This is a continuation of the MQA discussion from:
Comparison: Schiit Yggdrasil DAC vs. Berkeley Alpha DAC 2
***
Davey, a couple of points here:
1. You report that MQA was so much better than the standard file in the event you attended. It may very well be that the standard files were suboptimal, in order to highlight MQA. Count me a skeptic. I am cautious because I still remember the first review of SACD in Hifi News & Record review in 1998, where the reviewer established that the SACD layer was a different mastering, given the frequency spectrum plot. No wonder the SACD layer sounded better.
2. If you don't want to spend extraordinary amounts of money on a DAC, at a given price the effort to implement MQA will suppress the quality left for plain Redbook decoding, which in my view is just a terrible compromise. Same with DSD. I love the Yggy because it concentrates on one thing only, high-quality decoding of standard PCM, and it does it so well. If it would have wasted resources on DSD decoding, requiring an entirely different, additional D/A circuit, I might never have bought it. Why should I spend money on implementation of a format that I am not the least interested in? Schiit made the right choice for me.
3. It's all relative: In an enthusiastic MQA review,
https://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-reviewed
the author states:
"I went through the entire MQA gamut with the [Mytek] Brooklyn where each recording sounded lovely. How lovely? Is MQA/Mytek the equal of the at-present MQA-less dCS Rossini? Of course not. We're not talking miracles."
***
The Mytek Brooklyn spends resources on MQA and DSD, the similar priced Yggy does not have to compromise its standard PCM capabilities. Which of these DACs will sound better on standard PCM, which is where all the music is?
I certainly know that the Yggy is terrific on Redbook CD. Also, as I detailed here, while the Yggy doesn't decode HDCD as such either, playing it back as standard Redbook CD it can make it sound as resolved as another quality DAC (Berkeley) that decodes it as HDCD. Such are the amazing Redbook capabilities of the Yggy.
I think it would be a serious mistake to choose a DAC only because of its MQA capabilities, unless you are willing to spend large amounts of money. At lower DAC prices, implementation of MQA will inevitably lead to compromise in standard format decoding, given that the whole package works towards a price point.
You say "Mike Moffat should seriously consider offering an upgrade to allow the Yggy to unfold MQA...that is if he is serious about the product."
Mike Moffat is serious about the Yggy, that's precisely why he does not want to implement MQA. For all the reasons why Schiit does not support MQA, see:
http://www.schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa
Smart folks.
They don't blow in the wind of the moment, implementing formats just because of "fear of missing out". They don't have to: Sales of their DACs continue to rise. Apparently lots of people (not just me) appreciate their attitude of giving them what they want, which is optimal decoding of standard formats, undistracted by ultimately irrelevant 'unicorn formats' (Schiit terminology).
Comparison: Schiit Yggdrasil DAC vs. Berkeley Alpha DAC 2
***
Al, I thought it said on the site that the Yggy can play MQA files--unfortunately I see it cannot unfold them!
....after what I heard last night. ( BTW, apparently several large companies are getting on board with MQA...although we have all heard that before! ) MQA is.. at least IMHO, a major upgrade and one that I would definitely want as part of my DAC capability, even if there are scant few MQA files ( at the moment). One listen will tell you all you need to know...it's that good!
Mike Moffat should seriously consider offering an upgrade to allow the Yggy to unfold MQA...that is if he is serious about the product. Hate to say this, but without the ability of a DAC to unfold and play MQA files, IMO it is now lacking.
Davey, a couple of points here:
1. You report that MQA was so much better than the standard file in the event you attended. It may very well be that the standard files were suboptimal, in order to highlight MQA. Count me a skeptic. I am cautious because I still remember the first review of SACD in Hifi News & Record review in 1998, where the reviewer established that the SACD layer was a different mastering, given the frequency spectrum plot. No wonder the SACD layer sounded better.
2. If you don't want to spend extraordinary amounts of money on a DAC, at a given price the effort to implement MQA will suppress the quality left for plain Redbook decoding, which in my view is just a terrible compromise. Same with DSD. I love the Yggy because it concentrates on one thing only, high-quality decoding of standard PCM, and it does it so well. If it would have wasted resources on DSD decoding, requiring an entirely different, additional D/A circuit, I might never have bought it. Why should I spend money on implementation of a format that I am not the least interested in? Schiit made the right choice for me.
3. It's all relative: In an enthusiastic MQA review,
https://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-reviewed
the author states:
"I went through the entire MQA gamut with the [Mytek] Brooklyn where each recording sounded lovely. How lovely? Is MQA/Mytek the equal of the at-present MQA-less dCS Rossini? Of course not. We're not talking miracles."
***
The Mytek Brooklyn spends resources on MQA and DSD, the similar priced Yggy does not have to compromise its standard PCM capabilities. Which of these DACs will sound better on standard PCM, which is where all the music is?
I certainly know that the Yggy is terrific on Redbook CD. Also, as I detailed here, while the Yggy doesn't decode HDCD as such either, playing it back as standard Redbook CD it can make it sound as resolved as another quality DAC (Berkeley) that decodes it as HDCD. Such are the amazing Redbook capabilities of the Yggy.
I think it would be a serious mistake to choose a DAC only because of its MQA capabilities, unless you are willing to spend large amounts of money. At lower DAC prices, implementation of MQA will inevitably lead to compromise in standard format decoding, given that the whole package works towards a price point.
You say "Mike Moffat should seriously consider offering an upgrade to allow the Yggy to unfold MQA...that is if he is serious about the product."
Mike Moffat is serious about the Yggy, that's precisely why he does not want to implement MQA. For all the reasons why Schiit does not support MQA, see:
http://www.schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa
Smart folks.
They don't blow in the wind of the moment, implementing formats just because of "fear of missing out". They don't have to: Sales of their DACs continue to rise. Apparently lots of people (not just me) appreciate their attitude of giving them what they want, which is optimal decoding of standard formats, undistracted by ultimately irrelevant 'unicorn formats' (Schiit terminology).