Here's the exact quote from Bluesound/MQA:
"When MQA is previewed and approved in the studio, a 'digital out decoder' is one of those preview options. This preview process ensures all applications of MQA playback are fully approved and authenticated. MQA is 'one' music file and will be delivered to many hardware devices. This MQA Decoder "knows" its playback environment and unfolds the stream to the ability of the playback device. When decoding for a digital output, the stream is optimised for a generic 96kHz-capable DAC or a subsequent MQA decoder."
Can anyone "de-blur" that for me? Does it mean what comes out of the Bluesound is as good as it gets? Or does it mean that what comes out of the Bluesound is not as good as the full-fat MQA decode available only to those with Meridian DACs?
It might mean that *studios* can have kit to convert back to plain LPCM having fully 'decoded' all MQA info. So it could be something provided for studios, but not for the consumers.
The problem here is a that a lot of what is quoted from MQA statements is ambiguous. The use of the term "format" is another example.
Wave LPCM is a defined format which dictates that the samples *are* plain LPCM. MQA hijacks some of those bits and uses them for conveying *non*-LPCM info. Thus a standard LPCM player that doesn't recognise MQA will treat the bits as being part of LPCM samples, altering the results.
From the POV of a real-world engineer, that means the file or stream is not wave LPCM format. It is something else.
What I can't tell is *why* these ambiguities seem to be appearing in MQA statements, answers, etc. They may be a lack of thought, or the result of someone having become so acclimiatised to what they are trying to do with MQA that they don't see the ambiguities. Or someone wanting to 'dumb down' explanations/answers because they don't want to befuddle non-technical readers. Or some other reason.
However - unlike MQA - anyone who wishes could start using the open alternative *now*. The programs now exist and are in the public domain to generate the files and play them. At the moment you'd need some computing 'nous'. But it is also open for someone to make desktop file generators and players, etc.
The point of this isn't necessarily that everyone will rush out and do so. It is that as and when MQA appears people will know the alternative exists and is available for adoption. And that it has already shown similar levels of file size compression, etc.
The only thing it lacks is the mechanicsms for covering the details in secret sauce and controlling access in exchange for added payments to IPR owners of the methods used. What it adds is the ability for anyone interested to completely decode and check the results and develop *improvements* as and when they wish.
FWIW as I've said before, I have a high regard for the audio skills, etc, of Bob Stuart and Peter Craven. They have an impressive track record. So none of my concerns have been about the sound quality potential of MQA. Indeed, having spent time experimenting with an alternative has let me agree that it should be quite feasible to reduce the 'high rez' file sizes by amounts akin to what MQA seems to be offerring. My interests are in people have a free and informed choice and being able to use and check the results and improve them *without* having secret sauce get in the way. Up to each person then to decide if that attracts them or not. Your choice, not mine.
