2. tech-talk
  3. 151126-123258

How many of you believe in MQA?

I have recently purchased a Bluesound Node 2i.  The dealer suggested I connect the Bluesound by way of digital coax to a Pro-Ject S2 DAC by way of RCA anologue to my ARCAM AVR550.  However, I found out I will not be able to control my Bluesound with an iPhone, iPad or PC notebook.  The only way to hear MQA completely unfolded is to plug in a computer USB.  This would mean I would have to get up from where I am sitting, go to the computer to change songs and albums.  I believe the Pro-Ject RS2 DAC would work, but not sure what the sales price is or if this is a good option.

The dealer asked me why I wanted to even bother listening to MQA completely unfolded when the DAC sounded better than the DAC inside the Bluesound.  He thinks MQA is way over rated and it may not be around a year from now.  If I hook things up with the Pro-Ject S2 DAC I will be able to hear one unfold which would be at 24 bit/88.2 kHz.  If I do this, I will be giving up the opportunity to hear MQA recordings recorded at 24 bit/96 kHz or 24 bit/192 kHz.  

How many of you are enbracing MQA?  
128x128larry5729
toneranger58
134 posts
 
Larry there is a field under Settings on BluOS App, that refers to MQA External DAC. It took me a while to find access to it. I think you need to engage it if you have an external Dac that does MQA. I don’t have an external MQA Dac, so I don’t have it on. You can look on the Bluesound Forum for questions on the Node 2i, it’s very informative. Hope this helps. 
oddiofyl's avatar
oddiofyl
3,922 posts
 
While the analog outs of the Vault 2i / Node 2i sound really good playing a Tidal Master , I think my DAC sounds better with the 24/96k output from my Vault.   It's not subtle    
erik_squires
16,202 posts
 
192 is not inherently superior to 96 is not superior to 44.1. This is a marketing myth. AD or DA is clock, chip, analog parts and filter.  Sample rate is not the primary factor in quality.  And engineers adjust each session for the subjectively best result given the audio chain.

Mathematically, this is correct, but from a practical perspective, for a very very long time, DACs just performed better at higher resolutions.


Fortunately in the last 15 years DAC's have improved a great deal in how well they play Redbook. My suspicion, with little to support it, is that cheap clocks got really good and/or really cheap, which has brought up the capabilities of most DAC's.


Number of DACs before which would absolutely show a sonic difference with different sample rates. Far behind us now.
So, no argument from me anymore. :) I've not really sought out Hi Rez files in a very long time.

Best,

E
erik_squires
16,202 posts
 
PS - Before anyone says it's my hearing, I had an old DAC and a new DAC at the same time and was able to compare side by side.



gregm
3,405 posts
 
@erik_squires 
192 is not inherently superior to 96 is not superior to 44.1. This is a marketing myth....

Mathematically, this is correct,
How so?
One has 24 bit word length, the other 16; one goes up to 192kHz, or 96kHz  (i.e. 2-4 octaves higher) whereas the redbook up to 44.1kHz. They cannot be mathematically identical; you are thinking of something else, no?

More to discover