[Terryss]

What cable are you looking for? Male 3.5mm TRRS to MMCX or to 2x2.5mm or something else?

Thx for the reply.
I’m not even sure myself if it must be a single 3.5mm TRRS, a 3.5mm splitter or something else... what i know for sure is that it must be 3.5mm on both ends so that connecting the Meizu Dac Pro and the SteelSeries Arctis 3 (https://steelseries.com/gaming-headsets/arctis-3#specs) headset, i can use the microphone of the headset.

These headphones are a gift from a friend which upgraded to a pair of Logitech, but he lost the included 3.5mm splitter which maybe was included for the sake of compatibility... all i have is the included micro-usb to 3.5mm cable.

EDIT

Mic of the headset doesn’t work even with the s8+ if i’m using the Meizu DAC.

I don’t have a 3.5mm to 3.5mm cable that is TRRS / has 4 poles to try if that solves the problem
Anybody with the Meizu Dac and an headset with mic?

 

[CiroConsentino]

Mic of the headset doesn’t work even with the s8+ if i’m using the Meizu DAC.

It is stated that these DACs, including the Meizu DAC, the microphone / headset cable buttons doesn't work if the phone also have a 3.5mm headphone jack. It works for phones that only have a USB-C port. I have the Meizu DAC Pro and mic and headset cable buttons work just fine with my "HTC U11" phone.

 

[KarmaStudios]

I have been reading all threads I can find. I am looking to getting a dac when I get my next phone. I more than likely will be getting g a samsung Note 10+. I will be using a 3.5 mm cIEM with it. I am looking for the best sounding natural spacious dac for the money. Some have mentioned a Dragonfly cobalt in other posts but also the iBasso DC02. I am looking for some recommendations even if they are not any of the ones listed

 

[noobandroid]

I have been reading all threads I can find. I am looking to getting a dac when I get my next phone. I more than likely will be getting g a samsung Note 10+. I will be using a 3.5 mm cIEM with it. I am looking for the best sounding natural spacious dac for the money. Some have mentioned a Dragonfly cobalt in other posts but also the iBasso DC02. I am looking for some recommendations even if they are not any of the ones listed

zorloo ztella with mqa

 

[KarmaStudios]

Well, actually I don't believe that Meizu DAC is better (especially "way better") than Ztella and DC01. Time will tell.

zorloo ztella with mqa

Would the be the best choice even if I am not listing to MQA?

 

[noobandroid]

Would the be the best choice even if I am not listing to MQA?

it's even better than my teac ud301's dac

 

[LamerDeluxe (tm)]

Would the be the best choice even if I am not listing to MQA?

There's a non-MQA version as well. I suppose it sounds the same, but I only have the MQA version which does sound great and indeed spacious.
They are considering a balanced version, I hope they will make it.

 

[staticV3]

I have been reading all threads I can find. I am looking to getting a dac when I get my next phone. I more than likely will be getting g a samsung Note 10+. I will be using a 3.5 mm cIEM with it. I am looking for the best sounding natural spacious dac for the money. Some have mentioned a Dragonfly cobalt in other posts but also the iBasso DC02. I am looking for some recommendations even if they are not any of the ones listed

9038D without competition!
It doesn't do MQA though, since that is cash grab snake oil. Will do 32/768 and DSD though.

 

[TimeSnow]

9038D without competition!
It doesn't do MQA though, since that is cash grab snake oil. Will do 32/768 and DSD though.

MQA is not cash grab snake oil.

There's no point in making that claim if you haven't compared MQA vers directly with non-MQA high res versions. I have done that extensively and work in music production professionally.

But it's not just me:

https://darko.audio/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/what-sounds-better-tidal-mqa-or-qobuz-hires/60190

The vast majority of people that I've seen bashing it either make false claims about it, because they don't understand it, or have never listened to it for themselves.

This forum is littered with people that have heard it and prefer it. Either they're actually experience with it is all illusory, or maybe all the people bashing it without hearing it should open their minds and ears and give it a chance.

 

[Baten]

MQA is not cash grab snake oil.

There's no point in making that claim if you haven't compared MQA vers directly with non-MQA high res versions. I have done that extensively and work in music production professionally.

But it's not just me:

https://darko.audio/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/what-sounds-better-tidal-mqa-or-qobuz-hires/60190

The vast majority of people that I've seen bashing it either make false claims about it, because they don't understand it, or have never listened to it for themselves.

This forum is littered with people that have heard it and prefer it. Either they're actually experience with it is all illusory, or maybe all the people bashing it without hearing it should open their minds and ears and give it a chance.

Have you considered the MQA versions are mastered simply from different source files?

MQA is nothing special, it's compression together with a digital filter which again does nothing different.

There's no reason MQA encoded file will sound different.

 

[TimeSnow]

Have you considered the MQA versions are mastered simply from different source files?

MQA is nothing special, it's compression together with a digital filter which again does nothing different.

There's no reason MQA encoded file will sound different.

Actually there is. And unless you chose to ignore those links I posted, one of which clearly explains how it works and how that affects the sound, you'd know that.

Perpetuating your own ignorance because you're on a crusade... And a crusade based on that same wilful ignorance... Isn't some noble cause.

How about you go to the 2L site and compare all the vers on offer.

http://www.2l.no/hires/

You can DIRECTLY compare high res flac to DSD to MQA to even MP3.

I know you must have a dac that can decide MQA right? Certainly you wouldn't be calling it snake oil without spending a serious effort to determine if that was true, personally?

Do that. Do it blind. Have a few friends do it blind. Query 2L directly and ask why they choose MQA for their catalogue. Etc.

But do all of that BEFORE you tell everyone its a scam and snake oil. Otherwise you're just spreading misinformation.

 

[Baten]

Actually there is. And unless you chose to ignore those links I posted, one of which clearly explains how it works and how that affects the sound, you'd know that.

All I read there are claims and zero facts. I'm not buying it, figuratively and literally.
You realise how ridiculous this sounds? It's not just packing/unpacking, it also sounds better-er so you should spend money on it.

Simply ridiculous. But sure, be an MQA promoter. spreading misinformation my ass, I swing that right back at you.

And before you make this point again, YES I have had an iFi dac which properly authenticates MQA, and I have used roon for software unpacking. My point still stands, I dislike MQA and find it has no benefit besides a new kind of DRM/licensing scheme. http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/10/mqa-final-final-comment-simply-put-why.html

 

[TimeSnow]

All I read there are claims and zero facts. I'm not buying it, figuratively and literally.
You realise how ridiculous this sounds? It's not just packing/unpacking, it also sounds better-er so you should spend money on it.

Simply ridiculous. But sure, be an MQA promoter. spreading misinformation my ass, I swing that right back at you.

And before you make this point again, YES I have had an iFi dac which properly authenticates MQA, and I have used roon for software unpacking. My point still stands, I dislike MQA and find it has no benefit besides a new kind of DRM/licensing scheme. http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/10/mqa-final-final-comment-simply-put-why.html

So just mindless crusading. I see. Carry on. But everyone should forever take your opinion with a grain of salt IMO as you didn't bother to even try and understand my position, stated clearly false ideas about what MQA is and how it works, and refuse to do anything but restate those false claims when presented with meaningful data.

To everyone else, listen with your ears. If you can hear a difference, you're not alone. In fact far from it. MQA sounds better, for meaningful reasons. Enjoy it and ignore the haters.

 

[LamerDeluxe (tm)]

All I read there are claims and zero facts. I'm not buying it, figuratively and literally.
You realise how ridiculous this sounds? It's not just packing/unpacking, it also sounds better-er so you should spend money on it.

Simply ridiculous. But sure, be an MQA promoter. spreading misinformation my ass, I swing that right back at you.

And before you make this point again, YES I have had an iFi dac which properly authenticates MQA, and I have used roon for software unpacking. My point still stands, I dislike MQA and find it has no benefit besides a new kind of DRM/licensing scheme. http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/10/mqa-final-final-comment-simply-put-why.html

MQA is a combination of finding the best quality master, looking up what ADC was used in the recording and using their own system to de-blur the master (reduce the side-effects of the ADC low-pass filter), making a high quality mix (with limited use of EQing and compressors (that's what I hear when comparing MQA and non-MQA versions), which is a great development that goes against the loudness wars), lossless compression of high-resolution audio on top of FLAC compression (that can still be played on non-MQA capable hardware) and preparing the audio to get the best results on the used DAC.

I enjoy its improved audio quality and data size. I initially thought it was all marketing nonsense until I read up on it.

 

[Baten]

MQA is a combination of finding the best quality master, looking up what ADC was used in the recording and using their own system to de-blur the master (remove the side-effects of the ADC low-pass filter), making a high quality mix (with limited use of EQing and compressors (that's what I hear when comparing MQA and non-MQA versions), which is a great development that goes against the loudness wars), lossless compression of high-resolution audio on top of FLAC compression (that can still be played on non-MQA capable hardware) and preparing the audio to get the best results on the used DAC.

I enjoy its improved audio quality and data size. I initially thought it was all marketing nonsense until I read up on it.

That I can agree on of course. Better mastering is is always better mastering, especially considering loudness compression which is a really bad thing.
This and MQA can be totally decoupled though.

So just mindless crusading. I see. Carry on. But everyone should forever take your opinion with a grain of salt IMO as you didn't bother to even try and understand my position, stated clearly false ideas about what MQA is and how it works, and refuse to do anything but restate those false claims when presented with meaningful data.

To everyone else, listen with your ears. If you can hear a difference, you're not alone. In fact far from it. MQA sounds better, for meaningful reasons. Enjoy it and ignore the haters.

Dude, I tried it, disliked it, and disagree with MQA's claims. How is that any more mindless that your ruminating of the same old same old.