MQA?

I can’t imagine you would hear much of a difference at all since you are working with their top of the line DAC.

Can you explain? Thanks.

I'm totally baffled by this too...Not saying I know MQA is good, bad or indifferent but i just don't follow the logic.
Hans likes MQA and I trust him.  But there's so little MQA out there, and the self selection bias on MQA releases distorts most opinion.... wish i could say more aside from "listed and decide if it makes you happy"G

I should add that I have not heard MQA in my system or any system i know and trust, nor in a well controlled comparison (any offers in the Morristown-Summit corridor?). All 4 of my DACs do not support MQA. One's 20 years old (and still excellent BTW), two are Franken-DACs either of my own design or vastly different than originally built, and one is the new Denefrips which i have not yet heard (or seen).  So MQA is not on my near-term radar.  Honestly wish it were, out of curiosity if nothing else.

Data points are always good.
The unfolding however, is reputed to be much more than filtering.  Its proprietary so we cannot say for sure, but they claim that additional resolution and time coherency are restored. This is why i used the terms "coding vs playback". Its vague, but so is Bob on this point. It's his secret sauce.

(specifically i wrote: Let’s put aside the real discussion which is the basic merits of MQA, and accept it for what it claims to be; an improvement in digital coding ("better HD"). Not playback mind you, coding.)
And no, i did not read your later comments at the time, never got that far, and thanks for the pointer.

G

Well, i don’t even know what to ask. So I’ll ramble.
Let’s put aside the real discussion which is the basic merits of MQA, and accept it for what it claims to be; an improvement in digital coding ("better HD"). Not playback mind you, coding. Bob’s a smart guy, I do presume that there is something to MQA, but that's my opinion.

We will assume that HD differences, if they are audible, will be audible on better systems.

Yo note the OP has a top flight DAC. So that seems to be a good foundation for a appreciating HD coding, and specifically MQA. Again, MQA may be total BS or music’s savior - it doesn’t matter for now.  But how on earth does having a good system make good source material less relevant?
Heck, I’d argue that all this talk about equipment misses the point -- the big differences are in recordings, masterings and pressings. And in rock, the state of the art has been low.
G

You can’t dismiss the facts by attacking the messenger. MQA adds distortion. This is a fact. Only the original lossless file has the full bit depth and correct phase preserved.

Be very careful here.  Lossless what?  Most lossless files don't even attempt to capture the extra resolution as does MQA. SO its not a valid comparison in all cases. You don't specify enough to know whether your statement, as you intended it anyway. is correct or not. As written its pretty shaky.
Now, as to phase coherency - this is a huge issue.  Is it correct in a recording after anti-aliasing filters?  I would argue no. The lossless hgih res file (or otherwise) preserves what got through the filters, which may or may not be correct. If betting i would generally bet on "not correct". So lossless then would preserve distortion faithfully.
Einstein quipped that things should be made as simple as possible but no simpler. We have violated his advice here.
G

David Ten- I've seen all those and heard Bob speak on it.
None of those have technical details nor methods. They have concepts.  I'm OK with the concepts, but cannot honestly say i truly know exactly what is being done in the final unfold. That's why its burned in silicon and licensed.
Just sayin.
G

and @david_ten  - yes, i understand. I was just placing a generic caution that while that is all good reading, no one could build the chip (meaning understand how it really works) form what is published.
That of course is on purpose.
G

There are multiple unfolds of MQA. Again, staying out of the debate on its merits, and adhering to its claims, there are some benefits without an MQA licensed decoder chip.

@ justjames72 asked:

@itsjustme baffled by what? Maybe, I can help clarify my understanding even if it's not as robust as some.

Baffled by why on would think that MWA, which changes the actual coding, would nto make a difference on a top-line DAC (but, unsaid but implied) *would* on a lesser DAC. Different music, different results. We may like it, may hate it, may think is nothing. But the quality of the DAC should be largely irrelevant - or have the opposite effect -- making it possible to hear subtle differences.
Sorry to comment a million years later, but i just saw this.
G