Yes of course except none of that is available. What we are discussing is using encoded music to untangle what the response is.
I think I remember seeing Roon listed as a partner on the MQA site but no longer. Any significance to this?
I donât have any special knowledge, so the following is speculation on my part; but it is how I understand events.
Bob Stuartâs technical papers and his Q&A on CA make it clear that MQA decoding could occur in software and even include the A/D D/A time correction, provided the A/D converter and D/A converter are known.
Initially MQA led Roon and Auralic to believe that they could implement software MQA decoding. They were advertised as MQA partners at CES 2016, but during the running of the show MQA and Auralic announced that Auralic would not be implementing firmware MQA decoding in the Aries, as âfinal renderingâ or âthe definitive version of MQAâ required a hardware decoder in a certified DAC.
There was broad speculation (which I believe) that this change of position by MQA was commercial rather than technical in that royalties from dozens of hardware manufacturers were likely to be more lucrative than two software decoders.
Since then, Roon has been in negotiations/discussions with MQA as to software decoding in Roon. Roon is in a good position to do this, because (generally speaking) it knows what the DAC is. No announcement has been made by either Roon or MQA about the outcome of those discussions.
If the removal of Roon from the MQA site was recent then it may be an indication as to how those discussions are faring. If not, it could just have been the site catching up with the position post CES.
Given the time that has elapsed since the discussions started and the absence of any further information from either company I am not optimistic about the prospects for software decoding. If one took the (cynical) view that MQA was making decisions on a commercial basis (as they are fully entitled to do) then software implementation might occur only after the market for licences to hardware manufacturers was saturated.
1 Like
With the DAC hardware dictate, MQA appears set to become the HDCD of the file based and streaming audio age. Another in band coding audio format that largely will go undecoded and be irrelevant â until years later when some sort of official or reverse engineered MQA.exe allows for software decoding upstream of any DAC.
AJ
1 Like
It is my opinion that this will spell the demise of MQA
AudioStream posted some comments on [MQA]
(http://www.audiostream.com/content/ask-audiostream-mqa#uicxBj34P6OtWChY.97).
I donât see much to discuss until thereâs more development. Meanwhile just enjoy your music with Roon 
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
This is much more interesting: [MQA and Warner: the Real Scoop]
(http://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-and-warner-real-scoop#QZ5lGIA2C0r1SZmV.97).
That is interesting. More interesting is when this will be available for sale and streaming.
ânext springâ refers to 2017 or â2018â?
i assume the latter otherwise they would have said âthis springâ.
and if that is the case, we will likely have a lot longer to wait before the music is made available to stream/download in any meaningful variety.
Thatâs a good article, I have to laugh at the negative schoolboy type comments though.
Donât they want MQA delivered, donât they care about quality or are they just professional naysayers? lol
It does seem like things are moving somewhere with MQA material. Iâm sure Spring 2017 was mentioned as when the Warnerâs catalogue conversions would be completed. Iâm not convinced that converting to MQA from 78s seems very worthwhile but I get the point that that may be the best source available.
1 Like
I want quality, thatâs precisely why I donât want MQA. 
Really ???
Please stop this!
You proved over the last months that you are a true believer.
But donât ridicule others who have doubts and are not willing to blindly believe such trumpesque promises as we read in the mentioned article.
2 Likes
Be honest - you donât want MQA as it doesnât go with HQ Player.
1 Like
That is a baseless accusation, and I think moderators should remove this post. Far from being baseless, he has been very scientific about his arguments (unlike just about anyone here, including myself, certanly you).
This is the part that actually puzzles me the most about the MQA description.
If youâre taking a single miked to an ADC or analog tape, or an analog recording then ADCâd in one step and never touched in the digital domain, then the argument makes sense. But most recordings from the last 40 years are not produced like this. Thereâs multiple mikes, ADCâs, digital sources that never saw analog, etc etc, plus mixing in the analog domain, including all sorts of effects like digital reverb, etc etc. I donât understand what all the arguments about knowing the chain that MQA makes in this regard. That is, other than a generic apodizing filter.
Someone care to explain or point me to an explanation?
1 Like
His quality concerns have been addressed by MQA in a number of places. I think they have been posted before in this thread. I will confirm and if not add those links.