Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions.
Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
I’d rephrase the question as do different USB receivers with hardware MQA decoder decode MQA better than others? DAC has nothing to do with MQA as it only cares about the incoming LPCM bits and sample rates before oversampling and bit-reduction (or DSD from HQPlayer or other hardware upsampler such as Chord MScaler)
I’d rephrase the question as do different USB receivers with hardware MQA decoder decode MQA better than others? DAC has nothing to do with MQA as it only cares about the incoming LPCM bits and sample rates before oversampling and bit-reduction (or DSD from HQPlayer or other hardware upsampler such as Chord MScaler)
Haha, a little too late with that, but we'll go with that then!
I meant dac implementations with MQA, but I can see how that would sound improper given the information you just provided. So what are your thoughts on that question then? Any idea if some decode MQA better than others?
How are we still talking about MQA? It's a scam, people. No actual benefits in it. It's just a compression codec, you don't need any special hardware to decode it more than you need it to decode any other codec. All it does is taking hi-res files and apply lossy compression to them to make them fit in the same bitrate that fits 16/44 files. If you want to listen to hi-res, just get hi-res files. Data rate and storage space are super cheap and available, you don't really need lossy compression.
I've never been good at getting lossy content aside from the occasional pirate. So far im pretty happy with Tidal. I wouldn't have bought a dac because of mqa, mine just happened to come with.... And xmos chip that "helps" decoding.
Haha, a little too late with that, but we'll go with that then!
I meant dac implementations with MQA, but I can see how that would sound improper given the information you just provided. So what are your thoughts on that question then? Any idea if some decode MQA better than others?
Unfortunately, I don't have an MQA hardware decoder other than the A&Ultima SP2000 DAP. Also, I won't be able to perform this test blind since there's a relay click with my Bifrost 2 when I switch inputs. Regardless, I can provide a software MQA decode (Audirvana -> USB -> Bifrost 2) vs DAP MQA decode (AK SP2000 -> Optical -> Bifrost 2)
With sighted listening and volume matched obviously since the SP2000 DAP doesn't allow volume control while outputting SPDIF while Audirvana is outputting WASAPI Exclusive (volume deactivated), there's no surprise that both sources sounded identical like it should
The MQA "core" decoder should produce the same output regardless of where it runs. The "rendering" part exists in a couple of variants that differ in whether noise is added before or after upsampling.
Not quite. If a DAC detects the MQA signature, it is supposed to apple the MQA-prescribed filter and upsample to whatever rate it wants. The displayed rate, if any, need not have any relation whatsoever the one actually used.
Are different DACs meant to use different filters for the upsampling part? I though that was their flimsy excuse for why full unfolding wasn't allowed in software decoders.
Are different DACs meant to use different filters for the upsampling part? I though that was their flimsy excuse for why full unfolding wasn't allowed in software decoders.
That's what I figured. Given that their upsampling seems a broken idea, not using it and only using a software decoder is going to be a better solution, so in my head no one wants an MQA DAC.
How are we still talking about MQA? It's a scam, people. No actual benefits in it. It's just a compression codec, you don't need any special hardware to decode it more than you need it to decode any other codec. All it does is taking hi-res files and apply lossy compression to them to make them fit in the same bitrate that fits 16/44 files. If you want to listen to hi-res, just get hi-res files. Data rate and storage space are super cheap and available, you don't really need lossy compression.
On a powerful desktop machine, sure. But in embedded processors inside DACs, all kinds of shortcuts are taking to keep CPU load low. This usually causes numerical errors addition noise and distortion.