Devialet Chat

Crikey - sorry I missed that.

I have a very simple view now re MQA. A while ago I did get a little obsessed with the idea of 'High Resolution' audio, looking for stuff I liked on DSD, 24bit etc, sometimes re-buying music I that already owned on 16/44. I have now given up on this completely, the improvement in sound quality achieved is small to nothing, unlike the cost which is significant. If I am buying something new, and say a 24bit version is available, OK, I might go for that if it's not silly money. In fact, my preference would be to buy in whatever format that was used for the final mix / mastering in the studio. So if the studio used 24/192, then I'd like that please, I don't see how you could do any better.

So if something was released new, and I knew it was originally mastered in the studio specifically as MQA, then I would happily buy it in MQA. However, I somehow suspect that in 5 years time I will not have that many MQA files. Why? Well what the incentive for the studio? If you were in a band recording an album today, would you want it recorded and mastered specifically for a niche market covered by MQA, or would you prefer a universally used format, compatible with almost everything, including playable on Apple products etc. I know what I would opt for! OK, I there is some thought that MQA is aimed more at the streaming market, but isn't the streaming market progressing very nicely anyway?

We have similar buying practices and also highres experimentations. ...

I'm not sure if you've read the whole Q&A. If not it's actually really interesting I'd recommend it. I came away with the impression that Bob Stuart is a smart, passionate guy, on a quest to make music better and pull us out of the 'high res' situation we have now.  
He specifically covers audiophiles and the niche market and why he hasn't aimed MQA there - but at a global audience including streaming where it will reach most people - hopefully improving the SQ they get from their providers. This is where I'd stand to benefit personally.

The provenance stuff is interesting - he talks about how MQA can't really police, but it does provide provenance and so you are getting assurance that if it says master, it was from the studio master that the label chose as the best source. I'm probably summarising a bit wrong but it was long and some sections I skipped. He talks about their tools specifically looking for hints of upsampling among many other things at the encoding stage, so that its harder for these to sneak through the net and be sold as 'master', but it's acknowledged that upsampling is routinely and acceptably used on samples etc so it's not so clear cut.

Maybe I've been suckered in. I'll wait until I hear it. The most likely chance of which will be via tidal, and then we'd need new DACs anyway to get the full benefit unless Devialet surprise us, which seems unlikely but it is a TLA so there's some hope.

There were a couple of things that did leave me slightly sceptical though. The questions were amalgamated, but it seems he modified one of the questions about DRM so despite unequivably saying it didn't exist, he also added further fuel to the fire by rewording the question to something that was a bit bizarre - something about is there DRM (that consumers should be aware of) the in brackets or similar was added.  I thought about this and maybe labels are going to be using some sort of DRM not aimed at us but so they can trace files if they're stolen or resold illegally but other companies or used as samples or whatever. Or it could be nothing. Or it could be DRM ready for the future.

The other thing was saying that they had no plans to provide tools to convert owned CDs to MQA - where it is felt that the process would work and be beneficial to the CD owner. That was put down to lack of resources, but I wasn't convinced as it would be a similar toolset to what they'd use already. I mean, if there's a way to make the version we own better, why not, after all it's the copyright of the recording not the media, which always annoys me when I rebuy music or films in a new format - I've already paid for it surely an upgraded format can't cost the full price again! So it seemed more like the music industry would never allow it but he couldn't say that.

Looking forward to hearing an MQA dac at some point and seeing if it's worth even worrying about.

I prefer to listen to Bob Stuart on this one. And John Atkinson, Robert Harley, Chris Connaker and a few others. Robert Harley and Chris Connaker has heard MQA processed recordings. Archimago tries hard to explain lots of things, but fails in my view. I generally ignore him.

(09-Apr-2016, 09:06)Hifi_swlon Wrote: [ -> ]The provenance stuff is interesting - he talks about how MQA can't really police, but it does provide provenance and so you are getting assurance that if it says master, it was from the studio master that the label chose as the best source. I'm probably summarising a bit wrong but it was long and some sections I skipped. He talks about their tools specifically looking for hints of upsampling among many other things at the encoding stage, so that its harder for these to sneak through the net and be sold as 'master', but it's acknowledged that upsampling is routinely and acceptably used on samples etc so it's not so clear cut.

I know I sound cynical re MQA, but the provenance aspect I get.  Assuming somehow I end up with a system that will play MQA correctly (not certain in Devialet land), then MQA recorded material would certainly be of interest.

Again I see the advantage of using the DSP of my 250 for room correction. If, and that is a big if..., Devialet decide to add MQA decoding (and convolution) in their amps I would like to have convolution as the last stage before conversion to analog. This would also allow me to play vinyl and other sources with room correction.
I really believe in MQA. If it turns out that MQA can 'fix' the worst cases of digital sounding transfers from the early period I'd probably buy a few of them again. In the long perspective playback of digital files is still young. I really hope playback quality can be improved.

Interesting comments ogs. If it does turn out that MQA can 'fix' the worst cases of digital sounding transfers from the early period, then I will stop being cynical about MQA altogether! I must admit I am kind of expecting MQA to fizzle out and fail, I see it as a 'fix' to a problem that does not really exist and I can see it lacking support from many sides of the industry, recording and distribution. But maybe it is a lot cleverer and more promising than I am giving it credit for? Time will tell.

Doug Schneider's latest piece on MQA:

http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/...-about-mqa

Guillaume

Alan Sircom reviews Meridian's Explorer 2 DAC in April's Hi-Fi+. 
The review starts "In many respects, this review of the Meridian Explorer 2 is more a review of the concept of MQA than a review of the device itself". The Explorer 2 is the first MQA compatible DAC on the market, is an inline type and is quite small.  The price is £199.
The review of MQA is very favourable.

There is also a very favourable review of Wilson Audio's Sabrina.

I just received the following discouraging message from Devialet whether they will support MQA in the Expert line in the future:

Thank you for your message. 
We do not have this data at the moment; 
However please feel free to keep in touch with us to know about all our latest news.