[pdickerson]

i just purchased that DAC less than a year ago.
If Schiit gives me their standard answer I will have to decide if I am going t take the financial loss on that decision.

 

[germay0653]

I just picked up a Meridian Explorer 2 to find out if that was true. It some cases it is, in some cases it is not. Several of the "DAC unfolded" versions offered roughly similar performance to the "software unfolded" versions. However, some of them were actually quite different. For the most part, they were the tracks that unfolded all the way to 24/192, which definitely sounded better. But a few of them that only unfolded to 24/96 sounded quite different as well, particularly ELP's "Brain Salad Surgery" (which I also own in 24/96).

Whether or not it sounds better could be considered subjective, and I still feel that the use of exclusive, hardware-based decoding technology is an invitation to be usurped by a more openly adaptable design, but it is different.

Just to be clear, I don't think there's any "magic" going on here, but I'm fairly certain after a bit of listening that the folks who are mastering these MQA tracks are getting some degree of choice as to what is being compressed down into that noise layer. The fortunate part is that some of the folks who are mastering these new MQA versions are talented enough to essentially create what I see as not one but TWO good masters of these recordings, in some cases. Others are just putting their stamp on it with little additional effort. And yet another group seems to be making some positive changes, but not fully utilizing the technology.

So, IMO, you are partially right but not completely. It has everything to do with the master and who is doing the mastering, yes. But it also has to do with their willingness to use the technology and how adept they are with it on these first forays into MQA. In the end, there is no "magic" inherent in the technology - it is all about how skilled and creative the mastering engineers are in using it.

When you say "hardware-based decoding technology" do you mean software decoding, in the form of firmware on a chip, is what's occurring?

 

[Hansotek]

When you say "hardware-based decoding technology" do you mean software decoding, in the form of firmware on a chip, is what's occurring?

I mean the DAC. To be specific, what I meant was "decoding technology requiring an additional external hardware purchase" (i.e.- an entirely different DAC that is incompatible with, and replaces your current DAC).

I think we can safely say that most of us would prefer it if Tidal could do the entire job of unfolding the file and we could choose our own DAC. Right now it seems more likely to me that the market will invent a competitive technology to alleviate this problem, rather than bowing to the licensing demands of Meridian - which nobody seems to want to do.

 

[Stillhart]

You also have to remember your Iggy is a 21 bit dac so if the MQA is 24 bit instead of 21 bit recording than the dac will not play it. Schiit is a master at low res or cd quality music playing probably the best for that in its price range but as schiit states and feel free to call them I did their DACs do not play true 24 bit music but schiit claim 99% of music is not 24 bit. That statement is probably no longer true with mqa release and it becoming part of Tidal and a record label. So even if mqa became free open source your dac would not be able to directly play mqa at full res.

 
There is so much wrong with this, I don't know where to start.  lol

 

[germay0653]

I mean the DAC. To be specific, what I meant was "decoding technology requiring an additional external hardware purchase" (i.e.- an entirely different DAC that is incompatible with, and replaces your current DAC).

I think we can safely say that most of us would prefer it if Tidal could do the entire job of unfolding the file and we could choose our own DAC. Right now it seems more likely to me that the market will invent a competitive technology to alleviate this problem, rather than bowing to the licensing demands of Meridian - which nobody seems to want to do.

I just wonder why it had to be done within the DAC.  Yes, it would be more complicated to do it in software but it could have been implemented as a configuration item, meaning your DAC is found in a drop down of DAC chips they have profiles for, and the software decodes based on that configuration. The list of DAC chips could be pulled, dynamically, as new profiles are made available.  There's more involved as they'd also have to serve up the algorithm for the chip but it could be done.  No need to have it reside within the DAC.  If there isn't a profile for your specific DAC then have either a GENERAL DAC profile or just don't decode at that level at all.

 

[Stillhart]

 
I just wonder why it had to be done within the DAC.  Yes, it would be more complicated to do it in software but it could have been implemented as a configuration item, meaning your DAC is found in a drop down of DAC chips they have profiles for, and the software decodes based on that configuration. The list of DAC chips could be pulled, dynamically, as new profiles are made available.  There's more involved as they'd also have to serve up the algorithm for the chip but it could be done.  No need to have it reside within the DAC.  If there isn't a profile for your specific DAC then have either a GENERAL DAC profile or just don't decode at that level at all.

 
Don't overthink it.  They want it to be done in the DAC so they can sell you Meridian DAC's or DAC's that pay a license fee to Meridian.  Tidal has proven that you don't need hardware decoding.

 

[jwbrent]

I still wonder whether the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 on rock/pop albums is even noticeable to most people.

 

[germay0653]

   
Don't overthink it.  They want it to be done in the DAC so they can sell you Meridian DAC's or DAC's that pay a license fee to Meridian.  Tidal has proven that you don't need hardware decoding.

Exactly, but they could have built the license fee into the software for each DAC chip decoder algorithm and could probably have gotten a bigger slice of the pie. Oooooh, did I just say that?

 

[Stillhart]

  I still wonder whether the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 on rock/pop albums is even noticeable to most people.

 
Or the difference between 16/44 and 24/96 for that matter.  Fortunately, there's a massive thread in the Sound Science forum discussing it so we don't have to rehash the debate here.  :-D

 

[jwbrent]

When will we see these 30,000 MQA files that are supposed to be ready and waiting?

 

[Arnav Agharwal]

The manual that comes with yggy says it needs a. 2.0 compliant cable not a 1.0 and not a 3.0.
They do say it is a 3.0 USB but it apparently does not work as one.

 
 

   
 
I think the confusion is that the Yggy uses Schiit's "Gen 3" USB, whereas their lesser DACs use "Gen 2"... not sure any still use "Gen 1".

Interesting. Since they advertise their DACs as modular and upgradable, this might be an attempt to keep the design future-proof.

 

[ThurstonX]

  Interesting. Since they advertise their DACs as modular and upgradable, this might be an attempt to keep the design future-proof.

 
Given that Yggy is their end-all-be-all DAC (until the next one , I'd say that their Gen 3 USB is a natural extension and upgrade from Gen 2, and, IIRC, Gen 3 is only available on the Yggy.  Given its stature in their product line, it makes sense they'd want to give it something like Gen 3 to set it apart, which then means it must be exclusive to the Yggy.    Regardless, Yggy tech has already trickled down to their lesser DACs in some fashion, which says a lot about how they think about their entire line.  Yes, upgradability is a Schiit hallmark, be it as a version 2 of some existing product, or as something the owner can pay to have done.  I was happy to be able to upgrade my Bifrost to Multibit.
 
Be this is WAAAAY off-topic, esp. since there is no way in hell Schiit will ever put out an MQA DAC.... (until they do

 

[RichardTownsend]

  Guys... if the MASTER sounds better than the HIFI, it's simply because it's a better mastered version. Nothing to do with the format it's stored in. MQA or Meridian has nothing to do with that. 

Hi Thomas,
 
Can I share my experiences with you? I have a Mytek Brooklyn which can do a hardware decode of the MQA files on Tidal. On the Brooklyn it's possible to turn off the MQA processing so that the DAC treats the stream as standard PCM with exactly the same volume.  I've compared Tidal Hifi, Tidal Masters with MQA, Tidal Masters with MQA off, and a downloaded 24/96 version of 'Two Against Nature' by Steely Dan. I have to say I'm impressed with MQA. There is a lack of 'edge' to the sound that I've never heard with digital before. Having compared all these versions very closely, the MQA is better than the downloaded 24/96, and better than Masters without MQA. As far as I can tell, the mixing, EQ and compression of all these versions is the same, though of course that judgement could be wrong and there could be some subtle difference in mastering that I can't detect consciously. But what makes me think it's not just mastering is that the improvement I hear with MQA on many tracks, not just this album, is always of the same kind - a lack of digital edge, an ability to hear further into the mix, a greater sense of the space around each instrument, and a sense of ease that I have never heard before from digital.
 
I've also compared the hardware decode with the Tidal software decode (both are to 24/96) and the software decode is to my ears sometimes impossible to tell from the standard 24/96, and it's clearly not as good as the hardware decode.
 
Just one person's listening impressions...

 

[jwbrent]

Hi Thomas,

Can I share my experiences with you? I have a Mytek Brooklyn which can do a hardware decode of the MQA files on Tidal. On the Brooklyn it's possible to turn off the MQA processing so that the DAC treats the stream as standard PCM with exactly the same volume.  I've compared Tidal Hifi, Tidal Masters with MQA, Tidal Masters with MQA off, and a downloaded 24/96 version of 'Two Against Nature' by Steely Dan. I have to say I'm impressed with MQA. There is a lack of 'edge' to the sound that I've never heard with digital before. Having compared all these versions very closely, the MQA is better than the downloaded 24/96, and better than Masters without MQA. As far as I can tell, the mixing, EQ and compression of all these versions is the same, though of course that judgement could be wrong and there could be some subtle difference in mastering that I can't detect consciously. But what makes me think it's not just mastering is that the improvement I hear with MQA on many tracks, not just this album, is always of the same kind - a lack of digital edge, an ability to hear further into the mix, a greater sense of the space around each instrument, and a sense of ease that I have never heard before from digital.

I've also compared the hardware decode with the Tidal software decode (both are to 24/96) and the software decode is to my ears sometimes impossible to tell from the standard 24/96, and it's clearly not as good as the hardware decode.

Just one person's listening impressions...

Very interesting observations. I concur that when I first listened to master files using the TIDAL app for unfolding, it became quite apparent there was an improvement in clarity to the sound, especially in the high frequencies. My reference was the 150+ hi res albums I purchased from HDtracks and Pono. I'm very excited about this development and I plan to subscribe to TIDAL when my trial period ends.

I also found your comment about the first unfolding sounding better with your Mytek DAC than with the TIDAL app interesting. I wondered whether this might be the case, that hardware unfolding would do a better job.

I hope Chord adopts MQA and upgrades the firmware of my Mojo so I don't have to buy another DAC. John at Chord wrote in another thread there was nothing preventing them from doing so from a technical standpoint.

 

[mogulmaster]

using the Tidal decoding with my micro iDSD and LCD-X, these masters files sound better to my ears. Especially in the high frequencies