I'm not sure what forums Womaz is reading, but World War 3 has broken out over MQA over at 'Computer Audiophile'. It's fair to say it's controversial!
I have to say that I was initially very sceptical about the MQA concept. The whole idea of creating an 'Authenticated' version of a music file, which then required Meridian supplied or licenced hardware to playback is something I find objectionable. After all, we already formats like FLAC & DSD which by all accounts are pretty close to perfection. Essentially this is the basis of the disquiet on Computer Audiophile, the sense that Meridian is performing a 'land grab', which ultimately will prove to be very bad for us consumers of music.
Having said that, there have been very many reports that music that has been MQA'd sounds superb, so this gets my interest. After all, we all spend vast amounts of cash on kit but at the end of the day, badly mastered music sounds bad, irrespective of what you play it on, this is hifi's great leveller.
So why does MQA sound good and what are the issues? I think you need to split MQA into three parts to understand this.
1. It can make corrections relating to the original analogue to digital conversions used during the original mastering or digital transfer of the music.
2. It uses a new method of file compression utilising unused bits below the noise floor and other such cleverness, in MQA speak, this is referred to as 'folding' and 'unfolding'
3. It has a tweak to ensure that your own MQA enabled DAC sounds it's best. This is referred to as 'de-blurring', or in plain English this is something along the lines of improving timing.
Now if I look at this personally, yes, I would like all the good stuff per point 1, assuming it does indeed sound good. (which early reports suggest is the case.)
I simply cannot get excited about point 2. This to me looks like a solution to a problem solved 10 years ago. OK, maybe if you are streaming via a smartphone, then 'folding' the file makes sense to reduce data usage. But if you are streaming via a smartphone, it is unlikely that you will notice the subtle improvements that MQA offers anyway. Or to put this another way, we now live in a world now where an increasingly large number of people can stream 1080i TV without issues, or even 4k, so for domestic streaming from Tidal or whatever, a 24/192 file is not too much of a challenge. Not a clear cut argument I would agree, there are some areas where broadband is slow or unavailable, however, if you are interested in purchasing or downloading music, rather than streaming, then all this folding stuff is utterly irrelevant. Plus, it is irrelevant to sound quality however you look at it. Only points 1 & 2 above have any relevance to sound quality. In fact, the reverse is probably true, MQA's 'folding' is technically a lossy process, so you could easily conclude point 2 here is MQA degrading sound quality.
So to point 3, the 'de-blurring' of your own DAC. The short answer to this is that I have no idea if MQA 'de-blurring' of a Devialet DAC would help sound quality. I do know that with some DAC's you can play around with filters, which is usually a compromise between 'de-blurring' and 'anti-aliasing', depending on listener preference. (Compromise between timing and accuracy of frequency, in plain English) However, my gut feeling is that there is not much to be gained 'de-blurring' a Devialet DAC, I might be wrong, maybe MQA is capable of doing something very special to a Devialet DAC, but I strongly suspect that in reality the Devialet DAC does not have much room for improvement in this regard, so the actual improvement will be miniscule to nothing. I'm certainly not noticing any blurry timing issues with my Pro, quite the reverse in fact!
So in conclusion, point 1 potentially offers some good stuff. Point 2 is irrelevant to sound quality, in fact because MQA's 'folding' is a 'lossy' process, you could argue that point 2 is bad.
Point 3 is unclear at this time. Indeed, unless MQA and Devialet 'do the deal', and assuming an Expert or Phantom ADH can be MQA'd, then we may never know! Although from what I suspect currently, this de-blurring is unlikely to offer much of an improvement to a Devialet user anyway.
So if you are simply interested in hearing good music beautifully reproduced, then the stuff per point 1 is what you want. Now here is the ironic point, the stuff per point 1 is done before all this MQA folding unfolding and decoding lark. So you could get all the goodness of point 1 and transfer it as a 24/192 FLAC file or similar, and play this back as you would normally. No need to worry about compatibility with your DAC, music player or anything else.
The good news here is that now we have the prospect of software decoding via Tidal, Roon and others soon, I think this will give us all 99% of the benefit of MQA, without worrying if Devialet adopt it or not. Indeed, if the original file was 24/96 prior to MQA'ing, software decoding gives you the full MQA conversion, with only the 'de-blurring' of your own DAC missing.
So why are Meridian making this so complicated? With partial unfolding only via software, full unfolding in the DAC, and so on. I suspect this is simply their business strategy, making an MQA compatible DAC with it's little MQA light coming on seem desirable, hence driving licensing revenues. This is where the 'land grab' worries come in. To be honest, I am reasonably relaxed about this point, after all, Meridian are not a charity, they need to make cash. Personally, I would have preferred it if Meridian were simply making re-mastered versions with all the cleaver A/D conversion corrections, and we could choose to buy them or not. (or choose a streaming subscription that offers them). I think Meridian have overcomplicated this whole thing, with a view to make lots of cash. But it is what it is!
Meanwhile, if you have access to MQA with software decoding, then enjoy! And don't worry to much about whether or not Devialet get fully MQA'd, it probably wont happen anytime soon, and I reckon it wont make much difference if it ever does.
I have to say that I was initially very sceptical about the MQA concept. The whole idea of creating an 'Authenticated' version of a music file, which then required Meridian supplied or licenced hardware to playback is something I find objectionable. After all, we already formats like FLAC & DSD which by all accounts are pretty close to perfection. Essentially this is the basis of the disquiet on Computer Audiophile, the sense that Meridian is performing a 'land grab', which ultimately will prove to be very bad for us consumers of music.
Having said that, there have been very many reports that music that has been MQA'd sounds superb, so this gets my interest. After all, we all spend vast amounts of cash on kit but at the end of the day, badly mastered music sounds bad, irrespective of what you play it on, this is hifi's great leveller.
So why does MQA sound good and what are the issues? I think you need to split MQA into three parts to understand this.
1. It can make corrections relating to the original analogue to digital conversions used during the original mastering or digital transfer of the music.
2. It uses a new method of file compression utilising unused bits below the noise floor and other such cleverness, in MQA speak, this is referred to as 'folding' and 'unfolding'
3. It has a tweak to ensure that your own MQA enabled DAC sounds it's best. This is referred to as 'de-blurring', or in plain English this is something along the lines of improving timing.
Now if I look at this personally, yes, I would like all the good stuff per point 1, assuming it does indeed sound good. (which early reports suggest is the case.)
I simply cannot get excited about point 2. This to me looks like a solution to a problem solved 10 years ago. OK, maybe if you are streaming via a smartphone, then 'folding' the file makes sense to reduce data usage. But if you are streaming via a smartphone, it is unlikely that you will notice the subtle improvements that MQA offers anyway. Or to put this another way, we now live in a world now where an increasingly large number of people can stream 1080i TV without issues, or even 4k, so for domestic streaming from Tidal or whatever, a 24/192 file is not too much of a challenge. Not a clear cut argument I would agree, there are some areas where broadband is slow or unavailable, however, if you are interested in purchasing or downloading music, rather than streaming, then all this folding stuff is utterly irrelevant. Plus, it is irrelevant to sound quality however you look at it. Only points 1 & 2 above have any relevance to sound quality. In fact, the reverse is probably true, MQA's 'folding' is technically a lossy process, so you could easily conclude point 2 here is MQA degrading sound quality.
So to point 3, the 'de-blurring' of your own DAC. The short answer to this is that I have no idea if MQA 'de-blurring' of a Devialet DAC would help sound quality. I do know that with some DAC's you can play around with filters, which is usually a compromise between 'de-blurring' and 'anti-aliasing', depending on listener preference. (Compromise between timing and accuracy of frequency, in plain English) However, my gut feeling is that there is not much to be gained 'de-blurring' a Devialet DAC, I might be wrong, maybe MQA is capable of doing something very special to a Devialet DAC, but I strongly suspect that in reality the Devialet DAC does not have much room for improvement in this regard, so the actual improvement will be miniscule to nothing. I'm certainly not noticing any blurry timing issues with my Pro, quite the reverse in fact!
So in conclusion, point 1 potentially offers some good stuff. Point 2 is irrelevant to sound quality, in fact because MQA's 'folding' is a 'lossy' process, you could argue that point 2 is bad.
Point 3 is unclear at this time. Indeed, unless MQA and Devialet 'do the deal', and assuming an Expert or Phantom ADH can be MQA'd, then we may never know! Although from what I suspect currently, this de-blurring is unlikely to offer much of an improvement to a Devialet user anyway.
So if you are simply interested in hearing good music beautifully reproduced, then the stuff per point 1 is what you want. Now here is the ironic point, the stuff per point 1 is done before all this MQA folding unfolding and decoding lark. So you could get all the goodness of point 1 and transfer it as a 24/192 FLAC file or similar, and play this back as you would normally. No need to worry about compatibility with your DAC, music player or anything else.
The good news here is that now we have the prospect of software decoding via Tidal, Roon and others soon, I think this will give us all 99% of the benefit of MQA, without worrying if Devialet adopt it or not. Indeed, if the original file was 24/96 prior to MQA'ing, software decoding gives you the full MQA conversion, with only the 'de-blurring' of your own DAC missing.
So why are Meridian making this so complicated? With partial unfolding only via software, full unfolding in the DAC, and so on. I suspect this is simply their business strategy, making an MQA compatible DAC with it's little MQA light coming on seem desirable, hence driving licensing revenues. This is where the 'land grab' worries come in. To be honest, I am reasonably relaxed about this point, after all, Meridian are not a charity, they need to make cash. Personally, I would have preferred it if Meridian were simply making re-mastered versions with all the cleaver A/D conversion corrections, and we could choose to buy them or not. (or choose a streaming subscription that offers them). I think Meridian have overcomplicated this whole thing, with a view to make lots of cash. But it is what it is!
Meanwhile, if you have access to MQA with software decoding, then enjoy! And don't worry to much about whether or not Devialet get fully MQA'd, it probably wont happen anytime soon, and I reckon it wont make much difference if it ever does.
1000 Pro - KEF Blade - iFi Zen Stream - Mutec REF10 - MC3+USB - Pro-Ject Signature 12
