Maybe their devs are furiously implementing the code to do it so they can say yes? (a half joke, I really have no idea if having the XMOS chip means they'd just need to write some software)

SprayingMango

jeffswitzer
Maybe their devs are furiously implementing the code to do it so they can say yes? (a half joke, I really have no idea if having the XMOS chip means they'd just need to write some software)

Yeah I can’t understand why I cannot get a straight answer from EVGA about this. It’s such a simple question.

Yeah it would be useful to know if this card supports MQA.

EVGA please tell us if it does or doesn’t.

As an update on this one, sorry for the delay. MQA is not currently supported but we are looking to see if it can be supported in the future.

MrEWhite
Yeah, I'm kinda disappointed about this. I currently use a Pro-ject Pre Box Digital S2 and it recently stopped working correctly. I would've bought the NU Audio in a heartbeat if it properly supported MQA.

We don't have a final answer on this yet, other than it is not currently supported.  We're still looking into it.

For those who don't know
 

 

I suppose still no MQA support for the Nu Audio Pro?

lemmy know

I would think any implementation to support MQA would require licensing through MQA at an additional cost for EVGA. That may be possible for future products but I'm unsure how that would work on existing products. I would even be willing to pay extra for this feature if it could be implemented through a flash/software update. I stream through Tidal and it does the MQA unfolding in software. I'm sure hardware unfolding would sound better. I know MQA is controversial but I do like it. In the Audiophile forums they think the format is a scam, although reviewers at Stereophile and the Absolute sound seem to like it. I also have a number of DSD songs from a few years back and the differences are very apparent compared to other formats. I don't always agree with people in the audiophile forums and they all seem to like Qobuz better than Tidal. I'm actually using both services right now and for me I prefer Tidal for various reasons.

Even if it doesn't you don't want that as a home audio sollution. Just watch the video by the youtuber "GoldenSound". It's all just marketing bs by MQA, nowhere near as good as FLAC. Not only has it worse sound but file size can also be bigger than the FLAC equivalent. Really no reason to use it unless you're super proud to support a very anti-consumer company that makes huge amounts of money by inventing a useless codec where they are very sparse to say how it actually works other than the usual marketing nonsense with it sounds like it's supposed to be so they can market it that way and don't give any actual info lol

DIRTRAT11
Like all Audiophiles YOU have YOUR opinion. One thing that is apparent is Audiophiles never agree and are never united about anything! I listen with my ears and my listening experiences are different than yours. Even on Audio equipment opinions vary GREATLY! What may be the best product available to someone may be terrible to someone else. Like all Music the source and provenance is by far the most important thing. If the recording is poor nothing nothing can fix that. If you really want to start an argument with audiophiles start talking about tweeks! Its funny how some audiophiles think that everything is absolute and they are always right about everything!

It's hard to argue that performing lossy compression of audio you can hear just to save enough space to store ultrasonic audio you can't hear, is an opinion of merit. It's quite fundamentally pointless and inferior.
Lossy versus lossless isn't really an opinion. It's a technological process based on science, and the difference is known and measurable.

sloerhoofd

transdogmifier
For those who don't know
 

 

Thx for this

You believe that nonsense?  As I said above:

Overall opinion of MQA: Completely pointless and useless.
 
@ 4:22: False.  "Clearly".  LOL! Fail.  Patently false.
 
@ 4:51: False.  Patently.  The sound output is guaranteed to be identical to the recorded input.  Mathematically guaranteed.  It is impossible to be different.  The only place to improve: the DAC (if not designed to specifications), and the analog output from the DAC (traces, amplifier, output, etcetera).
 
The rest of the video?  What more can I say?  The rest is just opinion based on false pretenses.

Additionally, @:5:51 "Yup, this is as close as you are going to get to the master copy!...".  Does he really believe this nonsense!?!  As he knows, it is a lossy compression!  How can anyone believe that the statement is true if it is measurable that information was lost and that it is not in fact the original copy!?!?  I mean, you are PROVING that it is not the original copy, and then saying "this is as close as it gets"!?!?  What?!  CDA is lossless, doesn't need compression, and is a bit-perfect copy of recorded human-perceivable sound which is mathematically guaranteed to be reproduced on the other end.  How can lossy compression be better than that?
 
His argument shouldn't be about bandwidth.  His argument should be about lossy versus lossless.  And his argument should be about whether recording ultrasonic sound which humans can't hear has any merit.  The video is simply flawed.  He almost gets to the point of talking about something which matters, but then the video just veers off onto stuff which doesn't matter.  It's almost like making excuses for why MQA can't be better, rather than discussing whether it should exist in the first place.

EVGA_JacobF
As an update on this one, sorry for the delay. MQA is not currently supported but we are looking to see if it can be supported in the future.

I hope so.

MQA is a scam, i don't get why it's so popular, MQA is not lossless by any means, if you want lossless then go for either wav (master audio) or the smaller flac (both are lossless)
and dont go trying to convert a lossy format into lossless considering once the data is gone in say MP3, that info is gone and cannot be retrieved unless you have the original wav or flac