[jmonty]

  Good time to request MQA support? There's still time 

 

Despite there are a lot of doubts for this new codec, It would be nice if Chord releases the Hugo2 fully compliant with the MQA standard.
If Universal Music Group supports this standard and some streaming companies like Tidal also supports it perhaps it will be important in the near future
In any case, there is a possibility to upgrade the Hugo2 via firmware?

 

[x RELIC x]

Despite there are a lot of doubts for this new codec, It would be nice if Chord releases the Hugo2 fully compliant with the MQA standard.
If Universal Music Group supports this standard and some streaming companies like Tidal also supports it perhaps it will be important in the near future
In any case, there is a possibility to upgrade the Hugo2 via firmware?

This might shed some light on Rob's perspective about MQA... I don't expect him to implement MQA anytime soon...

:wink_face:

For me there is no issue in my readiness to acquire IP to put into my designs; if I hear a technology that genuinely improves performance and musicality then I would be first in the line to use it, and go to any lengths to get it to perform at it's best.

Rob  

Thanks, Rob, for your reply.

Will we have to wait for the Mojo 2 to see MQA compatibility or will there be some way to update the existing Mojo?

From my post with emphasis:

" if I hear a technology that genuinely improves performance and musicality... " 

From this thread post (and the following posts):

http://www.head-fi.org/t/784602/chord-mojo-dac-amp-faq-in-3rd-post/30045#post_13235831

 

[Dobrescu George]

This might shed some light on Rob's perspective about MQA... I don't expect him to implement MQA anytime soon...

From this thread post (and the following posts):

http://www.head-fi.org/t/784602/chord-mojo-dac-amp-faq-in-3rd-post/30045#post_13235831

 
Laughing in albums ripped from CD to lossless FLAC 

 

[Arnav Agharwal]

This might shed some light on Rob's perspective about MQA... I don't expect him to implement MQA anytime soon...

:wink_face:

While I believe that MQA is not responsible for the higher SQ of TIDAL Masters, I'm confident (and afraid) that Warner + Universal will succeed in shoving it down our throats.

At this point, unless MQA support can be enabled through a software update, I may have to reconsider my Hugo 2 pre-order plans.

 

[elviscaprice]

While I believe that MQA is not responsible for the higher SQ of TIDAL Masters, I'm confident (and afraid) that Warner + Universal will succeed in shoving it down our throats.

At this point, unless MQA support can be enabled through a software update, I may have to reconsider my Hugo 2 pre-order plans.

​The labels are the content holders, so if they want to use DRM such as MQA, then they can do it.  But, you as the customer can refuse to purchase it.  Also, MQA could easily be made a software solution only, but it's up to MQA to do so.  Maybe you should pressure the labels and MQA to do that instead of the hardware manufacturers.  I don't support DRM, thus I won't support MQA devices.

 

[514077]

 

 

​

 ​

 ​

MQA and Universal Music Group Announce Collaboration To Advance Hi-Res On-Demand Streaming
 
With Warner already on board and streaming MQA-encoded hi-res music via TIDAL, another major has signed on, announcing their collaboration with MQA today: Universal Music Group (UMG). What labels is Universal Music Group home to? Blue Note, Capitol, Abbey Road Studios, EMI, Decca Records, Deutsche Grammophon, ECM, Mercury Classics, Motown, Polydor, Verve, Virgin EMI, and more. (Click on the following link to see a complete list of Univeral Music Group's labels.)
 
Today's big news--and this is big hi-res music news--is the announcement of the agreement. Timeline for releases and additional specifics will have to come from UMG, and I'm definitely looking forward to finding out more details as soon as they're ready to say more.
 
I've attached the official press release file below.
 
  
 

Good time to request MQA support? There's still time 

 

Chord said a while ago that they weren't planning on implementing MQA for the simple reason that they'd have to reveal propriotary (forgive my spelling) technology on their products.  Part of the MQA process is that MQA needs to know about the DAC for part of the process.
I don't really care about MQA as I like to own rather than stream, and I like my Chord product.
PSAudio also use FPGAs and feel the same way.  Schiit have their reasons for not jumping on the band wagon, too.

 

[Arnav Agharwal]

  Chord said a while ago that they weren't planning on implementing MQA for the simple reason that they'd have to reveal propriotary (forgive my spelling) technology on their products.  Part of the MQA process is that MQA needs to know about the DAC for part of the process.
I don't really care about MQA as I like to own rather than stream, and I like my Chord product.
PSAudio also use FPGAs and feel the same way.  Schiit have their reasons for not jumping on the band wagon, too.

That was before Universal joined the bandwagon. While I didn't care much for it earlier, now I'm afraid that the community will be strong-armed into having high quality recordings being made available for streaming only through MQA. In that case, a $2200+ investment will end up with restricted application. I'd hate to pay for esoteric streaming formats, but resistance seems futile. Let's face it, we're the addicts here and don't really have any leverage over a gang of music industry giants.

 

[Dobrescu George]

  Chord said a while ago that they weren't planning on implementing MQA for the simple reason that they'd have to reveal propriotary (forgive my spelling) technology on their products.  Part of the MQA process is that MQA needs to know about the DAC for part of the process.
I don't really care about MQA as I like to own rather than stream, and I like my Chord product.
PSAudio also use FPGAs and feel the same way.  Schiit have their reasons for not jumping on the band wagon, too.

 
All the power to us, the ones who like to won their music! 
 
Physical music CDs feel the best, even if we rip them and only listen in FLAC! 

 

 

[elviscaprice]

  That was before Universal joined the bandwagon. While I didn't care much for it earlier, now I'm afraid that the community will be strong-armed into having high quality recordings being made available only through MQA. In that case, a $2200+ investment will end up with restricted application. I'd hate to pay for esoteric streaming formats, but resistance seems futile. Let's face it, we're the addicts here and don't really have any leverage over a gang of music industry giants.

​Your far over estimating the market place for audiophile hi res music.  It's just the tail end of the marketplace.  Now that the consumer has had access to non DRM music for so long I highly doubt they will embrace it, in fact they will vote with their wallet.  There is yet plenty of non DRM Hi Res music for the audiophile.  Let's not get ahead of ourselves with this DRM'd MQA.  But of course your free to vote with your wallet and opinion, as I.

 

[Ruben D]

  That was before Universal joined the bandwagon. While I didn't care much for it earlier, now I'm afraid that the community will be strong-armed into having high quality recordings being made available for streaming only through MQA. In that case, a $2200+ investment will end up with restricted application. I'd hate to pay for esoteric streaming formats, but resistance seems futile. Let's face it, we're the addicts here and don't really have any leverage over a gang of music industry giants.

You always have the option of software decoding before sending it to a non-MQA decoding DAC. The software has limitations as to how high in resolution the software only option will go, but that is just them trying to strong arm customers into buying the hardware with the decoders built in. There is no reason other than commercial interests as to why they won't make the full resolution that software decoding is capable of available and it may backfire if non-MQA decoding DACs outperform the ones with it and consumers are aware of this.
 
Think of it this way, would you rather listen to a song through a favoured for sound quality DAC that has no MQA, or a lesser favoured DAC that has MQA? MQA as far as I see it ultimately verifies the track is mastered to the stated resolution and not an upsampled CD so there is a strong reasoning it helps with consumer protection. But were people working out that was a problem with their ears or a computer's analysis of CD masters compared to the claimed hi-res files that turned out to be fraudulent? It isn't the only way to guarantee authentication either, so we will be interesting to see how it all plays out. 
 
It makes sense to take a DAVE's rendition of CD resolution over any other DAC playing at a much higher resolution to me, and for me that says enough about the prime role the DAC plays over the role that MQA plays in delivering the most from a recording.

 

[Arnav Agharwal]

  Think of it this way, would you rather listen to a song through a favoured for sound quality DAC that has no MQA, or a lesser favoured DAC that has MQA?
 

I will obviously choose the better DAC, and I will obviously miss the music quality that I'm not getting because of it. I will still purchase Hugo 2. And I will be sad. That's why I'm asking Chord. Help.

 

[Ruben D]

Do you expect Chord to hand over their intellectual property to MQA developers all because the MQA developers have intentionally limited the resolution of software decoding, in light of Rob Watts indicating it would be a move he would consider if he believed it improved the sound? I suspect this move is designed to induce FOMO in the interests of companies who are on board with MQA. May be my cynical view, but if it wasn't a money oriented decision surrounding licencing on multiple economic fields, why wouldn't the software decoding resolutions released just match that of the hardware? I think our FOMO may be being played at little too hard, not our ears. 
 
That hardware decoding will go perceptibly above the removal of digital aberrations that the software decoding would allow has to be proven before I will subscribe to the notion that I am missing out on the most optimal listening experience. This can only be done in a blind A/B sound test with the only difference being the hardware vs software resolution being the only variable from the same MQA file. Has anyone come back with that yet? Only if there is a noticeable difference with an above 50% success rate would your sadness that Chord isn't capitulating be valid. I suspect it wouldn't but I am open minded to hearing how that test goes. 

 

[Arnav Agharwal]

  Do you expect Chord to hand over their hard earned DAC engineering information to MQA developers all because the MQA developers have intentionally limited the resolution of software decoding, in light of Rob Watts saying it would be a move he would make if it improved the sound? I suspect this move is designed to induce FOMO in the interests of companies who are on board with MQA. May be my cynical view, but if it wasn't a money oriented decision, why wouldn't the software decoding resolutions released just match that of the hardware? I think our FOMO may be being played at, not our ears. 
 
That hardware decoding will go perceptibly above the removal of digital aberrations that the software decoding would allow has to be proven before I will subscribe to the notion that I am missing out on the most optimal listening experience. This can only be done in a blind A/B sound test with the only difference being the hardware vs software resolution being the only variable from the same MQA file. Has anyone come back with that yet? Only if there is a noticeable difference with an above 50% success rate would your sadness that Chord isn't capitulating be valid. I suspect it wouldn't but I am open minded to hearing how that test goes. 

I'm not sure how much tech will be "given out". Rob Watts has been open-minded about MQA, which he wouldn't be otherwise.
 
There are some comparisons in the TIDAL MQA thread around this post: http://www.head-fi.org/t/831291/ces-2017-mqa-announces-tidal-masters-and-more/360#post_13209704
 
The merits of MQA are being heavily discussed in that thread, and the more I read about it, the less is my skepticism, though I'm not yet entirely convinced. I found jude's latest post and the one before it to be quite helpful: http://www.head-fi.org/t/831291/ces-2017-mqa-announces-tidal-masters-and-more/420#post_13268694

 

[Dobrescu George]

So.... As long as I don't stream and will absolutely never stream, MQA is absolutely not relevant to me, right? 

 
It won't and doesn't try to replae CDs but replace other streaming services, if my understanding is correct. 
 
Oh well, I will be leaning in my chair with me music collection, far far from all this streaming craziness. I just don't see myself listening to music without doing all that tag management and having limited edition CDs and such. 

 

[x RELIC x]

Chord is currently not looking at implementing MQA right now. That's the way it is. I'm sure they have their pulse on the *scheme* but aren't implementing it for their own reasons. Can we not delve in to endlessly discuss the merits of MQA in this thread.