You need at least MQA Core decoding (first unfold) using Lumin or Roon or Tidal app or Audirvana to recover the embedded musical information. This is the minimum you need for a comparison. Using Lumin analog output hardware or MQA DAC you get MQA rendering, which gives you a more prominent MQA sound signature.
A question about MQA
- Thread starter skbe
- Start date
- Status
You need at least MQA Core decoding (first unfold) using Lumin or Roon or Tidal app or Audirvana to recover the embedded musical information. This is the minimum you need for a comparison. Using Lumin analog output hardware or MQA DAC you get MQA rendering, which gives you a more prominent MQA sound signature.
Lumin app and front panel do not state it to be lossless.
Roon signal path can show lossless for core decoding, but it has a different meaning from what everybody assumes.
- Thread Author
- #183
19 pages of posts to finally arrive to what it is really helpful
I know you had internet issues
Thank you for your input
PS : I make no difference when listening to MQA vs HiRes with only core decoding files =<96k - I am using Roon decoding for MQA to save CPU as you adviced
I know you had internet issues
Thank you for your input
PS : I make no difference when listening to MQA vs HiRes with only core decoding files =<96k - I am using Roon decoding for MQA to save CPU as you adviced
steve59
Member
If I understood the brief, the first fold carries the 16/44 standard, the 2nd fold gets up to 24/96, roon, and the others wlkie mentioned will do, then we have to look at our hardware for the 3rd or 24/192 to decode? I keep reading these explinations and eventually something's going to stick.
GSOphile
Member
I have not heard of a third MQA unfolding. Only the first two. The first can be done by software. The second requires MQA compliant hardware.
I have not done a comprehensive analysis, but my experience has been that the vast majority of the MQA files are 24/44.1 or 24/48 before unfolding (except for the MQA CD's, which are obviously 16/44.1). Trying to get 24/96 (much less 24/192) into a 16/44.1 container results in a lot of lossiness (lost data). And according to the much maligned patent application, much of the extra bit depth above (or perhaps more properly "below") 16 is used for the encoded "hi-res" content.
Last edited:
kzhtoo
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2014
- Messages
- 1,619
What is your listening impression?
A patent application does not a patent make. Unless someone can point out the actual patent number that was granted, everything posted here is in reference to a "patent application". This does not mean that MQA is not a truly patented design. If it is, someone please share the USPTO granted patent number.
Anyone can file a patent application, but please realize there are differences between a patent application and an actually granted patent from the USPTO.
In other words the two terms are not interchangeable.
Whether or not a patent was granted, the application describes in clear terms (without the specific firmware coding involved) how MQA works. My earlier post did not include the word "application" but it should have (my mind works faster than I type)
I think I posted earlier here and many times elsewhere that I have no special fondness for MQA's sound. On some albums, it seemed to sound better, but those were all "classic" albums which have had many different masterings over the years, so I'm not sure the better sound was MQA. In any case, despite Tidal's convenience and low cost I have never renewed any of my (now 3) trial subscriptions. And yes, according to both the Tidal app and Oppo, I do have an MQA DAC.
I think I posted earlier here and many times elsewhere that I have no special fondness for MQA's sound. On some albums, it seemed to sound better, but those were all "classic" albums which have had many different masterings over the years, so I'm not sure the better sound was MQA. In any case, despite Tidal's convenience and low cost I have never renewed any of my (now 3) trial subscriptions. And yes, according to both the Tidal app and Oppo, I do have an MQA DAC.
Indeed. For that reason there's no point getting hung up on whether it's a patent application or an actual patent.
To avoid confusion, it's best to avoid the terminology of counting how many unfolds.
In technical MQA literature and Roon, we standardize the terminology on two stages:
1. MQA Core decoding from 44.1kHz to 88.2kHz, or 48kHz to 96kHz.
2. MQA Rendering from 88.2/96kHz to the optimal (hidden) playback rate as determined by DAC manufacturer and MQA Ltd.
The combination of 1 and 2 is known as Full MQA Decoding, as supported in all Lumin analog output products.
Hardware with feature 1 alone is known as MQA Transport, as in Lumin U1 or U1 MINI, or other Lumin set to digital output.
Hardware with feature 2 alone is known as MQA Renderer, such as Dragonfly, Berekeley MQA DAC, or some older models of iFi MQA DAC.
kzhtoo
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2014
- Messages
- 1,619
I think the point here is whether a granted patent or an application (the purpose of a patent is to protect the intellectual property), the actual implementation has no obligation to follow what is stated in the patent. Owner of a few technical patents myself, I can tell you the implementation could be quite different than the patent itself.
Understood. Thanks. I'll walk away.
Kuoppis
New member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5,213
It absolutely does not. You clearly do not grasp the concept of a patent application.
A patent application does typically not cover the entirety of a product in the market. It usually refers just to one certain feature or functionality of the whole. Also, a patent application is not equal to product specifications. There is no mandate to use any of it in a product.
What MikeCh says is also correct, an application does not equal to a granted patent. Even less does a patent equal to a product. This has has all been laid out for you, but it does not seem to sink in.
Let me describe this through a medical analogy (your field of expertise), so it‘s maybe easier for you to recapitulate: You say you have read the words in a patent application, and now understand how MQA works. That is a bit similar to applying a bandaid on someone, and claiming to therefore understand how brain surgery works.
There is this concept called logical reasoning, let me show how it works:
- you keep on insisting on things which are incorrect
- you do that, because you don’t know better (fair enough)
- you don’t know better, because it’s not your field of expertise
- perhaps you should not insist
Just a suggestion.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Kuoppis
New member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5,213
This is so funny, you have really not understood anything.
You are arguing, as if you were handling boxes of medical supplies:
- 16/44 container - small box of supplies
- 24/92 container - medium box of supplies
- 24/192 container - big box of supplies
Complete bollocks, these are not physical boxes of a certain size. The container is a logical concept. Which pretty much renders your argumentation utter nonsense. You are really making up stuff in your head as we go.
This is actually hilarious, please keep the good stuff coming. I’m so happy you have not done the comprehensive analysis yet, really looking forward to it. This might lead to a new science altogether, exciting [emoji3].
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I think it’s safe to say this thread has become completely uncivil. I think it’s time to close it.
- Status