[OldRoadToad]

whome Quote:

  and I thought I had a strong opinion about this.

I like fraudiophile though, I might steal it and start calling myself that from now on, adding the FR-audiophile twist to it.

​Just remember, unless it is at the beginning of a sentence, it is spelt "frAudiophile®™".  If you start the sentence with it or use it as a formal title for some one you whom deeeeeeeeeeeeeply admire, then by all means,  "FrAudiophile®™" it is.
 
Be well.
 
ORT

 

[BillinSF]

My first Head-Fi post.  1 observation and 1 question.
 
My observation
 
Seems to me that the last 2 months have solidified MQA and streaming of same as the new standard.   Its all about money.
 
Warner and now Universal Music have signed up for MQA with Tidal.  Sprint just acquired a 33-1/3 stake in Tidal (for $200M) which means that now all the cash in the world is available to Tidal for MQA development.  Artists, record labels and the delivery system all on board. Hard not to see this as the industry standard for the next while.
 
My question 
 
I have great headphones and an Oppo HA-1 and a Woo WA8.  Just bought a Meridian Explorer 2 and I'm getting the cables to connect to the amp portion of these two DAC/Amps to get MQA..
 
Would appreciate any observations as to the relative quality of the E2 relative to the high-flying Sabre ESS's in the combo units.   The E2 is streaming MQA from Tidal just fine, but wondering if I'm just kidding myself thinking that MQA through the E2 and bypassing the ESS DACs is going to sound better than just Tidal HiFi through these other DACs.
 
 
 
Tx.  

 

[Mojo777]

I really like the E2 however I have it plugged into a Schiit Jot as the amp section was not sufficient for my needs.
 
I am looking now at getting a Mytek Brooklyn as my main DAC to replace my OPPO HA-1. Tidal streaming and LP's are my two committed music options now. 

 

[winders]

Let me drop this in here:
 
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/02/comparison-hardware-decoded-mqa-using.html
 
We don't need MQA DACs after all!

 

[obobskivich]

Let me drop this in here:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/02/comparison-hardware-decoded-mqa-using.html

We don't need MQA DACs after all!

Nice find! Was hoping the "software decode" piece would largely negate the hardware hype. Although down near the end it gets a bit alarming, and kind of re-enforces the "yep, its actually DRM" argument that the Meridian people have ardently claimed it isn't (but isn't that how it is these days? the stronger the denial, the closer to the truth it is) -

"Lately, I've heard that the spectre of DRM has resurfaced. A couple years ago, when I first wrote about MQA, I did wonder about "copy protection" including the possibility that the word "authenticated" is more about security than sound quality. Well, it seems that the good folks poking around in the MQA software decoder have found that the software is capable of decoding various forms of "scrambling". Although we have not seen severe sonic degradation thus far; that is, the MQA files I've come across so far sound pretty good and are close to CD resolution without an MQA decoder, future files may sound worse by design when played back on a standard non-MQA DAC."

And I wouldn't be surprised if we see some "demo" in the future that relies on this feature to artificially damage the "non-MQA" version just to boost sales. And around and around the carousel goes...:rolleyes:

 

[erich6]

 
Would appreciate any observations as to the relative quality of the E2 relative to the high-flying Sabre ESS's in the combo units.   The E2 is streaming MQA from Tidal just fine, but wondering if I'm just kidding myself thinking that MQA through the E2 and bypassing the ESS DACs is going to sound better than just Tidal HiFi through these other DACs.
 

 
The right comparison would be Tidal MASTER with software MQA decoding through your DAC/amps vs. Tidal MASTER with MQA Passthrough to ME2 and using one of your amp sections.  I would be interested in your own qualitative assessment!  Which sounds better to you?
 
Welcome to the forum!

 

[headfry]

The naysayers grumbling about money grab is getting tiresome to me - an MQA dac is not needed
to get much of the sonic musical benefit of MQA.

To call MQA a fraud could be a sour grapes response. It isn't for everybody,
certainly isn't necessary for audiophile music enjoyment - but from
those who like the musical benefits I would encourage MQA newcomers
to try it and reach their own conclusions.

 

[peterinvan]

Nice find! Was hoping the "software decode" piece would largely negate the hardware hype. Although down near the end it gets a bit alarming, and kind of re-enforces the "yep, its actually DRM" argument that the Meridian people have ardently claimed it isn't (but isn't that how it is these days? the stronger the denial, the closer to the truth it is) -

"Lately, I've heard that the spectre of DRM has resurfaced. A couple years ago, when I first wrote about MQA, I did wonder about "copy protection" including the possibility that the word "authenticated" is more about security than sound quality. Well, it seems that the good folks poking around in the MQA software decoder have found that the software is capable of decoding various forms of "scrambling". Although we have not seen severe sonic degradation thus far; that is, the MQA files I've come across so far sound pretty good and are close to CD resolution without an MQA decoder, future files may sound worse by design when played back on a standard non-MQA DAC."

And I wouldn't be surprised if we see some "demo" in the future that relies on this feature to artificially damage the "non-MQA" version just to boost sales. And around and around the carousel goes...:rolleyes:

Why are people still worried about copy protection when streaming is rapidly becoming the preference for music lovers. I gave up my habit of having my own copy a couple of years ago.

The big breakthrough is remastered albums, hopefully sans compression, being streamed over Tidal. Woot!

 

[obobskivich]

The issue with DRM isn't explicitly about "copy protection" - its the idea that they can go through and use MQA to force out an artificially lower quality stream unless you have their hardware or other proprietary stuff (of course at whatever price they want). And you can only use the service within the confines of their described usage guidelines, with no exceptions or argument, again at whatever price they want. And you get to pay monthly for this "privelege." Or you could just buy a CD or SACD or equivalent digital download and be done with it. :rolleyes:

Sure, higher quality streaming is not a bad thing, but nobody is saying or arguing that it is. Nobody is arguing "convenience" either. I think the pushback is coming from tying it into a new proprietary standard that just serves their profit margins. While the promise of "tons of remastered albums" looks great in marketing material, provenance will likely continue to remain a significant issue for "high resolution" material, and adding buzzword compliance labels to the packaging isn't going to magically change that.

 

[headfry]

not sure I understand here - if MQA was the reigning standard
and if the streaming and recording companies had negative intentions....
then I could see a reason to be concerned.
 
Since it's just getting started then why not see how it unfolds before becoming worried about
(what might happen) in the future?
 
I for one am assuming positive intent.
 
If the argument that MQA isn't needed and all that is happening is better mastering...
which could be achieved say with non MQA FLAC - well, I don't think that is true and MQA really
can and does bring significantly better SQ to the music. And all this with just software decoding...
no MQA dac nor special hardware is needed to benefit.

 

[Sanlitun]

I have the Brooklyn and I use it as an all in one with HD800S.

MQA is sort of hit and miss, some recordings seem to benefit from it and others are not any better than their HD Tracks counterparts. For the most part I feel that PCM as played through the Brooklyn with the SR filter set sounds good, for the most part as good as MQA enabled recordings.

One thing about MQA is that in my case I play this via Tidal, and in general I find that playback through Tidal does not sound as good as it should. Setting Jriver as your playback device with MQA pass through is a huge improvement and I have had a few 'wow" moments with MQA played back in this manner.

As far as the Brooklyn goes I would say that as a standalone DAC it is mediocre for the price as it has a very hot output that does not work well with the headphone amps I have paired it with. However as an all in one unit using it's built in amp it is excellent. It has a super clean but still musical sound with among the best PRAT I have heard with any headphone setup.

 

[obobskivich]

not sure I understand here - if MQA was the reigning standard
and if the streaming and recording companies had negative intentions....
then I could see a reason to be concerned.

Since it's just getting started then why not see how it unfolds before becoming worried about
(what might happen) in the future?

I for one am assuming positive intent.

I'll concede this point for the most part - it is unknown how things will unfold in the future. But knowing that the potential is there, and that someone deliberately introduced those features (IOW it isn't just some "neat side effect"), is certainly something to at least keep an eye on.

If the argument that MQA isn't needed and all that is happening is better mastering...
which could be achieved say with non MQA FLAC - well, I don't think that is true and MQA really
can and does bring significantly better SQ to the music. And all this with just software decoding...
no MQA dac nor special hardware is needed to benefit.

(I added emphasis for clarity)

I'd disagree with this point though. And it's been shown (objectively - scroll up just a few posts for measured comparisons) that this point is without merit. MQA can improve over highly compressed/lossy streaming, but we're still clawing back to "lossless quality" (or thereabouts). That kind of quality has been available, albeit without the fancy new buzzword compliance or extra blinkenlights, for the better part of two decades. Nobody is arguing that "better streaming" isn't good, but why does it have to be married to a proprietary and DRM'd standard that wants to push new hardware/software just to function? What's wrong with just saying "here, its 2017, streaming 1-2mbit datarates isn't really that out of the question, so just have it as it exists on the disc, over the web, and be happy."

The points on mastering should be separate - nobody is arguing that "good quality recording" or "good quality mastering" are bad things, but I don't see a lot of faith-inspiring info about how they're going to magically overcome the provenance issue associated with "high rez" downloads (and we'll ignore the whole "even in an ideal world are such files really worth the extra space in a perceptible way" debate). And you don't need a proprietary and DRM'd standard that wants to push new hardware/software to get recording engineers and artists on board with releasing quality stuff, or going back and cleaning up old recordings. But that isn't an RDF-compliant perspective, and doesn't sell new units, and all of this costs money, so there's certainly a business aspect and perhaps "they" really do need some up-charged widget to cover their costs. But I feel like even that could be handled in a more transparent and accessible way - "if you want our really high quality streaming, kick in a few extra bucks because it costs us a bit more to provide it that way, and if you want to see an album remastered, actually kick in the money to buy it when it comes out."

 

[headfry]

...if another way existed to get better sounding masters out there, then let that competitor do it. In the meantime, I'll take the improvements that Tidal Masters provides.

 

[turkayguner]

Come on Mr @Rob Watts, for how long should we wait for the MQA capable Mojo v2 !

 

[x RELIC x]

Come on Mr @Rob Watts, for how long should we wait for the MQA capable Mojo v2 !

Don't hold your breath. Rob has posted that he feels MQA is a flawed format and will not support it in his DACs.

I was actually being polite; the MQA interpolation filters against a standard WTA interpolation filter (I compared it using a Mojo) sounds dreadful. MQA is technically flawed, with huge and completely unacceptable levels of aliasing. And it's those two reasons why I refuse to implement it in my designs.

I am not surprised. I have heard the MQA interpolation filters against the WTA interpolation filters - and MQA interpolation filters, with their huge timing errors due to aliasing, sounded dreadful in comparison to the WTA interpolation filter.

Of course I am biased, but just don't make the assumption that MQA is better and listen for yourself.