct, that it just turns the Authenticated light on or off. It does not, apparently, inhibit or prevent playback, as a watermark would. This is what I infer from reports about the Tidal MQA app, which I have not used myself.

It it's current implementation, it turns the light on and off.

I've used the Tidal MQA desktop app. It would be trivial to change that behavior; now that WMG and UMG have decided to back MQA, I would not be at all shocked if they would like to see anti-piracy angles built into future releases.
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
Yes. I understand that. But, it is also supposed to play music just fine with a non-MQA DAC. Stuart claims this sounds better than a non-MQA mastered version of the same file into the same DAC because the MQA file contains PCM signal which has been de-blurred, compensating for the original ADC. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The "de-blurring" just means using a different digital filter: a lazier, apodizing filter that reduces pre-ringing. There is no particular magic here, it's signal-processing 101, and the audibility of it is highly questionable.

There are many other DACs on the market that offer alternative digital filters (some TEAC DACs, for example, offer 4 choices). Calling it "de-blurring" is just MQA marketing.

If you want to use a different digital filter, you don't need MQA to do it.
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
It also selects one of 16 resampling filters. The "best" filter for the job was determined when the file was originally MQA encoded.
Aha. Thanks for the info, Don.

If I get the implication of this, it is that not all the deblurring for the ADC was done during MQA mastering. Some corrections, apparently, are not already applied to the MQA digital signal and are conveyed instead by this metadata to tell the MQA DAC what to do for "best" sound during playback. Any DAC can be used, but only a fully MQA compliant signal path all the way to the DAC will provide "optimal" results, including any pre-DAC signal processing such as Room EQ.
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
The "de-blurring" just means using a different digital filter: a lazier, apodizing filter that reduces pre-ringing. There is no particular magic here, it's signal-processing 101, and the audibility of it is highly questionable.

There are many other DACs on the market that offer alternative digital filters (some TEAC DACs, for example, offer 4 choices). Calling it "de-blurring" is just MQA marketing.

If you want to use a different digital filter, you don't need MQA to do it.
All true. And, if you do not mind playing around manually yourself with different filter settings by ear during playback, fine. OTOH, maybe there is value in having them do it their way automatically. Maybe not.
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
It's another non-entity, DSD2 ,
Keith
Have you actually heard it, or are you, like many at CA Forum just offering gratuitous opinions from the sidelines based on no actual listening experience? Personally, I do not believe it will make a huge, revolutionary or startling sonic contribution, though I am open to the possibility, unless disproven, that it might offer a small, but noticeable positive improvement. Incremental improvements to digital sound have been hard to obtain with dimishing returns, so they tend to be of the small variety, if they are even noticeable. Ergo, you might be exactly right.

On the other hand, a decade ago I was curious but highly skeptical of what DSP room EQ could do. Not much, I was convinced. Our rooms do not make that big a difference, surely. End of story? No. I tried it and, kowabonga, it absolutely changed everything and knocked my socks off. Seldom have I heard a more significant audible improvement.

I honestly do not believe MQA stands a chance of equaling that breakthrough in significance. But, I am willing to at least listen to it someday to get a better sense myself.
 

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,051
Likes
12,150
Location
London
Well yes,treating your room either actively,passively or both makes a huge difference,regarding MQA I haven't read anything about that makes me believe there will be any benefit to sound quality.
Keith
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
Ok, thanks. For the record, you have confirmed that your opinion is based on zero actual listening. You still have every legal and moral right to your opinion, but...
 
Top Bottom