(2023) $80 MQA Decoder

[Owen Smith]

A correct comparison (same master) would be to convert the output of an unfolded MQA to the standard CD 16/44.1 and make the comparisons with the same equipment, matching volumes, etc.

That would impose the MQA lossy encoding on the CD. The comparison should be to take the master and transfer it direct to CD with no MQA, and also produce the MQA version.

 

[barfle]

My understanding is that MQA CDs are redbook compatible, so there is a 16/44.1 uncompressed signal that everyone can access. Data beyond that (and I don’t claim any insight) is compressed and “origami-ed” into vacant places in the data stream.

So, at least from a data standpoint, there is more data available if you have the gear to dig it out, and therefore should be an improvement over RBCD. If you can’t dig it out, it’s still RBCD.

I don’t have any MQA hardware, so I can’t claim experience. I know there are naysayers whose opinions I respect, but I also know of a handful of people (whose opinions I also respect) who love the difference. I probably won’t be going down that path myself, simply because I doubt if I can audition anything and the supply of media is quite small.

 

[Owen Smith]

My understanding is that MQA CDs are redbook compatible, so there is a 16/44.1 uncompressed signal that everyone can access.

But the MQA data encoded within it means the CD has low level noise added to it. I'd rather hear that great master transferred to CD without the added noise. You can't magically fit the MQA data into thin air. There are no "vacant places" in the RBCD data stream, it's all LPCM audio data.

 

[barfle]

But the MQA data encoded within it means the CD has low level noise added to it. I'd rather hear that great master transferred to CD without the added noise. You can't magically fit the MQA data into thin air. There are no "vacant places" in the RBCD data stream, it's all LPCM audio data.

The eight-to-fourteen modulation scheme on RBCDs has a bunch of room in it. Modern data analysis techniques can make use of that space.

 

[Owen Smith]

The eight-to-fourteen modulation scheme on RBCDs has a bunch of room in it. Modern data analysis techniques can make use of that space.

That isn't how MQA data is held. If you're streaming the LPCM data to an MQA capable DAC (and an offboard DAC is a valid MQA solution), it's just straight LPCM 16/44.1 audio data with the MQA encoded as low level noise within the audio data. The MQA data is not held anywhere else. Standard FLAC and WAV rips of MQA CDs contain all the MQA data.

 

[AYanguas]

If we assume that the vast majority of mortals cannot distinguish a master transferred to and played from a FLAC Hi-Res, from its conversion (downsampling) to a FLAC CD 16/44.1, then to sell the new money-making machine that is the MQA it is necessary to generate masters that sound good, better or different, or with some emphasis of some kind for the MQA editions.

As always, if we want to find the best masters or those that sound better to us, we will find them in HI-Res editions, whether in FLAC or MQA. I guess that the producers are not going to put a bad master in a "high quality" edition.

That is to say, I always see comparisons between different formats, different editions, which will be, with great probability if not 100% probability, different masters.

Where do I want to go? As the audible differences between "quality" formats are so minimal or non-existent, the industry will generate different masters to segment the market and "sell" the idea even to the most demanding audiophiles, that will debate for a long time about the differences of the formats. While some of them will buy the new technology.

It's nothing new, right? This started with the debate between vinyl and CD and then between CD and HI-Res.

 

[AYanguas]

That would impose the MQA lossy encoding on the CD. The comparison should be to take the master and transfer it direct to CD with no MQA, and also produce the MQA version.

Yes, you are right. Well, I do not know. Downsampling is a different process than compressing to lossy.

But what I wanted to explain is a comparison that we consumers could do after buying a MQA CD.

The comparison that you right propose would never happen as no producer will release the same master to CD and MQA CD. Unless we could get the master from studio that has "exactly" been released in a MQA CD, and do the conversions/comparisons by ourselves.

 

[SmcAustin]

MQA has lost the marketing war and presumably the licensing rights have passed from its originators. There's no point in "punishing" them by avoiding otherwise blameless DACs and streaming apps that include the decoding capability. An MQA cd, on the other hand, is an odd duck, for whom the best can be said is a new mastering and is suited to recordings of relatively limited dynamic range, a category that includes most all popular music.

 

[Owen Smith]

MQA has lost the marketing war and presumably the licensing rights have passed from its originators. There's no point in "punishing" them by avoiding otherwise blameless DACs and streaming apps that include the decoding capability.

My Arcam AVR31 amp claims to have MQA decoding on board. I have no MQA source material to test this. But the presence of MQA, while it saddened me a little, didn't put me off buying it. In that price segment of the market pretty much every modern AVR is infected with MQA. I expect it to gradually fade and be gone in 10 years.

 

[4-earredwonder]

MQA has lost the marketing war and presumably the licensing rights have passed from its originators. There's no point in "punishing" them by avoiding otherwise blameless DACs and streaming apps that include the decoding capability. An MQA cd, on the other hand, is an odd duck, for whom the best can be said is a new mastering and is suited to recordings of relatively limited dynamic range, a category that includes most all popular music.

Tell that to German classical label DGG which continues to release MQA CDs which are hardly limited in their dynamic range!

And Norwegian classical label 2L who continue to include MQA encoding on the CD layer of their hybrid SACDs ...... a true AUDIOPHILE label if ever there was one!

 

[SmcAustin]

Tell that to German classical label DGG which continues to release MQA CDs which are hardly limited in their dynamic range!

And Norwegian classical label 2L who continue to include MQA encoding on the CD layer of their hybrid SACDs ...... a true AUDIOPHILE label if ever there was one!

Sorry not to be more specific: an undecoded MQA cd is still good for most popular music. Classical recordings are more likely to need decoding for full dynamic range. However, I'm skeptical that even classical often goes beyond the 13 bits said to be available for MQA cds.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Sorry not to be more specific: an undecoded MQA cd is still good for most popular music. Classical recordings are more likely to need decoding for full dynamic range. However, I'm skeptical that even classical often goes beyond the 13 bits said to be available for MQA cds.

If, as you say, MQA CDs are 13 bits, doubtful anyone would be bothered with the format.

Where do you people get your [mis]information from?

 

[4-earredwonder]

My Arcam AVR31 amp claims to have MQA decoding on board. I have no MQA source material to test this. But the presence of MQA, while it saddened me a little, didn't put me off buying it. In that price segment of the market pretty much every modern AVR is infected with MQA. I expect it to gradually fade and be gone in 10 years.

In order to properly decode an MQA disc, Owen, your CD player MUST HAVE MQA encoding built in, as well, for your Arcam to properly DECODE/UNFOLD it!

 

[SmcAustin]

If, as you say, MQA CDs are 13 bits, doubtful anyone would be bothered with the format.

Where do you people get your [mis]information from?

The MQA cd was greeted skeptically. The benefit of MQA, smaller file size than FLAC, was for streaming.

As for misinformation:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers-bit-depth-mqa

However, it remains true that most recordings don't require full cd bit rate and depth, let alone high resolution.

 

[4-earredwonder]

The MQA cd was greeted skeptically. The benefit of MQA, smaller file size than FLAC, was for streaming.

As for misinformation:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers-bit-depth-mqa

However, it remains true that most recordings don't require full cd bit rate and depth, let alone high resolution.

Read [or re read] my Post #12 on this thread how publications like Stereophile and the Absolute Sound derailed multichannel MLP DVD~A and SACD in the early 00's.

In case you haven't noticed both those 'elite' publications have a majority bias towards analogue VINYL!

Why do you think VINYL has 'proliferated' to this day?

And their attempts to portray the new digital revolution on BD~A, etc. seems more 'gratuitous' than informative probably to placate their readership who may indulge in it.

And perhaps, IMO, they should do a thorough investigative report on all the crappy vinyl being produced today instead of focusing on boutique $125 One Step Vinyl and other 'chic' labels?

 

[Owen Smith]

In order to properly decode an MQA disc, Owen, your CD player MUST HAVE MQA encoding built in, as well, for your Arcam to properly DECODE/UNFOLD it!

Not true. If it were true what would be the point of external MQA DACs, given you'd need to buy an MQA player anyway so you can just output analogue from that to your amp.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Just gotta say I can't imagine any kind of $80 DAC, MQA or otherwise being worth audiophile quality.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Read [or re read] my Post #12 on this thread how publications like Stereophile and the Absolute Sound derailed multichannel MLP DVD~A and SACD in the early 00's.

In case you haven't noticed both those 'elite' publications have a majority bias towards analogue VINYL!

Why do you think VINYL has 'proliferated' to this day?

I don't think you can hold the audio rags solely responsible for the popularity of vinyl today. I would have agreed more 35 years ago when they were already bashing CDs. But today nearly every person I know (a half dozen plus) who takes an interest in vinyl is under the age of 40 and has never heard of Stereophile. Nor have they ever seen any other audiophile magazine. The one exception over 40 I can think of is a cousin who buys vinyl for the memorabilia/nostalgia aspect. And he still plays his 50 year old LPs. So he at least has a valid reason.

For the rest of them it's just a cool novelty. A way to impress their clueless friends when they drag out their Crosley USB turntable which is connected to their crappy soundbar. It's hardly what the audio rags had in mind when they were touting vinyl superiority.

After all, an LP costs more than a CD right? It has to be better.... Right?

 

[Sonik Wiz]

.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Just gotta say I can't imagine any kind of $80 DAC, MQA or otherwise being worth audiophile quality.

If you take a look at the reviews over at Audio Science Review there are plenty of low cost stereo DACs that offer great performance.