Not sure if it's the case here but sometimes you have to drop the .dll file into the components folder to install it in Foobar. That is the case for most third party components.
(UHQCD format x MQA technology). Disc's-DAC's-Streamers and Tidal
- Thread starter marpow
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
I'm a long time Foobar user. When Foobar says it can't find an entry point into a .dll that's exactly what it means.
If you like, please follow the instructions on that pdf and try it yourself, in fact I welcome anyone to try it and prove me wrong. I want to be wrong so I can try it out.
Configuring the setup as instructed in that old document is impossible.
You won't need any MQA discs because you're never going to get that far. Take a look at the SACD configuration screen shot in step 19 where it says to select a DSD Asio driver. No such configuration even exists in modern versions of Foo. The version in the tutorial is 1.3xx and I don't have a copy of that.
Maybe at some point FFMPEG will have the capability to enable MQA but for now it's more useful for enabling Foo to play Atmos containers such as MPA/M4A.
Here's one for MAC users. Says it will playback MQA encoded files. Not free, though.
https://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/amarra4luxe.php
https://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/amarra4luxe.php
I think what he’s trying to say is that you have to physically search for the .dll component and move it into the correct folder. I remembered, that’s what I had to do on a Windows based PC system in order to get several of my components to work.
Yep, I know this. Like I say, long time foobar user. If you guys would spend this time trying to make it work instead of trying to educate me, maybe someone will see a way in.I think what he’s trying to say is that you have to physically search for the .dll component and move it into the correct folder. I remembered, that’s what I had to do on a Windows based PC system in order to get several of my components to work.
Twas not yesterday I fell off the turnip wagon, nay, many years ago I say! So be off with you, ruffians!
No, really, Foobar has been my primary software player -within it's capabilities- for many years now. Always willing to learn something new in everything, but I believe I have it covered here.
I appreciate the intent, guys. Really.
I feel your pain. That’s why I gave up a few years ago with all that computer crap ways of trying to listen to music and returned to actual discs plus streaming.Yep, I know this. Like I say, long time foobar user. If you guys would spend this time trying to make it work instead of trying to educate me, maybe someone will see a way in.
Twas not yesterday I fell off the turnip wagon, nay, many years ago I say! So be off with you, ruffians!
No, really, Foobar has been my primary software player -within it's capabilities- for many years now. Always willing to learn something new in everything, but I believe I have it covered here.
I appreciate the intent, guys. Really.
I know. Jailbreaking the Oppo 103 was something I'm very glad I did. Being able to stream .iso files from the pc to the Oppo has been nice.
My MQA CD arrived today - I played it first in my car CD player, sounded good, now listening to it thru DPL2 music mode, again good (I ordered the regular CD of this album, I'll wait until I get that to comment on [still folded MQA] vs. regular CD sound quality differences).
Kirk Bayne
Kirk Bayne
Owen Smith
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
It is possible the mastering could be different, therefore any audible difference compared to the regular CD is not necessarily down to MQA. By not releasing the encoder they've made it almost impossible for anyone to perform meaningful tests (listening or instrumented) of the MQA process.
I found the regular CD (The Best of Joe Walsh) for $2.50 thru Amazon (it'd be a rough comparison, I don't have any sophisticated ways to level match and synchronize the MQA and regular CDs and as you mentioned, mastering could [and most likely is] different])
The MQA CD remastering info states that both 16bit/44.1kHz and DSD copies/sources were used.
aside: the MQA CD decodes better w/DynaQuad than DPL2 music, it sounds almost discrete w/DynaQuad.
Kirk Bayne
https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-encoded-cds-yes^^^
The audio on the disc is MQA-encoded PCM, and will play back happily without a decoder. In this case, the sound quality is slightly better than a typical CD, because the audio is already de-blurred in the studio.
IMHO, the de-blurring process, only mentioned in passing, is the most important of the MQA system, de-blurring can be applied to all A/D D/A conversions to improve the fidelity of the content.
Kirk Bayne
The audio on the disc is MQA-encoded PCM, and will play back happily without a decoder. In this case, the sound quality is slightly better than a typical CD, because the audio is already de-blurred in the studio.
IMHO, the de-blurring process, only mentioned in passing, is the most important of the MQA system, de-blurring can be applied to all A/D D/A conversions to improve the fidelity of the content.
Kirk Bayne
Owen Smith
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
There has been no clear enough description of de-blurring to assess precisely what it does. It's smoke and mirrors until someone completely independent of MQA repeats the process and does proper tests of the results, without the rest of MQA getting in the way afterwards. But as usual MQA won't publish how it is done.
This lack of publishing precise technical details to allow results to be repeated elsewhere is the most troubling part of MQA. And they don't need to worry about people stealing use of it, that's what patents and licences are for.
This lack of publishing precise technical details to allow results to be repeated elsewhere is the most troubling part of MQA. And they don't need to worry about people stealing use of it, that's what patents and licences are for.
cbmmm3
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
but it sure does sound wonderful
Owen Smith
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
That could just be better mastering than any previous release. But it's impossible to tell because insufficient details of MQA have been published.
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396
I'm not an AES member, perhaps this paper will be useful in determining if MQA results in more accurate audio.
Kirk Bayne
I'm not an AES member, perhaps this paper will be useful in determining if MQA results in more accurate audio.
Kirk Bayne
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,582
I should think at this juncture, raising the playback ability of 16 bit/44.1 kHz to a HIGHER STANDARD would be more welcomed than it has been. No one objected when HDCD was introduced which promised 20 bit resolution and a lot of hardware manufacturers complied by incorporating it into their players...and well over 5000+ HDCD~encoded discs were manufactured.
Perhaps if MQA, Bob Stuart of Meridian's brainchild was 'finessed' a bit by other audiophile manufacturers to address any questionable issues attached to this newest format, it would become more universally acceptable instead of being derided...as it has.
Perhaps if MQA, Bob Stuart of Meridian's brainchild was 'finessed' a bit by other audiophile manufacturers to address any questionable issues attached to this newest format, it would become more universally acceptable instead of being derided...as it has.
The conclusion I come to from reading it is that by and large nobody is sure!
From what I can glean from scouring the net (nothing is published directly on MQA, it is a proprietary system) technically it seems to be a mixture of lossy file compression (better than mp3 though), so the removal of information, and a form of difference encoder/decoder, which it uses with interpolation (so making up the data between known samples) and up sampling during signal reconstruction. The blurring/de-blurring appears to be akin to the dithering that was used with early systems to improve signal resolution. It is not lossless like FLAC, so it technically can not be Master Quality as that would be lossless. I suspect the 'improvement' people hear is that more care is taken during the mastering process, which is why I think a lot of the HDCDs sound better to me than the standard CD. I am very sceptical of any technical advantage of MQA over what already exists, plus it is a proprietary system, so I personally don't see the point of it. If you listen to an album from a 'good pressing' on LP vinyl via a 'good' Turntable/arm/cartridge combination and listen to the same album on a 96kHz/24-bit Blu-ray or FLAC, the perceived difference in quality is smaller than than the technical reality. However, people often prefer the way one 'sounds' to the other and that maybe is the case with MQA.
Owen Smith
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
But we already have higher standard playback abilities, 96/24 FLAC or Blu Ray or DVD-Video (stereo only but still it exists). So from that point of view, all MQA brings to the table is a lossy version. What is the point of that when we already have lossless?
HDCD by contrast arrived when there was nothing else, it was the only thing providing 20 bit resolution. It also didn't make unsubstantiated smoke and mirrors claims about de-blurring or frequency unfolding, everything HDCD offered made technical sense. And while I'm not familiar with how easy it was to encode your own HDCD to compare when it first came out, you certainly can do that now as what it does is well documented.
Thank you for sharing the parts of the AES paper. It is rare that something gets published there with an inconclusive summary. I mean, Gerzon, Bauer, Dorren, Ito all had AES papers published that "proved" their system was the foremost choice for surround sound. But I think it's a basic axiom that whether it's cable interconnect, power amps, record/playback formats.... a MFG'er just doesn't publish info that degrades their product. So really, quite something that this MQA paper fails to convince that this system is audible improvement.
If AES or magazine articles must be interpreted with a cautious view then I am certainly with @Owen Smith in his comments about patents. Patents are sometimes confusing to read but are usually free of fluffery like clarity, blurring, or de-blurring. There are several patents by Bob Stuart as inventor and MQA Limited as the assignee. The most illuminating section I found was :
"Abstract: Devices and methods for digital to analog conversion (DAC) are provided, in which the analog outputs of an even number of digital to analog converters are combined. The individual converters operate on the same data but there is a relative time delay between the input digital signal received by one or more of the converters and the input digital signal received by other of the converters, wherein the delay is a fraction of the data sample period. Moreover, the data signal fed to half of the converters has an inverse relationship with the data signal fed to the other half of the converters and their analog outputs are subtracted. Dither and filtering techniques may also be employed. "
My interpreatation is that MQA technology is at best a tempest in a teapot intended to improve lower bit rate audio such as 16/44.1. No need when we have data bandwidth a plenty & if you you want CD's to play in the car or for casual listening, just stick with RBCD.
From what I’ve read in the past, the point of MQA is to provide the best sound by using a de-blurring method so the artists/record companies wouldn’t have to provide (give away - sort of a protection scheme) what is exactly on the Master Tape of select recordings and to save bandwidth when played back via streaming. Well, it is successful at saving bandwidth but it‘s too late for not giving out exactly what is on the Master Tapes when there are 24/48 or better files that have already been released. Though, a lot of those files are very compressed. Personally, if anything, I think MQA should be used for the streaming companies like Tidal that want to use it. Also, I have a feeling it will eventually disappear like HDCD.
Similar threads
