Re: [閒聊] MQA事件 soulnote設計師看法

[Oswyn (Oswyn)]

: 推 Oswyn: RME Audio 論壇大概四五年前就有人在問會不會支援 MQA       04/10 15:14
: → Oswyn: Co-Founder: 在可預見的未來 RME 設備都不會支援 MQA        04/10 15:14
: → Oswyn: 還是一直有人問，Co-Founder 就說有別的論壇可以討論 MQA    04/10 15:15
: → Oswyn: 最後就把這篇給鎖了XD                                     04/10 15:15

我回去找了下這篇
截幾個 Co-Founder Matthias Carstens （MC、Administrator）的回應


2019-01-21 03:16:45     #4      Re: MQA is it possible?
MC      Administrator
RME units will not support MQA for the forseeable future.

2021-03-06 05:19:23     #33
nickchop wrote:
Also, im not sure how you can concluded that the MQA process is just
dithering. The major sonic benefit is achieved by using information about the
encoding process to correct time domain errors. MQA claims--and here is where
it's closed nature is frustrating--DSD-like transients and nearly perfect
impulse response performance.

MC      Administrator
That is marketing BS and has been debunked several times on the web. It
mainly comes down to using an insufficient / slow reconstruction filter on
the DAC side.

2021-03-06 09:38:35     #36
nickchop wrote:
Playback on a non-MQA DAC is definitely not 13 bit. That's just flatly false..

MC      Administrator
True, there seems to be something missing or wrong in the quote. The 13 bits
statement is correct with MQA CDs, so this is not a simple typo or error.

And to answer your question: no change on our side, means no direct MQA
support.

2021-03-07 05:37:57     #40
KaiS wrote:
Whatever good or bad MQA is, isn’t it decoded to PCM in the host software
anyway - at least here it is.

No need for MQA support in the hardware as far as I see.

MC      Administrator
That is somehow true. One can do all the decoding and unfolding in software.
By upsampling MQA can use the desired DAC (reconstruction) filter in the
software domain, and the real DAC's filter is out of the way because now
doing nothing relevant anymore (at 96 kHz or up). Or set it to Off (NOS)...

2021-03-09 07:28:18     #56
MC      Administrator
To all: Can we stop this useless discussion, please? There are other forums
for this kind of stuff, and the main question has been answered. Thanks.

這是業界（良心）人士多年前的回應

所以都是營銷 BS，而且早就在網路上多次被揭穿（但還是很多人情義相挺）

解碼跟展開全都可以在軟體中完成（所以硬要塞在晶片全都是為了［請自行填入］）

--
                    人間五十年、化天のうちを比ぶれば、夢幻の如くなり
   ^,,,^                                一度生を享け、滅せぬもののあるべきか
(ミ‵ω′)\m/                                      NOBUMETAL DEATH!!(乂'ω')

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 114.36.209.13 (臺灣)
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Audiophile/M.1681112326.A.1E9.html
推 l98: 看看 MFI 就知道了......那根本就是 OO
                                          星星點燈 照亮我的錢程XD

推 comipa: 為了 $$$$
→ Garrys: 搞新玩具就是為了$$$$還是$$$
→ jakkx: 錢程XD
推 yys310: 死死好
推 hsakuya: marketing BS XDDD
        B..B...British Standard てす XD

推 tienam: Marketing BS是什麼意思?
推 odanaga: bullshit的意思
推 yys310: butt se...
→ Makeinu: Baby Shark
→ GLUESTICK: 蛇油
推 xoy: 一直以來都有質疑MQA Render不一定要在DAC裡做，Unfold本來
→ xoy: 就是純軟體面的事，只能說DAC要做MQA Render相對簡單，也是
→ xoy: 為什麼MQA推廣初期一堆平價DAC靠韌體升級就可以有MQA Render
→ xoy: 的功能，而MQA吃相比較難看的主要是要花錢的認證，不管是音
→ xoy: 樂製作端或播放軟硬體端
→ BayonettaTJ: 商業取向太誇張的手段，到現在才垮台也是一絕
        行銷充滿誤導跟詐●，老實一點不好嗎
        吃相又太難看
        明明可以一次解決（Software）但只給半殘核心
        連硬體都要拆兩種，搞了一堆名詞跟燈號

        說真的只賺音源那邊的授權不夠香嗎，非要兩頭賺

推 djboy: 綁IC的好處是容易算到數量然後拿授權費，這在其他業界很常
→ djboy: 見的手法。
        但發燒業界本來就不太有量，合約限制還一堆
        變成逼 HW 廠 all or nothing 選邊站
        所以現在倒了，要是不強插手到硬體我猜資金不會這麼容易燒光
※ 編輯: Oswyn (114.36.210.72 臺灣), 04/10/2023 21:08:26
推 Ereinion9895: 乖乖只讓軟體解就好，偏偏還要再硬體扒一層。重點
→ Ereinion9895: 是又不是真的比較好聽或真無損
推 hope951: MQA最近好像虧損很嚴重的樣子
推 tienam: 看來是家行銷牛糞的公司，倒了也好(？)