[JLM]

With Tidal's release of MQA recordings I'm interested in MQA, but haven't found a good listing of available MQA DAC's (beyond http://mqa.co.uk):

Currently available DAC's:

- Audioquest
- Aurender
- Bluesound
- Brinkmann
- Meridian
- Mytek
- NAD

Currently available portable players:

- Onkyo
- Pioneer

Auralic, Bel Canto, Cary, MSB, and Technics will reportedly soon release MQA technology. 

What manufacturers (mostly interested in <$2,000 USD) am I missing? 

Hoping that this thread stays alive for a good long and keep the above listings updated while as this technology matures.

TIA

[slugworth]

Berkeley Reference Series 2 , second quarter 2017
Metrum Acoustics "forthcoming"
Cary Audio DMS-500 server/dac

[brj]

Good idea for a list!  I'd recommend adding the max bit depths and rates (both PCM and DSD) where known.

[JLM]

OK, it's been nearly a year, any additional MQA DAC's? 

I found that Oppo UDP-205 and products from dCS, LG, Pro-ject, Sony and Technics are compatible.

Amarra is MQA compatible, as is Audirvana (for Mac).

Audirvana (for Windows) and Roon will soon be MQA compatible.

Announcements have also been made by Sonore and Metrum Acoustics of an MQA upgrade option across their product ranges; as well as an MQA upgrade for iFi's Nano iDSD BL.

[mav52]

Just research the MQA partners and your list will be almost complete bearing new additions. which includes both DACS and streamers and other compatible devices.  IF its not certified by MQA its not fully a MQA device. http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/our-partners

[JLM]

Just research the MQA partners and your list will be almost complete bearing new additions. which includes both DACS and streamers and other compatible devices.  IF its not certified by MQA its not fully a MQA device. http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/our-partners

Yep, visited their site before posting just now.  That page is woefully incomplete, seems to be only listing some of the latest MQA certified products.

[mav52]

Yep, visited their site before posting just now.  That page is woefully incomplete, seems to be only listing some of the latest MQA certified products.

Which ones is it missing besides Berkeley

[JLM]

Their list is less complete than mine.  How can they hope to sell MQA without a full listing of associated gear?

[jseymour]

I will use a MQA list as companies NOT to buy from.

[JLM]

Can't say I'm a fan of remastering songs I've learned to love or (as a speaker guy) that I'm impressed with the sonic differences between MQA and Redbook, but trying to keep an open mind to what might be our future.

The big advantage of MQA over all the other hi-res formats is that it is accessible to anyone with Redbook capabilities. 

[mav52]

Yep, visited their site before posting just now.  That page is woefully incomplete, seems to be only listing some of the latest MQA certified products.

Which ones are missing  besides Berkeley?/

[RandyH]

Can't say I'm a fan of remastering songs I've learned to love or (as a speaker guy) that I'm impressed with the sonic differences between MQA and Redbook, but trying to keep an open mind to what might be our future.

The big advantage of MQA over all the other hi-res formats is that it is accessible to anyone with Redbook capabilities.

An open mind indeed.  I see no reason to start drawing lines in the sand and eliminating products just because they offer MQA capability.  I have an Bluesound Node 2 streamer/dac that has MQA.  For the most part I think the MQA versions on TIDAL sound great.  Often I cannot tell the difference between the MQA and CD version.  Perhaps if I were being charged extra for access to MQA via TIDAL I might be a bit more critical and discriminating but as it is now I am glad to have the option.  As I upgrade my streaming hardware MQA will not necessarily be a requirement but it will certainly not be a disqualifying feature.

[jseymour]

I don’t want to derail this thread, but for those who haven’t read negative opinions on MQA, I offer my summary on why I think it is something that should not be embraced, but scorned.

When MQA was first announced I was excited at the possibility of a new codec that offered hi-res sound in a smaller packet.  But over the last couple of years MQA has been exposed as an Industry scam.  It takes 24 bit hi-res and at best turns it into 18 bit, but more typically 17 bit or lower.  Its filter has been shown to be less that optimal.  It has been demonstrated that on several occasions MQA is using a different master than was available before.  Why isn’t that master also available in unadulterated PCM?

But the real problem is the built-in DRM.  If it becomes the standard for streaming and it is profitable, then I fear the labels will consider restricting hi-res access (streaming and downloads).  With MQA the studio/record label needs a license, the DAC/Streamer needs a license, the streaming service needs a license.  Anyone involved needs to pay MQA.  Now the labels make new money by “leasing” their music thru streaming.  When using PCM/FLAC nothing needs to be licensed.

Luckily, I think (and hope) MQA will fail.  The majority streaming music are using services such as iTunes through crappy earbuds.  They neither know nor care about audio fidelity.

[JLM]

I don’t want to derail this thread, but for those who haven’t read negative opinions on MQA, I offer my summary on why I think it is something that should not be embraced, but scorned.

When MQA was first announced I was excited at the possibility of a new codec that offered hi-res sound in a smaller packet.  But over the last couple of years MQA has been exposed as an Industry scam.  It takes 24 bit hi-res and at best turns it into 18 bit, but more typically 17 bit or lower.  Its filter has been shown to be less that optimal.  It has been demonstrated that on several occasions MQA is using a different master than was available before.  Why isn’t that master also available in unadulterated PCM?

But the real problem is the built-in DRM.  If it becomes the standard for streaming and it is profitable, then I fear the labels will consider restricting hi-res access (streaming and downloads).  With MQA the studio/record label needs a license, the DAC/Streamer needs a license, the streaming service needs a license.  Anyone involved needs to pay MQA.  Now the labels make new money by “leasing” their music thru streaming.  When using PCM/FLAC nothing needs to be licensed.

Luckily, I think (and hope) MQA will fail.  The majority streaming music are using services such as iTunes through crappy earbuds.  They neither know nor care about audio fidelity.

I agree with everything you say, except: 1.) Note that most Redbook is 14 or 15 bit playback at best, so MQA could provide limited improvement; 2.) As a dedicated non hi-res listener (in my experience few real world audiophiles use it for a variety of reasons - topic for another thread), any improvement in the Redbook realm is welcomed.  It is a Meridian profit ploy.  Remastering is no more than an un-welcomed and un-wanted smoke screen.

[CELT in AR]

A bit late to the subject...but I find this all to be interesting!