DACS

[insider9]

What did you compare it on Insider ? We did a test of a node2 into my cyrus pre dac playing tidal masters mqa and tidal hi Fi, and it was the same. No discernible difference. I was umming and Aaring and it would have been bias to select one over the other. But the cyrus streamer playing tidal hi Fi cd streaming gave a fuller, bigger soundstage and was preferred in our bake-off of 4people. The node 2 used its analogue outs, so that may have accounted the difference in comparison to the cyrus because we were bypassing my cyrus dacs. But I’d expect the cyrus to beat the node2 as it’s double the price. In fact using the node 2 playing hi Fi into my pre dac and then doing the same with the cyrus streamer playing hi Fi, the cyrus was better.

we did the same test using a meridian explorer 2 dac using a laptop and out using analogue into my pre dac, and again no difference with mqa to tidal cd quality hi Fi service. There was a slight difference to a downloaded hi res 24/192 file from hd tracks to the same mqa file off tidal masters, with the mqa track slightly better in hfs but not hugely so. But then the meridian is a miniature headphone type dac I think, so I’d expect this in my system.

Atm I think the bluesound node2 is one of only a few mqa capable dedicated budget type hi Fi streamers (or the only one?) without the full unpacking dac of streamers like the ps audio ones which are a lot more expensive. Conceivably id hear a good difference on a ps audio device or one of the really expensive meridian streamers using mqa, but a lot of cash it wouldn’t be worth it in my system for the yield ie paring £5k streamers with value of speakers etc.

Maybe you’d hear it on really good headphone amps and headphones, but again for me this is the ‘splitting hairs source argument’ in a hi Fi system. It’s always better in a hi Fi just to buy the best for sound quality in the component make up of the device, and not get hooked up on files and mqa unless you are playing really bad mp3s etc.

Node 2 doesn't do anything to MQA via digital output and passes it on as FLAC. No wonder it was the same.

I listened to MQA via Tidal desktop app which does half the encoding with Yamaha WXC-50 as a DAC. Compared against non MQA albums again from Tidal and the difference was not difficult to spot. It was like FIR filters or Dirac Live was being used. For those who used it will know what I mean.

 

[insider9]

Tidal desktop app does the first unfold. I'm aware I've not tested it with MQA dac.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Please See my amended reply. I stand corrected if I’m wrong but don’t think I am.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Edited to be correct as I understand it

Yes aware of that hence why we used analogue out from node 2 and compared mqa from the node 2 on tidal masters with the same track in tidal hi Fi. We did it in a playlist and flicked between the same track and no difference. But the node2 does have a quasi type mqa dac process, not a fully compliant mqa dac but the node 2 does do all the unpacks, whereas if you are sending mqa over digital from a pc to the wxc-50 you aren’t getting any unpack at all I don’t think, maybe one, but you are basically just getting a hi res streamed file but not mqa, and certainly the dac In the wxc 50 can’t deal with the mqa anyway so it just presents as hi res to the dac. So comparing hi res with cd quality files for which there are differences is all you are doing. That’s why the really good expensive players are best mqa as they do all the unpacks and then as well as that have mqa complaint dacs capable of encoding and playing the authenticated file, which the node 2 doesn’t have fully by not having full compliant mqa dac(s), nor certainly not the wxc 50 I don’t think as it’s not an mqa product at all.

The thing that stuck out for us was we were comparing mqa using full unpacks and a quasi mqa dac, in the node2, and getting similar results with cd streamed stuff from the node2. It may just have been because the cyrus pre and power was dealing with the node2 output equally as well whatever the source or not as discernible into analogue stages of the pre. It’s easy for me to tell differences between hi res and cd quality in my cyrus streamer over a digital connection but it’s never nothing to write home about difference, it really depends on recording. So all I think you were getting was maybe bias or more likely the hi res output being different or obvious to the cd quality stuff, but not fully authenticated mqa, which is what the format actually is.

 

[insider9]

Desktop app can pass on an unpacked MQA to an MQA DAC or do one unfold. Tested both. I'm only saying I don't agree that you need to spend £20k on a system to enjoy MQA. It's ok if your opinion and experience in the subject is different

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Yes but the point I think is that if the dac does not have any any ability to deal with mqa it doesn’t matter how many unfolds of the true mqa file happens, as all the dac will be getting is a hi res file. So that’s all that you are comparing between the two files, one of the same hi res file and another of the cd quality tidal hi Fi Service file, using the desktop app.

The point of mqa as I understand it, is that it’s an authenticated file so it’s meant to be a better sounding version of the hi res file, as a studio type authenticated music file, which we actually found with the explorer. But we were surprised that even with some mqa capable dac ability of the node 2 there was no difference using the analogue out of one mqa file and another that is cd quality, and if you use the digital output you can’t get full mqa by virtue of bypassing the mqa dac in the node2, it’s just an output to another dac (which my cyrus dacs aren’t obviously mqa) using the dac bypass facility.

if you’ve got a streamer with a decent upscaling dac and it can play hi res as all the devices the op mentioned, but the sound might just be different but not necessarily be better, then you can still do the hi res by buying off of hd tracks or via torrents etc, so having the mqa ability in the node isn’t a huge consideration, certainly not on my tests at least. Of course I accept others tests may be different, but we did it with 4 of us there and we all agreed.

 

[insider9]

Only a part of MQA is about authentication. Biggest benefit is in time domain hence my comparison to FIR filters. So in short no MQA file is not the same file as CD or hi res far from it. Whether before and especially after unfolding. Full MQA decoding could be done in software but it's not MQA's business model so they only allow Tidal desktop app to do one unfold. This is so that any listener can have a benefit of MQA even if they don't have an MQA dac. This can be bypassed for those who invested in a DAC that does MQA.

I real terms very similar things can be achieved to any files with convolution filters using FIR or software like Dirac Live.

 

[ellisdj]

I dont think its quite the same as D/L - it reminds me more of what certain Dacs are doing now in resolving and decluttering the mess.

The sound is naturally leaner sd the excess causing the blurring it removed and the overall sound becomes more organised, cleaner and layered better

 

[insider9]

I dont think its quite the same as D/L - it reminds me more of what certain Dacs are doing now in resolving and decluttering the mess.

The sound is naturally leaner sd the excess causing the blurring it removed and the overall sound becomes more organised, cleaner and layered better 

In a way it is quite like it as it works on impulse response and remove blurring in time domain. It's the closest I could get to a metaphor.

 

[ellisdj]

I get the reference but Dirac Live wont fix it you still need the dac or the content to change before it - otherwise dirac live just lets you hear the unblurred tracks more clearly,

I dont know if there is a MQA version oj MJ Thriller.

But listen to that song on a PS Audio DirectStream Dac and then on a "normal" dac the difference in resolution and layering is big on that track - its a good test track actually found out this afternoon

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

I don’t think you can get benefit of mqa if you don’t have an mqa capable dac. An unpack is only so far as unfolding the file in a compressed way (so it can be sent in streaming packets) so that the packet is available for being processed as mqa. The idea is to get a mqa format compressed over the data transmission so it can be unfolded as a better resolution format. If you don’t have mqa dac you won’t be getting mqa, but just an unfolded hi res file.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Only a part of MQA is about authentication. Biggest benefit is in time domain hence my comparison to FIR filters. So in short no MQA file is not the same file as CD or hi res far from it. Whether before and especially after unfolding. Full MQA decoding could be done in software but it's not MQA's business model so they only allow Tidal desktop app to do one unfold. This is so that any listener can have a benefit of MQA even if they don't have an MQA dac. This can be bypassed for those who invested in a DAC that does MQA.

I real terms very similar things can be achieved to any files with convolution filters using FIR or software like Dirac Live.

http://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/mqa-master-streaming-on-tidal-rules.html

With an MQA-compatible DAC MQA files can be decoded at their maximum rate, which depending on the file could be as high as 384/32! So, without an MQA-compatible DAC the best you can get is 96/24, which is pretty darned good, but with an MQA DAC you get the maximum rate that a file can deliver.

so what you are getting insider is basically hi res stuff through your desktop into your dac, but it’s not full Mqa. That’s why the best mega expensive mqa systems are better than what you’d be doing as you can exploit this 32 bit music.

 

[Muddywaterstones]

Ok, been thinking and a couple of questions nag at me before making a decision. Budget has been bumped so the Marantz NA-8005 and Cambridge CXN are in sight. The 851N unfortunately is too much of a stretch.

Are there any issues regarding the control Apps? I'd heard the Marantz wasn't great but that's going back a year or two. No idea with the Cambridge.

Do any of them have their usual "House Sound" or are they all neutral? I'm not so worried about the Marantz here but my system had been on the bright side with the MA speakers until I DIYed in some room treatment. I wouldn't want to tip it back in that direction.

May well still go the Yamaha WXC-50 road that I'd been considering. It doesn't sound half bad at all for the money.

 

[newlash09]

Last I read the marantz control app was problematic. I was trying to control my marantz sr6011 with the app today morning. And in one word, it is terrible. As the app, it's usability and reliability are a huge part of the streaming experience, I'd steer clear of the marantz na8005, unless someone with first hand experience with na8005 app vouched for the same.

In my opinion the Cambridge azur 851N is worth every pound it costs. And that would be first on my wish list. And if same is too much of a stretch, then I would settle for the wxc-50 for now, and add a better dac to it later, when funds permit. The CXN is also Excellent no doubt. But having used the wxc-50, iam extremely happy with its sonic performance and control app. I mainly use it as a digital steamer and don't use the pre-amp functionality. And for the money you can't go wrong. All the best

 

[SemiChronic]

Dont discount the Stream magic 6 V2. I had a good time with one of these, a great player with really nice sound.

Theres coax/optical in and out, making it great to compare other dacs and find a special combo. But theres really nothng to fault with the dacs in the stream magic.

I also ran it with an Mdac and it really sang.

Eventually i dumped everything for the 2box solution I currently have. Made sense at the time, but if i had to start again on a low budget id be looking for a Stream Magic to build a system around.

Ive also compared the Yamaha Wx to the 851n and the cambridge predictably wiped the floor with it.

I guess at some point we all learn and with hindsight, most of us would rather have bit the bulet and had a massive upgrade in one shot.

Best of luck on your streaming journey.

 

[newlash09]

Since you have the azur 851N, was wondering if you tried playing some normal mp4's through it. And did you find any sonic improvements in the sound quality of these tracks, as the azur 851N is supposed to upscale everything to HD using an in-house algorithm and then converts same into analogue. Your thoughts will be interesting. Thanks

 

[newlash09]

Typo error..
Meant MP3 not MP4..thanks

 

[SemiChronic]

The upsampling is awesome. Ive listened to low rate mp3 on usb and spend most of my time listening to 128kbps internet radio and 320kbps spotify.

Its truly amazing how the sound is presented/conveyed from such a low data source.

As far as im aware, all the cambridge streamers/network players share the same dual mono conifuration and upsample to 24/384.

The only difference being in the dac chips used and other electronic components which i admid to knowing nothing about.

Stream magic, CXN and 851N are all also digital preamps with XLR out.

 

[Muddywaterstones]

Thanks Newlash09, that's the sort of thing I wanted to know about the Marantz app as it's not always easy to judge in a demo. I suspected it was somewhat iffy.

The Cambridge is starting to look more and more appealing. The upsampling looks like an interesting idea for streaming, somewhat bucking the idea that you can't put back in what isn't there. From what I've heard of the 851N it is really impressive, cancelling any notions I may have had that it was merely trickery.

 

[newlash09]

Your feedback was very helpful. I think the Cambridge azur 851N is solid value for money. And is beautifully built.

In comparison to DAC's which just convert D to A, I find the idea of upsampling to improve the quality very appealing. And your confirmation just added to my belief.

You are welcome muddywaterstones

I would look at the CXN or azur 851 N for a streamer with upsampling and DAC. All the best...