• If you ever spot Spam (either in the forums, or received via forum direct message) please use the Report button at the bottom of each post to make sure a Moderator can handle it quickly. Thanks for your help in keeping things running smoothly!

Why We Don’t Need MQA

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
92
47
18,570
davidf said:
shadders said:
Not sure that is acceptable. A lossy file derived from a master, just because you may receive an upsampled/resampled version from a dodgy vendor. Why should the recording industry need MQA to ensure that a file is derived from a master. They already control the DVDA or DSD production, so just make sure that is right. Why require an external company to provide provenance?

Unless there is another reason we are not aware of at the moment.

Regards,

Shadders.
I fully agree. But, we are at a point where there seem to be numerous masters around for any given album, and albums are being "remastered" by making them louder via compression, along with increased higher frequencies. If all is true about MQA, I'd rather trust MQA. Certainly my comparison of The Doors' L.A. Woman album came out in favour of the MQA version with regards to hearing things I couldn't quite make out on the 24/96 remaster. Plus, most of the rockier (noisier) albums seem to be better baalnced, being able to hear everything more equally, rather than only hearing the dominating aspects of the music. There's been a few albums where I've heard stuff I've never heard before. More of this please, regardless of how we get it!
Hi,

Yes, on another forum, it was stated that a DVDA version of the album used only the 16bits of the CD album. So the other 8bits were empty, and you therefore had a reduced dynamic range.

If MQA forces other vendors to ensure that they provide the relevant high quality, then great.

The record companies should be ashamed in allowing bad mixes to be sold as something that they are not. I suppose MQA does provide another revenue stream for them.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

insider9

Well-known member
Sep 20, 2016
739
298
5,270
Not so long I've read, on this very forum, an interesting story. As I'm in mid 30s I've no experiences of buying vinyl in 60s/70s. The story relates to that and inception of the first Virgin store opened by Richard Branson in early 70s. I wish I could credit whoever posted it originally but failed to find the thread.

Back in 60s/70s buying records (vinyl) wouldn't guarantee quality. At least not the same quality to all concerned. It would be common for records to be played in shops prior to sale. As we all know vinyl is subject to wear. Overall quality of a record would be subject to how many times it's been played. And with it being shops it could've been many with absolutely no guarantee of how the records were handled.

The poster associated the name Virgin to be in relation to all vinyls being unopened. Hence in it's best possible condition. This wasn't a standard back then and no many people would mind.

The challenge of non physical media is that up until now there wasn't anything to guarantee "virginity" of a download or a stream. MQA is the first and only non physical format (if we can call it that, codec would be a better name) that allows this during playback.

I can understand the concerns of licensing fees and the fact of it being lossy, etc. I would very much support and open/lossless alternative. But one doesn't exist at the minute and MQA provides us with something that's not been done before in the world of streams and downloads.

On top of that existing equipment can handle MQA files with increase in sound quality and that can only be a good thing.

Only time will tell how well MQA will do. I for one embrace our moder day digital equivalent of Virgin.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
92
47
18,570
insider9 said:
I can understand the concerns of licensing fees and the fact of it being lossy, etc. I would very much support and open/lossless alternative. But one doesn't exist at the minute and MQA provides us with something that's not been done before in the world of streams and downloads.

On top of that existing equipment can handle MQA files with increase in sound quality and that can only be a good thing.

Only time will tell how well MQA will do. I for one embrace our moder day digital equivalent of Virgin.
Hi,

It is a shame that the recording industry etc., failed to ensure that every vendor who sells downloads were selling the relevant copy. Then again, they have full control, as in, they must be providing the masters for conversion to 96kHz etc., so are fully aware of what is occurring.

Perhaps they are receiving payment from MQA, not just from the sales of the download?

Yes, you can play an MQA file on any DAC, but you will only get 13bit 44.1kHz, so it will not be higher quality, but will be lower quality.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

insider9

Well-known member
Sep 20, 2016
739
298
5,270
Whenever I play MQA from Tidal on Windows to Yamaha it shows as 24/48. That's with MQA Passthrough option ticked and Tidal not doing any decoding. With Tidal doing the first unfold it's 24/96.

Where did you get your figures from, Shadders?
 

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
0
18,890
insider9 said:
Whenever I play MQA from Tidal on Windows to Yamaha it shows as 24/48. That's with MQA Passthrough option ticked and Tidal not doing any decoding. With Tidal doing the first unfold it's 24/96.

Where did you get your figures from, Shadders?
It shows as 96kHz via my Classe pre-amp.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
92
47
18,570
Hi,

At the following link :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated

We have the text :

MQA-encoded content can be carried via any lossless file format such as FLAC or ALAC; hence, it can be played back on systems either with or without an MQA decoder. In the latter case, the resulting audio has easily identifiable high-frequency noise occupying 3 LSB bits, thus limiting playback on legacy devices effectively to 13bit.

Why your system is showing different bit sizes or sample rates - is unknown - but perhaps it can be modified regardless of what is actually in the file.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

manicm

Well-known member
May 1, 2008
562
42
18,920
shadders said:
insider9 said:
I can understand the concerns of licensing fees and the fact of it being lossy, etc. I would very much support and open/lossless alternative. But one doesn't exist at the minute and MQA provides us with something that's not been done before in the world of streams and downloads.

On top of that existing equipment can handle MQA files with increase in sound quality and that can only be a good thing.

Only time will tell how well MQA will do. I for one embrace our moder day digital equivalent of Virgin.
Hi,

It is a shame that the recording industry etc., failed to ensure that every vendor who sells downloads were selling the relevant copy. Then again, they have full control, as in, they must be providing the masters for conversion to 96kHz etc., so are fully aware of what is occurring.

Perhaps they are receiving payment from MQA, not just from the sales of the download?

Yes, you can play an MQA file on any DAC, but you will only get 13bit 44.1kHz, so it will not be higher quality, but will be lower quality.

Regards,

Shadders.
Here's a Q/A link with Bob Stuart - I think he disputes that it's only 13 bits undecoded.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/694-comprehensive-q-mqa-s-bob-stuart/
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
92
47
18,570
manicm said:
shadders said:
insider9 said:
I can understand the concerns of licensing fees and the fact of it being lossy, etc. I would very much support and open/lossless alternative. But one doesn't exist at the minute and MQA provides us with something that's not been done before in the world of streams and downloads.

On top of that existing equipment can handle MQA files with increase in sound quality and that can only be a good thing.

Only time will tell how well MQA will do. I for one embrace our moder day digital equivalent of Virgin.
Hi,

It is a shame that the recording industry etc., failed to ensure that every vendor who sells downloads were selling the relevant copy. Then again, they have full control, as in, they must be providing the masters for conversion to 96kHz etc., so are fully aware of what is occurring.

Perhaps they are receiving payment from MQA, not just from the sales of the download?

Yes, you can play an MQA file on any DAC, but you will only get 13bit 44.1kHz, so it will not be higher quality, but will be lower quality.

Regards,

Shadders.
Here's a Q/A link with Bob Stuart - I think he disputes that it's only 13 bits undecoded.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/694-comprehensive-q-mqa-s-bob-stuart/
Hi,

In checking links for MQA, I did eventually visit the Linn forum. On there, someone stated that you work for Meridian or MQA Ltd. Is this correct?

I assume manicm on here is the same manicm on the Linn forum.

I have seen DSP "tricks" before, (not looked at the link), but I am referring to the Neil Young Web pages that many people refer to when disputing that we don't need 24bit 96kHz audio.

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.
 

manicm

Well-known member
May 1, 2008
562
42
18,920
shadders said:
manicm said:
shadders said:
insider9 said:
I can understand the concerns of licensing fees and the fact of it being lossy, etc. I would very much support and open/lossless alternative. But one doesn't exist at the minute and MQA provides us with something that's not been done before in the world of streams and downloads.

On top of that existing equipment can handle MQA files with increase in sound quality and that can only be a good thing.

Only time will tell how well MQA will do. I for one embrace our moder day digital equivalent of Virgin.
Hi,

It is a shame that the recording industry etc., failed to ensure that every vendor who sells downloads were selling the relevant copy. Then again, they have full control, as in, they must be providing the masters for conversion to 96kHz etc., so are fully aware of what is occurring.

Perhaps they are receiving payment from MQA, not just from the sales of the download?

Yes, you can play an MQA file on any DAC, but you will only get 13bit 44.1kHz, so it will not be higher quality, but will be lower quality.

Regards,

Shadders.
Here's a Q/A link with Bob Stuart - I think he disputes that it's only 13 bits undecoded.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/694-comprehensive-q-mqa-s-bob-stuart/
Hi,

In checking links for MQA, I did eventually visit the Linn forum. On there, someone stated that you work for Meridian or MQA Ltd. Is this correct?

I assume manicm on here is the same manicm on the Linn forum.

I have seen DSP "tricks" before, (not looked at the link), but I am referring to the Neil Young Web pages that many people refer to when disputing that we don't need 24bit 96kHz audio.

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.
I am not on the island neither the Continent - and you clearly didn't even glance at the link I gave you. This is the zealousness I laughed at over at Linn - I joked they'd be more concerned with MQA than Trump starting WW3. Even then they didn't get my humour. I can include you in there.

And no - it wasn't me. The gentleman owned up to be a Meridian employee. MQA is now an independent company, with Meridian licensing the technology like everyone else would - although Bob Stuart was involved in its conception, along with other Meridian engineers I assume.

You've proven my point that you've just been regurgitating the personal blog from the Linn engineer and/or the Linn posters.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
92
47
18,570
manicm said:
shadders said:
manicm said:
shadders said:
insider9 said:
I can understand the concerns of licensing fees and the fact of it being lossy, etc. I would very much support and open/lossless alternative. But one doesn't exist at the minute and MQA provides us with something that's not been done before in the world of streams and downloads.

On top of that existing equipment can handle MQA files with increase in sound quality and that can only be a good thing.

Only time will tell how well MQA will do. I for one embrace our moder day digital equivalent of Virgin.
Hi,

It is a shame that the recording industry etc., failed to ensure that every vendor who sells downloads were selling the relevant copy. Then again, they have full control, as in, they must be providing the masters for conversion to 96kHz etc., so are fully aware of what is occurring.

Perhaps they are receiving payment from MQA, not just from the sales of the download?

Yes, you can play an MQA file on any DAC, but you will only get 13bit 44.1kHz, so it will not be higher quality, but will be lower quality.

Regards,

Shadders.
Here's a Q/A link with Bob Stuart - I think he disputes that it's only 13 bits undecoded.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/694-comprehensive-q-mqa-s-bob-stuart/
Hi,

In checking links for MQA, I did eventually visit the Linn forum. On there, someone stated that you work for Meridian or MQA Ltd. Is this correct?

I assume manicm on here is the same manicm on the Linn forum.

I have seen DSP "tricks" before, (not looked at the link), but I am referring to the Neil Young Web pages that many people refer to when disputing that we don't need 24bit 96kHz audio.

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.
I am not on the island neither the Continent - and you clearly didn't even glance at the link I gave you. This is the zealousness I laughed at over at Linn - I joked they'd be more concerned with MQA than Trump starting WW3. Even then they didn't get my humour. I can include you in there.

And no - it wasn't me. The gentleman owned up to be a Meridian employee. MQA is now an independent company, with Meridian licensing the technology like everyone else would - although Bob Stuart was involved in its conception, along with other Meridian engineers I assume.

You've proven my point that you've just been regurgitating the personal blog from the Linn engineer and/or the Linn posters.
Hi,

You quoted Linn earlier in the thread, and complaining of zealous behaviour, with manicm on the Linn site stating zealous behaviour. So do you confirm you manicm on here, is the same manicm on the Linn forum.

With regards to opposition to MQA, why is this an issue for you? . We cannot believe everything we are told. There are many manufacturers refusing to implement MQA, so why is this an issue when people discuss the relevant aspects here?

If you look at some of the responses on this thread, people were not aware that the non MQA DAC will be limited to 13bits. Why are these facts not stated on the MQA website you consistently have referred to?

Regards,

Shadders.
 

manicm

Well-known member
May 1, 2008
562
42
18,920
shadders said:
Hi,

You quoted Linn earlier in the thread, and complaining of zealous behaviour, with manicm on the Linn site stating zealous behaviour. So do you confirm you manicm on here, is the same manicm on the Linn forum.

With regards to opposition to MQA, why is this an issue for you? . We cannot believe everything we are told. There are many manufacturers refusing to implement MQA, so why is this an issue when people discuss the relevant aspects here?

If you look at some of the responses on this thread, people were not aware that the non MQA DAC will be limited to 13bits. Why are these facts not stated on the MQA website you consistently have referred to?

Regards,

Shadders.
I cannot believe you're stooping to this level of argument? Of-course I am the same manicm over there as I am here, as I am on other websites as well. That's my pseudonym. Why the hell would I deny this, and what does it have to do with the price of eggs? Do you actually believe I'm a Meridian/MQA employee???? This is getting infantile. Go and READ the Linn forum to know someone there has admitted to being a Meridian employee - except it's not me as much as I'm flattered, thank you.

As for your insistence that it's 13 bits - well I just gave you a fairly lengthy Q/A straight from the horse Bob Stuart on ComputerAudiophile. So read it or don't read it. But if you're only giving information from a Wikipidea entry, well then....

I'm neither here nor there about MQA but I am interested in how it progresses, or not, in the next 2 years or so.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
92
47
18,570
manicm said:
shadders said:
Hi,

You quoted Linn earlier in the thread, and complaining of zealous behaviour, with manicm on the Linn site stating zealous behaviour. So do you confirm you manicm on here, is the same manicm on the Linn forum.

With regards to opposition to MQA, why is this an issue for you? . We cannot believe everything we are told. There are many manufacturers refusing to implement MQA, so why is this an issue when people discuss the relevant aspects here?

If you look at some of the responses on this thread, people were not aware that the non MQA DAC will be limited to 13bits. Why are these facts not stated on the MQA website you consistently have referred to?

Regards,

Shadders.
I cannot believe you're stooping to this level of argument? Of-course I am the same manicm over there as I am here, as I am on other websites as well. Why the hell would I deny this, and what does it have to do with the price of eggs? Do you actually believe I'm a Meridian/MQA employee???? This is getting infantile. Go and READ the Linn forum to know someone there has admitted to being a Meridian employee - except it's not me as much as I'm flattered, thank you.

As for your insistence that it's 13 bits - well I just gave you a fairly lengthy Q/A straight from the horse Bob Stuart on ComputerAudiophile. So read it or don't read it. But if you're only giving information from a Wikipidea entry, well then....
Hi,

I asked if you were an employee of Meridian or MQA Ltd, since you did not reply to the question on the Linn forum. I only looked at the single thread where this was questioned, and no other thread. It is relevant, if someone has a vested interest in products in discussion. This has been asked before by others, where someone was trying to recommend products, and they were related to the owner of the company. Why be so hostile towards people questioning a product etc?

Why is Wikipedia not relevant?

The file format is 16bit. Do you disagre with this?

The lower 3 significant bits are used for the coding of the frequencies above 20kHz. Do you disagree with this?

This then results in 13bits that can be used for a normal DAC to resolve. The 3 LSB's will look like uncorrelated noise. Which part of this do you dispute?

You consistently provide information that is a repeat of MQA text, yet do not analyse the data to ensure that it is correct, or is unbiased, or omits important information. This indicates that you are over zealous in support of MQA, and being aggressive towards anyone with an opposing view, is not appropriate, as all people here are doing is discussing the aspects.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

manicm

Well-known member
May 1, 2008
562
42
18,920
shadders said:
I asked if you were an employee of Meridian or MQA Ltd, since you did not reply to the question on the Linn forum. I only looked at the single thread where this was questioned, and no other thread. It is relevant, if someone has a vested interest in products in discussion. This has been asked before by others, where someone was trying to recommend products, and they were related to the owner of the company. Why be so hostile towards people questioning a product etc?

Why is Wikipedia not relevant?

The file format is 16bit. Do you disagre with this?

The lower 3 significant bits are used for the coding of the frequencies above 20kHz. Do you disagree with this?

This then results in 13bits that can be used for a normal DAC to resolve. The 3 LSB's will look like uncorrelated noise. Which part of this do you dispute?

You consistently provide information that is a repeat of MQA text, yet do not analyse the data to ensure that it is correct, or is unbiased. This indicates that you are over zealous in support of MQA, and being aggressive towards anyone with an opposing view, is not appropriate, as all people here are doing is discussing the aspects.

Regards,

Shadders.
Shadders, for the umpteenth time and for the love of God - I didn't have to state the blindingly obvious that I'M NOT A MERIDIAN OR MQA EMPLOYEE. You have great audio engineering knowledge yet was it so hard for you to fathom??? I I am not a zealous supporter of MQA, but over at Linn there was a lot of zealous hate of it. And I think some misinformation too but I'm not articulate enough or possess enough knowledge to counter it unfortunately.

The undecoded MQA may or may not be 13 bits, but Bob Stuart has answered a fairly lengthy script. I just gave you a link where a 3rd party - ComputerAudiophile - interviewed him, and where the public asked him questions - some of which were pretty tough and probing.

But since you've made up your mind...

I wish to go no further on this. But you may continue as you wish...
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
92
47
18,570
manicm said:
shadders said:
I asked if you were an employee of Meridian or MQA Ltd, since you did not reply to the question on the Linn forum. I only looked at the single thread where this was questioned, and no other thread. It is relevant, if someone has a vested interest in products in discussion. This has been asked before by others, where someone was trying to recommend products, and they were related to the owner of the company. Why be so hostile towards people questioning a product etc?

Why is Wikipedia not relevant?

The file format is 16bit. Do you disagre with this?

The lower 3 significant bits are used for the coding of the frequencies above 20kHz. Do you disagree with this?

This then results in 13bits that can be used for a normal DAC to resolve. The 3 LSB's will look like uncorrelated noise. Which part of this do you dispute?

You consistently provide information that is a repeat of MQA text, yet do not analyse the data to ensure that it is correct, or is unbiased. This indicates that you are over zealous in support of MQA, and being aggressive towards anyone with an opposing view, is not appropriate, as all people here are doing is discussing the aspects.

Regards,

Shadders.
Shadders, for the umpteenth time and for the love of God - I didn't have to state the blindingly obvious that I'M NOT A MERIDIAN OR MQA EMPLOYEE. You have great audio engineering knowledge yet was it so hard for you to fathom??? I I am not a zealous supporter of MQA, but over at Linn there was a lot of zealous hate of it. And I think some misinformation too but I'm not articulate enough or possess enough knowledge to counter it unfortunately.

The undecoded MQA may or may not be 13 bits, but Bob Stuart has answered a fairly lengthy script. I just gave you a link where a 3rd party - ComputerAudiophile - interviewed him, and where the public asked him questions - some of which were pretty tough and probing.

But since you've made up your mind...

I wish to go no further on this. But you may continue as you wish...
Hi,

All i did was explain why is asked the question.

Answer 57 states that the file is 24bit, but for a MQA DAC you achieve an equivalent 16bits resolution, but for a non MQA DAC, it is stated to 15.9bits.

Answer 59 indicates it can be 24bit or 16bit - yet does state truncation of the 24bit to 16bit - text as follows :

"In principle systems that only understand 16 bit audio can carry an MQA stream. If it is truncated it will preserve the ability for a decoder to respond. "

For the decoder to respond, then as per the wiki article, the 16bit stream must contain the dithered higher frequencies. As such, 13bits statement for PCM seems to be correct. The referenced 16bits and 15.9bits in answer 57 are probably statistical DSP responses.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
92
47
18,570
Hi,

Finally worked out what is going on - thanks ot the lin provided by manicm.

From the website :

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa



The 24bit sample from the master enters from the left and is immediately truncated/dithered down to 17bits. Fig 7A.

The low frequency LF - is truncated to 13bits - and every file will contain this 13bit LPCM code. So wiki was correct - 13bits are assigned for LPCM.

The next 3bits -which are the 3 LSB's are the high frequency information - which is greater than 20kHz. The DAC without a decoder cannot use this - it will be heard as noise.

So, every MQA file will contain at least 16bits == 13bits LPCM for 0Hz to 20kHz, and 3 LSB's high frequency for >20kHz.

The remaining 8 bits are further used for high frequency content, and the 4 bits removed from the original 17bits in the low frequency area.

If you do not have a decoder - then you will be presenting 24bits to the DAC chip - but, the problem is that only 13bits of LPCM will be decoded.

An non MQA DAC has no way of knowing that the bit 17 to bit 20 is the LSB's of the original 17bit word, and it is just noise when heard. Same for bits 14 to bit 16, and bit 21 to bit 24.

So, for people who do not have a decoder, may be playing a 24bit file, but 13bits are only useful LPCM - you are only hearing 13bits + noise.

Please correct me if the above is incorrect.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

insider9

Well-known member
Sep 20, 2016
739
298
5,270
Nice one, Shadders. Definitely worth reading a bit more. As it interests me even more thanks to your thread.

As I said previoulsy I can hear audible gains when listening to MQA vs other formats with just one unfold done with Tidal. I admit it, it would be worth knowing more though :)
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
92
47
18,570
insider9 said:
Nice one, Shadders. Definitely worth reading a bit more. As it interests me even more thanks to your thread.

As I said previoulsy I can hear audible gains when listening to MQA vs other formats with just one unfold done with Tidal. I admit it, it would be worth knowing more though :)
Hi,

I would check that, as you stated tidal is giving 24bit 96kHz, but your Yamaha is showing 24bit 48kHz.

That is, the tidal applications have the ability to decode, but since your Yamaha is not approved, then it will only send 24bit 48kHz as indicated on your Yamaha unit.

As such, you are not playing an unfolded file. You are in fact listening to 13bits +noise at 48kHz.

The roon forum has a discussion on this.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

insider9

Well-known member
Sep 20, 2016
739
298
5,270
shadders said:
insider9 said:
Nice one, Shadders. Definitely worth reading a bit more. As it interests me even more thanks to your thread.

As I said previoulsy I can hear audible gains when listening to MQA vs other formats with just one unfold done with Tidal. I admit it, it would be worth knowing more though :)
Hi,

I would check that,  as you stated tidal is giving 24bit 96kHz, but your Yamaha is showing 24bit 48kHz.

That is, the tidal application have the ability to decode, but since your Yamaha is not approved,  then it will only send 24bit 48kHz as indicated on your Yamaha unit.

As such, you are not playing an unfolded file. You are in fact listening to 13bits +noise at 48kHz.

The roon forum has a discussion on this.

Regards,

Shadders.
Thanks. With Tidal doing the unfolding Yamaha shows 96kHz bit rate when I pass through mqa it goes down to 48kHz. If your deductions are correct than yes that would mean exactly what you're saying.

I have not done much listening at 24/48 so can't comment. My observations are with first unfold done with Tidal at 24/96.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
92
47
18,570
insider9 said:
shadders said:
insider9 said:
Nice one, Shadders. Definitely worth reading a bit more. As it interests me even more thanks to your thread.

As I said previoulsy I can hear audible gains when listening to MQA vs other formats with just one unfold done with Tidal. I admit it, it would be worth knowing more though :)
Hi,

I would check that, as you stated tidal is giving 24bit 96kHz, but your Yamaha is showing 24bit 48kHz.

That is, the tidal application have the ability to decode, but since your Yamaha is not approved, then it will only send 24bit 48kHz as indicated on your Yamaha unit.

As such, you are not playing an unfolded file. You are in fact listening to 13bits +noise at 48kHz.

The roon forum has a discussion on this.

Regards,

Shadders.
Thanks. With Tidal doing the unfolding Yamaha shows 96kHz bit rate when I pass through mqa it goes down to 48kHz. If your deductions are correct than yes that would mean exactly what you're saying.

I have not done much listening at 24/48 so can't comment. My observations are with first unfold done with Tidal at 24/96.
Hi,

Yes, if Tidal is completing the decoding, and the Yamaha unit is showing 96kHz, then you are hearing the full decode.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

MrReaper182

New member
Apr 6, 2014
63
0
0
DougK said:
Personally I see all this regurgitated (MQA) malarkey is just another way to squeeze more cash out of the punter to purchase another album that they already have in their collection umpteen times over. I fell foul of the hi-rez download and remaster trap, never again! Total waste of money as far as I'm concerned.
I said something similar about hi-rez music when I was talking about the Pono In a therd I started and got shoot down by loads of people on here.
 

Al ears

Moderator
manicm said:
shadders said:
Hi,

You quoted Linn earlier in the thread, and complaining of zealous behaviour, with manicm on the Linn site stating zealous behaviour. So do you confirm you manicm on here, is the same manicm on the Linn forum.

With regards to opposition to MQA, why is this an issue for you? . We cannot believe everything we are told. There are many manufacturers refusing to implement MQA, so why is this an issue when people discuss the relevant aspects here?

If you look at some of the responses on this thread, people were not aware that the non MQA DAC will be limited to 13bits. Why are these facts not stated on the MQA website you consistently have referred to?

Regards,

Shadders.
I cannot believe you're stooping to this level of argument? Of-course I am the same manicm over there as I am here, as I am on other websites as well. That's my pseudonym. Why the hell would I deny this, and what does it have to do with the price of eggs? Do you actually believe I'm a Meridian/MQA employee???? This is getting infantile. Go and READ the Linn forum to know someone there has admitted to being a Meridian employee - except it's not me as much as I'm flattered, thank you.

As for your insistence that it's 13 bits - well I just gave you a fairly lengthy Q/A straight from the horse Bob Stuart on ComputerAudiophile. So read it or don't read it. But if you're only giving information from a Wikipidea entry, well then....

I'm neither here nor there about MQA but I am interested in how it progresses, or not, in the next 2 years or so.
+1

Tell him straight. Always assuming it is a him. :)
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
92
47
18,570
Al ears said:
manicm said:
shadders said:
Hi,

You quoted Linn earlier in the thread, and complaining of zealous behaviour, with manicm on the Linn site stating zealous behaviour. So do you confirm you manicm on here, is the same manicm on the Linn forum.

With regards to opposition to MQA, why is this an issue for you? . We cannot believe everything we are told. There are many manufacturers refusing to implement MQA, so why is this an issue when people discuss the relevant aspects here?

If you look at some of the responses on this thread, people were not aware that the non MQA DAC will be limited to 13bits. Why are these facts not stated on the MQA website you consistently have referred to?

Regards,

Shadders.
I cannot believe you're stooping to this level of argument? Of-course I am the same manicm over there as I am here, as I am on other websites as well. That's my pseudonym. Why the hell would I deny this, and what does it have to do with the price of eggs? Do you actually believe I'm a Meridian/MQA employee???? This is getting infantile. Go and READ the Linn forum to know someone there has admitted to being a Meridian employee - except it's not me as much as I'm flattered, thank you.

As for your insistence that it's 13 bits - well I just gave you a fairly lengthy Q/A straight from the horse Bob Stuart on ComputerAudiophile. So read it or don't read it. But if you're only giving information from a Wikipidea entry, well then....

I'm neither here nor there about MQA but I am interested in how it progresses, or not, in the next 2 years or so.
+1

Tell him straight. Always assuming it is a him. :)
Hi,

Yes, I am a him. If you read my posts, later than the one above, I am correct, unless you use Tidal or another software decoder, then it is only 13bits.

There is a lot of very technical detailed information available, but the link to computer audio interview, is not clear on the very basics. The wording is very misleading, but the patent diagram I linked to, shows the 13bits is correct for a non MQA DAC, with no software decoding.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
92
47
18,570
MrReaper182 said:
DougK said:
Personally I see all this regurgitated (MQA) malarkey is just another way to squeeze more cash out of the punter to purchase another album that they already have in their collection umpteen times over. I fell foul of the hi-rez download and remaster trap, never again! Total waste of money as far as I'm concerned.
I said something similar about hi-rez music when I was talking about the Pono In a therd I started and got shoot down by loads of people on here.
Hi,

Yes, something you may be discussing openly, if it is not to others point of view, some people do get nasty. I think it is the anonymity that helps here.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts