Schiit Yggdrasil DAC and MQA

[awsmone]

Are you claiming that 192 kHz conversion does not use an anti-aliasing filter?

If the audio is self band limited say to 70 kHz and you record at 192, if you didn't use an antialiasing filter there would be no aliasing as there is not content folded back as you haven't undersampled the reason cd uses antialiasing to record to avoid aliasing within the audio band which would be folded back
If you did there would be no preringing as there is no content to ring from the linear phase filter which is filtered above the content to half the sample rate frequency 96khz

Hence my point

 

[bonzo75]

Ked, at Barry, SGM into Dac8

Marc, is dac 8 am MQA dac? It is not sufficient for the streamer to do MQA as for the complete unfold you need a dac like meridian, MSB, dCS or Berkeley. Streamer just does partial unfold

 

[spiritofmusic]

Sure, maybe
I believe Barry said it wasn't optimal, just a taste
Felt a bit treble-heavy and overly spacious, kinda processed
But undeniably impressive

 

[Al M.]

If the audio is self band limited say to 70 kHz and you record at 192, if you didn't use an antialiasing filter there would be no aliasing as there is not content folded back as you haven't undersampled the reason cd uses antialiasing to record to avoid aliasing within the audio band which would be folded back
If you did there would be no preringing as there is no content to ring from the linear phase filter which is filtered above the content to half the sample rate frequency 96khz

Hence my point

That's your theoretical speculation, but you didn't answer my question.

 

[opus112]

If you did there would be no preringing as there is no content to ring from the linear phase filter which is filtered above the content to half the sample rate frequency 96khz

To my ears this sounds a little garbled, I wonder if you could clarify for me. Is the anti-aliasing filter linear phase? If not, which filter is contributing pre-ringing?

 

[Blue58]

Ked, at Barry, SGM into Dac8

Hmmm! Can't recall that demo so it must have been underwhelming plus it would only be first unfold in Tidal and not full unfold as the Dac8 is not MQA.
I've never heard a full unfold with deblurring against the equivalent hi res version so not sure what deblurring brings to the table. Is it just an apodising filter?
Plus, why do we need MQA if we can already stream 4K UHD without problems. It seems streaming Hi Res audio would be no problem at all.
I think most everyday listeners don't really care about SQ and many listen through earbuds and then often only 1 ear. Others listen on their phones internal speaker so not sure deblurring comes across all that well.

I await to be convinced otherwise.
Blue58

 

[PeterA]

No, you *hope* it will fizzle out because that is your predetermined outcome.

I'm sorry - this is WBF and clearly, what's best is hi rez music streamable for all.

Keith, I assume that by "hi rez music" you are referring to digital music. If so, you are presuming that we all agree that hi rez digital is clearly "what's best". I am not aware that we have all come to that conclusion.

The same mastering at native 24/96 or 24/192 isn't better than 16/44?

I apologize for the confusion, Keith. Personally, I have not done enough direct comparisons with high rez digital to know that 24/192 is or is not always better than 16/44. Only recently have I heard digital of any format that I can enjoy. I was responding specifically to what I thought was your claim about 'what's best" regarding all music formats. From your first quote above, I thought that you were proclaiming that "what's best" is hi rez digital. I, and many others, prefer analog, and that is what I was referring to.

See this for example:

Just catching up with this and other threads, but personally FWIW, I could not do without my analog, no matter how elevated my digital's performance is recently, and I do believe its extended bandwidth has a lot to do with it.

Within the context of this digital thread and MQA, I do not know which I prefer because I don't think I have heard MQA. However, consider me one of the "open minded". I read this stuff with interest and am curious to see how all of these various digital formats play out. The technology seems to be changing so rapidly that I don't know where I would start if I were to add digital to my system. The Schiit is one DAC that I would seriously consider given its extreme capabilities and low price. I have heard it sound extremely good. Coming from analog, I kind of like the idea of spinning CDs on a transport and not owning a DAC or file server that requires constant downloadable upgrades to fix issues and remain "current". For ultimate sound quality, at this point, I have not yet heard digital that is superior to the best analog, but that may very well change. As I say, I will listen, compare to my references, and remain open minded.

 

[microstrip]

Which is what I have said all along, Francisco. Higher sampling rates seem to facilitate practical implementation of digital, rather than being theoretically required. The problem with Redbook CD is that it was designed just so close to the theoretical edge, making proper practical implementation more difficult.

It is much more problematic than you assume. Redbook assumes a sampling rate and a quantization error. The "theory" as you say is also based in the fact that changes in signal bellow the magnitude of 1 lsb are not perceptible and do not contribute to subjective sound quality - something I already know you do not accept . Higher sample rates at higher resolutions can supply data that can overcome some of these limitations.

Remember that audiophiles must be prepared to not accept the so called "scientific" theories of audio - although many love to place under the umbrella of "science" in audio debates.

Analog was so much easier to debate. In fact very few people are prepared to handle digital debates - just try reading the Meridian papers on MQA ... It is why I mostly write on preferences concerning digital!

 

[opus112]

The "theory" as you say is also based in the fact that changes in signal bellow the magnitude of 1 lsb are not perceptible and do not contribute to subjective sound quality - something I already know you do not accept .

Got any references for this? I've been following along with digital audio theory since prior to CDs came out and have never come across such a "fact".

 

[microstrip]

Got any references for this? I've been following along with digital audio theory since prior to CDs came out and have never come across such a "fact".

It is much more problematic than you assume. Redbook assumes a sampling rate and a quantization error. The "theory" as you say is also based in the fact that changes in signal bellow the magnitude of 1 lsb are not perceptible and do not contribute to subjective sound quality - something I already know you do not accept (...)

I was not stating it a as fact, but something that IMHO Al M. (or me, or any cable believer BTW) must accept. When we change cables the differences in signal are most fo the time very low - some people state around -130 dB - and we claim we listen to them. These differences are much lower than the lsb.

 

[DaveyF]

Within the context of this digital thread and MQA, I do not know which I prefer because I don't think I have heard MQA. However, consider me one of the "open minded". I read this stuff with interest and am curious to see how all of these various digital formats play out. The technology seems to be changing so rapidly that I don't know where I would start if I were to add digital to my system. The Schiit is one DAC that I would seriously consider given its extreme capabilities and low price. I have heard it sound extremely good. Coming from analog, I kind of like the idea of spinning CDs on a transport and not owning a DAC or file server that requires constant downloadable upgrades to fix issues and remain "current". For ultimate sound quality, at this point, I have not yet heard digital that is superior to the best analog, but that may very well change. As I say, I will listen, compare to my references, and remain open minded.

+1000

Peter, that's a great attitude and one that I feel will allow you to explore and ultimately benefit when and if you actually decide to invest more in digital. I have the same opinion. Personally, I still feel that digital is second to analog, if one is looking for ultimate reproduction.

awsmone, before any more "supposition" and "skepticism" along with "name calling", why not get off your duff and go and listen to a good DAC that can let you hear the fully unfolded MQA and then have an opinion.No??

 

[microstrip]

(...) As I say, I will listen, compare to my references, and remain open minded.

The main question is that as far as I know we do not have material in MQA to carry fair comparisons with other digital formats. Unless we have either an abundance that allows a long term experience, and IMHO it will take some time before any one here can have a valid opinion, we need "equivalent" material easily accessible in several formats - MQA, DXD or DSD, or at less 96/24 for efficient comparison.

 

[PeterA]

The main question is that as far as I know we do not have material in MQA to carry fair comparisons with other digital formats. Unless we have either an abundance that allows a long term experience, and IMHO it will take some time before any one here can have a valid opinion, we need "equivalent" material easily accessible in several formats - MQA, DXD or DSD, or at less 96/24 for efficient comparison.

Micro, the references to which I refer are 1. live unamplified real music, 2. vinyl LPs in my own system, and 3. analog and digital in very familiar friends' systems. I am not expecting to directly compare the same music in various digital formats, unless it is available and easily comparable in the same system.

 

[KeithR]

I apologize for the confusion, Keith. Personally, I have not done enough direct comparisons with high rez digital to know that 24/192 is or is not always better than 16/44. Only recently have I heard digital of any format that I can enjoy. I was responding specifically to what I thought was your claim about 'what's best" regarding all music formats. From your first quote above, I thought that you were proclaiming that "what's best" is hi rez digital. I, and many others, prefer analog, and that is what I was referring to.

Ah, I see. Certainly I was only talking about digital. No worries (and I'm an analog fan, too)

 

[asiufy]

The main question is that as far as I know we do not have material in MQA to carry fair comparisons with other digital formats. Unless we have either an abundance that allows a long term experience, and IMHO it will take some time before any one here can have a valid opinion, we need "equivalent" material easily accessible in several formats - MQA, DXD or DSD, or at less 96/24 for efficient comparison.

I disagree. There's plenty of content out there in MQA that can be used for comparisons against either 16/44 or hi-res.

A lot of new albums are already coming out as MQA encoded, specially the ones that are also offered as hi-res downloads.

 

[microstrip]

I disagree. There's plenty of content out there in MQA that can be used for comparisons against either 16/44 or hi-res.

A lot of new albums are already coming out as MQA encoded, specially the ones that are also offered as hi-res downloads.

Alex,

As some people say information is the gold of the XXI century - can you give us some solid gold?

When I wanted to carry comparisons with DSD and DXD I could find sites that had all formats and allowed sample downloading of adequate music for comparing, there are sites will all information concerning SACD, people in WBF had given me direct links to sites that sell excellent DSD and DXD files. Not the case with MQA until now.

 

[asiufy]

OK, let me put forth my understanding of what MQA is and what it wants to be. This is just my interpretation of it, based on some reading and conversations with people involved, not with MQA directly.

First, it has absolutey nothing to do with DSD. Comparisons to that format are misguided at best.

Audiophiles are the last thing on MQA's mind. They're aiming for something much, much bigger, and a lot more pervasive than high-end stereo systems. Think your car. Your TV. Or your phone. MQA is selling themselves as a way of putting hi-res into bandwidth constricted devices, while also offering a solution to the old provenance issue that plagues hi-res downloads.

That's why you don't see MQA downloads. They just don't care for the minuscule market such endeavour would end up being. Streaming is where it'll be.

So, I hope that also answers the question "where's the money in MQA". It's with big corporations who'll pay to have MQA implemented in their devices.

Also, don't expect to see MQA do the same mistakes the DSD folks did, aiming for audiophile-approved content almost exclusively. And if you ask me, that's the way to go. A good mix of modern, contemporary music, along with classic recordings across most popular genres, is the way to go, and seems to be exactly where they're at right now.

I welcome people to pick some MQA stuff on Tidal, and I can do a quick A x B versus the 16/44 on Tidal as well, and if it's an album I own, I can even compare to other formats.


cheers,
alex

 

[mauidan]

OK, let me put forth my understanding of what MQA is and what it wants to be. This is just my interpretation of it, based on some reading and conversations with people involved, not with MQA directly.

First, it has absolutey nothing to do with DSD. Comparisons to that format are misguided at best.

Audiophiles are the last thing on MQA's mind. They're aiming for something much, much bigger, and a lot more pervasive than high-end stereo systems. Think your car. Your TV. Or your phone. MQA is selling themselves as a way of putting hi-res into bandwidth constricted devices, while also offering a solution to the old provenance issue that plagues hi-res downloads.

That's why you don't see MQA downloads. They just don't care for the minuscule market such endeavour would end up being. Streaming is where it'll be.

So, I hope that also answers the question "where's the money in MQA". It's with big corporations who'll pay to have MQA implemented in their devices.

Also, don't expect to see MQA do the same mistakes the DSD folks did, aiming for audiophile-approved content almost exclusively. And if you ask me, that's the way to go. A good mix of modern, contemporary music, along with classic recordings across most popular genres, is the way to go, and seems to be exactly where they're at right now.

I welcome people to pick some MQA stuff on Tidal, and I can do a quick A x B versus the 16/44 on Tidal as well, and if it's an album I own, I can even compare to other formats.


cheers,
alex

According to the MQA website, NUGS.NET, HIGHRESAUDIO and 2L, all offer MQA downloads.

Did a search for MQA on HIGHRESAUDIO:

https://www.highresaudio.com/en/search/?title=MQA

 

[microstrip]

According to the MQA website, NUGS.NET, HIGHRESAUDIO and 2L, all offer MQA downloads.

Did a search for MQA on HIGHRESAUDIO:

https://www.highresaudio.com/en/search/?title=MQA

Thanks a lot - just found 2L have samples in all formats.

 

[awsmone]

That's your theoretical speculation, but you didn't answer my question.

I sure did

Please look back where I posted on some of these plus a video where they show greater than 20khz in real time with spectrographs as you listen

Even many older microphones have frequency response well over 20khz, this is often not shown in their official specs
Which most often refer to tighter tolerances performance
They may be 18 DB down at 20 or 30 kHz but as cd has a dynamic range of 96, these would be folded down due to undersampling of 44.1khz and produce aliasing

If there was no content above 20khz due to microphones creating a natural bandpass then an antialiasing filter would be unnecessary for 44.1khz