[]eep]

usbplayer has mqa as an in-app purchase for an extra $4. Neutron doesn't but its arguably the better and more complete player. Use the search for the (long) dedicated topic here.

edit: maybe I was incorrect: Neutron does unfolding appearantly
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/usb...usb-audio-support-for-android.704065/page-246
When I read there almost every newcomer is completely confused by the whole mqa magic act. *creepy raspy voice* "Heeey, look here at my hand waving! Ooohhh, now where did the rabbit go?"

 

[OmniscientNihilist]

usbplayer has mqa as an in-app purchase for an extra $4. Neutron doesn't but its arguably the better and more complete player. Use the search for the (long) dedicated topic here.

ok cool

i like omnia player the best so far, because its so so easy to use, i can give it to my grandfather and he can use it even its so simple

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rhmsoft.omnia&hl=en_CA&gl=US

it might not have mqa

but it has a few things i really like:
-dark mode
-replaygain
- and ability to show folder (whichever folder you designate as default) view soon as i open the player

otherwise i use potplayer on pc. ive contacted them to ask about mqa support

and i use hidizs ap80 pro player when im out. the player on this device is very simple yet functional and has replaygain and 'play through folders' option i like

im curious if ap80 player can tell me if a flac is mqa or not. if it will state that when its playing an mqa flac. because the problem with mqa flacs is there is no way to tell if they are mqa flacs or regular flacs

 

[Lucky87]

A video version of this post is available here:

GoldenOne Thank you for you information on this topic and time you put into it.

So what are your thought's on dCS implementation with MQA? They seem to be very measurement focused on adding anything to there systems unless they can verify it.

Or did they just add it like PS Audio to shut people up or to sell there product?

And on this note I'll end my rant.

I did not mean for you to blow a HEAD GASKET on that video or to offend anyone here

 

[OmniscientNihilist]

i just tested some mqa flacs on my ap80 pro portable dap with the new latest firmware which adds mqa 4X support

and the player is displaying mqa for any flac that is mqa.

weird thing is the player shows mqa for two of the files and mqa studio for one of the files. dont know why its showing two different things

also it does not display any sign that it is giving out a higher quality then the default stated quality levels of the flac. like when i look in the properties of the file on the ap80

this helps to detect whether a flac is mqa or not, which is nice. because otherwise how would you know?

https://www.hidizs.net/products/ap80-pro-fully-balanced-lossless-music-player

https://www.hidizs.net/pages/download-center

hopefully at least mqa detection can be added to more software. whether it does have, or doenst have, the ability to play (decode / unfold) it properly

 

[GoldenSound]

GoldenOne Thank you for you information on this topic and time you put into it.

So what are your thought's on dCS implementation with MQA? They seem to be very measurement focused on adding anything to there systems unless they can verify it.

Or did they just add it like PS Audio to shut people up or to sell there product?




I did not mean for you to blow a HEAD GASKET on that video or to offend anyone here

I think it's a shame they've added it given as the business practices and 'proliferation' as such of MQA is in my opinion a very bad thing.

But, having actually spoken to a few manufacturers since the video came out, its clear dCS doesn't have the same agreement with MQA as others do.
Other manufacturers are actually being forced to upsample EVERYTHING including regular PCM content using the MQA filter. (This is seemingly a new development and so won't affect older products) This is to prevent interruptions/clicks/pops/delay when switching from MQA to non-MQA content. As keeping the MQA renderer filter on persistently sorts it. (I would be willing to bet the new hiby player update with MQA support does this...., and this seems to be why new ifi products only have the GTO filter)

dCS however due to their fully proprietary implementation on the digital and DA converter side of things allows them to get around this and not have to abandon their own filters.

In terms of licensing fees, I don't know. But I have been told how much some manufacturers are paying, and it varies a LOT.
Some manufacturers pay nothing. Some pay a LOT. And some like roon actually pay per song where the MQA decoder is running!!

 

[bfreedma]

I think it's a shame they've added it given as the business practices and 'proliferation' as such of MQA is in my opinion a very bad thing.

But, having actually spoken to a few manufacturers since the video came out, its clear dCS doesn't have the same agreement with MQA as others do.
Other manufacturers are actually being forced to upsample EVERYTHING including regular PCM content using the MQA filter. (This is seemingly a new development and so won't affect older products) This is to prevent interruptions/clicks/pops/delay when switching from MQA to non-MQA content. As keeping the MQA renderer filter on persistently sorts it. (I would be willing to bet the new hiby player update with MQA support does this...., and this seems to be why new ifi products only have the GTO filter)

dCS however due to their fully proprietary implementation on the digital and DA converter side of things allows them to get around this and not have to abandon their own filters.

In terms of licensing fees, I don't know. But I have been told how much some manufacturers are paying, and it varies a LOT.
Some manufacturers pay nothing. Some pay a LOT. And some like roon actually pay per song where the MQA decoder is running!!

I didn't know this (pay per play) - sounds like MQA had Roon over a barrel with the need to support Tidal given so few music services offer an API open enough to support Roon.

Just one more reason I'm happy to have switched to Qobuz.

 

[iFi audio]

this seems to be why new ifi products only have the GTO filter

If they don't already, our latest products should have firmware without our GTO.

 

[manueljenkin]

If they don't already, our latest products should have firmware without our GTO.

I hope GTO is also available for use for people who prefer it. I am not fond of sinc filters.

 

[]eep]

I just watched the response from Hans Beekhuizen on his channel. I still don't know where he stands. It was something like 'I don't agree' but since he tries like hell to not come across as un-agreeable he is really not saying anything. Well, you shouldn't have said anything negative in the conclusion. But isn't that what a conclusion is for? He wants to leave it to the technical arguments. And that Bob Stuart is a genius who made a lot of great inventions and did a lot of work. (this makes me think of Edison or Bill Gates and the like, beware of what people like that say and do). As if being smart equals being moral. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

I think he likes the sound of mqa. And his ears are the ultimate guide. I think he still doesn't get the point. It's about establishing a monopoly and extracting money from all along the chain via means of patents. The lies and false claims. The bullying at the rmaf presentation of computer audiophile. If you want your ears to be the guide try comparing MQA 24-48 versus same size 18bits 96kHz.

I've met Hans Beekhuizen in person and he's a nice person but he has the charisma of a wet noodle. He is knowledgeable but I have a really hard time watching him because I usually fall asleep not even half way through.

 

[BlackMagic]

But, having actually spoken to a few manufacturers since the video came out, its clear dCS doesn't have the same agreement with MQA as others do.
Other manufacturers are actually being forced to upsample EVERYTHING including regular PCM content using the MQA filter.

dCS however due to their fully proprietary implementation on the digital and DA converter side of things allows them to get around this and not have to abandon their own filters.

In terms of licensing fees, I don't know. But I have been told how much some manufacturers are paying, and it varies a LOT.
Some manufacturers pay nothing. Some pay a LOT.

So not a level playing field and cause for further concern. Online from a few years back :

"At the beginning we were informed about the fees for each product and the need for good administration. So we began what grew into a very serious amount in R&D and labor fees over two years to incorporate it. Not only was the MQA module of interest but our entire product range would be modified for the occasion. Once we received the definitive contract however, we discovered grave imbalances.

On the technical side, we requested their decoder to develop proper unit-to-unit QC protocols as we have always done on our end. They only promised a few test tones. Those are insufficient to measure distortion, bandwidth, impulse response, linearity and noise to mention just a few. They seem to be very afraid to divulge more about their algorithm to us, their intended business partners. Based on our listening tests, MQA can do well for cheaper converters. As converter quality increases, the need for MQA becomes less to eventually disappear. Now the unfolding process is implemented simply to avoid copying and to create the profit model; not because it actually does anything. Had we seen the definitive contract upfront, we would never have wasted such a huge amount of money!"

And now wonder if different agreements could also mean different chipsets - which could mean different results ? There's no way to check and mnfrs are unlikely to share/compare notes. No doubt covered in NDA's anyway.

I just watched the response from Hans Beekhuizen on his channel. I still don't know where he stands.

I've met Hans Beekhuizen in person and he's a nice person but he has the charisma of a wet noodle. He is knowledgeable but I have a really hard time watching him because I usually fall asleep not even half way through.

Watched it too and waited for claims (any) to be refuted ... but not a mention. He's technically minded with gear to do the job. All very good to say 'listen for yourself' ... but in order to do that you have to buy-in first.

 

[iFi audio]

He is knowledgeable but I have a really hard time watching him because I usually fall asleep not even half way through.

Although there are reviewers who are more entertaining to watch, Hans knows his onions. That's good enough for me to see what he has to say once in a while

 

[Vercingetirex]

People bought into MQA? LOL

 

[]eep]

Although there are reviewers who are more entertaining to watch, Hans knows his onions. That's good enough for me to see what he has to say once in a while

That is absolutely true. It's more important what someone says than how he says it (or who says it, although certain persons carry authority and others don't, some are trustworthy and others aren't).

But he referred to his earlier video on MQA, so of course YouTube 'suggested' it and I warched it. Just as you said: he knows his stuff so let him speak. But again I got this nagging feeling that I really didn't like how he said what he said. He was really, really positive about MQA. And this time not for the reason he stated as mentioned above; 'just listen' but because 'it is such a great new technology.' And this with the attitude of 'I'm the guru and I understand all about this new method'. Yes, this video is 3 years old. But it was all about the new promises of controlling the recording process and lossless high-res.

And this is what really bothers me: he is defending the false assumption (straightout lie, one that already emerged then) that MQA is really not lossless by saying 'yes but nothing is really lossless, analog isn' t lossless, PCM isn't lossless etc. This is a really wrong, logically, factually and morally. Everyone understands what we mean by the difference between lossless compression (ape, flac, mp4, DST) and lossy (MP3, ogg, aac, mqa). This statement is really not that complicated. Lossy means digitally sacrificing information for the sake of reducing size. But he conflates it with unpurposely losing information, unavoidable loss due to lack of means. But (again) this is something completely different from willingly, purposefully throwing away everything above 20kHz and selling it as high res!

So maybe he forgot his own words and doesn't see he is contradicting himself, or he is to proud to admit it. Or worse... Either way, to come back to my first sentence: he lost a lot of trust and authority for me. Trust that I gave him out of decency because when I met him he was really an audio reviewer that no magazine wanted anymore and that's when he started his HB Channel. Maybe I shouldn't say that because it's just my opinion based on intuition. But my intuition is usually right when it comes to logic and science.

So to tie this back to MQA, there is a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo, empty misleading promises and marketing spin that dazzles a lot of experts and amateurs (fans of good music reproduction) but in the end it all comes down to controlling the market, patents or simply put: MONEY. And to get it they don't shy away from all sorts of bullying and strong-arm tactics. The best way to combat this is exposing the truth with intelligence and honesty. That is what Goldensound tries to do. What HB is trying to do is obscure the matter.

 

[Currawong]

this hidizs dac claims 8X mqa unfold

The supposed "second" and "third" unfolds are just up-sampling using a selected, very short minimum-phase filter. That's what the "8x" or "16x" is. To call it "unfolding" given they talk about restoring actual musical content in their marketing is blatant dishonesty.
The gross irony is that minimum phase filters case a time-domain shift, the opposite of what MQA says they are trying to achieve.

Aren't we past that for like 20 years now that mp3==garbage. And wav. There's no wav on a cd.

You may not be aware, but extensive research has gone into the LAME MP3 encoder. It's a heck of a lot better than the original encoders 20 years ago.

So to tie this back to MQA, there is a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo, empty misleading promises and marketing spin that dazzles a lot of experts and amateurs (fans of good music reproduction) but in the end it all comes down to controlling the market, patents or simply put: MONEY. And to get it they don't shy away from all sorts of bullying and strong-arm tactics. The best way to combat this is exposing the truth with intelligence and honesty. That is what Goldensound tries to do. What HB is trying to do is obscure the matter.

QFT.

The worst part is that the MQA group, through TIDAL, are basically deceiving even fans of MQA by labelling everything as MQA, even 44.1 material.

 

[]eep]

I know mp3 has evolved and improved and it's not as bad as it used to be. I still use it when I can't get better, but it still is lossy. Even 320 doesn't sound at all nearly as good as lossless. And there are other lossy algos that produce better and smaller results than mp3. But that's not really my point.

To clarify; I was referring to the old debates where a certain kind of people were maintaining the position that mp3 320kbps is truely indistinguishable (oh, oh, but double blind test! You stupid, it's science) from flac or any lossless codec because they WANTED to believe in the science and the ability that it can solve all problems but refused to simply trust their listening sense. Can we agree that the question is settled now (in favour of lossless) since we are discussing high res now? All the more mindboggling that someone like HB just switches position between scientism and empiricism.

So actually the old flamewar mp3 vs flac has quite a bit of resemblance to mqa vs high res. Only that there wasn't a commercial log in the fire then and mp3 was an honest technique although lacking. The stakes are higher now, ethically speaking. Mqa is a masquerade with a hidden agenda.