Jump to content
  • The Computer Audiophile
    The Computer Audiophile

    My First 24 Hours With MQA

    thumb2.jpg

    1-Pixel.png

    It all started with an email on December 4, 2014. “Hi Chris, It is my great pleasure to provide details on Meridian’s breakthrough technology, MQA (Master Quality Authenticated). The press release is pasted below. And attached is a white paper …” That seems like forever ago. In the ensuing months MQA has been growing like a snowball rolling downhill. More manufacturers getting on board, more content partners signing up, and more chatter within Computer Audiophile community (among others). Based on objective site analytics, I can easily say that since CES 2016 the interest in MQA has grown immensely here on CA. Much of the talk since MQA’s first introduction has been speculative because only a relatively small number of people have actually heard MQA music. Even those who’ve heard it, have likely not heard it in their own audio systems. That was until Meridian officially released the MQA enabling firmware for its Explorer2, Prime, and select components (818v3,*808v6 and Special Edition Loudspeakers) Thursday February 4, 2016. I downloaded the firmware and updated my Explorer2 to v1717. It’s now MQA enabled and I have a DAC that decode and render this content through my own audio system in my own listening room. I’ve been waiting for this forever. I’ve heard MQA at shows plenty of times, but never in my own familiar environment. Now that the hardware was enabled for MQA playback, I needed some MQA music to play. Late afternoon I received an email with a link to download ten MQA FLAC files. Click, save, unzip, play, listen … MQA rules, it’s the best thing since sliced bread. If only it was that cut and dry.[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]

     

     

    Listening To MQA

     

     

    Like most people, I wanted to listen to a single MQA track and have my mind blown by fidelity I could only dream of prior to MQA. I also wanted to compare MQA versions of tracks to non-MQA versions of the same tracks and come to sweeping conclusions that the MQA version was so much better I would never go back to such unsophisticated non-MQA music again. My list of wants was a bit unrealistic, but my expectations were set at a normal level while I hoped for the best.

     

    In addition to the ten tracks sent to me this afternoon, I purchased some content directly from the 2L record label’s website. This enabled me to purchase both the MQA and non-MQA versions of the same music. What could be more telling than two versions of the same thing? Or, so I thought.

     

    First up on my list to listen to was Stille lys (Quiet Light) by Jan Gunnar Hoff (link). I received the MQA version of track one titled Mitt Hjerte Alltid Vanker and I purchased the 24 bit / 192 kHz download of the same track. According to 2L the album was produced in DXD (Digital eXtreme Definition 352.8kHz/24bit). I would have downloaded the original DXD version but the Explorer2 doesn’t support sample rates over 192 kHz. The MQA version of the track appears in Roon as a 24/44.1 track because Roon sees the file like a DAC without an MQA decoder. Fortunately Roon, or any other application, simply needs to send the audio out to the DAC bit perfectly (unchanged) so an MQA enabled DAC can unfold the file into a higher resolution if needed. While playing this track through the Explorer2, the MQA light illuminates blue and the 4x sample rate lights are also illuminated. The LED lights up blue to indicate an MQA Studio file is playing. MQA Studio files are artist/producer-approved studio releases.

     

    Prior to this afternoon I had never heard this album at a show or in my own system. I would have preferred listening to music I am very familiar with, but at this point we have to take what we can get. I started with the MQA version of Mitt Hjerte Alltid Vanker and played it through three times. It sounded wonderful. Right from the beginning I noticed a clarity to the sound of each note as the hammers struck the strings and a superb decay as the tone faded into a black background. It really is a stellar sounding piece of music in all its MQA glory. That said, the 24/192 version of this track is also terrific. The main differences between the two versions of this track are 1) The MQA version has an uncanny clarity and sense of space around each individual note that is just not present in the standard 24/192 version. This space is specifically around each note, not necessarily presented as a larger or more airy soundstage as a whole. 2) The 24/192 version sounded like the microphone was closer to the strings and the sound was more narrow as if each note was compartmentalized its own silo. 3) On the MQA version, the tone of the decay of each note has a purity to it or an appropriate color to it that isn’t present in the standard version. I really noticed this sense of hearing the entire note, from the initial hammer strike to the last decibel of the decay, in all its glory.

     

    I’m not into hyperbole or writing something with which I am unsure. Thus, I gave myself a blind ABX test by putting the two versions of this track into a playlist, listening to them back to back, then setting the queue on repeat and random and pressing the next button several times without looking. I did this several times and immediately selected the correct MQA or non-MQA version of the track every time. Readers should keep in mind that just because I immediately picked the correct version of the track, doesn’t mean the differences are night and day. These things are subtle. But, once heard it’s hard not to hear the differences.

     

     

    Up next was the album Ein Song Frå Dei Utsungne Stunder by Berit Opheim, Nils Økland & Bjørn Kjellemyr, also known as The BNB (link). This album was originally produced at 16 bit / 44.1 kHz by 2L. Playback through the Meridian Explorer2 illuminated the MQA light in blue and didn’t light up the 2x or 4x LEDs. This MQA album remains at the same resolution seen by Roon, 16/44.1. The Explorer2 internally upsamples the audio to 4x (176.4) but that’s a topic for another time. This entire album sounds fantastic. Great vocals and great double bass accented by a sweet fiddle and viola. I noticed two subtle differences between the original and MQA versions of this album. 1) The original non-MQA version contained what I’ll call a plastic edge to the sound of some instruments. There was something synthetic about the sound that likely can’t be heard unless one has the MQA version for comparison. 2) The non-MQA version has a darkness or dullness to it that isn’t present in the MQA version. This isn’t darkness associated with the blackest of backgrounds or a low noise floor, rather its a deadness that’s heard with the sounds of the instruments. As with the previous album, the differences are not equivalent to bumping the volume by a few dB. They are subtle and may not be apparent all listeners, especially when listening to unfamiliar music.

     

     

    Switching to music that I am a bit more familiar with, I listened to a track titled When I Go from Judy Collins’ album Strangers Again. On this track Judy duets with Willie Nelson. Roon sees the track as 24/44.1 while the Explorer2 DAC sees it as 2x (most likely 88.2 as that’s the resolution of the HD version available from HDtracks and others (link)). The Explorer2 also illuminated the first LED as green rather than blue. Blue is the MQA Studio color, but green indicates that the unit is decoding and playing an MQA stream or file, and that the sound is identical to that encoded. I am not 100% sure what this means in terms of the MQA process to turn the music into an MQA album from a standard high resolution album. For all I know it may mean that the album was converted to MQA for its smaller file size, without much of the wizardry that goes into the MQA white glove process of creating MQA Studio files. Don’t quote me on that, it’s just a wild guess. (see edit 2 below) Perhaps that wild guess has something to do with the very small sonic differences I heard on this Judy Collins / Willie Nelson track. I thought if there was one track, out of the ten I received, in which I would really notice a difference, it would be this track. Most of us have heard Willie Nelson a million times and are familiar with folk music (more so than classical for many people). After listening over and over to the MQA and the original high resolution versions of this track I think the only noticeable difference I hear is a touch more natural or appropriately soft sound in Willie’s voice. On second thought, I believe there is also a difference in the sound of the opening drums. (I literally went back and listened a few more times). The MQA version of the track seems to reproduce more of the drum’s frequencies or make more of the drum audible. It’s not that the drum has a super wide frequency response, rather the non-MQA version seems to lose some of the drum sound into the background. The MQA version seems to reproduce a fuller drum sound with better decay than the non-MQA version. Either way, this track was a tough one for me as I struggled to hear the differences I wanted to and I thought I would hear.

     

    Edit 1: I just received a quote from Alan Silverman, Mastering Engineer on the Judy Collins track When I Go:

     

    “We have done many blind comparisons of my original high-resolution masters with and without the MQA process. MQA is the consistent winner. What mystifies me about the technology is the purity of tone and natural realism that MQA unlocks from my high-resolution recordings. The MQA playback is more satisfying and not by just a subtle shade. MQA has educated my ear to digital artifacts that still exist, in spite of the best practices with the best equipment, by eliminating them. It is perhaps a holy grail of digital audio.”

     

    More specifically about the track When I go Alan said, "I’ve just compared the MQA playback with my original 88.2k 24-bit master and find the MQA to be mystifyingly more satisfying, and not by just a subtle shade. Listening to Willie and Judy, their voices sound much more real, at the same time, they have a textural filigree and detail of tone that I am not hearing in the original master! The same holds for the banjo and the subtle electric guitar in the right channel. I am delighted and extremely enthusiastic about the MQA process.”

     

     

    Edit 2: This just in from MQA ltd., "There is no sonic difference between files marked as green or blue, it is only about Provenance or Approval." In addition, "Today Alan Silverman asked us to move the Judy Collins [album] up to Studio."

     

     

    Wrapping Up The First 24 Hours

     

     

    Overall I am happy with the MQA music I’ve heard. I wish I could render an opinion, that would carry across all MQA products and music, that MQA is always better by a wide margin, but this isn’t the case. The differences I’ve heard so far are subtle and my opinions are limited to the music and hardware I used in the last 24 hours. I also have a suspicion that the MQA process will be more beneficial to recordings that were done under less than stellar circumstances (i.e. lesser quality A to D converters, etc…). The 2L recordings are done with the utmost care using very good equipment and very good engineers. While there is still improvements MQA has made to the original 2L masters, I’m willing to bet there are greater improvements to be made to more traditional popular recordings or very old recordings. On the other hand, it may not be easy to compare an MQA version and non-MQA version of some old recordings because the MQA version has been done with the white glove process. It would be the same as comparing two difference masters of the same album, of course they’ll sound different. There will be clear differences with or without MQA. The real question many people will want answered is, how much of the difference is MQA and how much is the white glove process? But, does this question really need to be answered? I’m not so sure because we don’t have the option of getting new white glove masters of some of our favorite music. If MQA is the impetus to get us better sounding music, that’s all that really matters. In a dream world we may have the option of a white glove MQA and white glove non-MQA, but this is the real world. The options are, MQA or live with what we already have. Anyway, the MQA train is finally leaving the building. I’m cautiously optimistic that everything will work out and we’ll have better sounding music without too much trouble.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    System I used for playback:

     

    Roon software running on SOtM sMS-1000SQ Windows Edition server and SOtM sPS-1000 power supply > Wireworld Platinum Starlight 7 USB 2.0 Cable > Meridian Explorer2 DAC > AudioQuest Yosemite 3.5mm to RCA Cable > Constellation Audio PreAmp 1.0 > Wireworld Platinum Eclipse 7 Interconnects > Constellation Audio Mono 1.0 Amplifiers > Wireworld Platinum Eclipse 7 Speaker Cables > TAD CR1 Loudspeakers.

     

     

     

    1-Pixel.png




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    I can't stop thinking about all those getting a green light from now on, will know this MQA version is not approved by the producer or artist, but do not worry, cause it is in any case made from the same master.

     

    Then suddenly the artist calls the record company, and request a blue light, but the green light version has already been downloaded several times.

     

    Keep that green light version, it will be very rare and valuable :D

    Or now we will know that the artist do not like to approve his work ?

     

    What a mess. Again !

     

    Can't wait to get this explaind further. Who cares about that light if the file will always be exactly the same ?

     

    Wow, digital scarcity! I have both green and blue versions of the Judy Collins album :~)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I can see the value for streaming, but how can MQA take a 192/24 file as input and really improve the sound quality? It may well sound different, or even subjectively better, but is it possible that it is less accurate, or colourizing the sound in the guise of improvement?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The MQA process originated as a "compression" technique to radically reduce HDA file size and make streaming and downloads use much less bandwidth. Then the rumors started about improve sound quality over the original file?

    A different, even more pleasing sound than the original I can buy. But truely BETTER and of Higher Fidelity than the original file I having trouble with, I want to know the how, why and see the measurements of where the "improvement" is coming from. Or does it just sound a little "different"?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Chris,

    Having read posts here about MQA and done a bit of listening with non-authenticated DAC, I surmise that MQA is more beneficial to tracks being streamed such as those from Tidal. Whereas for recordings already in hand or to be purchased, I guess having them re-sampled may bring about some of those differences because new generation filters will remove some of the artefacts introduced by old filters, in manner similar to removals by MQA. I don't have a MQA DAC and hope you would do that to find out one way or the other. if you are able to show new filters work just as well, then audiophiles have no need to be tied to the end to end MQA requirement.

    XLD and Audio Inventory re-sampling software may be downloaded for free and based on my experience from using them, I surmise these two, especially the latter, may be able to remove some of the artefacts present in the old digital tracks, perhaps as effectively as MQA does.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I can't stop thinking about all those getting a green light from now on, will know this MQA version is not approved by the producer or artist, but do not worry, cause it is in any case made from the same master.

     

    Then suddenly the artist calls the record company, and request a blue light, but the green light version has already been downloaded several times.

     

    Keep that green light version, it will be very rare and valuable :D

    Or now we will know that the artist do not like to approve his work ?

     

    What a mess. Again !

     

    Can't wait to get this explaind further. Who cares about that light if the file will always be exactly the same ?

     

    I like the idea of a collector's item which can not be traded.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "The options are, MQA or live with what we already have. Anyway, the MQA train is finally leaving the building. I’m cautiously optimistic that everything will work out and we’ll have better sounding music without too much trouble. "

     

    Nope, no trouble at all. All you need is a new MQA enabled DAC, and re-purchase all your music files over again. Now how many times have you bought DSOTM since 1973?

     

    "It is perhaps a holy grail of digital audio.”

    You know if this was true every time I've read it since 1984, by now a holographic image of the artists would appear, the walls would disappear and I would be in the Starship Enterprise's Holodeck at a live performance.

     

    One thing looks to be certain, the hardware and software vendors are poised to make a lot of cash.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Nope, no trouble at all. All you need is a new MQA enabled DAC, and re-purchase all your music files over again.

     

    You most likely will do with a SW MQA player, and also yet to be answer, you may be allowed to MQA your own rips. (Or buy HQ Player :D)

     

    Well I do not think you will be allowed to MQA your collection, but I think it is technical possible.

    Maybe someone can invent a player that scan your library and offer you a reasonable MQA upgrade for those tracks that have been converted to MQA :D

     

    And also select which of your tracks not on Tidal. Something for Roon?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'm struggling to see a blue or green light when playing MQA files on my Explorer2. I updated to 1717 firmware and I am using the files from 2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH. Am I missing something? I am playing with VLC.

     

    Try to control the volume with Meridian Control and set the volume in VLC as high as possible. I guess that digitally controlling the output volume eats bits from the 24 bits file and thats where the main MQA part resides.

     

    Marc

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Somewhat related piece over at innerfidelity.com titled 'Of coarse accurate!'

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Chris: your description of a 'lack of hall ambiance or air coupled with lots of air around individual instruments and voices' is precisely what I heard at last year's Axpona. I could not precisely figure out what I heard until you just described it as such.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "The options are, MQA or live with what we already have. Anyway, the MQA train is finally leaving the building. I’m cautiously optimistic that everything will work out and we’ll have better sounding music without too much trouble. "

     

    Nope, no trouble at all. All you need is a new MQA enabled DAC, and re-purchase all your music files over again. Now how many times have you bought DSOTM since 1973?

     

    "It is perhaps a holy grail of digital audio.”

    You know if this was true every time I've read it since 1984, by now a holographic image of the artists would appear, the walls would disappear and I would be in the Starship Enterprise's Holodeck at a live performance.

     

    One thing looks to be certain, the hardware and software vendors are poised to make a lot of cash.

    Hi sal - You sound like the Government is enforcing a mandatory MQA tax on all citizens. I think it's important to keep in mind that this is all optional. Nobody is forcing anyone to purchase MQA music or hardware :~)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Chris,

     

    MQA actually has sounded the death knell of the High End for who would have thought that a portable MQA enabled DAC costing say $500 could produce music essentially indistinguishable from a high end DAC costing $20,000?

     

    ? Chris used his $300 DAC throughout, doing nicely reported comparisons. He NEVER said that the sound of MQA through his Explorer2 matched the sound of non-MQA through his Berkeley Reference, etc. What makes you say he did? I reached the opposite conclusion: that if improvements like MQA (assuming they pan out for more than 10 recordings) can be heard on $300 equipment that it says good things for those who invest in higher-end.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "The options are, MQA or live with what we already have. Anyway, the MQA train is finally leaving the building. I’m cautiously optimistic that everything will work out and we’ll have better sounding music without too much trouble. "

     

    Nope, no trouble at all. All you need is a new MQA enabled DAC, and re-purchase all your music files over again. Now how many times have you bought DSOTM since 1973?

     

    "It is perhaps a holy grail of digital audio.”

    You know if this was true every time I've read it since 1984, by now a holographic image of the artists would appear, the walls would disappear and I would be in the Starship Enterprise's Holodeck at a live performance.

     

    One thing looks to be certain, the hardware and software vendors are poised to make a lot of cash.

     

    That's a choice. "I prefer to own my music" vs $20/mo for anytime access to millions of albums, soon with MQA . Easy choice for me. As for a new DAC, as a ladderite I would need to upgrade if I wanted to enjoy DSD which I haven't found compelling. I may do so for MQA if reviews seem to justify it.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi sal - You sound like the Government is enforcing a mandatory MQA tax on all citizens. I think it's important to keep in mind that this is all optional. Nobody is forcing anyone to purchase MQA music or hardware :~)

     

    That makes sense unless music comes to us from the source "MQA'd" and it sounds inferior over non-MQA equipment. At least over audiophile level non-MQA equipment. So far we don't know that this isn't the case.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    With Linux that I use for more than 15 years I had not much luck with Amarok, but the blue light began to shine with mplayer.

     

    Marc

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi sal - You sound like the Government is enforcing a mandatory MQA tax on all citizens. I think it's important to keep in mind that this is all optional. Nobody is forcing anyone to purchase MQA music or hardware :~)

     

    Mitt Hjerte Alltid Vanker on album Stille lys (Quiet Light) by Jan Gunnar Hoff - MQA file is 36.3 MB, bitrate of 1157 (from a DXD master), the 24/192 FLAC file I purchased is 126.3 MB, with bitrate of 4569 (original size was 241.73 MB before FLAC compression of 51%).

     

    Yes Chris, It's a Government conspiracy! MQA has spyware in it that will report any anti- social music you download to the CIA! Your all gonna be in deep KA KA. LOL

     

    36.3 File size of the MQA makes me question how in backward compatibility playback, it can possible sound as good as the non MQA 126.3 flac file? That part just doesn't add up?

    OPPS, IIRC the claim is that in backward compatibility playback the claimed sound quality will be "equal to" 16/44. Is that correct?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    With Linux that I use for more than 15 years I had not much luck with Amarok, but the blue light began to shine with mplayer.

     

    Marc

     

    No luck with what, getting a bit perfect stream?

     

    You have a blue light in mplayer, where?

    TIA

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    No luck with what, getting a bit perfect stream?

     

    You have a blue light in mplayer, where?

    TIA

    Oh well, I mean on the Explorer². I run Open Suses latest version, and I still have a lot to discover. The only music player in it is Amarok. At first no sound at all. But I found out how to get it, and maximised it. Yellow led. I tried some more settings without success. Next I tried Mplayer after installing that, and got the blue light out of a sudden.

     

    I still have to figure out more, but it was time to go cooking.

    Maybe VLC can do the same but I didn't try that.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Try to control the volume with Meridian Control and set the volume in VLC as high as possible. I guess that digitally controlling the output volume eats bits from the 24 bits file and thats where the main MQA part resides.

     

    Marc

     

    I tried that to no avail. There must be something in VLC that is keeping it from being bitperfect. I did try Roon and that worked. I got my blue light with MQA flac..

     

    We now have a convenient test for bitperfect output to test software.

     

    -Chris

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yes Chris, It's a Government conspiracy! MQA has spyware in it that will report any anti- social music you download to the CIA! Your all gonna be in deep KA KA. LOL

     

    36.3 File size of the MQA makes me question how in backward compatibility playback, it can possible sound as good as the non MQA 126.3 flac file? That part just doesn't add up?

    OPPS, IIRC the claim is that in backward compatibility playback the claimed sound quality will be "equal to" 16/44. Is that correct?

     

    Hey Sal,

    Funny yet insightful :-).

     

    As others have said elsewhere, I think there are so many layers in terms of potential points of contention around MQA... Here are a few from my perspective:

     

    1. Does it actually provide better sounding files when played on a non-decoding DAC? My listening says no. The DSP algorithm changes the sound and is different. But "better" starts getting into subjective assessment and I suspect this will not be universal approval. This speaks to the effect of the temporal "de-blurring" process - basically, how good is it compared to all the other DSP's over the years supposedly capable of improving sound quality?

     

    2. Is there the potential for loss of freedom? Sure, and it begins with the idea that we have to buy yet another DAC/decoder considering we have decades of really good hardware already. Personally I would not want MQA to be the only form of digital download since I do want to maintain the ability to perform DSP myself such as digital room correction with "flat" non-proprietary encoded audio data. IMO, the likelihood of MQA taking the world by storm to the point where it's the only downloadable file format is slim to none so I don't really think there's anything to worry about.

     

    Getting a bit more technical:

     

    3. Does it "compress" well? As Miska has analyzed, you can do a better job with say an 18-bit FLAC file running at 96kHz for some of the 2L samples. As I have noted in my blog post 2 weeks ago, I have some concerns about the low compression potential of the lower 8-bits of a 16/44 sourced recording when converted to the 24/44 MQA "format" (16/44 is still the most common bit-depth/samplerate of course when you consider what will be streamed off TIDAL).

     

    4. Given the need for compatibility, only the lower bits in MQA are used for encoding the high frequency spectrum. There aren't that many bits so it's "lossy" out of necessity. Does this even add to the sound quality in any way? When other variables are controlled (eg. the DAC playing at the same samplerate, volume unchanged, same DSP in #1 accounted for) I doubt there would be audible differences when tested.

     

    Chris,

    If possible, could you record maybe a minute of the start of one of the MQA samples like the Magnificat on the 2L download page using a good 24/192 ADC through the Explorer2 of the decoded MQA file and using the equivalent 24/192 file (since the Explorer2 is only capable up to 192kHz)? I think this would be telling:

    1. We can see how much high frequency detail >22kHz is retained in the reconstruction.

    2. We can look for amplitude changes - MQA's DSP I suspect will account for potential clipping while doing the upsampling so I would not be surprised that there are some differences which add to audibility.

    3. We can assess the noise floor and see if MQA changes this. Useful because I've been curious of the amount that MQA affects the dynamic range in a 24-bit file.

     

    Ultimately, I don't think there's anything to fear in terms of MQA, nor really that much to be "wow'ed" by. It's a DSP which supposedly helps with "deblurring" + a compression algorithm with the novel term "origami" attached + Meridian probably applying their form of minimum phase "apodizing" upsampling filter to the 192+kHz output data. The DSP part is IMO what makes the sound different - what's interesting is whether subjectively it does more good than harm and whether most people ultimately like the sound. The "origami" piece is interesting and smart, but is it really needed? Would say a standard 24/48 stream (or dithered 18-bit/48 compressed with FLAC) with the "de-blur" DSP applied assuming the output DAC uses a standard linear phase antialiasing filter sound just as good? I think so, but I doubt Meridian/MQA would do us the service of giving us an example of what that would sound like!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Oh well, I mean on the Explorer². I run Open Suses latest version, and I still have a lot to discover. The only music player in it is Amarok. At first no sound at all. But I found out how to get it, and maximised it. Yellow led. I tried some more settings without success. Next I tried Mplayer after installing that, and got the blue light out of a sudden.

    I still have to figure out more, but it was time to go cooking.

    Maybe VLC can do the same but I didn't try that.

     

    Sound like your getting a bit perfect stream from mplayer, surprising.

    You might like to give Clementine a try if it's in their repos, built on Amarok code, very similar. Here's some info on setting up a bit perfect stream. Have fun, I've been on PCLinuxOS since the beginning in 2003, Mandrake before that.

    http://www.head-fi.org/t/561961/bit-perfect-audio-from-linux/120#post_9293911

     

    Is OpenSuse using Pulse, have you disabled it?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Guest
    This is now closed for further comments




×
×
  • Create New...