Roon support of MQA

[amirm]

Wanted to try out MQA on Tidal only to realize that Roon does not yet support decoding it (for non-MQA DACs). Went looking and looks like it is on their priority list according to their CTO: https://community.roonlabs.com/t/mqa-software-decoding-in-roon/20611/7

"In terms of new features coming, MQA software decoding is our top priority. It's a top priority for MQA too. We want the same things you do, and we are well aware of the massive demand for this feature."

Given their connection with Meridian it is strange that they are not at the forefront of this but good to know it is coming.

 

[watchnerd]

Wanted to try out MQA on Tidal only to realize that Roon does not yet support decoding it (for non-MQA DACs). Went looking and looks like it is on their priority list according to their CTO: https://community.roonlabs.com/t/mqa-software-decoding-in-roon/20611/7

"In terms of new features coming, MQA software decoding is our top priority. It's a top priority for MQA too. We want the same things you do, and we are well aware of the massive demand for this feature."

Given their connection with Meridian it is strange that they are not at the forefront of this but good to know it is coming.

This could provide an interesting conflict with all their DSP features -- and not just the new fancy ones, but the old ones like volume leveling, digital volume control, umsampling, etc, all of which should violate MQA, I would think.

 

[amirm]

If they put the MQA decoding upstream then the rest should be fine. Once decoded it is just PCM. Will be interesting to see if there are contractual obligations that force otherwise.

 

[March Audio]

I have a Meridian Explorer 2. Its mainly to use in the office when Im stuck in front of the PC for hours.

What I have found with the MQA listening I have done over the past few weeks (with same masters) is just a very slightly crisper top end and more sharply defined high frequency transients. The difference is subtle and nothing to get excited about. For example I have compared MQA to a 192kHz version and the 192 was just a bit softer and possibly warmer sounding. I could even see people preferring it.

The people I have seen on forums claiming night and day differences are either comparing different masters or are plain delusional.

I still prefer the sound of my Chord Mojo opposed to the Meridian playing MQA.

 

[amirm]

Good to know. My Explorer is the original version without MQA. My interest is academic at this point, i.e. testing it.

 

[Don Hills]

If they put the MQA decoding upstream then the rest should be fine. Once decoded it is just PCM. Will be interesting to see if there are contractual obligations that force otherwise.

What comes out of the MQA software decoder is not "just PCM". One of the bits (bit 17 of 24, I think) is a data stream, added by the decoder, which controls an MQA renderer. There is an option to add a DSP stage within the decoder, but the ability to do so has to be licensed from MQA. Their "contractual obligation" is that the "just PCM" in the decoder is not accessible externally.

 

[amirm]

Thanks. Didn't know that. I will ask Bob Stuart about this when I see him next as I don't understand why they would need to be this strict in this case where software decoding is done.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Thanks. Didn't know that. I will ask Bob Stuart about this when I see him next as I don't understand why they would need to be this strict in this case where software decoding is done.

I agree with you. If MQA wishes to force an either/or choice between it and my Dirac Room EQ or similar, they are shooting themselves in the foot, IMHO. They just ain't gonna win my loyalty that way.

Do we have the facts right? Yes, please verify with Stuart. However, Archimago reports that MQA decoding in hardware(Mytek Brooklyn) vs. via Tidal's software decoder into the same DAC yields sonically indistinguishable results. That might seem to suggest the software decoder is sending "true" PCM to the DAC, or at least true enough from an audibility standpoint. That should keep my Room EQ operating as it should.

 

[oivavoi]

Out of all the things currently happening in the world of audiophilia, I think MQA is the thing that annoys me the most. I know this is not related to the topic of the thread. Just wanted to say it.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Out of all the things currently happening in the world of audiophilia, I think MQA is the thing that annoys me the most. I know this is not related to the topic of the thread. Just wanted to say it.

I feel your pain. But what exactly is your complaint?

I think the technology is absolutely brilliant. However, it may be too little, too late in solving some of the subtler audible downsides of digital audio. Also, if it is not careful about providing support for "legacy" DACS, DSPs, etc., I do not think it will go far.

 

[oivavoi]

I feel your pain. But what exactly is your complaint?

I think the technology is absolutely brilliant. However, it may be too little, too late in solving some of the subtler audible downsides of digital audio. Also, if it is not careful about providing support for "legacy" DACS, DSPs, etc., I do not think it will go far.

Do you understand the how technology behind it works...? I don't, and I've really tried. Essentially, I see this is an answer to a non-problem that makes people in the audio industry and the audiophile world focus on the wrong things. The problem with contemporary music is the quality of the recordings. The problem with contemporary sound reproduction in the home is the speakers. THESE are the important problems to overcome. Coming up with a new format that tries to solve something that is not a problem in the first place, is just a distraction from the tangible and real challenges of creating convincing stereo illusions in the home, as I see it.

My 5 cents.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Do you understand the how technology behind it works...? I don't, and I've really tried. Essentially, I see this is an answer to a non-problem that makes people in the audio industry and the audiophile world focus on the wrong things. The problem with contemporary music is the quality of the recordings. The problem with contemporary sound reproduction in the home is the speakers. THESE are the important problems to overcome. Coming up with a new format that tries to solve something that is not a problem in the first place, is just a distraction from the tangible and real challenges of creating convincing stereo illusions in the home, as I see it.

My 5 cents.

Well, I would like to think I understand the technology and its implications. I may not have gotten every detail right, but I think I've pretty much got it. I also support its brilliant ideas, with certain provisos.

Ultimately, it has to sound sufficiently "better" to enough audiophiles to have any chance at commercial success.I cannot prejudge that. But, I might say that many current threads on the subject sound like our fairy tale of chicken little, who ran around hysterically proclaiming that the sky was falling.

MQA is an opportunity to address some weaknesses in digital audio reproduction. But, it may be a "bridge too far" offering too little, too subtle an improvement to be a really big deal and to ultimately succeed. Like everything else, I will tune out the hype and try to listen for myself, which I have not yet done, but what is the rush?

 

[Don Hills]

... That might seem to suggest the software decoder is sending "true" PCM to the DAC, or at least true enough from an audibility standpoint. That should keep my Room EQ operating as it should.

Everything I've seen implies that the difference between a non-MQA DAC and a MQA renderer DAC is pretty subtle and generally inaudible. The only downside to putting DSP between the decoder and the DAC is that it mangles the embedded render control bitstream so the renderer won't recognise it as an MQA stream. How much this matters is for you to decide for yourself.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Everything I've seen implies that the difference between a non-MQA DAC and a MQA renderer DAC is pretty subtle and generally inaudible. The only downside to putting DSP between the decoder and the DAC is that it mangles the embedded render control bitstream so the renderer won't recognise it as an MQA stream. How much this matters is for you to decide for yourself.

Don, not sure what the render control bitstream does other than control the "authenticated" light on the DAC. I do not think that is important myself. But, maybe my understanding is incomplete or inaccurate.

 

[watchnerd]

I agree with you. If MQA wishes to force an either/or choice between it and my Dirac Room EQ or similar, they are shooting themselves in the foot, IMHO. They just ain't gonna win my loyalty that way.

Do we have the facts right? Yes, please verify with Stuart. However, Archimago reports that MQA decoding in hardware(Mytek Brooklyn) vs. via Tidal's software decoder into the same DAC yields sonically indistinguishable results. That might seem to suggest the software decoder is sending "true" PCM to the DAC, or at least true enough from an audibility standpoint. That should keep my Room EQ operating as it should.

I believe the requirements for full MQA Master Certified (I may have jumbled the name) requires everything to be MQA-authenticated from the encode ADC to the decode DAC, which requires it be "unmolested" all the way.

 

[watchnerd]

Don, not sure what the render control bitstream does other than control the "authenticated" light on the DAC. I do not think that is important myself. But, maybe my understanding is incomplete or inaccurate.

It's the equivalent of a watermark.

 

[watchnerd]

I feel your pain. But what exactly is your complaint?

I think the technology is absolutely brilliant. However, it may be too little, too late in solving some of the subtler audible downsides of digital audio. Also, if it is not careful about providing support for "legacy" DACS, DSPs, etc., I do not think it will go far.

The technology is clever, I'll admit.

But it's also trying to solve a problem that isn't relevant in 2017. Pipes are fatter and faster now, and will only get more so. Even high resolution digital audio streaming bandwidth is low bandwidth compared HD video streaming which, at least in my house, works just fine over the internet.

 

[Vincent Kars]

MQA has 3 parts A,B and C

If you play it without decoding A it manifest itself as a 24 bit / 44.1 PCM file
If you have a software decoder, it unfolds B, you get a 24 / 88.2
If you have a software decoder plus a MQA enabled DAC or a MQA enabled DAC only , it will unfold C so you get 24 /176.4

There is another A as well, the A of MQA
“Authenticated” means there is a digital signature in the MQA file. (Yep, Authenticated is not the same Authentic)
Of course a hardware decoder in a DAC needs to recognize this signature, otherwise it couldn’t differentiate between plain PCM and compressed MQA

The intriguing question is, can you add a digital watermark to a file and still have DSP going on without altering / demolishing this signature?

 

[watchnerd]

Coming up with a new format that tries to solve something that is not a problem in the first place,.

Oh, it's definitely solving a problem, namely licensing revenue for Meridian.

 

[Thomas savage]

It's marketing/branding/consumer confidence , life's moved on so any space saving / easy streaming etc is increasingly irrelevant.

What's not irrelevant is humans feeling 'safe' and 'believing' they are getting what the mastering engineer hears. Removing the anxieties people might have with digital, reassuring folks.

There is nothing wrong with PCM, there is no technical need for MQA ( possibly there was ten years ago) but it's heaven for marketing guys. If music distributors believe they can charge a premium or encourage uptake of their services by putting a MQA sticker on their product it will suceed..

It is to music what origami is to napkins.