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.
Do you have a Bluesound? If you do, did you connect it digital coax to an external DAC to your amplifier or receiver?
The Bluesound can play up to 32 bit just like my DAC. i have switched the RCA's back and forth between the Bluesound and the Pro-Ject S2 DAC and I think the bass sounds tighter and the highs more detailed than the Bluesound DAC. However, when I select an album from Tidal that is MQA recorded at 24/192, the maximum bit and sample rate I will hear is 24/88.2. I still might go back to using just the Bluesound and hear this supposedly superior quality MQA sound. I it difficult to know by using the DAC I am only able to hear up to 24/88.2. However, I just can't hear the difference playing MQA. I think most hi res music must be released in 24/96 and 24/192 is kind of rare.
Amazon's roll out of their Amazon Music Unlimited HD prompted me to try the DAC because they offer Ultra HD up to 24/192 and they don't offer MQA. So, if I stream a Ultra HD song at 24/192, it won't matter because I will get the full benefit of 24/192. If this is the case, Based on this, I should have purchased an ARCAM R-Play streamer and connected that anaologue. The frequency response plays down to 29 Hz and I wouldn't have had to add a DAC.
I have been thinking since the Bluesound is MQA certified and the Pro-Ject S2 DAC is MQA certified, why would the dealer I purchased the Pro-Ject DAC tell me by connecting the Bluesound by way of digital coax to the Pro-Ject DAC which is also MQA certified why I will not be able to realize the complete unfold of MQA since I am transferring electronic data from one device to another. This does not seem intuitive, unless the dealer is wrong about this statement. If the dealer is correct, why then didn't the manufacturer of the Project design their DAC with an RCA in and an RCA out. It must have something to do with with the digital coax cable bridging the two devices?
When I attached the DAC to the Bluesound it delivered more treble and I was not sure I liked the sound. However, I began to think maybe the increased detail in the highs is what is in the recording and this is the first time I have heard my tweeters deliver greater detail in both the highs and mid voicing. I began to notice the shimmer sound of the cymbals for the first time. When switching back between playing the Bluesound analogue out to my ARCAM, I also noticed the Bluesound sounds more bassy and more boomy. When playing the DAC has a much tighter BASS. Since I added two REL S3 SHO subs to my system, I have plenty of bass to work with. Perhaps recalibrate the gain to achieve slightly more bass if needed.
Hope you guys can let me is the dealer correct or is my thinking correct, as I had hoped to hear the MQA offered by TIDAL.
Why would Pro-Ject bother to manufacture their DAC MQA certified if it breaks the MQA unfolding chain? To get MQA in the first place, you need to stream music through some sort of music streamer that is MQA certified? What the dealer told me again does not make sense? Hope someone can come up with the right information. If connecting the Bluesound to the Pro-Ject DAC breaks the MQA chain then my did Pro-Ject bother to manufacture their DAC MQA in the first place?
I don't want to join either side of the MQA argument yet, as I haven't had enough exposure to it, especially as I've had none in my reference system (Avalon Eidolon, Spectral DMA 250, Bel Canto DAC3.5VB MK II, Bel Canto REFStream, Bel Canto Phono 3, Thorens TD 2015, SME 309, Ortofon MM Bronze [soon to be replaced by Lyra Kleos], Niagara 5000, mostly MIT cables w/some Audioquest & Straight Wire).
Larry5729As you can see from my system above, I highly recommend Bel Canto. While I haven't heard the e.One Stream, based on past experience with many Bel Canto products, I have found them to be very detailed
as well as
highly musical
and emotionally communicative. The e.One stream should also sound that way, but you should of course try it out in your system to make sure it is your cup of tea.
Regarding MQA, I will tell you my 2 experiences. At RMAF 2018, I compared in the Bel Canto room the MQA version vs. the non-MQA file of a track from Steel Dan's Gaucho album. The MQA file sounded different, but not better. At RMAF 2019, I went to the MQA demo in the B&W/Simaudio room. I had visited the room the day before and only spent 5 minutes there because the system did not impress me, despite the top of the line equipment. I asked Ken Forsythe of MQA if he could compare an MQA and non-MQA file for me. He gave what I thought was a valid answer: He couldn't do this because he could not guarantee that the non-MQA file came from the same master as the MQA file. This makes sense. For example a recording whose source was a 1st generation analog tape would sound different from one whose source was an nth generation copy of a digital safety recording from the same recording session. MQA has their recording company partners (or the artist, recording engineer or producer of the recording) certify that their file comes from the earliest generation master in existence and that if there were time domain & other errors in the equipment that made the recording, that these errors have been corrected in the MQA process (what MQA calls de-blurring is part of this process).
He then put on a Sinatra plus big band (don't remember the track or album) track from a 1st generation analog master. It was a revelatory experience, a real epiphany for me. The sound system completely disappeared and there was just very live sounding music playing before me. He then played a track from the Ella & Louis album: same result. I own this album in a superb Analogue Productions 45 RPM 2-LP set and the MQA file was at least the equal of it, as I have heard on my equipment. What was most extraordinary is that this was happening on a system that I didn't much care for the day before. Will all MQA files sound this good? While it doesn't seem likely, I won't know without trying many of them in my own system.
I haven't made up my mind about buying a DAC that can fully unfold MQA because as others have said here, the DAC whose sound you love best in your system may not have MQA capability. I am leaning towards the Ayon CD 35 (CD/SACD player/DAC/preamp/server & streamer in one box), which doesn't have MQA, because it was part of the Ayon/Lumenwhite room at RMAF 2017 & 2018 that I though had the best sound of the entire show. The sound in that room was also revelatory for me and in all the tracks played, including the 16/44 FLAC file of the same Ella & Louis album. So as many have said above, there is more than one way to get your musical thrills.
@bkepke, Nice first post and welcome to Audiogon! Also, nice system.
I asked Ken Forsythe of MQA if he could compare an MQA and non-MQA file for me. He gave what I thought was a valid answer: He couldn't do this because he could not guarantee that the non-MQA file came from the same master as the MQA file
Though it sounds reasonable, I have some reservations. If MQA is superior, why not have comparative MQA and non-MQA tracks available for comparison? Second, is asking this question to someone from MQA is kind of like that Robert Klein skit on Hair Club for Men: 'I wouldn't lie to you for a very good reason- I am President of the company'. 'WHAT POSSIBLE MOTIVE COULD I HAVE'?
Thanks. Good point Bob. Why didn’t I think of that? 😊 Likely because I was so gobsmacked by the sound quality that I was removed from the analytic plane. 😇 I will ask that at next MQA demo. Certainly once MQA has the 1st gen. master, they could easily make simple FLAC files at CD or hi-res resolutions to compare with the MQA file.
I did not realize there was a Bel Canto room at the 2019 RMAF? I looked for them in the directory and was unable to see them listed as an exhibitor. I really wanted to meet with them. I wonder if you were referring to the 2018 show?
I wanted to go with the Bel Canto eOne streamer, but triple the price of a Bluesound was a budgetary concern. I had just purchased a pair of REL S3 SHO's and adding another $1,600 would have really upset my wife. I wonder how many of us have a wife factor to contend with?
The industry wants to push
consumers to a subscription model, and wants to ensure that consumers can not
copy streaming content. Pay to play. It is always about the money, never about
the consumer. MQA creates additional revenue streams because of licensing
rights and may encourage additional hardware purchases to ensure compatibility
with MQA content. The primary
motivation for MQA is DRM, claims of sonic improvement are secondary, but used
to sell the concept.
The real problem is that MQA
may represent a marginal at best sonic difference vs non MQA content. Marginal
is not enough to convince enough consumers to open their wallets and invest
(new hardware, new MQA media) in a new technology. Consumers only respond to
paradigm shifts, not incremental change.
78 to LP
Mono to Stereo
Tube to Transistor
LP to Cassette
LP to CD. CD was deemed good
enough, and attempts to "improve" it only succeeded at the margins.
The masses never embraced SACD/DVD-A.
In other areas: B&W to
Color
VHS to DVD
Tube TV to Flat Screen.
Film to Digital Photos
But 3D largely failed, curved
screens are difficult to find, and 4K is expensive marketing hype.
Most consumers could care
less about Quad, 8 Track, El Cassette, 3D TV, Curved Screens,
DVD -A, SACD, CD-HD and so
on.
Guess which category applies to MQA ? MQA started with hype and a large
bandwagon. As pushback developed, and
consumers failed to respond, several adopters quietly or abruptly dropped
support. Others who were “considering”
adoption have stopped issuing progress updates.
If
you can hear a positive difference, great.
But is the quality of the difference worth your investment of time and
money ?
By adding a Pro-Ject S2 DAC to my Bluesound Node 2i, what will I loose in sound quality by breaking up the MQA chain? Does the external DAC filter frequencies out or does it add frequencies to enhance tighter bass and more detailed highs?
Why do songs sound bassier by using the Bluesound only?
Maybe I need lessons in learning what to listen for in order to determine which is better. Would the Bel Canto eOne streamer played by itself by way of RCA connection sounded better than the Bluesound for triple the price? It is difficult to compare when dealers do not carry both Bluesound and Bel Canto to compare. If I had been the Bel Canto dealer in town, I would have run out and purchased a Bluesound Node 2i to allow customers to hear the difference if I knew the Bel Canto would win hands down. This would have made it easier for me to have made my decision.
No one has explained why connecting a Bluesound (MQA certified device) to a Pro-Ject S2 (also MQA certified device) by way of digital coax cable destroys the full unfolding of MQA when both devices are MQA certified.
From a digits point of view, nothing wrong with that. MQA is just FLAC with additional data hidden in the stream.
The issue of getting MQA all the way out has to do with licensing and design choices, not always sure which.
If your streamer gets MQA and unfolds it, it will destroy the MQA envelope in the process. The DAC won't receive MQA stream, just normal high resolution.
The trick is to get your streamer to request MQA but leave it alone for the DAC to completely unfold.
@Larry I don't think it's fair to judge the sound quality of MQA based on a BlueSound Node 2. No offense but the old saying 'you get what you pay for' is in effect here.
I can tell you that me and many friends who have listened to MQA on my dCS Rossini agree that the sound quality of MQA tracks using TIDAL sound noticeably better than the same TIDAL tracks in Redbook format. Even on my 2nd system where I use a NAD M10 integrated streamer/DAC/amp, the MQA tracks sound better. FWIW, both the dCS Rossini and NAD M10 perform full MQA decoding.
The MQA naysayers will point to the fact that MQA is a lossy format. I think the same could be said for most digital formats. The best way to judge is to let your ears tell you what you prefer. But it's got to be on a decent DAC or streamer so it's a fair fight.
Good mqa sounds fantastic, I don’t need an engineer to tell me this. I’ll bet the same people that put down mqa put down SACD, dsd, and hires too. Each of these formats when done right all sounded much better than redbook, not a subtle improvement either. But you also need quality equipment to hear the difference. This goes with cable comparisons, cartridge comparisons, and everything else.
This goes with most anything in audio. Say you want to evaluate a $500 cartridge and a $15,000 cartridge on a $500 music hall turntable. Do you really think your going to hear a big difference? Or, perform this same test using a $200 phono preamp. The best sound you are going to get is what the $200 phono preamp will get you or what the music hall turntable can provide. The best sound you receive will be as good as your weakest link will provide.
I wonder if you are familiar with the Bel Canto eOne streamer. A Bel Canto dealer told me the Bluesound is an applance and the Bel Canto an audiophile piece. For triple the price, could I have heard a significant difference.
At the dealer where I purchased my Bluesound Node 2i, he told me to connect the Bluesound using Audioquest Carbon digital coax to a Pro-Ject S2 DAC because the Pro-Ject DAC is better than the DAC inside the Bluesound. I traded my 40 year old speakers for the cable and the DAC and after I got things connected at home, I think the Bluesound played by itself sound better and warmer when playing an MQA song on TIDAL. If I decide to throw away the cable and the DAC I am out about $600 total.
What would you do in my position. I just purchased a pair of S3 Rel subs and my budget is just so much.
I have no experience with Bel Canto, but I can say I use my Node with an Ayre Codex. The difference between the onboard DAC and the Ayre is significant. And, considering the price, the Codex is a steal. If you are patient, you can score a used on for under $1500.
You say you traded your old speakers in. So, what are you using now?
If you are finding the onboard Bluesound DAC sounds better, then I think you might want to make sure all connections are correct. If I recall correctly the DAC in the Node was 'warm', but when connected to the Ayre, became much 'cleaner' and 'livelier'. Also, I would try playing either CD or higher rez material first-rather than MQA, in order to get an idea of what the DAC is doing. (And, remember, some recordings are just plain lousy recorded, even a high rez or MQA iteration won't help it).
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.
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
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.
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?
@Brianlucey @bkepke and @iopscprl I agree with you three the most of this forum's posters. I've heard MQA at audio shows and cannot remember the equipment. Overall, I wasn't impressed. The rooms had a spacious, wide sound but nothing wanted me to opt for that sound. When the differences are marginally better, I'll stick to the easier to use technologies such as the CD (ha ha my LPs and 78s are not easier to use but I have 32,000 of them). I have a SOTA listening room which is a good place to begin serious listening. I thought the ayon/lumenwhite room using my LPs and CDs sounded great, second best sound at the LA audio show for two years running in 2016 and 2017.
+1 thanks for that great explanation as it’s what I’ve thought was the case thru my research
not sure why anyone would want to pay (licensing fees) a proprietary format that turns a lossless file into a lossy one so that only “special” hardware can decode it. Money grab pure and simple.
What MQA promotes as "restoring" the impulse response, is not much more than forcing a minimum phase filter on the DAC, which creates a potentially "nice" looking step response .... at least nice to those that are unaware of what a step-response should look like in digital system. To your point, the distortions that creates may float some boats, which is totally okay, but a DAC with a switchable filter response also can do that, no licensing fee required.
I thought the "master authenticated" would have brought more quality recordings to the forefront, but personally have not noticed any significant difference.
brianlucey67 posts09-20-2019 12:09pm... . If it “sounds better” to
you that’s fine. But that’s because the subtle harmonic distortions of
the codec float your subjective boat. A cable or speaker alter sound
subjectively and so does MQA. To me however, it’s ruining my work, the
client approved work. It’s a travesty built on greed and lies. ...
...Most audiophiles have playback rooms rooms that are by far the weakest link in their chain. By far.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
