AudioQuest adds MQA Support to Dragonflies via firmware

[Wavelength]

Gang,

 

A little more information...

 

Yes DragonFly is an MQA renderer. We do not do the full decode. The first unfold is done in the application (Tidal, Audirvana and others as I stated above). This unfolding is sent to the DragonFly as MQA data and we pass that onto an MQA library inside the DragonFly code. The library does DSP functions on that data and setups custom filters for each song based on the MQA information for that song inside the ESS DAC chip.

 

This gives it the highest possible quality available for the DragonFly platform.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

[plissken]

15 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

Gang,

 

A little more information...

 

Yes DragonFly is an MQA renderer. We do not do the full decode. The first unfold is done in the application (Tidal, Audirvana and others as I stated above). This unfolding is sent to the DragonFly as MQA data and we pass that onto an MQA library inside the DragonFly code. The library does DSP functions on that data and setups custom filters for each song based on the MQA information for that song inside the ESS DAC chip.

 

This gives it the highest possible quality available for the DragonFly platform.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

 

 

Could we get back to non-marketspeak terms. It's called decompression and Metatag/Metadata. Damn this industry sometimes. 

[Wavelength]

Plissken,

 

Really!!! If you don't know something then why are you confusing people. A song does not carry metadata over USB.

 

Quote

I think AQ will come out with a 'Patch' that will be a binary that runs on the parent OS ahead of the Dragonfly to get full MQA support. 

 

Sorry no we are not going to do that. There are many more applications coming out with MQA support for DragonFly.

 

mansr,

 

The same, really if you don't know don't say anything. Assumption on how something works is the biggest problem with computer audio. I get more of the stupidest questions asked on emails from stuff read here and on other forums.

 

Quote

Rendering is upsampling with specific filter coefficients. If the DAC chip allows programming arbitrary filters, as the ESS ones do, it can be made to perform the task. The microcontroller parses the metadata encoded in the incoming PCM stream and sets the DAC parameters accordingly. At least that's the only way I can see it working given the constraints. 

 

Totally incorrect!

 

Quote

Judging by the specs of the microcontroller in the DF, I estimate that it is too slow to do even the rendering part. Therefore I suspect all it does is set the upsampling filter coefficients in the ESS DAC chip according to the parameters indicated by the input stream. 

 

Also totally incorrect!!!

 

~~~~~~~

 

Look everyone, you can guesstamate all you want about what is or what isn't done here. OR!!! you could sit down and listen and judge for yourself.

 

No more misinformation from people who don't know what's going on here. I have 33 emails in my inbox about people asking questions from users and links to your posts.

 

Be sane, have fun!

Gordon

[plissken]

6 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

Plissken,

 

Really!!! If you don't know something then why are you confusing people. A song does not carry metadata over USB.

 

Does the MQA wrapper not contain MetaData?  

 

At least we can agree it's decompression. 

 

6 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

 

Sorry no we are not going to do that. There are many more applications coming out with MQA support for DragonFly.

 

And there are applications that can play MQA on any DAC one would have connected. 

 

It benefits Meridian to sow confusion in the market place. 

 

[Wavelength]

Plissken,

 

No the metadata is not sent over USB in a wrapper. It's also not decompression, what ever that means.

 

Applications can send MQA material to any DAC for playback. The output just will not benefit from the MQA decoding if the DAC and application is not MQA enabled.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

 

[jhwalker]

5 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

Plissken,

 

No the metadata is not sent over USB in a wrapper. It's also not decompression, what ever that means.

 

Applications can send MQA material to any DAC for playback. The output just will not benefit from the MQA decoding if the DAC and application is not MQA enabled.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

 

 

Guys, I think we owe Gordon - the guy that writes the code for DragonFly - a bit of respect in letting him answer questions about the DragonFly

[Wavelength]

JHWalker,

 

Thanks, I did the hardware too if that counts for anything

 

Gordon

[jhwalker]

2 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

JHWalker,

 

Thanks, I did the hardware too if that counts for anything

 

Gordon

 

Of course.

 

PS - I think it sounds great - glad we finally got the update!

[miguelito]

1 hour ago, Wavelength said:

DragonFly only supports sample rates over USB up to 96K, therefore DragonFly does not do the full unfold. Therefore applications such as Tidal and Audirvana are currently the only applications that support MQA and DragonFly. Expect Amara to introduce products next month and expanded Audirvana soon.

Can you explain a bit what happens in the DF once it receives the unfolded PCM stream? I see you replied to mansr so I am wondering what it actually is.

 

Quote

The passthrough in Tidal will just send the MQA file as is to the DragonFly. You must have Exclusive mode checked for MQA to work with Tidal and DragonFly.

If you choose pass-through, then TIDAL won't be doing the first unfold I don't think - unless it still does it because it detects a DAC that has MQA rendering capabilities?

 

Quote

All of you should give Audirvana 3.0 a try as well.

Yeap, A+ 3 is fabulous.

[plissken]

31 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

Plissken,

 

No the metadata is not sent over USB in a wrapper. It's also not decompression, what ever that means.

 

Applications can send MQA material to any DAC for playback. The output just will not benefit from the MQA decoding if the DAC and application is not MQA enabled.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

 

 

Then what good is MQA encoding in software with a non-mqa DAC. I've seen it as a selling point. How is the Dragon Fly MQA? 

 

The answer can not be: It's simply software. 

 

By definition, any data you take and put through a lossless or lossy process and make it smaller, and then later reverse that process is compression. "Unfolding" = Uncompressing. 

 

It's terminology purposefully used to dupe the gullible. 

 

 

[DarwinOSX]

1 hour ago, Wavelength said:

Gang,

 

A little more information...

 

Yes DragonFly is an MQA renderer. We do not do the full decode. The first unfold is done in the application (Tidal, Audirvana and others as I stated above). This unfolding is sent to the DragonFly as MQA data and we pass that onto an MQA library inside the DragonFly code. The library does DSP functions on that data and setups custom filters for each song based on the MQA information for that song inside the ESS DAC chip.

 

This gives it the highest possible quality available for the DragonFly platform.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

So Tidal (or whatever) does the first unfold and the Dragonfly does the second and third unfold and in that manner you get the full unfold using the Dragonfly?

[Wavelength]

5 minutes ago, miguelito said:

My understanding is the DF gets a 88k or 96k PCM stream unfolded by TIDAL or Audirvana - what rate is the ESS DAC upsampling to once the controller determines the upsampling parameters? Or is this a misinterpretation of the final stage of MQA rendering?

 

If you choose pass-through, then TIDAL won't be doing the first unfold I don't think - unless it still does it because it detects a DAC that has MQA rendering capabilities?

 

Yeap, A+ 3 is fabulous.

 

If you choose pass through then the MQA is basically not enabled.

 

Why do people think this is all about upsampling and decompression.

 

Guys if the files were compressed and require decompressing in a certain format then how do NON-MQA DACS playback MQA files?

 

Look it's much more than what everyone is speculating about. This is probably part of the problem with companies who think MQA is a bad thing. Maybe not, they might be a lot smarter than I am. But as a musician for some 50 or more years, I can tell you this is the real deal. Lowering the noise floor is a real undertaking.

 

Anyway, before you pass judgement you should listen.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

 

[Wavelength]

1 minute ago, DarwinOSX said:

So Tidal (or whatever) does the first unfold and the Dragonfly does the second and third unfold and in that manner you get the full unfold using the Dragonfly?

 

Correct!

 

[miguelito]

1 minute ago, Wavelength said:

 

If you choose pass through then the MQA is basically not enabled.

 

Why do people think this is all about upsampling and decompression.

 

Guys if the files were compressed and require decompressing in a certain format then how do NON-MQA DACS playback MQA files?

 

Look it's much more than what everyone is speculating about. This is probably part of the problem with companies who think MQA is a bad thing. Maybe not, they might be a lot smarter than I am. But as a musician for some 50 or more years, I can tell you this is the real deal. Lowering the noise floor is a real undertaking.

 

Anyway, before you pass judgement you should listen.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

 

I've listened and I love what I heard.

[plissken]

21 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

 

 

Guys if the files were compressed and require decompressing in a certain format then how do NON-MQA DACS playback MQA files?

 

Because the is decompressed elsewhere. Do you think people see the end result of streamers that support FLAC?

 

[plissken]

Archimago and Mansr have done a really good job at lifting the hood on MQA. It's YAF (Yet Another Format) wrapped up in new marketing speak for terms that already exist. Plus it's lossy.

 

We can't talk about noise floor unless we ask: Compared to what other encoding format? I have a 100Mbit internet connection. I only need a 10th of it to stream straight up 24/192 PCM.

 

Again what problem does MQA solve? What problem is it going to solve as connectivity keeps its rapid bandwidth increase. 

[plissken]

Here is another in-depth (44 page) write up on MQA at Xivero 

 

Bottom line is if you have a high speed connection, you are compromising, not improving, your fidelity and you are paying a premium to do so. 

[abrxx]

Just now, plissken said:

Here is another in-depth (44 page) write up on MQA at Xivero 

 

Bob Stuart refutes that "write-up" here.

[plissken]

2 minutes ago, abrxx said:

 

Bob Stuart refutes that "write-up" here.

 

Sorry, I had to stop reading Bob's rebuttal at this point:

 

"Our viewpoint is that ‘Resolution’ is a concept of Perception, and is best interpreted in the analogue domain. Resolution can be defined in the analogue domain where it deals with resolution in its behavioural sense "

[plissken]

"Mark Waldrep  Scott Richards • 4 months agoThe folks at MQA promised that they would prepare a number of my files using their techniques and send me an MQA enabled Explorer DAC to test them. I sent them the original high-res files, inquired for more than a year about progress, and never received the files. It would have been interesting to hear my own high-res files using their technique. However, I'm very doubtful that they would have sounded better than my original tracks. I certainly wouldn't want them to sound different."

[DarwinOSX]

1 hour ago, miguelito said:

I've listened and I love what I heard.

 

Ditto.

Some people always have to piss on the new thing either to rationalize their existing investment or to sound superior in some way.  At 57 I've changed formats many times as many others have and its pretty much always been worth it.

[DarwinOSX]

1 hour ago, Wavelength said:

 

Correct!

 

Ok finally...an answer.  Since I have a ME 2 and want another device I'll try the red as an alternate which is also more mobile than the ME2.

[DarwinOSX]

1 hour ago, Wavelength said:

 

If you choose pass through then the MQA is basically not enabled.

Thanks,

Gordon

 

Just to be clear..it's not enable for the Dragonfly. it would be enabled for some others devices like the ME 2 which do the full unfold.

As to whether I should prefer a device that can do the full unfold over one that requires the software to do the first one I don't know...

 

[mansr]

2 hours ago, abrxx said:

Thanks for confirming, I was just unsure what you meant by saying that the micro-controller is too slow for even rendering. But since the DAC (in this case) can basically do the job of the MQA rendering, its a mute point.

 

So where does the DAC specific/file specific management happen? This is also part of MQA rendering according to Bob. Is that also done just by selecting DAC filter parameters?

The decoded (but not rendered) PCM data encodes in the LSB, among other things, the original sample rate and the filter number to use in upsampling. Although the filter number is 5 bits wide, only a few of the 32 possible choices are (currently) defined. The renderer uses this number to look up the actual filter coefficients in a table. It is thus possible for filters to be tweaked for specific devices while adhering to the same general characteristics. I have only been able to obtain the exact coefficients from one device, so I don't know how or even if they might vary between DACs.

[crenca]

2 hours ago, Wavelength said:

 

 

Look everyone, you can guesstamate all you want about what is or what isn't done here. OR!!! you could sit down and listen and judge for yourself.

 

No more misinformation from people who don't know what's going on here. I have 33 emails in my inbox about people asking questions from users and links to your posts.

 

Be sane, have fun!

Gordon

 

 

No - we will not just shut up and listen.  Your arrogant underbelly is showing through (you might want to cover it back up).  Your problem is an old one - you want to sell "art" in a mathematical and digital world.  MQA enables you to do that - it covers up a formally open format and formally semi-open process (internals of DACs) in IP and then you get to come along and say "you don't know what you are talking about".  

 

Well, through a slow process we will uncover the voodoo one way or another (rather it turns out to be all that Bob says it is, or something much much less).  Those boys in Russia and China will (sooner or later) let it all hang out.

 

I have an AudioQuest cable being shipped to me right now.  It will be my last AudioQuest product I purchase for the foreseeable future based on your response here.  The choice has been made for your and your company - you have decided to hide behind IP and yell at your customers who will always (always always) look for at the "information" you give out and question it.  

 

Speak of "misinformation" all you want - it's your doing!  YOU have chosen the voodoo (i.e non information) path of MQA!  You brought this all on yourself.

 

I suspect you will be seeing many more emails in your inbox in the future...