[Bepli]

I hope at least Sony don't have to license the MQA codec & pass the cost onto us- I mean if its offering some genuine innovation in audio compression, that's cool, but there is already so much with Hi Res sales & marketing - obviously another layer of obfuscation won't hurt! Heck, lets reintroduce DRM to music again while we're at it- that worked out SO WELL in the past.

I dont remember what company but one already "cracked" MQA and implemented a decoder into their products.

 

[erich6]

There are a lot of debates about MQA, but I think the following are factual benefits...how much value depends on you:

1) Smaller file than a high-resolution version of the same master
2) Built-in filtering in the encoding/decoding process that sharpens the impulse response of the audio chain up to your headphones
3) Often, the masters chosen for MQA encoding are the best ones (subjective) and generally tend to be not victims of loudness wars with better dynamic range (objective)

MQA is not a consumer encoding technology. When MQA Ltd notes "any digital file" they mean any such file owned by artist/studios for MQA encoding and distribution. If you were to somehow obtain or recreate the algorithms in consumer software and were to rip your CD's you would not get any of the information associated with the analog-to-digital converter used in the final mastering that went into the CD. Also, you'd be limited to the CD sampling rate. So, you would not get any of the benefits I listed above.

I'm interested in this player and I like listening to the MQA version of many albums on Tidal. If I were to have this player, and there was an album I don't own in high-resolution or CD that I want to buy, I would consider an MQA version. I would not buy MQA to replace existing high-resolution files I own and likely would not purchase music I own on CD unless I know it's an improved master.

Finally, as others pointed out, there are the following concerns with MQA:

1) Reduced digital dynamic range (you don't get full 24 bits); this may result in a reduced audible dynamic range if the original master actually contained more than 16-17 bits of audio range
2) Some limitations with how DSP can be applied if you don't want to destroy the MQA encoding
3) You can only decode MQA on players that have been licensed; you can still play the MQA file without decoding on any player but without the decoding benefits...debatable whether the master qualities overcome the compression and result in better or worse than a CD version; some people see this as equivalent of DRM even though the MQA file can be copied and played from as many players as you like
4) The business approach by MQA Ltd. is seen as too invasive and monopolistic as it requires licensing fees from all involved in the audio chain (studio, DAC/DAP providers, etc.) and some are concerned this will also reduce availability to high-res FLAC masters that have none of the constraints above.

 

[Bepli]

There are a lot of debates about MQA, but I think the following are factual benefits...how much value depends on you:

1) Smaller file than a high-resolution version of the same master
2) Built-in filtering in the encoding/decoding process that sharpens the impulse response of the audio chain up to your headphones
3) Often, the masters chosen for MQA encoding are the best ones (subjective) and generally tend to be not victims of loudness wars with better dynamic range (objective)

MQA is not a consumer encoding technology. When MQA Ltd notes "any digital file" they mean any such file owned by artist/studios for MQA encoding and distribution. If you were to somehow obtain or recreate the algorithms in consumer software and were to rip your CD's you would not get any of the information associated with the analog-to-digital converter used in the final mastering that went into the CD. Also, you'd be limited to the CD sampling rate. So, you would not get any of the benefits I listed above.

I'm interested in this player and I like listening to the MQA version of many albums on Tidal. If I were to have this player, and there was an album I don't own in high-resolution or CD that I want to buy, I would consider an MQA version. I would not buy MQA to replace existing high-resolution files I own and likely would not purchase music I own on CD unless I know it's an improved master.

Finally, as others pointed out, there are the following concerns with MQA:

1) Reduced digital dynamic range (you don't get full 24 bits); this may result in a reduced audible dynamic range if the original master actually contained more than 16-17 bits of audio range
2) Some limitations with how DSP can be applied if you don't want to destroy the MQA encoding
3) You can only decode MQA on players that have been licensed; you can still play the MQA file without decoding on any player but without the decoding benefits...debatable whether the master qualities overcome the compression and result in better or worse than a CD version; some people see this as equivalent of DRM even though the MQA file can be copied and played from as many players as you like
4) The business approach by MQA Ltd. is seen as too invasive and monopolistic as it requires licensing fees from all involved in the audio chain (studio, DAC/DAP providers, etc.) and some are concerned this will also reduce availability to high-res FLAC masters that have none of the constraints above.

All right and stuff, but one thing to point out is that the actually file size only is smaller at higher sampling rates. If I remember correctly, 24 bit 44100 (which is high res) is smaller with level8 flac and no mqa than it is with mqa. Also this might be true for 48000 hz.

 

[Raketen]

nvm don't want to turn this in into yet another MQA thread

 

[fish1050]

Also Media Go is dead since 1 year. The new software says Media Center For PC

So I tried Music Center and it doesn't seem to like my A17. When I try to transfer tracks from my library to my A17 it tells me it can't because there isn't enough storage space available. It does this for both internal memory and the SD card even though I have space on both. I can transfer songs from my A17 to my computer fine and delete files off of my A17 through Media Center just fine though. I like Music Center for playing back music as it works better with my Sony Receiver using the throw feature but for music transfers to my A17 and manipulating tracks on the A17 MediaGo is much better and MediaGo gives alot more information for my A17 when connected. I also like that Music Center supports WASAPI as MediaGo does not. I will keep using both applications for now and probably switch to Music Center exclusively once I get an A45.

 

[fish1050]

nvm don't want to turn this in into yet another MQA thread

Fair enough but as it is a feature on the A45 I think most people like me want to know if it is a worthwhile feature or not. I now know that if I am considering two different DAP's MQA support on the A45 will be of little use to me and not a deciding factor. Thanks to all who chimed in about MQA as I now know enough about it to make an informed decision on its potential value.

 

[illogict]

NWA45L, so L as in blue? ^_^

Actually, yes. All Sony products use a single letter for their colours designation:

• B for Black,
• W for White,
• L for bLue,
• R for Red,
• P for Pink,
• G for Green,
• S for Silver…

And so on.

 

[Vartanarsen]

Hi all, just bought the A-35 and loving it. Love everything about it, especially the feel in hand. Just found out about A40 and Im in the return period, what should I do?

 

[fish1050]

Hi all, just bought the A-35 and loving it. Love everything about it, especially the feel in hand. Just found out about A40 and Im in the return period, what should I do?

If it isn't to much trouble I would return it. The A45 will be priced the same and adds some new features, apparently better build quality and with any luck have improved performance. You could also see some significant price drops on the A35 once the A45 comes out and could repurchase the A35 at a cheaper price if you don't need the new features the A45 offers. It never hurts to wait a few weeks to see if a better deal can be had.

 

[Vartanarsen]

Thanks fish
I saw that 40s had a new solder board - is that a bigg reason to swap out?

 

[fish1050]

Thanks fish
I saw that 40s had a new solder board - is that a bigg reason to swap out?

I got to hear a Sony sales rep talk about the A40 series and he mentioned the improved circuit board and higher grade solder found previously on the ZX and WM series DAP's. They are suppose to improve sound quality but it could simply be more marketing hype from Sony. Until we get to compare the A35 and the A45 we won't know but I doubt very much it will make a difference and if it does very minor. Certainly not worth basing your decision on in choosing the A45.

 

[phower]

The only advantage of A35/45 over other DAPs is the Sony S-Master Amplifier that is being used. It is a TDAA. It directly converts PCM -> PWM + low pass filter. The advantage being audio at lower scale is reproduced as well(same distortion) as audio at full scale (0dBFS).

But, the question is whether it makes a difference since the THD of earphones/headphones is 10x that of the amplifier.

 

[Intensecure]

The only advantage of A35/45 over other DAPs is the Sony S-Master Amplifier that is being used

Two other advantages spring to mind..
Firstly the battery life is generally better than most other DAPs, also due to the Sony S-Master digital amplifier. It's hard to accept the 7-10 hours that most of the competing players have after you get used to 30+.
And secondly, the basis stability that Sony DAPs have out of the box. I'm past the point of enjoying flashing new firmware every week or month to correct for poor gapless or missing features, or just bugs that weren't squashed before release.
I know that Sony can be annoying, in that they rarely add features in firmware retrospectively, and instead push you to buy the next model. Whereas some Chinese manufacturers are currently pursuing a program of adding features with each firmware - but that can result in adding more bugs which require new firmware again, and on it goes. I'm not confident that the owners of the big Sony brick players are going to get their wish of DAC ability added in firmware, as they hope.
Of course it's a choice. But I prefer stability and battery life, and good solid hardware, over chasing features in my music player.

 

[Vartanarsen]

Thanks Itensecure, but I was more asking what 40 has over 35, and whether I should return my 35 as I'm in the Crutchfield 60 day window

 

[Intensecure]

I was more asking what 40 has over 35, and whether I should return my 35

Whoo, OK, sorry, I missed the context.
Yeah, as has been said, if the price is close, send it back and wait. I just bought the A35, I knew the new model was coming, I don't think there is significant difference - except for the DAC feature, that is very nice! - but I paid $120 and for the difference I'm fine with the outgoing model.
Hopefully you make a good choice, and enjoy, because these Sony players are getting better and better.
Cheers!