# CES 2017: MQA announces TIDAL Masters, and more



## joe

​  ​ MQA has a number of announcements today at CES 2017, and we're really excited to learn that MQA music now will be offered through TIDAL. TIDAL has launched a new feature called "TIDAL Masters" which will offer MQA music and sound quality to all of its TIDAL HiFi subscribers. So, if you're not a TIDAL subscriber yet, it sounds to me like a great time to become one. *Click here* for more information on TIDAL MASTERS.
  
 MQA is also announcing that more products will be adding MQA implementation:
  

Technics will be offering MQA implementation into their Grand Class SU-G30 Network Player Amplifier this year.
  
​  
  

AudioQuest will be bringing MQA implementation to the DragonFly Red and DragonFly Black later this year via a software update. 
  
​  
  

Mytek is also offering MQA implementation in their new Mytek Clef DAC/amp, and you can read about the Mytek Clef by clicking here: *Mytek Clef*
  
​  
  

Audirvana will be offering MQA decoding in their upcoming Audirvana Plus 3, which is due to be released early 2017.
  
​  
 For more information, be sure to check out MQA's press release.


----------



## Sound Eq

any chnace MQA will come to tidal on phones app or android daps


----------



## lostman

So I went to the desktop app and to "Masters" section and played a song from Led Zeppelin and it was still FLAC. What's going on?


----------



## leaky74

Using a mac & giving Tidal direct acess to the DAC (using an AK70 as USB DAC), it changes bit/sample rate accordingly. I understand the decision by Chord with the Mojo to mute the first couple of seconds of a track; changing from one rate to another is painful!


----------



## doggiemom

sound eq said:


> any chnace MQA will come to tidal on phones app or android daps


 

 From the Tidal Masters FAQ:  "Master-quality albums and tracks will be available on mobile and web applications at a later date."


----------



## sling5s

Amarra 4?


----------



## loplop

I saw this after an update to Tidal app (OS X) this morning.  Works great.  If you already had HiFi streaming set, it now defaults to Master if available.  So far, all have been 24/96.
  
 So far there's only 199 albums, even though their FAQ suggests there are thousands...  That is, unless more can be unearthed in search, or stumbled upon accidentally.  They will need to fix that--scrolling through What's New isn't very efficient...
  
 A nice update.  Looking forward to some more listening, and more content!


----------



## Sound Eq

great news about mqa in tidal mobile app


----------



## Roybenz

Its a setting "Passthrough MQA" ​Should this be on or off in day settings?


----------



## germay0653

Is this implemented with Roon integration?


----------



## chefboyarlee

There is  a noticeable improvement.  I F'N LOVE this!


----------



## germay0653

chefboyarlee said:


> There is  a noticeable improvement.  I F'N LOVE this!


 

 Agreed.  Sounds better than some of the 24/96 and 24/192 downloads of the same music and that's without the DAC being MQA capable.  It was indicated that there would be benefit without MQA actually being implemented in the DAC's firmware.  Hopefully, my DAC manufacturer will implement it.  Would love to hear what it sounds like with that in place.


----------



## leaky74

roybenz said:


> Its a setting "[COLOR=A5A5A5]Passthrough MQA" [/COLOR]​Should this be on or off in day settings?




I was wondering the same thing.


----------



## raypin

mm...nice!


----------



## loplop

MQA Passthrough should only be enabled for a DAC that has built-in MQA decoding.
  
 FWIW, like up sampling, this may be best handled by the host computer (assuming it has the CPU to do so), as that can be optimized over time, unlike the DAC which will likely always have the same implementation.
  
 It does create a noticeable, but not bothersome, load on my '15 MBP i5.
  
 Sounds great, as indicated above.


----------



## Andrew Rieger

How can you tell which version of an album is being played? There is nothing to indicate which albums have Master copies.


----------



## leaky74

andrew rieger said:


> How can you tell which version of an album is being played? There is nothing to indicate which albums have Master copies.




In the albums section, there's a masters tab. When you play it, its annotated with master where it's normally labelled 'hifi'


----------



## Andrew Rieger

leaky74 said:


> In the albums section, there's a masters tab. When you play it, its annotated with master where it's normally labelled 'hifi'


 

 Ah, sweet. Now I see it. Thanks.


----------



## Andrew Rieger

Did Tidal say anything about how much of their catalog will be available in MQA? It does sound very nice but I thought they said it was taking forever to implement because they were converting their whole catalog. 200 albums is tiny and most of it is crap I don't listen to.


----------



## goldendarko

Really excited about this even if it's only a handful of albums to start with, I'm sure more are coming. Just hope it comes to mobile soon, if I'm sitting at my desk and listening I already have all my hi res music available on JRiver so mobile is what I'm really looking forward too.


----------



## leaky74

Is there a way/workaround to avoid the 'noise' when switching from one rate to another?


----------



## doggiemom

andrew rieger said:


> Did Tidal say anything about how much of their catalog will be available in MQA? It does sound very nice but I thought they said it was taking forever to implement because they were converting their whole catalog. 200 albums is tiny and most of it is crap I don't listen to.



I would hope that they are only releasing albums for which high res is already available. If they just upsampled the rest of the catalog it would defeat the purpose.


----------



## Roybenz

Its more beeing added just now while i was listening..
  
 How do i find out if my dac supports MQA ? (using CMA800i) I do get sound no matter if i choose to -Passthrough MQA-  Or not. I think its better when the box is not checked but I'm not sure.
  
 (On my MHA100 it seems to give 24/48 when its checked, and 24/96 when its not on)


----------



## Andrew Rieger

roybenz said:


> Its more beeing added just now while i was listening..
> 
> How do i find out if my dac supports MQA ? (using CMA800i) I do get sound no matter if i choose to -Passthrough MQA-  Or not. I think its better when the box is not checked but I'm not sure.
> 
> (On my MHA100 it seems to give 24/48 when its checked, and 24/96 when its not on)


 

 There are only a handful of DACs that fully unwrap MQA files. Any DAC will play them and will sound better than CD quality but you need a Meridian approved DAC to get everything. Its kind of a ****ty marketing scheme if you ask me. Most DAC builders are digging in their heels because they don't want to pay the licensing fees.
  
 Here is the list of full MQA DACs under "Playback Partners" (The selection sucks are the good ones are stupid expensive)
  
 Link: http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/our-partners


----------



## Andrew Rieger

Where is this "Passthrough MQA" people are mentioning?


----------



## searchy

andrew rieger said:


> Here is the list of full MQA DACs under "Playback Partners" (The selection sucks are the good ones are stupid expensive)
> 
> Link: http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/our-partners


 
  
 Just got the Onkyo DP-X1A and it is great! You can get the Pioneer XDP-100R for less than $300 which also support MQA so that is also an option.


----------



## Roybenz

andrew rieger said:


> There are only a handful of DACs that fully unwrap MQA files. Any DAC will play them and will sound better than CD quality but you need a Meridian approved DAC to get everything. Its kind of a ****ty marketing scheme if you ask me. Most DAC builders are digging in their heels because they don't want to pay the licensing fees.
> 
> Here is the list of full MQA DACs under "Playback Partners" (The selection sucks are the good ones are stupid expensive)
> 
> Link: http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/our-partners


 

 That means that most of the high end dac`s won't support it. So if the setting Passthrough MQA is not checked in tidal, does that mean that the computer does the job and not the dac? In that case, how much quality would get lost?


----------



## Roybenz

andrew rieger said:


> Where is this "Passthrough MQA" people are mentioning?


 

 Its in tidal under settings for your dac, under streaming when you click the hifi or master down in the bottom right of tidal.


----------



## Krutsch

loplop said:


> MQA Passthrough should only be enabled for a DAC that has built-in MQA decoding.
> 
> *FWIW, like up sampling, this may be best handled by the host computer (assuming it has the CPU to do so), as that can be optimized over time, unlike the DAC which will likely always have the same implementation.*
> 
> ...


 
  
 Nope. For a complete summary of this topic, see Q42:
  
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/694-comprehensive-q-mqa-s-bob-stuart/


----------



## HesNot

Hmm well I am a Tidal subscriber, have a Pioneer XDP-100R and a Macbook Air (mid 2012) - any ideas on how to connect the XDP to the macbook to then stream the MQA files from the laptop app?


----------



## TjPhysicist

joe said:


> ​  ​ MQA has a number of announcements today at CES 2017, and we're really excited to learn that MQA music now will be offered through TIDAL. TIDAL has launched a new feature called "TIDAL Masters" which will offer MQA music and sound quality to all of its TIDAL HiFi subscribers. So, if you're not a TIDAL subscriber yet, it sounds to me like a great time to become one. *Click here* for more information on TIDAL MASTERS.
> 
> MQA is also announcing that more products will be adding MQA implementation:
> 
> ...


 
 Audirvana 3? Does that mean, just like with Audirvana 2, I'll have to pay more $$s to upgrade to Audirvana 3? (Not sure if that is known yet or not). Since i just bought audirvana 2 a few days back.
  
 Also: reading through MQA Q&A thing, WOW lot of complex information about audio. Still trying to wrap my head around it. Question: If i do NOT have MQA capable DAC or player (which, it looks like, a lot of us will not), my understanding is that the information unpacked will just be 44.1/16 (regular CD) right? But the assertion is that it will still sound a bit better than the same thing in a regular 44.1/16 FLAC, lets say? (if that comparison makes sense).
  
 I'm still a bit unsure about MQA tbh. What do you guys here think about MQA? Do you think it will be the next thing to take over audiophile community? (Let's leave the "will it take over audio community in general aside, as it likely will not. Unlike some of the assertions in the Q&A I really do NOT believe that the general public will care enough about sound to start adopting MQA, unless it is forced at them - i.e. spotify and youtube move to MQA audio).


----------



## Mozartaudio

*Tidal Streaming: 24/352,8   MQA  *!
 Congratulations and thank you to all the teams : Meridian, Tidal,  Roon(hope soon), Mytec


----------



## mike138

tjphysicist said:


> Audirvana 3? Does that mean, just like with Audirvana 2, I'll have to pay more $$s to upgrade to Audirvana 3? (Not sure if that is known yet or not). Since i just bought audirvana 2 a few days back.
> 
> Also: reading through MQA Q&A thing, WOW lot of complex information about audio. Still trying to wrap my head around it. Question: If i do NOT have MQA capable DAC or player (which, it looks like, a lot of us will not), my understanding is that the information unpacked will just be 44.1/16 (regular CD) right? But the assertion is that it will still sound a bit better than the same thing in a regular 44.1/16 FLAC, lets say? (if that comparison makes sense).
> 
> I'm still a bit unsure about MQA tbh. What do you guys here think about MQA? Do you think it will be the next thing to take over audiophile community? (Let's leave the "will it take over audio community in general aside, as it likely will not. Unlike some of the assertions in the Q&A I really do NOT believe that the general public will care enough about sound to start adopting MQA, unless it is forced at them - i.e. spotify and youtube move to MQA audio).


 
 My gut feeling is that it will be another niche audio product, like SACD or DSD. I doubt most people have the level of quality equipment to be able to discern the difference in audio quality. And many that do don't want to tear down their current rigs to accommodate the new format, especially since many equipment manufacturers aren't looking like they are getting on board. 
  
 Just my opinions, though.


----------



## TjPhysicist

mike138 said:


> My gut feeling is that it will be another niche audio product, like SACD or DSD. I doubt most people have the level of quality equipment to be able to discern the difference in audio quality. And many that do don't want to tear down their current rigs to accommodate the new format, especially since many equipment manufacturers aren't looking like they are getting on board.
> 
> Just my opinions, though.


 
 That was my immediate first though as well. They do have some good ideas (I mean philosophically) though.


----------



## Andrew Rieger

This will only catch on if Tidal starts releasing a sizable amount of music in the format and remastering older stuff. Right now, the amount of available music makes this a tough sell as far as purchasing MQA support gear is concerned.


----------



## Andrew Rieger

mozartaudio said:


> *Tidal Streaming: 24/352,8   MQA  *!
> Congratulations and thank you to all the teams : Meridian, Tidal,  Roon, Mytec


 
  
 Dies every MQA track play back at 24/352.8? Or does it vary from track to track?


----------



## Andrew Rieger

roybenz said:


> That means that most of the high end dac`s won't support it. So if the setting Passthrough MQA is not checked in tidal, does that mean that the computer does the job and not the dac? In that case, how much quality would get lost?


 

 It seems that non MQA DACs are limited to 24/96 but on MQA certified DACs, the bit rate is showing crazy high numbers like 24/352.8.


----------



## Sound Eq

that means i am sure many new dac/amp will come out that will support mqa soon, and i bet chord will be one of them


----------



## fapman

This just pretty much confirms that Sennheiser (who is also partnered with Tidal). Is going to bring the HDVD 820 (or whatever they will call it) out with MQA support later this year.


----------



## Bananam4n

Loving the master quality. I didn't think it would make any audible difference, but as soon as I started listening i could tell the difference in 10 seconds very impressive I would recommend everyone who is skeptical to give this a try,
  
 Is there a list of all the albums that are available in master or are the albums under the master section all of it?


----------



## canthearyou

I can't even find the master section.


----------



## tuxbass

canthearyou said:


> I can't even find the master section.


 
  
 "What's New" (scroll down) -> "Albums" -> "Masters" (a tab in Albums) ... hope that helps !
  
 Not very intuitive, so don't feel bad


----------



## Sort

Right now it appears just he couple hundred albums listed in the Master section of albums. Some excellent albums though to check out the high res. Don't get lost in numbers and just listen. I don't possess the requisite vocab to describe the audible differences, but it all feels more layered, more nuisanced. I mean 24/96 is amazing without any additional compatibility with MAQ. It may not be the big game changer, but what a pleasure for some deep listening.


----------



## canthearyou

tuxbass said:


> "What's New" (scroll down) -> "Albums" -> "Masters" (a tab in Albums) ... hope that helps !
> 
> Not very intuitive, so don't feel bad




Ahhhhh, I see! Thanks!


----------



## pbear

sort said:


> Right now it appears just he couple hundred albums listed in the Master section of albums. Some excellent albums though to check out the high res. Don't get lost in numbers and just listen. I don't possess the requisite vocab to describe the audible differences, but it all feels more layered, more nuisanced. I mean 24/96 is amazing without any additional compatibility with MAQ. It may not be the big game changer, but what a pleasure for some deep listening.


 
  
 There are definitely more albums besides those shown in "What's New". For example, "What's New" has "Turn Blue" by the Black Keys and "This Is All Yours" by alt-J. However, there are other albums available by both artists in the Master format. On the Windows desktop client, there are two apparently identical versions of these albums on the artist page. Playing tracks from one version will show HIFI, while the other version will show MASTER. There doesn't seem to be any way to find all of these albums.


----------



## Andrew Rieger

pbear said:


> There are definitely more albums besides those shown in "What's New". For example, "What's New" has "Turn Blue" by the Black Keys and "This Is All Yours" by alt-J. However, there are other albums available by both artists in the Master format. On the Windows desktop client, there are two apparently identical versions of these albums on the artist page. Playing tracks from one version will show HIFI, while the other version will show MASTER. There doesn't seem to be any way to find all of these albums.


 

 Noticed this as well, so there are definitely more than 200 MQA albums. But the only way you can tell is if Tidal displays two identical albums on the artist page. Super Annoying. Tidal needs to list ALL available MQA albums.


----------



## canthearyou

It sounds great! The clarity, imaging and quieter background are noticeable. Not sure how or why, but I can hear a difference and it's for the better. 

Just comparing my FLAC rip of Fleetwood Macs Rumors to the Masters copy and I can hear a difference.

If my wife wasn't I'll with the flu I'd have her help me A/B some songs.


----------



## Currawong

lostman said:


> So I went to the desktop app and to "Masters" section and played a song from Led Zeppelin and it was still FLAC. What's going on?


 
  
 MQA files are CD quality files with the high-res portion encoded as "noise" in the parts of the file where there is normally no data. Playing an MQA file vs. the CD Quality original through a regular DAC, the MQA will be the worse choice, as it will have more noise.  Playing the MQA back through an MQA capable DAC, the noise gets decoded into the high-res portion of the file.  
  


andrew rieger said:


> roybenz said:
> 
> 
> > That means that most of the high end dac`s won't support it. So if the setting Passthrough MQA is not checked in tidal, does that mean that the computer does the job and not the dac? In that case, how much quality would get lost?
> ...


 
  
 Limited to 44.1/16 as that is essentially what is being sent in an MQA file.


----------



## canthearyou

currawong said:


> MQA files are CD quality files with the high-res portion encoded as "noise" in the parts of the file where there is normally no data. Playing an MQA file vs. the CD Quality original through a regular DAC, the MQA will be the worse choice, as it will have more noise.  Playing the MQA back through an MQA capable DAC, the noise gets decoded into the high-res portion of the file.
> 
> 
> Limited to 44.1/16 as that is essentially what is being sent in an MQA file.




I thought they were the studio masters?


----------



## erich6

So, a few things to clarify what's been said and what I'm seeing with the Tidal update for MQA:
  
 1) MQA is an encoder technology not a new file format so FLAC can still be MQA encoded.
 2) MQA will "unfold" the studio master back to whatever the original studio master resolution was.  So, if it was a 192kHz resolution master that's as high as it will go.  Many of the new tracks from L2 and mastered with DSD and such and have very high rates (>192kHz).
 3) The desktop Tidal app appears to have a software MQA decoder; it seems this is a limited implementation as it tops out at reproducing up to 24bit/96kHz but it is still better than CD quality.  You will need an MQA certified DAC to get higher resolutions.
 4) If you have an MQA-enabled DAC you need to enable the "Passthrough MQA" option in the stream audio settings and enable "exclusive mode;" this should disable the software decoding and let the MQA DAC do its magic.
 5) There are many more MQA albums than those listed under the "What's New"-"Masters" tab.  As others have stated, the only way you can immediately tell if an album has an MQA version is if you see two (or more) versions--one might be MQA.  You can definitely tell when a track is playing as where you used to se "HIFI" you will see "MASTER."
 6) MQA files will play through other apps like Roon but as far as I can tell Roon doesn't have software MQA decoding feature yet.  This is why some people that have an MQA DAC (like the Explorer2) will see it light up with Roon and not with Tidal (unless they've changed the Tidal setting).
 7) The MQA tracks sound great! You will notice the difference more in some albums than others depending on the version Tidal had before.  Check out albums like Aqualung by Jethro Tull and you will clearly notice the difference.
 8) More albums are coming.  This Tidal release appears to coincide with Warner's release and several of the L2 label albums.  There is more coming from Warner as reportedly they are converting their entire catalog to MQA.  Still unknown when other labels will follow suit. 
  
 Cheers!


----------



## Andrew Rieger

I can confirm that there are hundreds of MQA albums on Tidal, way more than the 200 listed in "Whats New". What you need to do is go into the "Whats New ... Masters" section, list all the albums and then click the artist name below the picture, this takes you to the artists page and from there, in the "albums" listing, you will see duplicates of some (not all) albums. Those duplicates are often Master versions but they are not labeled as such so you need to play a track to see which is which. This is a really stupid system that Tidal needs to fix but for those complaining that there isn't enough music, well good news, there is a **** ton more than we thought. For example, The "What's New Masters" section lists two Led Zeppelin albums but if you go to Led Zeppelins page, you can see that they have MQA versions of 90% of their catalogue.


----------



## pbear

currawong said:


> MQA files are CD quality files with the high-res portion encoded as "noise" in the parts of the file where there is normally no data. *Playing an MQA file vs. the CD Quality original through a regular DAC, the MQA will be the worse choice, as it will have more noise.*


 
  
 This may not be true for all MQA files. The MQA remastering process supposedly uses "deblurring" where possible to compensate for time domain inaccuracies introduced by the specific A/D converter known to be used in the original recording chain.
  
 In http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/meridians-master-quality-authenticated-the-interview/
  
J. Robert Stuart (MQA co-architect) said "MQA turns PCM into PCM. When you play it back, it’ll play back on a legacy system sounding better than a CD. And it sounds better than CD because the noise floor is properly managed and the signal has been pre-apodized."


----------



## Krutsch

currawong said:


> MQA files are CD quality files with the high-res portion encoded as "noise" in the parts of the file where there is normally no data. *Playing an MQA file vs. the CD Quality original through a regular DAC, the MQA will be the worse choice, as it will have more noise.*  Playing the MQA back through an MQA capable DAC, the noise gets decoded into the high-res portion of the file.
> 
> Limited to 44.1/16 as that is essentially what is being sent in an MQA file.


 
  
 Unless you are using a player with a software decoder. Today, that means the TIDAL native app, which will decode to 96/24 or 88.2/24 (I've seen this reflected in my DAC, as of this morning).
  
 Audirvana, Roon, et al. are all promising inclusion of the software decoder (A+ is saying by end of January).
  
 With an MQA -enabled DAC, you are able to get the full resolution (upwards of 384 kHz) via their unfolding (origami) technique.


----------



## Gowry

So,
  
 I'm listening to Natalie Merchant's Tigerlily and it seems there is no way this is simply the MQA version of the same flac album they've had. The guitar sounds a lot different. This must be the master before processing. That said. It sounds a lot better than the flac and this was what I already considered a well-mastered album.


----------



## caenlenfromOCN

gowry said:


> So,
> 
> I'm listening to Natalie Merchant's Tigerlily and it seems there is no way this is simply the MQA version of the same flac album they've had. The guitar sounds a lot different. This must be the master before processing. That said. It sounds a lot better than the flac and this was what I already considered a well-mastered album.


 
  
 Will this work on my Schiit Fulla 2, or is it only for people with expensive gear? I am thinking of paying for TIDAL now just to check it out.  Cheers, please let me know someone ^^


----------



## Andrew Rieger

caenlenfromocn said:


> Will this work on my Schiit Fulla 2, or is it only for people with expensive gear? I am thinking of paying for TIDAL now just to check it out.  Cheers, please let me know someone ^^


 

 Yes, it will work with the Fulla. Any DAC that can do 24/96 can unwrap MQA but a Meridian certified DAC can do above 24/96 (I've seen crazy numbers like 24/352). Pretty much any DAC can extract 90-95% of MQA's sound quality but you will pray a premium to get that last 10% with an MQA certified DAC. So for now, hold off on DAC purchases and enjoy a noticeable bump in sound quality with your current DAC and then pick up a MQA certified DAC when they drop in price over the next year or so.


----------



## odanovich

lostman said:


> So I went to the desktop app and to "Masters" section and played a song from Led Zeppelin and it was still FLAC. What's going on?


 
 You have to go to settings and change the playback setting.... File > Settings > Quality : HiFi / Master.    THEN   you must go to sound output, select your DAC  and click on two settings: Force Volume...  and ... Passthrough MQA..     Without checking Passthrough MQA, Tidal will decode the format prior to feeding your DAC....  
  
 Hope this helps!


----------



## abrxx

gowry said:


> So,
> 
> I'm listening to Natalie Merchant's Tigerlily and it seems there is no way this is simply the MQA version of the same flac album they've had. The guitar sounds a lot different. This must be the master before processing. That said. It sounds a lot better than the flac and this was what I already considered a well-mastered album.


 
 So I listened to Tigerlily as well, and A/B'd the first 5 tracks between HIFI and MASTER. Very noticeable difference. This must be a different master.With the track "River" the bass drum in the intro is almost inaudible, whereas its quite loud on the HIFI version. No way MQA can change the level of a bass drum! Also comparing "May I know the word", the level of background hiss is much higher on the MASTER. Sounds like a HF roll-off was added for the HIFI version, and removed for the MASTER.
  
 Very curious indeed. I think I prefer the MASTER version, but it does seem like a different version of the album entirely.


----------



## odanovich

Fir the first time in my life, my Chord Mojo is changing colors due to output variance!!!! I'm soo excited to see Red, Yellow, Green...  Instead of being stuck on blue all the time   Thank you Tidal Masters!!!!!!


----------



## Roybenz

I noticed on mha100 dac that when checked the box Passthrough MQA setting it scaled down to /48 and when box not checked it displayed /96 it means that when tidal do decoding it provides better sound? Maybe it scales down because mha100 doesn't support MQA?


----------



## abrxx

With MQA Passthrough enabled, its not "scaling down" the sound ... its passing the MQA file which has a native transport rate of 44.1 or 48Khz. If you don't have an MQA DAC you will want to uncheck the passthrough, to allow the software decoder to unfold the file and extract the high resolution.


----------



## Andrew Rieger

So I'm confused. According to this page, Tidal MQA can only be played with the PC/MAC Desktop App: http://tidal.com/us/download

 So does that mean that any external device that acts as a Tidal streamer (like the Bluesound Node 2) cannot currently play MQA files through Tidal? This is seriously confusing.


----------



## lostman

I did some poking around the app and I can see it downloads encrypted FLAC files when playing albums from the Masters section. Then it calls out to libFLAC (you can see it with dtrace on Mac OS). I don't get it. Where does MQA come in?


----------



## Topspin70

andrew rieger said:


> So I'm confused. According to this page, Tidal MQA can only be played with the PC/MAC Desktop App: http://tidal.com/us/download
> 
> So does that mean that any external device that acts as a Tidal streamer (like the Bluesound Node 2) cannot currently play MQA files through Tidal? This is seriously confusing.


 
  
 Ditto for MicroRendu streaming Tidal. Do the MQA files go through like normal and let the dac do the decoding?


----------



## lostman

Also, Tidal Mac OS doesn't do any caching which is ridiculous. It will re-download the same file every time you play it. Should be easy to setup a proxy to cache those encrypted FLAC files; wish Tidal engineers weren't too lazy to do it.


----------



## Mozartaudio

mozartaudio said:


> *Tidal Streaming: 24/352,8   MQA  *!
> Congratulations and thank you to all the teams : Meridian, Tidal,  Roon(hope soon), Mytec


 
  
  


andrew rieger said:


> Dies every MQA track play back at 24/352.8? Or does it vary from track to track?


 
  
 No, depending on the album


----------



## deadie

Absolutely agreed on the differences b/w the two versions of Tigerlily -- in "River" the beginning of the Hifi version is boom boom bass hot, whereas the Master track is more... restrained piano only.  In fact, and I'm going kind of nutty trying to articulate this, but the entire Master track seems less "forced", less in your face, less punchy vs. the Hifi version.  
  
 FWIW, the "River" Hifi mix on Tidal is the same mix on Amazon Music and Spotify. 
  
 Quote:


abrxx said:


> So I listened to Tigerlily as well, and A/B'd the first 5 tracks between HIFI and MASTER. Very noticeable difference. This must be a different master.With the track "River" the bass drum in the intro is almost inaudible, whereas its quite loud on the HIFI version. No way MQA can change the level of a bass drum! Also comparing "May I know the word", the level of background hiss is much higher on the MASTER. Sounds like a HF roll-off was added for the HIFI version, and removed for the MASTER.
> 
> Very curious indeed. I think I prefer the MASTER version, but it does seem like a different version of the album entirely.


 
  


gowry said:


> So,
> 
> I'm listening to Natalie Merchant's Tigerlily and it seems there is no way this is simply the MQA version of the same flac album they've had. The guitar sounds a lot different. This must be the master before processing. That said. It sounds a lot better than the flac and this was what I already considered a well-mastered album.


----------



## Topspin70

topspin70 said:


> Ditto for MicroRendu streaming Tidal. Do the MQA files go through like normal and let the dac do the decoding?


 
  
 Found the answer to my own question on the Roon forum. Set to exclusive mode for the dac and we get full res playback. Somewhere along the chain those files got decoded.


----------



## goldendarko

So do these Master Quality files sound better than Hi-Res music (24/96 & 24/192) or just better than the regular CD FLAC versions of the same albums?


----------



## akg fanboy

so with a quick wiki, I found that the mqa codec is actually lossy.... it can be put under the a flac container though I guess. I dunu but I'd rather stream normal content encoded as a flac if I were to use tidal


----------



## punchkid

Here is an interesting read concerning MQA:  http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/

 And a quote from the article concerning lossyness:


> Bob Stuart explains: _“What is happening here is that the encoder (using system metadata and/or AI) resolves artefacts that are obviously different in each song according to the equipment and processes used. When these distracting distortions are ameliorated then the decoder can reconstruct the analog in a complementary way.” _ _“Removing ‘pollution’ *is not lossless” *_[DAR’s emphasis]_._
> 
> This means each MQA file’s DNA is different to that of the standard hi-res PCM equivalent. In strictly data terms, the MQA encoding process is lossy – it is no longer the studio master as archived by the record label. Bob Stuart’s proposition with MQA is that the originating hi-res PCM file is filtered in order to make it sound better with _any_ D/A converter.


----------



## djlethal

Guys, I wouldn't be so quick to buy into all the hype... first read up on some proven facts (not marketing ********).
  
 Check out this article that details the lossy nature of the MQA codec.
  
 Also, this article gives some insight and measurements into how MQA actually performs... vs, you know, "impressions".


----------



## lostman

Did some more digging. There are two versions of Pink Floyd Endless River Deluxe currently on Tidal. They look identical but there are two albums in the list if you look at the artist. One appears to be 44100 Hz FLAC with ~700kbit/s, the other one 48000 Hz FLAC with ~1500kbit/s when streamed in master mode. If they don't remove the other album it's going to be interesting to compare. I assume one is MQA and one isn't? Don't have time today but will try some A/B testing tomorrow if both are still there.


----------



## discape

Re: Masters, the DAC I currently use only has 16bit 44hz output, does that mean there wouldn't be any difference for me for me from the usual Tidal HiFi?


----------



## lantian

djlethal said:


> Guys, I wouldn't be so quick to buy into all the hype... first read up on some proven facts (not marketing ********).
> 
> Check out this article that details the lossy nature of the MQA codec.
> 
> Also, this article gives some insight and measurements into how MQA actually performs... vs, you know, "impressions".


 
 THX, I have been wondering about hte quality impact since it is no true lossless and uses something similar to superscaling/upscaling at least looks that way, want to hear it fist. Though in my opinion this is more useful for streaming to save bandwidth, after all stoage is cheap and I would imagine more people would rather use true lossless. But even in they'r own material the say mqa is a  lossy compression so there's that...


----------



## discape

Yet we can't choose HiFi anymore, if the album is in Masters, you have to listen to it in Masters. Suspicious, no? Why not give option to choose?


----------



## canthearyou

odanovich said:


> You have to go to settings and change the playback setting.... File > Settings > Quality : HiFi / Master.    THEN   you must go to sound output, select your DAC  and click on two settings: Force Volume...  and ... Passthrough MQA..     Without checking Passthrough MQA, Tidal will decode the format prior to feeding your DAC....
> 
> Hope this helps!



Unless you have a MQA DAC you DO NOT want to check the "pass through" option.


----------



## discape

canthearyou said:


> Unless you have a MQA DAC you DO NOT want to check the "pass through" option.


 

 Why not? Doesn't checking pass through jus remove Master setting?


----------



## raypin

krutsch said:


> Unless you are using a player with a software decoder. Today, that means the TIDAL native app, which will decode to 96/24 or 88.2/24 (I've seen this reflected in my DAC, as of this morning).
> 
> Audirvana, Roon, et al. are all promising inclusion of the software decoder (A+ is saying by end of January).
> 
> With an MQA -enabled DAC, you are able to get the full resolution (upwards of 384 kHz) via their unfolding (origami) technique.




Mm...so with the MQA-enabled Tidap app, you get better than CD quality or better than Tidal hifi but not hi-res? For hi-res, you need MQA-enabled software and MQA-enabled DAC, DAP or other hardware????


----------



## wgb113

How hard is it for DAC makers to implement support for MQA on an existing product?


----------



## lantian

wgb113 said:


> How hard is it for DAC makers to implement support for MQA on an existing product?


 

 It's not up to them but Meridian Audio, they have to give each dac a so called fingerprint for it to work


----------



## SeraphicWings

Noob question: How is MQA different from JAS's Hi-Res Audio?


----------



## canthearyou

discape said:


> Why not? Doesn't checking pass through jus remove Master setting?




As I understand it with pass-through disabled it uses Tidal software to do the decoding. If you enable it, it passes the full stream to the DAC. If your DAC doesn't support MQA it will decode only standard 16/44.1.


----------



## discape

I compared Tidal's HIFI setting vs Master for the same track, interesting results.....
  

 Master much quieter
  
  
  

 Master has higher cut off freqs


----------



## erich6

So much confusion on this thread.  Read my previous post and that will answer most of your questions: http://www.head-fi.org/t/831291/ces-2017-mqa-announces-tidal-masters-and-more/45#post_13145353


----------



## erich6

caenlenfromocn said:


> Will this work on my Schiit Fulla 2, or is it only for people with expensive gear? I am thinking of paying for TIDAL now just to check it out.  Cheers, please let me know someone ^^


 

 ​The new Tidal desktop app will decode MQA and stream a higher quality version of the song through your Fulla 2.  The software decoder in Tidal can "unwrap" MQA up to 24bit/96kHz and the Fulla 2 will convert to analog at that rate.  This will be better than standard CD quality and Tidal Hifi.
  
 If you want to hear higher resolution MQA encoded music you will need an MQA-enabled DAC.


----------



## erich6

abrxx said:


> So I listened to Tigerlily as well, and A/B'd the first 5 tracks between HIFI and MASTER. Very noticeable difference. This must be a different master.With the track "River" the bass drum in the intro is almost inaudible, whereas its quite loud on the HIFI version. *No way MQA can change the level of a bass drum! *Also comparing "May I know the word", the level of background hiss is much higher on the MASTER. Sounds like a HF roll-off was added for the HIFI version, and removed for the MASTER.
> 
> Very curious indeed. I think I prefer the MASTER version, but it does seem like a different version of the album entirely.


 
  
 I doubt MQA is changing the level of the bass drum.  They probably went back to the original master and encoded it.  The HIFI version was probably a digital distribution master that probably had its dynamic range compressed.


----------



## erich6

andrew rieger said:


> So I'm confused. According to this page, Tidal MQA can only be played with the PC/MAC Desktop App: http://tidal.com/us/download
> 
> So does that mean that any external device that acts as a Tidal streamer (like the Bluesound Node 2) cannot currently play MQA files through Tidal? This is seriously confusing.


 

 No, it does not mean that.
  
 What they mean is that you can only get MQA quality from the desktop app if you don't have an MQA decoder.  They are assuming most people don't have one and therefore state it that way (I agree this could have been clearer). 
  
 If you have an external device that decodes MQA then select "Passthrough MQA" option and Tidal will just pass on the MQA-encoded stream and let your device do the work.


----------



## erich6

lostman said:


> I did some poking around the app and I can see it downloads encrypted FLAC files when playing albums from the Masters section. Then it calls out to libFLAC (you can see it with dtrace on Mac OS). I don't get it. Where does MQA come in?


 

 ​The MQA encoding is embedded in the FLAC file.  If you don't have an decoder the file will play like a normal 24bit/44kHz file.  The new Tidal app can decode the MQA information and stream up to 24bit/96kHz.


----------



## erich6

topspin70 said:


> Ditto for MicroRendu streaming Tidal. Do the MQA files go through like normal and let the dac do the decoding?


 

 ​Yes.  You have to select the "Passthrough MQA" option.  Also, make sure Tidal is using your DAC in "Exclusive Mode."


----------



## erich6

goldendarko said:


> So do these Master Quality files sound better than Hi-Res music (24/96 & 24/192) or just better than the regular CD FLAC versions of the same albums?


 

 ​The "sound better" depends on whether you like the original master better than the sound that comes through after digitization and any other manipulation the producers make to distribute the music (CD or High-Res).  MQA is NOT about the resolution you get out (although it does help preserve high resolution music)--it's about getting rid of "artifacts" introduced by the processing chain from master all the way through your DAC.
  
 So far, I've seen some albums benefit greatly as they were victims of the "loudness wars."  MQA encoded tracks seem to have a better dynamic range.


----------



## erich6

punchkid said:


> Here is an interesting read concerning MQA:  http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/
> 
> And a quote from the article concerning lossyness:


 

 ​Yes, you lose data in the encoding.  But, if done right this is supposed to be BAD data (artifacts introduced in the processing chain).  I don't know why anyone would care to have highly sampled (e.g., 192kHz) of bad data in the first place.  The high-res sampling does not necessarily mean better.  It all depends on what was sampled.  MQA promises to only sample what's important (the actual music as originally intended).


----------



## erich6

akg fanboy said:


> so with a quick wiki, I found that the mqa codec is actually lossy.... it can be put under the a flac container though I guess. I dunu but I'd rather stream normal content encoded as a flac if I were to use tidal


 

 ​Sure, you can do that by simply selecting "Passthrough MQA" and not use an MQA-enabled DAC.  But why do that? Give it a try and see if you like it or not.  Just because music was sampled at high rate (e.g. 192kHz) it doesn't mean what you are getting is any better (in fact it could be worse if it was processed to hell after the original master was created).


----------



## erich6

lantian said:


> THX, I have been wondering about hte quality impact since it is no true lossless and uses something similar to superscaling/upscaling at least looks that way, want to hear it fist. Though in my opinion this is more useful for streaming to save bandwidth, after all stoage is cheap and* I would imagine more people would rather use true lossless*. But even in they'r own material the say mqa is a  lossy compression so there's that...


 
  
 While there's definitely hype around MQA right now there's also a lot of hype around "true lossless."  I've downloaded plenty of high-res FLACs that sound terrible because either the original master was bad or because the way the music was produced for distribution butchered it.  So you get a lossless version of a bad track 
  
 The intent of MQA is to go back to the original master, the way the artists and producers intended it to be heard, and do the best at reproducing that.  They means getting rid of artifacts and such. 
  
 Everyone should try comparing MQA files to high res versions and see if they can tell any difference before reaching conclusions.


----------



## Krutsch

raypin said:


> Mm...so with the MQA-enabled Tidap app, you get better than CD quality or better than Tidal hifi but not hi-res? For hi-res, you need MQA-enabled software and MQA-enabled DAC, DAP or other hardware????


 

 With an MQA software decoder (again, today, only in the native TIDAL app), 96/24 *is* high-res and it sounds really, really great, in my experience.
  
 If you have an MQA-enabled DAC (e.g. Meridian, Mytek), you will be able to full decode to whatever resolution is available.


----------



## Krutsch

erich6 said:


> ​The MQA encoding is embedded in the FLAC file.  *If you don't have an decoder the file will play like a normal 24bit/44kHz file*.  The new Tidal app can decode the MQA information and stream up to 24bit/96kHz.


 
  
 It will look like a 24/48 file, but the least-significant bits in the file really contain "noise", so it will play like a Redbook file. There is a lot of debate about whether or not one can hear the noise without a decoder, which has been raging for the last year. Look at the posts from Jussi Laako on the Roon Community forum for a lot of detail on this topic.


----------



## abrxx

erich6 said:


> I doubt MQA is changing the level of the bass drum.  They probably went back to the original master and encoded it.  The HIFI version was probably a digital distribution master that probably had its dynamic range compressed.




Its more than removal of DRC. Eq is different. And individual instruments seem to havw different levels. Seems like a different master.


----------



## discape

abrxx said:


> Its more than removal of DRC. Eq is different. And individual instruments seem to havw different levels. Seems like a different master.


 

 It's probably just lack of dynamic compression that was added to the CD mix of the master. It's clear now after seeing these Masters on Tidal this was happening to CD's long ago before modern loudness wars.


----------



## HesNot

Only just tested the MQA on my Macbook Air (mid 2012) using it's internals - listened to Fleetwood Mac Rumours and to my ears at least it sounds rather amazing - tested with Bose OE2 and NOCS NS-800 and it seems really open and detailed.  I'll do some A/B with the regular HIFI stream on my XDP-100R to see if the difference is as noticeable as it seems just on a first listen.  Makes me wonder what a USB DAC with the Macbook would sound like...


----------



## jonstatt

erich6 said:


> While there's definitely hype around MQA right now there's also a lot of hype around "true lossless."  I've downloaded plenty of high-res FLACs that sound terrible because either the original master was bad or because the way the music was produced for distribution butchered it.  So you get a lossless version of a bad track
> 
> The intent of MQA is to go back to the original master, the way the artists and producers intended it to be heard, and do the best at reproducing that.  They means getting rid of artifacts and such.
> 
> Everyone should try comparing MQA files to high res versions and see if they can tell any difference before reaching conclusions.


 

 "The Original Master". That deserves a topic in it's own right. Many assume that the dynamic range compression is part of a specific CD mastering process. Sometimes it is like this but more often than not, it is actually "The Original Master" that has the DRC applied. How can we know this? Some titles have both a CD and a Hi-Res download. Sometimes the Hi-Res download has no better dynamic range than the CD yet is specifically sold as "The Original Master". It's actually the vinyl record that often takes a totally different path through the chain, and the mastering is different and the dynamic range is also different (quite often better). You will rarely hear what was recorded on the original analogue tapes for example. Those are the real masters. What is sold as the Studio Master, is a post production set of decisions that modify what was on those tapes or recorded digitally etc. There will be instances where the MQA version comes from a master that does have better dynamic range, and you will also find a bunch that still have loudness wars DRC on them, by intention and decision....even if we don't like it or regard it as audiophile.
  
 When SACD came out, with a corresponding CD layer, people articulated how much better the SACD sounded, only then to find out it was a different mastering and they were not comparing like for like. MQA has some definite positives, but it will always be hard to ascertain what is a mastering change, and what is an MQA benefit.


----------



## revand

I just checked on my Bluesound Node 2, and MQA through TIDAL Masters works perfectly glowing a blue sign at side of the MQA logo!
 I sent a message to Bluesound asking to make it possible to reach Masters folder on TIDAL in their BlueOS as I can reach it in the desktop app, otherwise it is a pain to find all the MQA albums...
 So far my listening experience shows that the sound quality of TIDAL Masters is sensational.
 Just check Edgar Meyer's Bass & Mandolin, Pictures of an exhibition with Sir Simon Rattles, Green Day's American idiot, or Avishai Cohen Trio's From Darkness and you will enjoy an unprecedented digital music quality!
 An interesting test in TIDAL's desktop app.:
 Go to Settings - HIFI/Master - and switch between System Default (software decoding of MQA file up to 24/96) 
 and external DAC attached to the notebook (in my case an at the moment not MQA compatible Dragonfly Red - which will be compatible soon).
 The otherwise excellent Red suffering here being a bit harsh and intrusive compared with the System Default (software decoding by TIDAL app)
 Very interesting direct comparison of what an achievement is MQA


----------



## Krutsch

hesnot said:


> Only just tested the MQA on my Macbook Air (mid 2012) using it's internals - listened to Fleetwood Mac Rumours and to my ears at least it sounds rather amazing - tested with Bose OE2 and NOCS NS-800 and it seems really open and detailed.  I'll do some A/B with the regular HIFI stream on my XDP-100R to see if the difference is as noticeable as it seems just on a first listen.  *Makes me wonder what a USB DAC with the Macbook would sound like... *


 
  
 I was really impressed, using my playback chain of MacBook Pro + Native TIDAL app + Bel Canto REFLink + DAC 2.5.


----------



## pkcpga

In the article forgot to mention that bluesound has played MQA for months now and offers a reasonable priced dac streamer and powered one with headphone amp.


----------



## Stillhart

discape said:


> Yet we can't choose HiFi anymore, if the album is in Masters, you have to listen to it in Masters. Suspicious, no? Why not give option to choose?


 
  
  


discape said:


> Why not? Doesn't checking pass through jus remove Master setting?


 
  
 Yup, this.
  


wgb113 said:


> How hard is it for DAC makers to implement support for MQA on an existing product?


 
  
 MQA is a proprietary format owned by a company who would like to make money.  Therefore, if you want to put it in your DAC, you have to pay for the privilege.  Accordingly, many DAC manufacturers don't want to bother until it's determined whether it's a passing fad or not.  I suspect the response to Tidal's implementation should go a long way to determining that.
  


erich6 said:


> ​The "sound better" depends on whether you like the original master better than the sound that comes through after digitization and any other manipulation the producers make to distribute the music (CD or High-Res).  MQA is NOT about the resolution you get out (although it does help preserve high resolution music)--it's about getting rid of "artifacts" introduced by the processing chain from master all the way through your DAC.
> 
> So far, I've seen some albums benefit greatly as they were victims of the "loudness wars."  MQA encoded tracks seem to have a better dynamic range.


 
  
 Yeah, and there's another point that people are missing here.  It's something that I learned when I started researching hi-res audio in general:  all of these files are remasters.  That means that they're going to sound different whether or not you're using MQA.  It's important to distinguish whether the improvements we hear are from the remaster or from the MQA or some of both.  I haven't had an opportunity to test this yet, but I plan on it.


----------



## pkcpga

With MQA there are about 1,800 tracks originally recorded in MQA format so far so not all are remastered and remastered high res are usually from original higher res recordings unless it's an older track that's been remastered than it's not always better.


----------



## Roybenz

Im not using the passthrough MQA, since my dac doesn't support it i think, Questyle cma800i, should i have exclusive mode on or off??


----------



## dmhenley

Some listening impressions...
  
 I'm running the software decoding in Tidal via Roon. Win10-->Yggdrasil -->Bottlehead S.Ex.--> Nighthawks.
  
 In general, the records I've heard sound less compressed - wide open - and it seems the noise floor has dropped outside of reach. Very relaxed and natural feel. I'm enjoying it a lot. 
 Ellington's Afro-Bossa records sounds just beautiful, for example. More air between instruments, it seems. It's varied from record to record, of course. And, I haven't done tight comparisons of 44/16 vs MQA in Tidal but with one exception - Brad Mehldau's Blue and Ballads - I couldn't tell the difference between those two last night. 
  
 Again, so far I'm really enjoying the more natural presentation on these records. Our playback chain will of course, affect the results. 
  
 Not ready to buy new hardware (though I expect (depending on implementation) results would improve with hardware vs software decoding?) any time soon, but I'll enjoy the new content in the meantime.


----------



## pkcpga

dmhenley said:


> Some listening impressions...
> 
> I'm running the software decoding in Tidal via Roon. Win10-->Yggdrasil -->Bottlehead S.Ex.--> Nighthawks.
> 
> ...




Interesting there's even a difference since the Yggdrasil is not playing the MQA and the software is just converting MQA to presumably cd quality or some other form the Yggdrasil can play.


----------



## goldendarko

so how will MQA work on the Dragonfly Red & Blacks if iPhones don't currently support MQA via TIDAL yet? I'm kind of confused what you actually need to use MQA. So far it only works if you use TIDAL on your desktop computer, and have an MQA DAC correct? so basically my Modi Multibit won't allow me to use MQA and there will be no noticable difference against just regular TIDAL HIFI streaming


----------



## Krutsch

goldendarko said:


> so how will MQA work on the Dragonfly Red & Blacks if iPhones don't currently support MQA via TIDAL yet? I'm kind of confused what you actually need to use MQA. *So far it only works if you use TIDAL on your desktop computer, and have an MQA DAC correct? so basically my Modi Multibit won't allow me to use MQA and there will be no noticable difference against just regular TIDAL HIFI streaming*


 
  
 No. This will be the third time I've posted this within this very thread:
  
 If you use the TIDAL app, it will "unfold" MQA files to 88.2 or 96 / 24-bit and play as such to ANY DAC. These files sound really good, from what I've experienced so far.
  
 If you have an MQA-enabled DAC, and select PASS-THRU, it will pass the unmodified file through to the DAC and the DAC will "unfold" to its original resolution (which can be as high as 384 kHz, if I recall correctly).
  
 Finally, popular players will be incorporating the SOFTWARE DECODER into their playback software to operate as the native TIDAL app does, today.


----------



## pkcpga

krutsch said:


> No. This will be the third time I've posted this within this very thread:
> 
> If you use the TIDAL app, it will "unfold" MQA files to 88.2 or 96 / 24-bit and play as such to ANY DAC. These files sound really good, from what I've experienced so far.
> 
> ...




Tidal states MQA only plays through desktop or laptop as of now there is no mobile app for Tidal MQA but it is coming in the future with no estimated date yet. MQA will only play in true form through an MQA capible dac but can be read in "master" form through their desktop app or converted by certain software to whichever form you choose to convert it but the only native form of MQA is MQA so changed forms may sound better than standard Tidal hifi or may not, just like upsampling, not always better. Tidal claims their master songs have better timing than their standard hifi and MQA improves on that by blackening the floor. Just go to the Tidal site and sign in, you can ask a rep easily and they respond fairly quickly with knowledge they have available now.


----------



## leaky74

krutsch said:


> No. This will be the third time I've posted this within this very thread:
> 
> If you use the TIDAL app, it will "unfold" MQA files to 88.2 or 96 / 24-bit and play as such to ANY DAC. These files sound really good, from what I've experienced so far.
> 
> ...




I get this; as I did the previous two times you mentioned it 

Can you answer me this though; is there a way to avoid glitches/noise when switching between tracks at 88.2 & 96? Mojo gets round this by having a second or so silence at the start of a track. I'm using an AK70 as USB DAC at the moment.


----------



## Krutsch

pkcpga said:


> Tidal states MQA only plays through desktop or laptop as of now there is no mobile app for Tidal MQA but it is coming in the future with no estimated date yet. MQA will only play in true form through an MQA capible dac but can be read in "master" form through their desktop app or converted by certain software to whichever form you choose to convert it but the only native form of MQA is MQA so changed forms *may sound better than standard Tidal hifi or may not, just like upsampling, not always better.* Tidal claims their master songs have better timing than their standard hifi and MQA improves on that by blackening the floor. Just go to the Tidal site and sign in, you can ask a rep easily and they respond fairly quickly with knowledge they have available now.


 
  
 No. SOFTWARE decoding is actually DOWNSAMPLING from a higher-res format for playback outside of an MQA-enable DAC.
  
 Guys, this is a complicated topic and my advice is more reading... the CA and Roon community threads have been covering this for a year now. Or, you can just go to the source: http://www.mqa.co.uk and read all about how it works.


----------



## Krutsch

leaky74 said:


> I get this; as I did the previous two times you mentioned it
> 
> Can you answer me this though; is there a way to *avoid glitches/noise when switching between tracks at 88.2 & 96?* Mojo gets round this by having a second or so silence at the start of a track. I'm using an AK70 as USB DAC at the moment.


 
  
 You can get a better DAC 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 My Bel Canto is seamless in this regard.


----------



## pkcpga

leaky74 said:


> I get this; as I did the previous two times you mentioned it
> 
> Can you answer me this though; is there a way to avoid glitches/noise when switching between tracks at 88.2 & 96? Mojo gets round this by having a second or so silence at the start of a track. I'm using an AK70 as USB DAC at the moment.




You can try legnthing the cross fade on tidal, otherwise not sure there's much you can do it's your dac adjusting itself.


----------



## pkcpga

krutsch said:


> No. SOFTWARE decoding is actually DOWNSAMPLING from a higher-res format for playback outside of an MQA-enable DAC.
> 
> Guys, this is a complicated topic and my advice is more reading... the CA and Roon community threads have been covering this for a year now. Or, you can just go to the source: http://www.mqa.co.uk and read all about how it works.




MQA (Meridian) states the direct MQA is 44/24 so it's not down sampling and non MQA dac playing MQA from tidal play at 44/16 unless your run it through a separate converting program first. The whole concept of MQA is getting dsd sound out of a file slightly larger than cd sized. 
Besides MQA site, Tidal and meridian there's a mess of articles on it.
http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/mqa-explained-brilliant-quality-tunes-in-tiny-file-sizes-1322754

I've used MQA outside of Tidal for about 6 months now through bluesound and sample 300 songs from meridian for meridian dac. I've spoken with meridian on why it's important to use a MQA dac verse not using one that is not like my Dave and it's not the same. Companies don't spend money and time to create something than give it away.


----------



## leaky74

pkcpga said:


> You can try legnthing the cross fade on tidal, otherwise not sure there's much you can do it's your dac adjusting itself.




Is there a way to change this setting in the desktop app (mac)?


----------



## goldendarko

krutsch said:


> No. This will be the third time I've posted this within this very thread:
> 
> If you use the TIDAL app, it will "unfold" MQA files to 88.2 or 96 / 24-bit and play as such to ANY DAC. These files sound really good, from what I've experienced so far.
> 
> ...


 

 OK but that's only on the desktop right, not on the iPhone? so if i connect my iphone to the dragonfly and use TIDAL im not actually getting the hi-res or MASTER quality?


----------



## Krutsch

pkcpga said:


> *MQA (Meridian) states the direct MQA is 44/24 so it's not down sampling and non MQA dac playing MQA from tidal play at 44/16 unless your run it through a separate converting program first*. The whole concept of MQA is getting dsd sound out of a file slightly larger than cd sized.
> Besides MQA site, Tidal and meridian there's a mess of articles on it.
> http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/mqa-explained-brilliant-quality-tunes-in-tiny-file-sizes-1322754
> 
> I've used MQA outside of Tidal for about 6 months now through bluesound and sample 300 songs from meridian for meridian dac. I've spoken with meridian on why it's important to use a MQA dac verse not using one that is not like my Dave and it's not the same. Companies don't spend money and time to create something than give it away.


 
  
 Sorry, that's not accurate. You need to re-read my earlier posts and focus on SOFTWARE DECODER.


----------



## Krutsch

goldendarko said:


> OK but that's only on the desktop right, not on the iPhone? so if i connect my iphone to the dragonfly and use TIDAL im not actually getting the hi-res or MASTER quality?


 

 TIDAL has stated that SOFTWARE DECODING is coming in the mobile apps, in a future release. Today, it only exists (publicly) in the desktop, native TIDAL app.
  
 In the near future, your DragonFly will benefit from a firmware update that will include native MQA support, which should work with the iOS TIDAL app in pass-thru mode for full sound quality.


----------



## canthearyou

leaky74 said:


> I get this; as I did the previous two times you mentioned it
> 
> Can you answer me this though; is there a way to avoid glitches/noise when switching between tracks at 88.2 & 96? Mojo gets round this by having a second or so silence at the start of a track. I'm using an AK70 as USB DAC at the moment.




My Gustard X12 is silent when switching between different rates.


----------



## pkcpga

krutsch said:


> Sorry, that's not accurate. You need to re-read my earlier posts and focus on SOFTWARE DECODER.




Point is you can't downsample from 44/24 to 88 or 96 that's upsampling. Purchase a MQA song it's a 44/24 file, I own a bunch now. And have A/B the meridian dac to the chord Dave dac and playing MQA songs is the only time the meridian dac sounds better. There currently is no tidal app that plays MQA, tidal states they have plans for one in the future but none yet and no estimated date as of yet for a mobile app.


----------



## Krutsch

pkcpga said:


> *Point is you can't downsample from 44/24 to 88 or 96 that's upsampling.* Purchase a MQA song it's a 44/24 file, I own a bunch now. And have A/B the meridian dac to the chord Dave dac and playing MQA songs is the only time the meridian dac sounds better. There currently is no tidal app that plays MQA, tidal states they have plans for one in the future but none yet and no estimated date as of yet for a mobile app.


 
  
 I don't think you understand how MQA works. Go to their web-site and read about their "folding" or "origami" technique.


----------



## abrxx

krutsch said:


> No. SOFTWARE decoding is actually DOWNSAMPLING from a higher-res format for playback outside of an MQA-enable DAC.
> 
> [snip]


 
 Hold on. Its only "down sampling" if the original master was higher than 96 Khz. Otherwise there is no downsampling at all. Also I'm not sure the term down sampling is entirely accurate. In some ways the entire MQA process is "downsampling", albeit in a way that is almost completely reversible.


----------



## leaky74

krutsch said:


> You can get a better DAC
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 It's intermittent to be honest; but having explored its capability as a USB DAC, the AK70's not great to be honest. SQ is good but there's a fair few random artefacts and drop outs/stutters. Shame; I like it as a DAP but part of the purchase decision was around its functionally to be both DAP & DAC.


----------



## canthearyou

Now I'm seeing lots of duplicates and both are HiFi


----------



## Currawong

goldendarko said:


> So do these Master Quality files sound better than Hi-Res music (24/96 & 24/192) or just better than the regular CD FLAC versions of the same albums?


 
  
 The important thing here is the process of compensating for the original ADC to fix issues with the timing of transients in the music caused during encoding. They then take the master file and this compensation data and squish it using some clever tech into what appears to be a slightly noisier than usual CD quality file. The musical data above 22.050 kHz is compressed into the highest frequencies as noise.
  


akg fanboy said:


> so with a quick wiki, I found that the mqa codec is actually lossy.... it can be put under the a flac container though I guess. I dunu but I'd rather stream normal content encoded as a flac if I were to use tidal


 
  
 3 bits of the 24 are noise. It probably doesn't matter in the ultimate scheme of things, but they have indeed avoided this fact in their marketing.
  


discape said:


> I compared Tidal's HIFI setting vs Master for the same track, interesting results.....
> 
> 
> Master much quieter
> ...


 
  
 Very interesting.
  


pkcpga said:


> I've used MQA outside of Tidal for about 6 months now through bluesound and sample 300 songs from meridian for meridian dac. I've spoken with meridian on why it's important to use a MQA dac verse not using one that is not like my Dave and it's not the same. Companies don't spend money and time to create something than give it away.


 
  
 Correct, but fixing the timing issues caused by an ADC doesn't need a fancy new format. Obviously they have encoded it in a way that requires a license to decode, and they have been, until the big Q&A on Computer Audiophile, been somewhat vague about the fine details of the technology.
  


pkcpga said:


> krutsch said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, that's not accurate. You need to re-read my earlier posts and focus on SOFTWARE DECODER.
> ...


 
  
 As has been stated, the TIDAL app will PARTLY unfold MQA, as far as 24/96 (which is enough, IMO). Want to see a pic?


----------



## goldendarko

krutsch said:


> TIDAL has stated that SOFTWARE DECODING is coming in the mobile apps, in a future release. Today, it only exists (publicly) in the desktop, native TIDAL app.
> 
> In the near future, your DragonFly will benefit from a firmware update that will include native MQA support, which should work with the iOS TIDAL app in pass-thru mode for full sound quality.


 
 ah i see now, thank you sir, doing the lords work you are!


----------



## 432789

Subscribed 

I'm impressed with the Master update, sound quality wise, but albums selection left me wanting.
tidal needs to grow up and learn their crowd, most people using tidal master don't want to listen to the lame songs you are promoting tidal! no one here needs to listens to young thug etc foolish evil mainstream on high res.
Thank you very much.


----------



## cute

thebrunx said:


> Subscribed
> 
> I'm impressed with the Master update, sound quality wise, but albums selection left me wanting.
> tidal needs to grow up and learn their crowd, most people using tidal master don't want to listen to the lame songs you are promoting tidal! no one here needs to listens to young thug etc foolish evil mainstream on high res.
> Thank you very much.


 

 They will only list albums that are available in high rez


----------



## 432789

cute said:


> They will only list albums that are available in high rez





cute said:


> They will only list albums that are available in high rez




There is definately a bias, from the what's new page, to the playlists they create, even what comes up first on search, but that's what to expect when it's mainstream artists who own the thing


----------



## erich6

jonstatt said:


> "The Original Master". That deserves a topic in it's own right. Many assume that the dynamic range compression is part of a specific CD mastering process. Sometimes it is like this but more often than not, it is actually "The Original Master" that has the DRC applied. How can we know this? Some titles have both a CD and a Hi-Res download. Sometimes the Hi-Res download has no better dynamic range than the CD yet is specifically sold as "The Original Master". It's actually the vinyl record that often takes a totally different path through the chain, and the mastering is different and the dynamic range is also different (quite often better). You will rarely hear what was recorded on the original analogue tapes for example. Those are the real masters. What is sold as the Studio Master, is a post production set of decisions that modify what was on those tapes or recorded digitally etc. There will be instances where the MQA version comes from a master that does have better dynamic range, and you will also find a bunch that still have loudness wars DRC on them, by intention and decision....even if we don't like it or regard it as audiophile.
> 
> When SACD came out, with a corresponding CD layer, people articulated how much better the SACD sounded, only then to find out it was a different mastering and they were not comparing like for like. MQA has some definite positives, but it will always be hard to ascertain what is a mastering change, and what is an MQA benefit.


 

 ​You are absolutely right. I should have used quotes in reference to "original master" as it really is whatever studio master they chose to encode with MQA.  If MQA does nothing more than encourage studios to release better masters then it will be a huge success in my book.  So far, I'm very pleased with the MQA masters in Tidal...most appear to be an improvement over previous CD releases, HIFI versions, or even high-resolution FLAC downloads.


----------



## erich6

dmhenley said:


> Some listening impressions...
> 
> I'm running the software decoding in Tidal via Roon. Win10-->Yggdrasil -->Bottlehead S.Ex.--> Nighthawks.
> 
> ...


 

 ​Roon is not decoding MQA in software.  You are getting the 16/44 version of the audio that can still be played without the MQA decoding.  MQA decoding in Roon is supposed to be a feature "soon."
  
 If you have an MQA-enabled DAC, then you can use Roon to stream the MQA files to it and get the full benefit of MQA.


----------



## TheTrace

I can't wait to see the proof of sound quality difference (or lack thereof) between MQA and a regular 44.1/16 bit FLAC and the differences between a MQA DAC and a regular one.


----------



## dmhenley

erich6 said:


> ​Roon is not decoding MQA in software.  You are getting the 16/44 version of the audio that can still be played without the MQA decoding.  MQA decoding in Roon is supposed to be a feature "soon."
> 
> If you have an MQA-enabled DAC, then you can use Roon to stream the MQA files to it and get the full benefit of MQA.


 
 Yes, I believe that is what my post says. Sorry if I wasn't clear.  Tidal is decoding the MQA.


----------



## Hansotek

Interesting post above Currawong - I'm just listening to the 24/96 versions of the tracks and there seems to be a decent improvement, particularly in the drums. I'm interested to hear what the file would sound like fully "unfolded".


----------



## raypin

krutsch said:


> No. This will be the third time I've posted this within this very thread:
> 
> If you use the TIDAL app, it will "unfold" MQA files to 88.2 or 96 / 24-bit and play as such to ANY DAC. These files sound really good, from what I've experienced so far.
> 
> ...




Mm..best and simplest explanation yet of MQA mechanics. Thanks.


----------



## Arnav Agharwal

I saw that several artists now have two versions of albums, but they both play only at Hi-Fi levels. Seems like TIDAL is setting those up for Master releases. Anyone else notice that?


----------



## Currawong

hansotek said:


> Interesting post above @Currawong - I'm just listening to the 24/96 versions of the tracks and there seems to be a decent improvement, particularly in the drums. I'm interested to hear what the file would sound like fully "unfolded".


 

 Agreed. A few I'm familiar with, such as The Doors' albums sound great, but then I know those albums were well-made to begin with. At some point I'm thinking of level-matching, then A/B'ing my CD rips or HDTracks masters (depending what I have) versus the TIDAL Master versions with their decoding. Also, since a lot of people seem to be very confused by MQA, I might make a video about it, including my opinions.


----------



## wormsdriver

Nice! just found some Iron Maiden Master versions! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  \m/


----------



## pdickerson

Any word from Schiit about offering product upgrades on the dacs? They were very vocal about not supporting not long ago.


----------



## Sort

I am not aiming to stir anyone's pot, but the level of wanting some scienctific data to verify your ears seems counter to the experience. Shouldn't you just listen and judge on sonic enjoyment? It's not seismic shift here, but I am enjoying it. 

To speak to one headphone that has benefited the most would be LCD 2.2. I have them posted for sale, but my greatest gripe as been for focused listening they don't hold water, but the more natural sounding MQA have dissipated those concerns and the sound sig appeals far more with the MQA.


----------



## canthearyou

canthearyou said:


> Now I'm seeing lots of duplicates and both are HiFi







arnav agharwal said:


> I saw that several artists now have two versions of albums, but they both play only at Hi-Fi levels. Seems like TIDAL is setting those up for Master releases. Anyone else notice that?




Yes, quite bothersome. But I'll give them time to figure it out.


----------



## erich6

wormsdriver said:


> Nice! just found some Iron Maiden Master versions!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 ​Yeah!!
  
 They are copies of the newest (2015) remaster done under supervision of Steve Harris.  Some are a definite improvement like Dance of Death (the original release of this one was awful).  Most, however, are more compressed in their dynamic range than original masters.  That said, they sound better than the previous HIFI versions on Tidal.


----------



## erich6

sort said:


> I am not aiming to stir anyone's pot, but the level of wanting some scienctific data to verify your ears seems counter to the experience. *Shouldn't you just listen and judge on sonic enjoyment? It's not seismic shift here, but I am enjoying it.*


 
  
 I most definitely agree with this!
  
 I find it amusing when people state they are enjoying the new Tidal Masters but then quickly start overanalyzing the situation ("oh, that's probably not the MQA encoding it's the fact they have better masters to start with...I have to run this through an analyzer and compare to my FLACs from the same masters!"). 
  
 But, to each his own.  There is some geeky fun to be had in evaluating all the bits and frequencies and see how data is being manipulated.  We need that kind of engineering perspective also.
  
 While I find the engineering interesting, I much prefer to just enjoy good music with better sound.


----------



## canthearyou

I'm just enjoying it! Makes it more worth the $20/month.


----------



## peterinvan

MQA! TIdal, Roon needs new MetaData.

Please, please add the history of the recording, the source of the "master" , what resolution was the master, and what is the resulting output resolution after decoding with an MQA Capable DAC. I would love to see how the latest MQA file was produced when I read the Album history in Roon.


----------



## Stillhart

wormsdriver said:


> Nice! just found some Iron Maiden Master versions!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Nice!  Which ones?
  


pdickerson said:


> Any word from Schiit about offering product upgrades on the dacs? They were very vocal about not supporting not long ago.


 
  
 Schiit has always been against "unicorn formats" and I don't see that changing anytime soon.  Besides, paying to license MQA would increase the costs of the DAC's and that goes counter to their whole low-price thing.
  


erich6 said:


> I most definitely agree with this!
> 
> I find it amusing when people state they are enjoying the new Tidal Masters but then quickly start overanalyzing the situation ("oh, that's probably not the MQA encoding it's the fact they have better masters to start with...I have to run this through an analyzer and compare to my FLACs from the same masters!").
> 
> ...


 
  
 I am with you to a point.  Listening to the new masters and enjoying them is great.  I'll tell you why I'm interested in "overanalyzing" this:  it's because I got duped by HDTracks.  Without getting into a debate here, I'll just say that there's a very very big thread in the Sound Science forum about the "24 bit myth" and whether hi-res is actually audible or not.  What I discovered based on my own testing is that the sonic differences I was hearing were almost always attributed to the remastering that HDTracks does rather than the resolution of the file.  
  
 Again, I'm not looking to get into a debate here, just reporting what I've found and why I am curious about what makes the new Masters sound good.  On the plus side, it's no more expensive than regular Tidal (for now) so there's no reason not to just listen to the better music and be happy about it.  I just want to know if I should be looking into an MQA-capable DAC in the future or if I'm being "tricked" by the remaster.  I'd think this would be of interest to everyone else in this thread too.  Should we be clamoring for more MQA hardware and software solutions, or should we be clamoring for more awesome remasters?


----------



## Andrew Rieger

No word from Schiit. They did know that MQA was coming to Tidal but they still said no and I am going to assume that they meant it. Too bad but paying Meridian to "bless"your DAC is a pretty sneaky thing and I totally understand why a smaller company would say F this. 24/96 will have to do for most of us. I'm not a big fan of Delta/Sigma so I've pretty much give up hope on any MQA certified R2R DACs.


----------



## Krutsch

andrew rieger said:


> *No word from Schiit. They did know that MQA was coming to Tidal but they still said no* and I am going to assume that they meant it. Too bad but paying Meridian to "bless"your DAC is a pretty sneaky thing and I totally understand why a smaller company would say F this. 24/96 will have to do for most of us. I'm not a big fan of Delta/Sigma so I've pretty much give up hope on any MQA certified R2R DACs.


 
  
 Same from Bryston. Not only no, but F' no. 
  
 To be honest, I'm not sure I care. A) I'm not buying a new DAC anytime soon and B) if I can software decode to 96/24, I'm all set.


----------



## erich6

stillhart said:


> I am with you to a point.  Listening to the new masters and enjoying them is great.  I'll tell you why I'm interested in "overanalyzing" this:  it's because I got duped by HDTracks.  Without getting into a debate here, I'll just say that there's a very very big thread in the Sound Science forum about the "24 bit myth" and whether hi-res is actually audible or not.  What I discovered based on my own testing is that the sonic differences I was hearing were almost always attributed to the remastering that HDTracks does rather than the resolution of the file.
> 
> Again, I'm not looking to get into a debate here, just reporting what I've found and why I am curious about what makes the new Masters sound good.  On the plus side, it's no more expensive than regular Tidal (for now) so there's no reason not to just listen to the better music and be happy about it.  I just want to know if I should be looking into an MQA-capable DAC in the future or if I'm being "tricked" by the remaster.  I'd think this would be of interest to everyone else in this thread too.  Should we be clamoring for more MQA hardware and software solutions, or should we be clamoring for more awesome remasters?


 
  
 Yeah, I know what you mean.  I've been very disappointed with some of the HDTracks albums I've bought.  Nothing beats a good master.  I also know music sounds better when playing off a computer using software that uses a good transport and streams directly to the DAC instead of using "system sound."  I know a good DAC and good amp makes a difference.  As far as high-resolution, sometimes I detect just a bit more sparkle and smoothness but only sometimes.  Given that, the priority ought to be on better masters.  So far, the software MQA decoding in Tidal seems to be pretty good!  Probably could improve a bit with better transport to the USB DAC (like Roon does) so some software improvements would help there.  I think MQA DACs will be just icing on the cake.
  
 As far as Iron Maiden masters...pretty much every album is there.  Great fun.


----------



## iguanajm

leaky74 said:


> Using a mac & giving Tidal direct acess to the DAC (using an AK70 as USB DAC), it changes bit/sample rate accordingly. I understand the decision by Chord with the Mojo to mute the first couple of seconds of a track; changing from one rate to another is painful!


 
 how do you see the sample rate on mac?
 tia


----------



## Currawong

andrew rieger said:


> No word from Schiit. They did know that MQA was coming to Tidal but they still said no and I am going to assume that they meant it. Too bad but paying Meridian to "bless"your DAC is a pretty sneaky thing and I totally understand why a smaller company would say F this. 24/96 will have to do for most of us. I'm not a big fan of Delta/Sigma so I've pretty much give up hope on any MQA certified R2R DACs.


 
  
 If you mean that you expect them to make a press statement about something that doesn't have anything to do with them until the moment that they decide it will, then I don't imagine they'll do that. Otherwise you just have to follow Baldr's posts.
  


baldr said:


> latestyle said:
> 
> 
> > Yggy user here. Given that Schiit has been vocally and almost militantly against MQA/DSD previously, difficult to see them backing away from their stance, though I'd love to see them pragmatically adapt to support MQA as I now use Tidal for 90+% of listening.. #fingerscrossed
> ...


 

 ​


----------



## lostman

When I use Dragonfly Black with Tidal, Dragonfly reports 96kHz while Tidal is decoding 48kHz stream.

 Also tried Audirvana Plus and for non-master album it reports 44.1kHz; for master it reports 48kHz.
  
 Haven't yet found an album that would go beyond 48kHz.


----------



## canthearyou

lostman said:


> When I use Dragonfly Black with Tidal, Dragonfly reports 96kHz while Tidal is decoding 48kHz stream.
> 
> 
> Also tried Audirvana Plus and for non-master album it reports 44.1kHz; for master it reports 48kHz.
> ...




It's might be your Dragonfly. I've come across quite a few that are 96khz. I'm listening to Eric Clapton & Friends right now and it's 96kHz.


----------



## lostman

canthearyou: that's the thing. dragonfly does report 96kHz but the original stream that Tidal app is decoding isn't 96kHz; it is 48kHz. So it appears Tidal is doing upsampling?


----------



## Arnav Agharwal

lostman said:


> canthearyou
> : that's the thing. dragonfly does report 96kHz but the original stream that Tidal app is decoding isn't 96kHz; it is 48kHz. So it appears Tidal is doing upsampling?



It is possible that Audirvana's software level MQA unfolding is restricted to 48 kHz, whereas the TIDAL app does it up to 96 kHz. I can confirm that I also get 96 kHz with it on Windows into my Mojo.


----------



## Hansotek

erich6 said:


> Yeah, I know what you mean.  I've been very disappointed with some of the HDTracks albums I've bought.  Nothing beats a good master.  I also know music sounds better when playing off a computer using software that uses a good transport and streams directly to the DAC instead of using "system sound."  I know a good DAC and good amp makes a difference.  As far as high-resolution, sometimes I detect just a bit more sparkle and smoothness but only sometimes.  Given that, the priority ought to be on better masters.  So far, the software MQA decoding in Tidal seems to be pretty good!  Probably could improve a bit with better transport to the USB DAC (like Roon does) so some software improvements would help there.  I think MQA DACs will be just icing on the cake.
> 
> As far as Iron Maiden masters...pretty much every album is there.  Great fun.




In my experience, higher bit rates are much more noticeable on a 2-channel system than on headphones due to the inherent differences in staging.


----------



## Hansotek

arnav agharwal said:


> It is possible that Audirvana's software level MQA unfolding is restricted to 48 kHz, whereas the TIDAL app does it up to 96 kHz. I can confirm that I also get 96 kHz with it on Windows into my Mojo.




Audirvana hasn't pushed the update for software decoding yet - that's why you're seeing 48 & 44.1.


----------



## Currawong

Make if you're using the TIDAL app that you're using the latest version, or it wont go up to 96k either.


----------



## lostman

Tidal itself is decoding 48kHz stream. If you have Mac OS try it out for yourself:
  
 sudo dtrace -n 'pid3514::*get_sample_rate:return { printf("%d", arg1); }'
 dtrace: description 'pid3514::*get_sample_rate:return ' matched 2 probes
 CPU     ID                    FUNCTION:NAME
   0  10521 FLAC__stream_decoder_get_sample_rate:return 48000

 Just replace 3514 with the PID of TidalPlayer process. dtrace is a utility that lets you inspect the internals of a running process. Mac OS has kernel hooks for that so no special version of an application is needed. You inspect what any application is really doing (it slows down your system a lot!).

 Meanwhile my Dragonfly Black has the pink icon indicating 96 kHz.
  
 Also, there appears to be no MQA decoding going on. Here's a simple probe that lists any functions that have mqa in their name:
  
 sudo dtrace -ln 'pid3514::*mqa*:entry'
    ID   PROVIDER            MODULE                          FUNCTION NAME
  3760    pid3740       TIDALPlayer mqaDeviceInExclusive(PlaybackDevice const&, PlaybackDeviceOptions const&) entry
  3761    pid3740       TIDALPlayer _GLOBAL__sub_I_mqa_device_handler.cpp entry
  3762    pid3740       TIDALPlayer _GLOBAL__sub_I_mqa_audio_output_reader.cpp entry
  3763    pid3740       TIDALPlayer _GLOBAL__sub_I_mqa_decode_listener.cpp entry
  3764    pid3740       TIDALPlayer    _GLOBAL__sub_I_mqa_decoder.cpp entry
  3765    pid3740       TIDALPlayer _GLOBAL__sub_I_mqa_decoder_builder.cpp entry

 But when I try to trace whether or not any of those functions is actually called when I play a track, nothing shows up!


----------



## pkcpga

andrew rieger said:


> No word from Schiit. They did know that MQA was coming to Tidal but they still said no and I am going to assume that they meant it. Too bad but paying Meridian to "bless"your DAC is a pretty sneaky thing and I totally understand why a smaller company would say F this. 24/96 will have to do for most of us. I'm not a big fan of Delta/Sigma so I've pretty much give up hope on any MQA certified R2R DACs.




Schiit would need to build a completely different dac to play mqa natively? MQA is 24 bit and as far as I know schiit doesn't make a 24 bit dac.


----------



## loplop

iguanajm said:


> how do you see the sample rate on mac?
> tia



Open up Audio Midi and take a look. 



lostman said:


> canthearyou
> : that's the thing. dragonfly does report 96kHz but the original stream that Tidal app is decoding isn't 96kHz; it is 48kHz. So it appears Tidal is doing upsampling?




Isn't MQA backwards compatible with 16/44 and 16/48 systems? If so, perhaps what is occurring is the 44/48 is being "unfolded" to 88.2/96 a la HDCD? Just a guess--I really haven't read a lot about the technical details as I've been skeptical. 

All that said, and with the obvious remastering pointed out above, I've listened to a few MQA on tidal that sounded really, really excellent... so no matter if it's the mastering or the delivery mechanism, I'm enjoying the addition to a service I already pay for and use a lot.


----------



## erich6

lostman said:


> canthearyou: that's the thing. dragonfly does report 96kHz but the original stream that Tidal app is decoding isn't 96kHz; it is 48kHz. So it appears Tidal is doing upsampling?


 

 ​No, Tidal is not upsampling.  Tidal has a software MQA decoder and it's "unfolding" the music to a higher-resolution version.  That's why you are seeing the 96kHz in your DAC.  It's real!
  
 When you use Audirvana, it doesn't have a software MQA decoder so you are only getting the lower resolution version of the track.


----------



## erich6

hansotek said:


> In my experience, higher bit rates are much more noticeable on a 2-channel system than on headphones due to the inherent differences in staging.


 

 ​Interesting.  I listen almost exclusively with headphones so haven't experienced the difference with speaker systems.  I suspect that's even more so with surround sound recordings.  Good to know.


----------



## Soundizer

Are we sure to see other big MUSIC LABEL Companies in addition to Warner releasing MQA, like SONY Music?


----------



## Stillhart

currawong said:


> If you mean that you expect them to make a press statement about something that doesn't have anything to do with them until the moment that they decide it will, then I don't imagine they'll do that. Otherwise you just have to follow Baldr's posts.
> 
> 
> 
> > After a bit of listening, my partner and co-founder Jason has pointed out many, if not all of the MQA processed recordings are obviously remastered, compared to the "normal" versions on Tidal, making it very difficult to determine whether any differences are due to the remastering or MQA itself.


 
  
 This is what I've been saying, both about MQA and HDTracks.  It's good to see someone who obviously knows what they're doing agree with me.  There's no denying the Tidal tracks sound good, but I suspect most of that improvement is from the remaster just like on HDtracks.


----------



## mike138

stillhart said:


> This is what I've been saying, both about MQA and HDTracks.  It's good to see someone who obviously knows what they're doing agree with me.  There's no denying the Tidal tracks sound good, but I suspect most of that improvement is from the remaster just like on HDtracks.


 
 This can't really be said often enough. I can listen to compressed, lossy mp3s of artists like David Byrne or Beck that sound better than hi-res versions of other artist's albums because those guys care about how their music is recorded and mastered.


----------



## cute

mike138 said:


> stillhart said:
> 
> 
> > This is what I've been saying, both about MQA and HDTracks.  It's good to see someone who obviously knows what they're doing agree with me.  There's no denying the Tidal tracks sound good, but I suspect most of that improvement is from the remaster just like on HDtracks.
> ...


 

 Agree, Beck is a true artist......Mark Knopfler hasn't made a poorly mastered album as well!  Most/many recordings are like "give me the money" and move on to the next album.


----------



## ThurstonX

pkcpga said:


> Schiit would need to build a completely different dac to play mqa natively? MQA is 24 bit and as far as I know schiit doesn't make a 24 bit dac.


 
  
 Didn't want to leave this one unaddressed.  Yes, pretty much, since any existing DAC would have to be modified/certified in order to support MQA, which would make it a "new" DAC (regardless of a name change or not).  It's moot, as I'll bet my house Schiit won't be doing this, at least under the current MQA regime.  Hard to imagine a regime under which they'd be interested.
  
 As to 24-bit DACs, every Schiit DAC will do 24-bit 96KHz, and most will do every other sample rate up to 192 kHz with provided drivers, as needed.
  
  
 re: new (re)masters, improved quality and MQA, AFAIC, until a good ol' Redbook CD of the same master used to produce the MQA files is identifiable and available for an ABX, it's all smoke and mirrors.  It may be very pleasant smoke with equally pleasing (mirrored) images, and that's fine, but what's the (extra) cost?  While it's easy to do an ABX with things like the Steven Wilson remixes (implies new mastering, I assume) of King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Yes, et al., where the MLP (ha!) 24-96 files on the DVD-A are easily ripped or played directly in foobar2000, and the same files were turned into CDs which come in the same package... I gather this isn't easily done, if at all possible without solid info, with the MQA stuff.
  
 That said, I'm going to have to try Tidal's 60-day free trial to do a little ABXin' with at least _Aqualung_.  Makes me wonder if they used Wilson's remix as the source.  Will we ever know...


----------



## pkcpga

thurstonx said:


> Didn't want to leave this one unaddressed.  Yes, pretty much, since any existing DAC would have to be modified/certified in order to support MQA, which would make it a "new" DAC (regardless of a name change or not).  It's moot, as I'll bet my house Schiit won't be doing this, at least under the current MQA regime.  Hard to imagine a regime under which they'd be interested.
> 
> As to 24-bit DACs, every Schiit DAC will do 24-bit 96KHz, and most will do every other sample rate up to 192 kHz with provided drivers, as needed.
> 
> ...




Thanks for clearing up the schiit, only thought that because I demod their top end Yggdrasil a while ago and schiit informed me some of my music would not play on their dac because the Yggdrasil is 21 bit dac and others wouldn't play because there was no dsd capability so my demo was short. Schiit claimed on their site they eat their hat if your recording was actually 24 bit but unfortunately wether it is or not it's written that way so it wouldn't play and schiit told me that certain track this may happen but it's rare, dvda and sacd transferred tracks. Also claimed there are only a few dsd tracks, I own hundreds of albums so obliviously plenty more than a few tracks. Not sure if it's changed since back when the Yggdrasil came out, but schiit seemed to only be interested in playing cd quality better than many other DACs but not any other format, with that philosophy I doubt they consider any other format.


----------



## Kristof Boone

I presume that there's no way to have the MQA-mode on the Pioneer XDP-300R or the Onkyo DP-X1?
 Those players are MQA-compatible, but they are using the Tidal Android app and not the desktop app...


----------



## iguanajm

lostman said:


> Tidal itself is decoding 48kHz stream. If you have Mac OS try it out for yourself:
> 
> sudo dtrace -n 'pid3514::*get_sample_rate:return { printf("%d", arg1); }'
> dtrace: description 'pid3514::*get_sample_rate:return ' matched 2 probes
> ...


 
 Now this is great info!  What is the audio midi utility saying?  Since there is no "auto" mode in the utility, I am wondering does the mac upsample to what this is set at?  Or is this more of a "max allowable" setting?  I assume your dragonfly changes colors between normal/hifi/master?
  


loplop said:


> Open up Audio Midi and take a look.


 
 Thats more of a hardcoded setting.  I want to know what the stream is set at which the above answer seems to be better, but I also want to know what the midi tool is doing to the stream if anything.


----------



## Hansotek

thurstonx said:


> That said, I'm going to have to try Tidal's 60-day free trial to do a little ABXin' with at least _Aqualung_.  Makes me wonder if they used Wilson's remix as the source.  Will we ever know...


 
  

  
 Given that it says, "Mixed and Mastered by Steve Wilson" 13 times on the screen (not to mention at least 2 more times off screen), I think we can be fairly certain.


----------



## Hansotek

kristof boone said:


> I presume that there's no way to have the MQA-mode on the Pioneer XDP-300R or the Onkyo DP-X1?
> Those players are MQA-compatible, but they are using the Tidal Android app and not the desktop app...


 
  
 I think you're going to have to wait for mobile support.


----------



## erich6

thurstonx said:


> re: new (re)masters, improved quality and MQA, AFAIC, until a good ol' Redbook CD of the same master used to produce the MQA files is identifiable and available for an ABX, it's all smoke and mirrors.  It may be very pleasant smoke with equally pleasing (mirrored) images, and that's fine, but what's the (extra) cost?  While it's easy to do an ABX with things like the *Steven Wilson remixes *(implies new mastering, I assume) of King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Yes, et al., where the MLP (ha!) 24-96 files on the DVD-A are easily ripped or played directly in foobar2000, and the same files were turned into CDs which come in the same package... I gather this isn't easily done, if at all possible without solid info, with the MQA stuff.
> 
> That said, I'm going to have to try Tidal's 60-day free trial to do a little ABXin' with at least _Aqualung_.  *Makes me wonder if they used Wilson's remix as the source*.  Will we ever know...


 
  
 All the Jethro Tull Tidal Masters are based on Steven Wilson's remasters.  The Yes Tidal Masters don't appear to be the Steven Wilson remasters.
  
 One thing I found a bit difficult to control in doing any kind of A/B test like you suggest is the difference in the transport between the Tidal software, Foobar, and Roon.  I know Roon does something different because when I listen Tidal HIFI from the Tidal software it generally doesn't sound as good as it does from the Roon software (and I'm using exclusive ASIO drivers on both)--interestingly though, the Tidal Masters play better in the Tidal software than the respective HIFI versions even in Roon.
  
 Anyway, look forward to seeing what you come up with.


----------



## Kristof Boone

hansotek said:


> I think you're going to have to wait for mobile support.


 


 I really don't get it how you guys are testing the MQA's?

 You do have all a laptop with a SP/DIF out and connect to an amplifier that supports MQA?
 Because only the desktop version is supporting MQA, so I don't see how you could get 'out' of your PC...

 Very disappointing, because they've introduiced a new format, but we aren't able to play it...


----------



## Hansotek

kristof boone said:


> I really don't get it how you guys are testing the MQA's?
> 
> 
> You do have all a laptop with a SP/DIF out and connect to an amplifier that supports MQA?
> ...




As stated a couple of pages ago, I've just been enjoying the "partially unfolded" 24/96 remasters - not the full MQA format. Using the desktop app and sending them out to the Mojo - no MQA support from that, but the "Master" light on the player is lit up and the Mojo is indicating 24/96 as the bit rate.


----------



## erich6

kristof boone said:


> I really don't get it how you guys are testing the MQA's?
> 
> You do have all a laptop with a SP/DIF out and connect to an amplifier that supports MQA?
> Because only the desktop version is supporting MQA, so I don't see how you could get 'out' of your PC...
> ...


 

 ​You can play and enjoy the new masters (MQA) if you have a PC (laptop or desktop) with the Tidal app.  No need to take it to an external DAC or amplifier.  Just plug your headphones in and you are set.   The Tidal app is "unfolding" the MQA masters up to 24bit/96kHz resolution.
  
 A lot of people here have better Digital-to-Analog Converters (DACs) and they can plug them in to their computer via USB.  They can play the MQA files with those DACs and see if they can get better results.  If the external DAC has an MQA decoder then it should be able to unfold the MQA files to even higher resolutions depending on how good the DAC is.


----------



## Stillhart

kristof boone said:


> I really don't get it how you guys are testing the MQA's?
> 
> You do have all a laptop with a SP/DIF out and connect to an amplifier that supports MQA?
> Because only the desktop version is supporting MQA, so I don't see how you could get 'out' of your PC...
> ...


 
  
 MQA is an encoding format.  It can decoded by software or hardware.  Hardware decoding will let you decode ("unfold") to higher bitrates.  Software decoding using Tidal's new built-in decoder will give you 24/96.


----------



## Soundizer

Apologies as this might be a silly question. I know TIDAL HI FI music is about 1400 kbps, what about TIDAL MQA when unfolded?


----------



## Stillhart

soundizer said:


> Apologies as this might be a silly question. I know TIDAL HI FI music is about 1400 kbps, what about TIDAL MQA when unfolded?


 
  
 I believe FLAC files encoded in MQA are about the same size but don't quote me on that.


----------



## maxh22

The partially unfolded 24/ 96khz MQA file does sound better in every instance I tested. With some older songs I hear significantly less noise than on the Hifi version.

This was all tested using a Chord Mojo and my various headphones and iems. Clear improvement accross the board when A/B testing and when listening for pleasure.


----------



## ThurstonX

hansotek said:


> Given that it says, "Mixed and Mastered by Steve Wilson" 13 times on the screen (not to mention at least 2 more times off screen), I think we can be fairly certain.


 
  
 LOL, thanks.  I finally signed up for the 60-day trial, so plenty of opportunity to compare.  That album will be first, since I've got it, and we've got the lineage.  All I can say is, Hooray for Audacity!


----------



## sling5s

I wonder if Tidal will ever have Radiohead and Pink Floyd Masters.


----------



## sling5s

post deleted.


----------



## Soundizer

I am based in the UK and have found TIDAL Support to be awful. You have to fill out an online form. 

Also when TIDAL SUPPORT eventually got back to me via email they stated reference to 96kbps - i think they made an error as should have stated 96kHz. 

Useless support for a £20 a month service. 
Spotify Premium is not much better in my experience using it for 3 years. 

Best support experience so far for me is Apple Music - i can call them or get Apple to call me. Very super friendly and they will not stop helping address a query until the matter is closed.. This is free even if you have not subscribed to Apple Music.


----------



## wormsdriver

.


----------



## Mojo777

Anyone have feedback using the Meridian Explorer 2? Seems like a cheap way to get the full benefit of MQA as a nice mobile/laptop setup.


----------



## Steve Buck

because the tidal desktop has built in mqa decoding.


----------



## Stillhart

mojo777 said:


> Anyone have feedback using the Meridian Explorer 2? Seems like a cheap way to get the full benefit of MQA as a nice mobile/laptop setup.


 
  
 I haven't heard the Explorer2 since CES 2 years ago when it was announced and even then I didn't get a very good listen.  But with that said, remember, just because you're feeding 24/384 (or whatever) to your DAC, doesn't mean it will sound better than 24/96 on a better DAC.  If you're looking for a new DAC in the price range, it's definitely a nice advantage having hardware MQA support.  But I wouldn't go out of your way to grab one just for the MQA if you already have a solid DAC.


----------



## pkcpga

soundizer said:


> I am based in the UK and have found TIDAL Support to be awful. You have to fill out an online form.
> 
> Also when TIDAL SUPPORT eventually got back to me via email they stated reference to 96kbps - i think they made an error as should have stated 96kHz.
> 
> ...




Funny in the US tidal support is email also but very quick to respond and if you still have a question no need to start a new form the sent email can be responded to. I find this very unusual with support, audioquest requires you to fill out a new request form each time they respond because the email address sent cannot be responded to.


----------



## Soundizer

Can anyone help please. Just installed Tidal on a Mac Computer. TIDAL HIFI subscription. 

(1). I can see about 100 albums for Masters on What's New / Masters. How do i find more Masters, please?

(2). I cannot get it to output sound into Chord Mojo when using Optical Connection. Is it USB audio only? The USB Audio connection works fine, but I prefer to use Optical. 

(3). Is there no Equaliser on the Tidal Mac Software?

(4). Tidal are very slow responding to questions on email, is that normal? Been waiting since Friday for replies to emails. 

(5) Is Chromecast supported as my Android TV shows Tidal when I Google Cast, but no music plays. Maybe not supported during Trial period perhaps?


Thank you kindly for any help with the above. Much appreciated.


----------



## ThurstonX

soundizer said:


> Can anyone help please. Just installed Tidal on a Mac Computer. TIDAL HIFI subscription.
> 
> (1). I can see about 100 albums for Masters on What's New / Masters. How do i find more Masters, please?
> 
> ...


 
  
 In the main desktop view (defaults to What's New for me), Look for the Albums section (should be the 2nd one), click "Masters", then click "Show All" off to the right.  That should load all of the them.  It doesn't looked like much at first glance, but more are exposed as I scroll through the list.  This is in the Windows desktop client.  There are far more than 100; I got tired of counting the rows (10-per-row * 30 rows is where I stopped).
  
 What they really need to fix is the artist view, maybe with a Show Only MASTER Recordings link.  I just started using TIDAL, so I may be missing something, but I don't think so, based on previous posts in this thread.
  
 Good luck with your other questions.


----------



## mnp75

soundizer said:


> (1). I can see about 100 albums for Masters on What's New / Masters. How do i find more Masters, please?
> 
> (2). I cannot get it to output sound into Chord Mojo when using Optical Connection. Is it USB audio only? The USB Audio connection works fine, but I prefer to use Optical.
> 
> (3). Is there no Equaliser on the Tidal Mac Software?


 
  
 1) How it's currently set up feels like a quick fix (which is kind of odd, considering everyone and their dog have known that MQA is coming to Tidal for at least a year now…), I'm sure they'll eventually build something more usable. What you can try is to click into the artist views, some of them have more Masters albums – which are relatively easy to spot if you try to find duplicate looking albums. However, in order to see which is Masters version and which is standard Hifi, you'll just have to press play and see what it says in the bottom bar.
  
 2) Definitely not limited to USB only (Masters nor Tidal in general). Personally I've been listening to the Masters via optical out on my MBP, connected to CA DacMagic – works great @ 24/96. How new of a Mac you have? If I've understood correctly, the latest models no longer have optical output in the headphone jack.
  
 3) Correct, doesn't exist. (If you for some reason want a software eq on your Mac, try an app called Boom. But I'm not sure how that would work in connection with an external DAC, probably doesn't).


----------



## Wadia171i

If you want MQA leave it off it's a pass through


----------



## Wadia171i

leaky74 said:


> Is there a way/workaround to avoid the 'noise' when switching from one rate to another?



Not having that problem with Meridian. Sorry I'll try and research to help you. I put back my Oppo 105 set up as a Dac only no problem and the rate is constantly changing from song to song.


----------



## leaky74

wadia171i said:


> Not having that problem with Meridian. Sorry I'll try and research to help you. I put back my Oppo 105 set up as a Dac only no problem and the rate is constantly changing from song to song.


 

 Thanks. I've reverted to a Mojo; no such issues with that I'm pleased to report.


----------



## Soundizer

Thank you kindly. I have a 2012 iMac which has Optical.


----------



## discape

Am I getting any benefit from Masters if my DAC is only 16bit 48khz?


----------



## Soundizer

currawong said:


> hansotek said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting post above [@=/u/65761/Currawong]@Currawong[/@] - I'm just listening to the 24/96 versions of the tracks and there seems to be a decent improvement, particularly in the drums. I'm interested to hear what the file would sound like fully "unfolded".
> ...




Looking forward to that video. I use the Chord Mojo as a desktop DAC and so far do like the MQA albums on Tidal hifi. 
Is it worth considering the Meridian Explorer 2 which has full MQA decoding or will Mojo still sound better. Just asking for your opinion ASSUMING [ if you had to choose one DAC only and all you listen to is MQA via TIDAL]. 

Thank you, Soundizer


----------



## Stillhart

discape said:


> Am I getting any benefit from Masters if my DAC is only 16bit 48khz?


 
  
 In theory, it won't be able to play or it will downscale.  But what DAC is only 16/48?  I have a vintage R2R DAC from 1992 that can do 24/88...
  
 If you're asking whather you'll get any benefit if your DAC can't decode MQA, the answer is yet, assuming your DAC can do 24/96, which most DACs I'm aware of can.


----------



## erich6

soundizer said:


> Thank you kindly. I have a 2012 iMac which has Optical.


 

 ​It should work as long as you select the optical output in the Tidal app.


----------



## wgb113

I'm using a 2012 Mini and my DACs reading whatever I have the outputs set to in Audio Midi. Using the latest Tidal app, how can I get it to output bitperfect?


----------



## psikey

Just signed up for free trial again and tried with my Mojo/SE846's and to my ears the 24/88 track streamed sounds identical to Hi-Def track I already have of the same piece. Certainly makes Tidal much more interesting to me now, especially as reduced price at £16.99 if sign up for 6 months (cheaper now than me paying in US$ to UK£ with exchange rate).
    
 To my ears I didn't think paying double for Tidal HiFi was justified for me compared to Spotify Extreme but this Master quality makes it much more appealing. Do still prefer Spotify software/system.


----------



## wgb113

I got a drop-out about an hour into listening...not sure what caused it but has anyone else experienced the same?


----------



## discape

stillhart said:


> In theory, it won't be able to play or it will downscale.  But what DAC is only 16/48?  I have a vintage R2R DAC from 1992 that can do 24/88...
> 
> If you're asking whather you'll get any benefit if your DAC can't decode MQA, the answer is yet, assuming your DAC can do 24/96, which most DACs I'm aware of can.


 

 Thanks for reply. I recently downgraded my DAC from an expensive one to a Behringer UCA202.


----------



## waveSounds

Sure feels good to see that mystical blue finally appear on my Ex 2's lights. Pristine, unadulterated MQA goodness


----------



## ThurstonX

wgb113 said:


> I got a drop-out about an hour into listening...not sure what caused it but has anyone else experienced the same?


 
  
 I had problems getting _Led Zeppeling IV_ and _Houses of the Holy_ MQAs to play yesterday.  First track started, then "paused" to buffer (I assume) and eventually started back up, only to pause again.  I tested the HIFI versions and they played fine straight away.  I rebooted, same problem.  Guessing their server might have been under some heavy load, I gave it a rest and tried again 30 minutes or so later.  Both played without interruption.  Could've been my router or ISP.  Tough to say, but my bet is server load.
  
 FWIW, I had just finished listening to _Led Zeppelin III_ MQA, which played fine.


----------



## pippen99

wgb113 said:


> I got a drop-out about an hour into listening...not sure what caused it but has anyone else experienced the same?


 
 I had dropouts on several albums I listened to last night.  I first thought it was my 6 year old laptop but now maybe not.


----------



## searchy

hesnot said:


> Hmm well I am a Tidal subscriber, have a Pioneer XDP-100R and a Macbook Air (mid 2012) - any ideas on how to connect the XDP to the macbook to then stream the MQA files from the laptop app?


 
 Impossible. One drawback of the Onkyo/Pioneer players is that they do not support PC passthrough. Fortunately, the Onkyo and Pioneer devices support MQA natively so when MQA is enabled for the mobile Tidal app, you'll be able to enjoy the high quality automatically!


----------



## Wadia171i

I have a resolution audio cantata in MQA the exp2 beats the cantata easily sounds like master tape. I'm floored this is the sound they promised us 30 years ago. Now with hi res music or flac the cantata is definitely better. But what would Meridians more expensive dac sound like. I know for now resolution audio is not going to license MQA


----------



## jwbrent

Just signed up for the 60 day free trial and I'm loving what I hear.

I have a MacBook Air connected to a Mojo to listen to the MQA files.


----------



## jwbrent

I posted this on the Mojo thread:


I've been playing with TIDAL quite a bit and so far am really happy with the service. One thing you can do is compare 16/44.1 CD quality versus 24/96 MQA, and the difference is apparent.

Go into the TIDAL desktop app settings under the Streaming header, and first, make sure your Mojo is set for Exclusive Mode by clicking on the gear icon that pops up when you hover your cursor over Mojo. Then go back to the previous screen and adjust the quality from High to HiFi/Master. The change happens on the next song. I've set up a quick menu shortcut on the Mac app so I can just hit the back arrow and the current song repeats. Going back and forth between High (red ball on Mojo) and HiFi/Master (yellow/green ball) should give you a good idea between the sound quality differences. You can also compare the Normal setting which I presume is 320kbs lossy, the format used when you sign up for the $9.99 tier.

I should add this comparison between High and HiFi/Master only works playing MQA files which can only be accessed when using the PC/Mac app. In its help section, TIDAL mentions that MQA access for portable devices is forthcoming.

I have a feeling we're going to see a $29.99 tier for access to the Master files later on when there are more albums uploaded.


----------



## Stillhart

jwbrent said:


> I posted this on the Mojo thread:
> 
> 
> I've been playing with TIDAL quite a bit and so far am really happy with the service. One thing you can do is compare 16/44.1 CD quality versus 24/96 MQA, and the difference is apparent.
> ...


 
  
 I've done the same test and noticed some subtle improvements in dynamics and imaging (probably stemming from lower noise floor).  I wonder if what @Currawong said about the MQA being interpreted as noise when it's playing at 16/44 is what's causing the relatively cleaner background in 24/96.


----------



## revand

Yesterday I tried the MOJO connected with a Bluesound Node 2 as streamer with an optical cable and checked the new TIDAL Masters albums on my Meze 99 Classics headphones.
 The MQA files on TIDAL Masters brought a clear improvement in sound quality.
 For me it was strange, that I could see the yellow and green colours on the MOJO and could enjoy High-Res content.
 I thought that a DAC is making the MQA decoding, and if I connect a non-MQA compatible DAC to the Node 2 it would not work, but fortunately it works! Any suggestion how come?


----------



## Currawong

stillhart said:


> I've done the same test and noticed some subtle improvements in dynamics and imaging (probably stemming from lower noise floor).  I wonder if what @Currawong said about the MQA being interpreted as noise when it's playing at 16/44 is what's causing the relatively cleaner background in 24/96.


 
  
 I don't think it is that. The un-decoded MQA "noise" is above 16 kHz. I was comparing a 24/96 version of a track that I have versus a TIDAL app MQA track that was being decoded to 24/96. It sounded like the track had been remastered to be much better-sounding.


----------



## Soundizer

jwbrent said:


> I posted this on the Mojo thread:
> 
> 
> I've been playing with TIDAL quite a bit and so far am really happy with the service. One thing you can do is compare 16/44.1 CD quality versus 24/96 MQA, and the difference is apparent.
> ...




I did an AB test into MOJO by simply playing Master Albums vs HIFI albums. More air in the Master tracks.


----------



## headfry

I'm finding that the Tidal software decoded MQA/Master files sound amazing through Mojo -
 as if a toxic digital/glassy sheen/graininess is now gone....until I heard its removal with Masters,
 I wasn't aware of the extent of this contamination.The soundstage, layering and 3D nature of the presentation
 benefit hugely, as do fine details.
  
 There is an expressiveness, beautiful detail allied with natural smoothness to the music
 that for me proves very addicting...very analogue sounding to me.
  
 The naysayers can feel and say what they want, for me, the Tidal-decoded MQA
 experience is generally an immense improvement.....it may sound similar in quality
 to good DSD or HiRes files......good enough for me - having a large streamable library
 in HiRes SQ.


----------



## TokenGesture

stillhart said:


> This is what I've been saying, both about MQA and HDTracks.  It's good to see someone who obviously knows what they're doing agree with me.  There's no denying the Tidal tracks sound good, but I suspect most of that improvement is from the remaster just like on HDtracks.


 
 Could this 'remastering" not in fact be the MQA process applied at the file source, which they claim compensated for original timing error made by the a/d converter?


----------



## waveSounds

If I get a chance over the weekend I'll run some comparisons of MQA albums between the less expensive Explorer 2, but with full MQA decoding, and the MoJo using Tidal's software decoding.
  
 Anyone interested in this comparison?


----------



## maxh22

wavesounds said:


> If I get a chance over the weekend I'll run some comparisons of MQA albums between the less expensive Explorer 2, but with full MQA decoding, and the MoJo using Tidal's software decoding.
> 
> Anyone interested in this comparison?




Yes very interested. I predict Mojo will still end up on top even though it cannot decode the full MQA signal.


----------



## headfry

wavesounds said:


> If I get a chance over the weekend I'll run some comparisons of MQA albums between the less expensive Explorer 2, but with full MQA decoding, and the MoJo using Tidal's software decoding.
> 
> Anyone interested in this comparison?


 

 Although I have no interest in investing in an MQA capable DAC - just bought the fantastic
 Mojo a few months ago - this is a comparison I've been waiting for!
  
  
 ...looking forward to your impressions! I also predict that the Mojo/Tidal-decoded MQA will win,
 but even if not....what a great sounding combination!


----------



## Soundizer

headfry said:


> wavesounds said:
> 
> 
> > If I get a chance over the weekend I'll run some comparisons of MQA albums between the less expensive Explorer 2, but with full MQA decoding, and the MoJo using Tidal's software decoding.
> ...





I am also very interested in this comparison.


----------



## Stillhart

currawong said:


> I don't think it is that. The un-decoded MQA "noise" is above 16 kHz. I was comparing a 24/96 version of a track that I have versus a TIDAL app MQA track that was being decoded to 24/96. It sounded like the track had been remastered to be much better-sounding.


 
  
 Yeah but those are different masters.  MQA tracks have to be different masters because they have to remaster the track to encode it properly with MQA.  I was trying it with the same "master" just the 16/44 wrapped version vs the 24/96 unwrapped version.  That should be a closer comparison.
  


soundizer said:


> I did an AB test into MOJO by simply playing Master Albums vs HIFI albums. More air in the Master tracks.


 
  
 See above, this could easily be attributable to the remaster.  I'm not saying it's not, but it's important in a discussion about MQA to determine how much of the benefit is actually due to MQA vs other factors.
  


tokengesture said:


> Could this 'remastering" not in fact be the MQA process applied at the file source, which they claim compensated for original timing error made by the a/d converter?


 
  
 They are re-encoding the song from the original master so by definition it's a remaster and may sound different regardless of whether they used MQA or not.  Certainly it's possible that their marketing pitch is 100% true and the improvements are 100% because of MQA and nothing else.  In my opinion, it's not probable, but I grant that it is possible.  
  
 I thought MQA was simply a method of encoding hi resolution files into a smaller size for easier streaming.  If they're doing to magic with timing corrections too, that could account for some of the differences.


----------



## Soundizer

I do not mean to get off the MQA topic but to me in general Tidal on my iMac seems to sound somewhat unnatural. Almost as if it has added mid base and a kind of strange pseudo like wide sound stage. It reminds me of my previous Creative Soundblaster Gaming DAC with DSP wide sound affects turned on. Sorry but iTunes sounds more natural or unadulterated. 

I gues my point is regardless of MQA quality opinions this is a TIDAL MQA thread and so is still relevant. Maybe other Music software players can sound less coloured.


----------



## jwbrent

soundizer said:


> I do not mean to get off the MQA topic but to me in general Tidal on my iMac seems to sound somewhat unnatural. Almost as if it has added mid base and a kind of strange pseudo like wide sound stage. It reminds me of my previous Creative Soundblaster Gaming DAC with DSP wide sound affects turned on. Sorry but iTunes sounds more natural or unadulterated.
> 
> I gues my point is regardless of MQA quality opinions this is a TIDAL MQA thread and so is still relevant. Maybe other Music software players can sound less coloured.


 

 Interesting perspective. So far, I've been happy with TIDAL using my Mojo as the DAC for my laptop.


----------



## Soundizer

jwbrent said:


> soundizer said:
> 
> 
> > I do not mean to get off the MQA topic but to me in general Tidal on my iMac seems to sound somewhat unnatural. Almost as if it has added mid base and a kind of strange pseudo like wide sound stage. It reminds me of my previous Creative Soundblaster Gaming DAC with DSP wide sound affects turned on. Sorry but iTunes sounds more natural or unadulterated.
> ...





I am happy with it overall and also use Chord Mojo via Mac - Tidal. My iTunes files are only 256kbps so the Tidal hifi and MQA audio files sound allot better anyway. My observation was on Tidal software.


----------



## jwbrent

The one thing I've found using the TIDAL function on my AK240SS is gapless playback does not work, a disappointment when listening to concert albums. The computer app does do gapless, seamlessly.
  
 Looks like AK needs to do another firmware update to address this problem.


----------



## Soundizer

There are only 403 Master Albums which I can see, but people refer to 800 or 500?
  
 I simply counted 10 columns x 40 rows = 400 + 3 = 403.
  
*Please correct me if I am wrong.*
  
Date: 13 Jan, Friday.


----------



## TadMorose

soundizer said:


> There are only 403 Master Albums which I can see, but people refer to 800 or 500?
> 
> I simply counted 10 columns x 40 rows = 400 + 3 = 403.
> 
> ...


 
  
 It's not a full list. For example, there are only 3 Black Sabbath albums shown in that list. But if you go to Black Sabbath artist page, there are more albums available in MQA, e.g. "Heaven and Hell" and "Mob Rules".


----------



## jwbrent

I wonder if there is a software solution to do a second unfolding of an MQA file. I'm sure Meridian would prefer one buy its MQA compatible DACs, but I already have a nice DAC.
  
 I also seem to recall when Meridian first announced MQA, they were not going to charge licensing fees for adoptees, but I could be wrong here.


----------



## Stillhart

jwbrent said:


> I wonder if there is a software solution to do a second unfolding of an MQA file. I'm sure Meridian would prefer one buy its MQA compatible DACs, but I already have a nice DAC.
> 
> I also seem to recall when Meridian first announced MQA, they were not going to charge licensing fees for adoptees, but I could be wrong here.


 
  
 It's a proprietary format so nobody will be making a solution except for Meridian unless the reverse engineer the tech and do it illegally.  (In this day and age, totally possible, granted.)  Meridian absolutely charges licensing fees which is why not many people besides Meridian support it.  Companies don't want to waste time and money on something that may be a passing fad.  
  
 That's why this Tidal thing is so important.  If people get a taste of it and really want more of it, we may start to see more adoption of the tech across the board.  It could snowball... or not.  Proprietary things like this don't usually tend to take off but who knows.


----------



## ThomasHK

(cross posted from the MQA thread in sound science forum)
  
 I've just come up with a pretty neat trick to debunk the whole MQA story on Tidal.
  
 In the sound card settings you can enable "MQA passthrough". What's great is that with a non-MQA compatible external device (or your Macbook/Laptop soundcard), the MQA additional magic data will basically just remain folded in the noise of the 48 or 44.1 kHz file.
  
 I want to pay however can hear the difference blindfolded between the software unfolded and folded version a lot of money.
  
 Can be a fun little experiment with your wife or kids. The level stays nicely matched and you just ask them to switch between passthrough and software unfolding.


----------



## TadMorose

thomashk said:


> (cross posted from the MQA thread in sound science forum)
> 
> I've just come up with a pretty neat trick to debunk the whole MQA story on Tidal.
> 
> ...


 
  
 This article has your answer:
  


> *Without MQA in the DAC, no un-folding takes place – only the first 44.1kHz or 48kHz is parsed – and the pre-emptive filter correction isn’t applied. Only the MQA encoding process is heard.*


----------



## jwbrent

stillhart said:


> It's a proprietary format so nobody will be making a solution except for Meridian unless the reverse engineer the tech and do it illegally.  (In this day and age, totally possible, granted.)  Meridian absolutely charges licensing fees which is why not many people besides Meridian support it.  Companies don't want to waste time and money on something that may be a passing fad.
> 
> That's why this Tidal thing is so important.  If people get a taste of it and really want more of it, we may start to see more adoption of the tech across the board.  It could snowball... or not.  Proprietary things like this don't usually tend to take off but who knows.


 

 I was way off on the licensing fees. I just read some articles about MQA since admittedly I didn't know much about it. I, for one, am sold and will continue my service after the 60 day trial ends.
  
 The one thing I learned is the earlier MQA info from Meridian explained an MQA DAC will be the only way to hear unfolded resolution, but we now know the first unfold is happening with the TIDAL desktop app, and soon also by Audirvana 3. So Meridian, it appears, had a change of heart.
  
 Interestingly, it may be a tougher sale for Meridian to get people to buy a new DAC that can unfold a second time, and more. I think many will be happy with the software solution and 24/96 playback.


----------



## jwbrent

Another thing, MQA streaming is really going to hurt HDtracks. Makes me wonder if Neil Young saw this and that's the reason behind Pono closing down.


----------



## jwbrent

From Computer Audiophile:
  
"Before leaving the hotel room this morning, I was able to release the good news that, effective immediately, Tidal was streaming 30,000 tracks in MQA, and MQA decoding was now available in software. Both of these are big news. Tidal was ready to go with MQA long ago, but the record labels just didn't have the content to deliver. Once the number of titles hit critical mass, Tidal flipped the switch on Master Quality. MQA is included with HiFi Tidal subscriptions for now, we'll have to see if there is an added cost for Master Quality at a later date. 

It would be strange for Tidal to stream MQA without the ability for its customers to decode the content. Thus, the Tidal desktop app can now fully decode MQA. if one guy can do it why can't others? now they can. Audirvana announced it will soon release an updated version of its software supporting software decoding. I received word from Roon that it too will enable software decoding. According to Roon,"Roon is more complex than other audio software products (especially in terms of multi-room, Roon Ready, and other supported streaming protocols) so the MQA team has had to undertake some additional engineering effort to make MQA decoding work in the Roon world. Both teams are working on it and we will ship as soon as technically possible."

Let me take a minute to explain what this is and why it's a big deal. First, MQA must be decoded for listeners to hear the full quality of the file. Think of it as an SACD with a CD layer. People needed an SACD player to decode the SACD layer of the disc, otherwise the regular CD layer would be played. While not exactly the same, the concept is similar. 

When MQA launched, we were told publicly that MQA would only be decoded in hardware (unless played on a mobile device). This meant that people would be required to purchase new MQA enabled DACs to get the full benefit of the technology. The announcement of software decoding means that people only need an app that decodes MQA rather than hardware.

I asked a very high end DAC manufacturer what it saw as the differences between hardware decoding in its DACs and software decoding in an app like Roon (before outputting to its DACs). The answer was a refreshing, 'there should be no difference.'"


----------



## canthearyou

thomashk said:


> (cross posted from the MQA thread in sound science forum)
> 
> I've just come up with a pretty neat trick to debunk the whole MQA story on Tidal.
> 
> ...




My bit rate stays the same whether I switch have it on or off. That means that unless you have a MQA DAC it will always software decode a MQA file. But, cool story nonetheless.


----------



## Hansotek

stillhart said:


> I've done the same test and noticed some subtle improvements in dynamics and imaging (probably stemming from lower noise floor).  I wonder if what @Currawong
> said about the MQA being interpreted as noise when it's playing at 16/44 is what's causing the relatively cleaner background in 24/96.




This is a byproduct of less dithering. Noise needs to be applied to the file when it is compressed down to a lower bit rate in order to keep a similar level of apparent detail. It is much like applying a sharpening filter to a photo... a little noise is unnoticeable, a little more adds a pincushion effect, a little more starts causing chromatic abberaions, etc. The best mastering engineers understand the nuances of this and can adjust accordingly. But some level of dynamic crush and noise floor increase is inevitable.


----------



## goldendarko

jwbrent said:


> Another thing, MQA streaming is really going to hurt HDtracks. Makes me wonder if Neil Young saw this and that's the reason behind Pono closing down.


 
 True but it's inevitable, particularly with bandwidth increasing in the next few years. For me it'll just be TIDAL and Vinyl from now on, feels like all the CD's and HDTracks downloads I've bought over the years were a waste of money but at least I got my use out of them


----------



## jwbrent

goldendarko said:


> ... feels like all the CD's and HDTracks downloads I've bought over the years were a waste of money but at least I got my use out of them


 
  
 I feel the same way, too, especially with the 150 hi res albums I bought over the last few years.
  
 I haven't done a close comparison between the 24/96 albums I own and the MQA versions on TIDAL, but I will say this, the MQA albums sound really good. If the de-blurring tech Meridian developed does make the MQA versions better, I'll really be sad about the money I spent with HDtracks/Pono.


----------



## goldendarko

jwbrent said:


> I feel the same way, too, especially with the 150 hi res albums I bought over the last few years.
> 
> I haven't done a close comparison between the 24/96 albums I own and the MQA versions on TIDAL, but I will say this, the MQA albums sound really good. If the de-blurring tech Meridian developed does make the MQA versions better, I'll really be sad about the money I spent with HDtracks/Pono.


 
 Yeah I've got about 600 or so HDTracks downloads, most of which seem to be available as Master versions on TIDAL already so there's basically over $1000 down the drain. They basically sound just as good to me too, can't honestly tell a difference between my hi-res downloads and Master versions on TIDAL. 
  
 Either way, I'm not upset, this is progress and I think it's honestly a great thing, and at some point with the way technology improves I knew this would be coming so I'm glad it's here finally


----------



## Stillhart

goldendarko said:


> True but it's inevitable, particularly with bandwidth increasing in the next few years. For me it'll just be TIDAL and Vinyl from now on, feels like all the CD's and HDTracks downloads I've bought over the years were a waste of money but at least I got my use out of them


 
  
 Don't chuck the CD's just yet.  I'm really interested to hear the Blu2 and the inevitable trickle-down version next year.  :-D


----------



## goldendarko

stillhart said:


> Don't chuck the CD's just yet.  I'm really interested to hear the Blu2 and the inevitable trickle-down version next year.  :-D


 
 I haven't, but no way I'm paying 10 grand for a CD player in 2017, that's just silly talk...


----------



## Stillhart

goldendarko said:


> I haven't, but no way I'm paying 10 grand for a CD player in 2017, that's just silly talk...


 
  
 A 10 grand CD player that needs a 10 grand DAC to work, you mean?  Yeah, me neither.  But thanks to Mr. Moore and his law, I'm expecting something cheaper in the next 2-3 years. :-D


----------



## jwbrent

goldendarko said:


> Yeah I've got about 600 or so HDTracks downloads, most of which seem to be available as Master versions on TIDAL already so there's basically over $1000 down the drain. They basically sound just as good to me too, can't honestly tell a difference between my hi-res downloads and Master versions on TIDAL.
> 
> Either way, I'm not upset, this is progress and I think it's honestly a great thing, and at some point with the way technology improves I knew this would be coming so I'm glad it's here finally


 

 That would be $10,000, wouldn't it?


----------



## goldendarko

jwbrent said:


> That would be $10,000, wouldn't it?


 
 Well, not all of them were purchased from the website, but yes at retail that's about right


----------



## ThomasHK

canthearyou said:


> My bit rate stays the same whether I switch have it on or off. That means that unless you have a MQA DAC it will always software decode a MQA file. But, cool story nonetheless.




Thanks for pointing this out. It made me realize that you need to restart the track for it to take effect. With Exclusive Mode on, with my Mojo it switches between Orange (48 kHz for Pass through MQA) and Green (96 kHz for software decoding of MQA). 

So yes, it does work.


----------



## canthearyou

thomashk said:


> Thanks for pointing this out. It made me realize that you need to restart the track for it to take effect. With Exclusive Mode on, with my Mojo it switches between Orange (48 kHz for Pass through MQA) and Green (96 kHz for software decoding of MQA).
> 
> So yes, it does work.




So maybe it has to do with how it's mastered? I do hear a difference between "Masters" and "Hi-Fi" albums


----------



## bobbmd

go to john darko's website his description is simple and very understandable. best explaination out there and mimics what others have said here but more cocise and much less confusing
 bobbmd


----------



## Krutsch

tadmorose said:


> This article has your answer:


 

 Nope.
  


> *Without MQA in the DAC, no un-folding takes place – only the first 44.1kHz or 48kHz is parsed – and the pre-emptive filter correction isn’t applied. Only the MQA encoding process is heard.*


 
  
 That article is 8 months old and was published before MQA made a software decoder available for TIDAL.
  
 Keep reading... maybe from the MQA site itself for the latest updates.
  
 ...


----------



## TokenGesture

bobbmd said:


> go to john darko's website his description is simple and very understandable. best explaination out there and mimics what others have said here but more cocise and much less confusing
> bobbmd


Agree


----------



## TadMorose

krutsch said:


> Nope.
> 
> 
> That article is 8 months old and was published before MQA made a software decoder available for TIDAL.
> ...


 
  
 It has not changed. Yesterday I watched a live stream by Montreal Audio Engineering Society where Bob Stuart pretty much said the same thing. The video is available on Facebook:
  
 https://www.facebook.com/AESmontreal/videos/vb.265278503569670/1174201429344035/?type=2&theater&notif_t=like&notif_id=1484358218112521


----------



## ThomasHK

tadmorose said:


> It has not changed. Yesterday I watched a live stream by Montreal Audio Engineering Society where Bob Stuart pretty much said the same thing. The video is available on Facebook:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/AESmontreal/videos/vb.265278503569670/1174201429344035/?type=2&theater&notif_t=like&notif_id=1484358218112521




Than why does it literally say "software decoding" in the Tidal settings as an option...


----------



## ThomasHK

canthearyou said:


> So maybe it has to do with how it's mastered? I do hear a difference between "Masters" and "Hi-Fi" albums


 
  
 Yes, I think the most likely explanation is different masters used for some of the "Masters". E.g. if you look up Zeppelin III, there's a wide range of different versions with different dynamic range figures.
  
 http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=led+zeppelin&album=zeppelin+III


----------



## TokenGesture

MQA remasters the tracks as part of its end to end process to deblur and remove timing errors. Read Darkos latest article.


----------



## ThomasHK

tokengesture said:


> MQA remasters the tracks as part of its end to end process to deblur and remove timing errors. Read Darkos latest article.


 
 I'm sorry but the deblurring thing is absolutely nonsense. It's pure marketing speak and impossible mathematically. 
  
 Sure, if you new the exact "filter" applied by the A/D to a single track (i.e. impulse response) you could do a deconvolution on that single track.
  
 BUT, we do not listen to a single recorded track. We listen to multi-track music, consisting of typically several dozen tracks mixed together in a DAW (Protools or other). All those tracks have been passed through several other "filters" with their own impulse responses (e.g. EQ's) and non-linear processes (e.g. compressors/limiters/distortions). There is simply no way you could magically remove the supposed blurring introduced by the A/D in the chain after all the processing has happened. 
  
 I read the patents and papers associated with the new A/D conversion linked to MQA and I'm not expert enough in that domain to say whether it is indeed better than what is current state of the art. So it may be the case that a "full MQA chain" i.e. MQA A/D in the studio, MQA tools in the DAW and MQA used in the renderer may result in a more faithful audio production in theory. But this whole deblurring thing sounds to me like a marketing spiel played by the Meridian guys to hide the fact that you'll only get the full benefit of their ideas if this whole chain is in place. So since this is going to take years to take off (if it ever does... highly unlikely), in the meantime they're putting up smoke curtains with the deblurring idea.


----------



## pdickerson

thomashk said:


> I'm sorry but the deblurring thing is absolutely nonsense. It's pure marketing speak and impossible




So you are saying this is a conspiracy? All the audio engineers involved, company executives and user listening experiences are masterminded to make us beleive we should willingly use products that support MQA for better sound quality?

What is your source/literature/education you are using to back up your conspiracy theory?


----------



## TokenGesture

Edit


----------



## ThomasHK

pdickerson said:


> So you are saying this is a conspiracy? All the audio engineers involved, company executives and user listening experiences are masterminded to make us beleive we should willingly use products that support MQA for better sound quality?
> 
> What is your source/literature/education you are using to back up your conspiracy theory?




The deblurring story is only a tiny part of the larger MQA story. The format as a way to package high res audio in a smaller package is legit, regardless of my thoughts on the subjective merits of high res. The theory on improved A/D and D/A conversion seems based on solid science as well, but like I said (did you even read what I wrote?) that is not wide spread yet. The deblur idea is nonsense. 

My education? I have a bachelor in Acoustics, a masters in signal processing and I've been working in the audio industry for 8 years, developing audio algorithms and headphones.


----------



## pdickerson

thomashk said:


> My education? I have a bachelor in Acoustics, a masters in signal processing and I've been working in the audio industry for 8 years, developing audio algorithms and headphones.




yes I did read the entire write up. From what I read about MQA they had to identify the ADC To apply the correction. Is that not true? 

Off topic, but seriously, the industry hype about power cords and fuses that are not in the signal path could not make any difference in the sound right? But speaker cables can since they are?


----------



## ThomasHK

pdickerson said:


> yes I did read the entire write up. From what I read about MQA they had to identify the ADC To apply the correction. Is that not true?




As I said in my earlier post, the signals have gone through so many other processes after the initial convolution (A/D) that I don't see how you could possibly identify what A/D was used. Especially nonlinear processing like compression will make that an impossible task. 

That's not even taking into account that contemporary music has loads and loads of content that is sampled, synthesised, time stretched etc... trying to compensate for one A/D process makes zero sense.


----------



## erich6

thomashk said:


> I'm sorry but the deblurring thing is absolutely nonsense. It's pure marketing speak and impossible mathematically.
> 
> Sure, if you new the exact "filter" applied by the A/D to a single track (i.e. impulse response) you could do a deconvolution on that single track.
> 
> ...


 

 ​Interesting.  My understanding is that the deblurring is in fact a deconvolution based on an impulse response they characterize in the equipment used to produce the master.  I think that's why the labels have to go back to source data and reprocess it for MQA (it's not simply an encoding process they have to do).  Even if they don't get each stream perfectly, don't you think some amount of deconvolution helps?  Isn't that the concept behind something like Dirac processing? 
  
 Definitely interested in your detailed thoughts on this from a signal processing engineering perspective.


----------



## ThomasHK

erich6 said:


> ​Interesting.  My understanding is that the deblurring is in fact a deconvolution based on an impulse response they characterize in the equipment used to produce the master.  I think that's why the labels have to go back to source data and reprocess it for MQA (it's not simply an encoding process they have to do).  Even if they don't get each stream perfectly, don't you think some amount of deconvolution helps?  Isn't that the concept behind something like Dirac processing?
> 
> Definitely interested in your detailed thoughts on this from a signal processing engineering perspective.


 
  
 OK, let's entertain that idea for a second.
  
 That would only make sense if we're talking about taking an analog stereo mix (pre-master) which gets converted to digital once and for the first time for which then the A/D process is characterized so it can be "deblurred". 
  
 99.999% of the music produced comes goes from the studio to the master in a digital format (see my previous posts about all the processing that happens on audio in the studio). Mastering nowadays is a cluster**** of analog and digital processing. The original digital audio (from the studio) get's converted back to analog (D/A), processed by a bunch of analog gear (more non-linear stuff) and back to digital again (final A/D). It's not uncommon for a final stage of limiting to happen in the digital domain (L2 or similar). 
  
 That final A/D stage you could identify. But it's kind of hilarious now that I think of it to try and identify and remove the "sound" of that stage, given that mastering engineers spend tons of money to get the best of the best A/D's and choose based on the sound they prefer...


----------



## erich6

thomashk said:


> OK, let's entertain that idea for a second.
> 
> That would only make sense if we're talking about taking an analog stereo mix (pre-master) which gets converted to digital once and for the first time for which then the A/D process is characterized so it can be "deblurred".
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think MQA specifies some "recipe" and equipment standards to normalize the CF mastering process a bit. I'm not really sure...but that's the impression I get from the articles I've read.  Naturally, they don't offer many details on this. I agree with you that if you started with good mastering equipment and processes to start with then MQA wouldn't make much of a difference on that stage.  I've heard plenty of bad masters though so if MQA at least gets the studio to do a better job in their mastering and distribution that's a good thing in my book.  Again, a bit of deblurring may be just icing on the cake.


----------



## ThomasHK

erich6 said:


> I think MQA specifies *some "recipe" and equipment standards to normalize the CF mastering process a bit*. I'm not really sure...but that's the impression I get from the articles I've read.  Naturally, they don't offer many details on this. I agree with you that if you started with good mastering equipment and processes to start with then MQA wouldn't make much of a difference on that stage.  I've heard plenty of bad masters though so if MQA at least gets the studio to do a better job in their mastering and distribution that's a good thing in my book.  Again, a bit of deblurring may be just icing on the cake.


 
  
 Yes, that's what I referred to earlier, they want to introduce A/D converters based on their "best practices" recipe. But...that would mean an industry wide adoption of the equipment of their partners. If that ever happens, god knows how long that would take.


----------



## Wadia171i

soundizer said:


> There are only 403 Master Albums which I can see, but people refer to 800 or 500?
> 
> I simply counted 10 columns x 40 rows = 400 + 3 = 403.
> 
> ...


----------



## Stillhart

wadia171i said:


> > Date: 13 Jan, Friday.
> > There are more than this now keep checking back https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10VtON9VjMAt3uyHC2-Oo2MjIa3orv9DKZfwiRQKmTAA/htmlview


 
  
 Thanks for this link!


----------



## Wadia171i

Your welcome!


----------



## canthearyou

wadia171i said:


> soundizer said:
> 
> 
> > There are only 403 Master Albums which I can see, but people refer to 800 or 500?
> ...


----------



## Soundizer

goldendarko said:


> jwbrent said:
> 
> 
> > I feel the same way, too, especially with the 150 hi res albums I bought over the last few years.
> ...


 
  
  
 Don't feel bad about money spent on HD Tracks, because it is good people like yourself that purchased high res tracks which has certainly contributed towards promoting and speeding up the delivery of now affordable subscription based high quality streaming - TIDAL MQA. 

 If no one ever purchased hd audio files, then it would be an argument against realising a Market for HIGH RES music that people are willing to pay for.


----------



## Wadia171i

stillhart said:


> Thanks for this link!


----------



## JerseyD

soundizer said:


> Don't feel bad about money spent on HD Tracks, because it is good people like yourself that purchased high res tracks which has certainly contributed towards promoting and speeding up the delivery of now affordable subscription based high quality streaming - TIDAL MQA.
> 
> If no one ever purchased hd audio files, then it would be an argument against realising a Market for HIGH RES music that people are willing to pay for.


 
 While this is true, it is always surprising to me how few people seem to care about sound quality.  The "audiophile" market has always been niche, but that is the extreme end of the consumer spectrum. Back in the '80s and '90s even the average music consumer put at least a little thought into which components to buy.  The advent of the download/MP3/iTunes model brought with it such an increase in convenience and portability that sound quality became a forgotten attribute.
  
 Today's average music consumer has the massive convenience and portability of Spotify/AppleMusic/Pandora and free earbuds that many think sound "good enough."  Good quality home stereo systems have given way to bluetooth soundbars and Sonos speakers.
  
 Then Tidal comes along with all the convenience and offers better sound quality (at the $20/month tier) and the average consumer does not care. They are struggling to stay in business.  Hopefully they can hang on long enough for the pendulum to swing back (which I think it will).  The industry is battling back from free music being the norm to being something worth paying for.  Hell, the most popular streaming service is still the free tier of Spotify.  How much longer until streaming is accepted as the norm and the companies can start eliminating free tiers? Cable TV is not free, so why should music be? Spotify is the largest, but is still is not profitable. 
  
 I love the progress Tidal is making in stoking the audiophile streaming market with MQA. When the mobile component arrives, MQA DAPS and DACS should see a bump (but because we head-fiers are such a small segment of the market, it will not be a big bump).  We all need to talk up the service to our music-loving friends and family (as well as better sounding headphones and systems). If Tidal fails and folds, what are the odds of any other provider thinking that investing in better sound is a good idea?


----------



## canthearyou

I found 2 mistakes so far with this list. The Eagles and Pink Floyd have no MQA files on Tidal.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10VtON9VjMAt3uyHC2-Oo2MjIa3orv9DKZfwiRQKmTAA/htmlview


----------



## TadMorose

canthearyou said:


> I found 2 mistakes so far with this list. The Eagles and Pink Floyd have no MQA files on Tidal.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10VtON9VjMAt3uyHC2-Oo2MjIa3orv9DKZfwiRQKmTAA/htmlview


 
  
 Some titles are geographically restricted. For example, Iron Maiden doesn't show any MQA albums in my TIDAL in Canada, but from this list they appear to be available in the UK


----------



## Stillhart

tadmorose said:


> Some titles are geographically restricted. For example, Iron Maiden doesn't show any MQA albums in my TIDAL in Canada, but from this list they appear to be available in the UK


 
  
 Hmm, I wonder if that's why some artists have two versions of the same album but neither are MQA.


----------



## ThurstonX

canthearyou said:


> I found 2 mistakes so far with this list. The Eagles and Pink Floyd have no MQA files on Tidal.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10VtON9VjMAt3uyHC2-Oo2MjIa3orv9DKZfwiRQKmTAA/htmlview


 
  
 I encourage you and everyone interested to contribute.  As long as you have a Google account, the doc should be freely editable.  I didn't do anything special, just signed in.  The editable version can be found by removing the "htmlview" part of the above URL.  Not wanting to screw anything up, all I did was add rows and fill in the Artist and Album cells.  Saves seem to be instant and automatic, as my additions were present when I refreshed the htmlview page.
  
 I guess that sheet is based on US users, and there is a group of columns (starting with 'Q'; scroll to the right to see it) labeled "Confirmed MASTER version available in..."  with column 'Q' being for the UK.


----------



## Krutsch

tadmorose said:


> It has not changed. Yesterday I watched a live stream by Montreal Audio Engineering Society where Bob Stuart pretty much said the same thing. The video is available on Facebook:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/AESmontreal/videos/vb.265278503569670/1174201429344035/?type=2&theater&notif_t=like&notif_id=1484358218112521


 

 Yes, it has changed. Read this post from Darko that is 4 days old; nicely explains what I've failed to make clear.
  
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/01/mqa-tidal-where-are-we-now/
  
 By the way, I am listening to The Doors in 96/24 MQA, right now, software decoded in the native TIDAL app and my DAC shows the sample rate as such - my DAC is NOT MQA-enabled. Sounds fantastic.


----------



## Roybenz

I think some tracks are much better in masters and some are almost worse. Probably because of the original track is bad from start?


----------



## revand

On some forums members are so negative in connection with MQA (saying it is just a new lossy format) that I had to check the sound quality day by day, and every day I felt the MQA sound is simply sensational, especially compared with a 320 kb/s mp3 stream.
 I am a great fan of TIDAL (I say sorry for CD makers for loosing me as a costumer), and I am "very glad" to inform you that I was unable to buy High-Res music downloads from the major sites, since those are not available in my country (Hungary), so I am a "fortunate" man not to spend thousands of dollars buying High-Res music online. At this moment I am enjoying TIDAL Masters with great pleasure, and feel this is a revolution in digital music history, and finally analogue(like) sound arrived to us together with convenience!
 Thank you Mr. Stuart and thank you TIDAL!


----------



## Wadia171i

roybenz said:


> I think some tracks are much better in masters and some are almost worse. Probably because of the original track is bad from start?


 I would agree totally. All MQA won't sound good same with sacd and cd. But when it's good man!


----------



## pdickerson

wadia171i said:


> I have been amazed at the sound of MQA and pissed it took 30 years to get this to us. Only my Tape Project tapes on my Otari at 15ips can compete with this sound, and the noise floor is lower on the MQA. My best vinyl 45's cut from the master tapes, played with my Koetsu Urishi, Basis Debut Vacuum and Basis arm, with my Cat Ultimate preamp cannot beat this sound. Why, because the bass cannot be cut into a goove with the slam and speed intact with vinyl for one thing. I also use Cat JL-1 amps and Sonus Faber Amati speakers with a set of REL Stentor II subs. My digital is a Resolution Audio Cantata with Mac Mini. I also spent years recording live music in my home studio. The MQA files sound like I am plugged into a great sound board. Its game over for everything else.




Thanks for taking the time to provide your review. 

I have a read other reviews drawig the same positive conclusion about MQA. If you have a love of music this wonderful news finally. Hopefully product manufactures will stop being paranoid about MQA being the big bad licensing scheme. 

Those who want better music will have no problem to pay to be first out the gate. Over ime that MQA light will begin appearing on enry level gear just like the Dolby digital indicator. If you don't want to pay for it then the service/distributor doesn't care since the same file works regardless.


----------



## ThomasHK

Just clarifying

 I never said MQA is a scam. I think it definitely has it's merits as a new format and potentially as a new and improved signal chain from studio to rendering (the "best practices" ADC/DAC story)
 The deblurring story is only a small part of the overall story and frankly, I think they let the marketing hyperbole get ahead of themselves a little bit. From a signal processing point of view, the story makes very little sense.


----------



## mike138

Signed up for a free month of TIDAL to check things out. Listened to a few MQA albums that I'm already very familiar with. In all honesty, I can't really hear a discernible difference over hi-res. Maybe my gear isn't high-end enough to pick it up; I'm primarily a mid-fi guy (rig is PC-->magni/modi 2U-->Hifiman HE-400i).
  
 What I will say is that the MQA and Hi-res files on TIDAL both sound great, and the selection is incredible. I had no idea their catalog was this extensive.


----------



## canthearyou

mike138 said:


> Signed up for a free month of TIDAL to check things out. Listened to a few MQA albums that I'm already very familiar with. In all honesty, I can't really hear a discernible difference over hi-res. Maybe my gear isn't high-end enough to pick it up; I'm primarily a mid-fi guy (rig is PC-->magni/modi 2U-->Hifiman HE-400i).
> 
> What I will say is that the MQA and Hi-res files on TIDAL both sound great, and the selection is incredible. I had no idea their catalog was this extensive.




It's supposed to sound like hi-res. It's "better than" CD quality.


----------



## Mojo777

Great list, thanks a bunch. I could not find the Pink Floyd Master editions


----------



## TokenGesture

The big news is the software player decoding. This is a sensible decision by MQA


----------



## Arnav Agharwal

Going back to TIDAL's use of the phrase "introducing" in the MQA FAQ, one outcome might be that they start charging more for full software-based unfolding, negating the need for an MQA-certified DAC. This way, MQA inventors are promised a royalty that will surpass the gains that might be obtained through licensing fees resulting from the one-time sale of an MQA-certified DAC. From a consumer's standpoint, a small increase in monthly payment will permit continued use of my existing, favorite DAC.

Thoughts?


----------



## canthearyou

arnav agharwal said:


> Going back to TIDAL's use of the phrase "introducing" in the MQA FAQ, one outcome might be that they start charging more for full software-based unfolding, negating the need for an MQA-certified DAC. This way, MQA inventors are promised a royalty that will surpass the gains that might be obtained through licensing fees resulting from the one-time sale of an MQA-certified DAC. From a consumer's standpoint, a small increase in monthly payment will permit continued use of my existing, favorite DAC.
> 
> Thoughts?




As long as I do not have to pay more for what I've got, I'm fine. I will not pay a dime more for music.


----------



## Brooko

[Mod Comment]
  
 After a couple of flags - I'm now watching this thread.  Reminder - don't get personal - debate the points, not the person.


----------



## erich6

brooko said:


> [Mod Comment]
> 
> After a couple of flags - I'm now watching this thread.  Reminder - don't get personal - debate the points, not the person.


 

 ​Cheers!  It's amazing how this topic generates so many passionate reactions.


----------



## Soundizer

_*It is here - on TIDAL MQA.* _


----------



## Krutsch

tokengesture said:


> The big news is the software player decoding. This is a sensible decision by MQA


 

 Yes, +100... that really is the big news and it's a huge change in course from earlier commentary given my MQA.
  
 I've been following this closely on other sites since their announcement at CES, last year, and I believe they've come to realize that forcing end-users to purchase a new DAC would kill MQA. The software decoder is a great compromise and the die-hard audiophiles can still go ahead and squeeze out that last drop of juice with their new MQA-enabled DACs.
  
 The folks at Meridian ('er, I mean MQA) are changing the way digital music is mastered, released and played-back by consumers, but one skill they are missing: product marketing. The confusion they've created, now at two CES announcements in-a-row, is a case study in how not to launch a product. Google/read about last year's CES debacle with AURALiC and MQA on-board their Aries streamer.


----------



## jwbrent

soundizer said:


> Don't feel bad about money spent on HD Tracks, because it is good people like yourself that purchased high res tracks which has certainly contributed towards promoting and speeding up the delivery of now affordable subscription based high quality streaming - TIDAL MQA.
> 
> If no one ever purchased hd audio files, then it would be an argument against realising a Market for HIGH RES music that people are willing to pay for.


 

 Thank you for your post.


----------



## jwbrent

arnav agharwal said:


> Going back to TIDAL's use of the phrase "introducing" in the MQA FAQ, one outcome might be that they start charging more for full software-based unfolding, negating the need for an MQA-certified DAC. This way, MQA inventors are promised a royalty that will surpass the gains that might be obtained through licensing fees resulting from the one-time sale of an MQA-certified DAC. From a consumer's standpoint, a small increase in monthly payment will permit continued use of my existing, favorite DAC.
> 
> Thoughts?


 

 I would be completely on board with paying a little more for 24/192+ listening with my Mojo. My plan is to buy the Hugo 2, and though John at Chord commented there is nothing that prevents them from adding MQA support to the Mojo or new Hugo, I wonder if they will do so. Meridian is a direct competitor of theirs.
  
 I do hope this happens, but for now, I'm really enjoying MQA content. Now, where are the rest of those 30,000 files promised?
  
 That's the trouble with this hobby of ours, we want more now!


----------



## pdickerson

Does anyone have any insight into when platforms like Aurender with its tidal integration or Roon will be able to support MQA?


----------



## Krutsch

pdickerson said:


> Does anyone have any insight into when platforms like Aurender with its tidal integration or Roon will be able to support MQA?


 

 I highly recommend following this stuff on the Roon Community forum - very active discussion there on these topics.


----------



## jwbrent

krutsch said:


> I highly recommend following this stuff on the Roon Community forum - very active discussion there on these topics.


 

 Link?


----------



## erich6

jwbrent said:


> Link?


 
  
 https://community.roonlabs.com/t/mqa-general-discussion/8204
  
 and
  
 https://community.roonlabs.com/t/mqa-now-on-tidal/17883/1
  
 and
  
 https://community.roonlabs.com/t/roon-tidal-and-mqa/1375
  
 and a few other threads you can easily find browsing their forum.


----------



## jwbrent

erich6 said:


> https://community.roonlabs.com/t/mqa-general-discussion/8204
> 
> and
> 
> ...


 

 Thank you!


----------



## jwbrent

My TIDAL setup next to my bed, Prisma-ized.


----------



## Mojo777

Anyone try the Bluesound Node 2 with MQA from Tidal?


----------



## Soundizer

erich6 said:


> jwbrent said:
> 
> 
> > Link?
> ...





Thank you for the links and the debates come across with aggressive strong opinions, however also educational. 

At the end of the day the real miracle of audio engineering is the human ears and brain - what a design - it is Super Duper HD PLUS QUALITY.


----------



## revand

Yes I am listening to TIDAL Masters albums on the Node 2.
They sound great!
The best analogue(like) digital music I ever heard.
And I got a message from Bluesound support that the decoded high-res files are sent to all output (including digital outputs).
That is why I could see different colours on a Chord Mojo.


----------



## L8MDL

canthearyou said:


> As long as I do not have to pay more for what I've got, I'm fine. I will not pay a dime more for music.




I'm predicting $29.99 for MQA Tidal when everything pans out.


----------



## canthearyou

l8mdl said:


> I'm predicting $29.99 for MQA Tidal when everything pans out.


 
 Not this guy! Nope!


----------



## jwbrent

l8mdl said:


> I'm predicting $29.99 for MQA Tidal when everything pans out.


 

 I though that, too, but I now think it will stay the same price or maybe go up by $5 when a lot more MQA files are available. If there is further unfolding in software, then I can see $29.99.


----------



## ThomasHK

jwbrent said:


> I though that, too, but I now think it will stay the same price or maybe go up by $5 when a lot more MQA files are available. If there is further unfolding in software, then I can see $29.99.


 
 That would be very silly move. Sound quality is the only marketing advantage they have over Spotify. Charging triple for the same music would kill their mass market appeal (if they have any now).


----------



## ThomasHK

By the way, for those that have been flaming my criticism of the deblurring idea... here's some background from the MQA man Bob Stuart himself.
  

  
 He's basically saying the same as I have been trying to say... If the multi-channel audio has passed through 1 (or more) ADC's and several layers of processing the deblurring process is basically a best guess approach. An approximation. Personally, I disagree with that concept as it makes very little sense theoretically. Unless they can give me nice A/B example pre and post deblurring that shuts me up, that will be my point of view. 
  
 Now note his final comment: _Ultimately in the studio the mastering or recording engineer will use his judgement._
  
Compare that to what I wrote a couple pages back: _But it's kind of hilarious now that I think of it to try and identify and remove the "sound" of that stage (i.e. mastering A/D), given that mastering engineers spend tons of money to get the best of the best A/D's and choose based on the sound they prefer..._


----------



## Stillhart

thomashk said:


> By the way, for those that have been flaming my criticism of the deblurring idea... here's some background from the MQA man Bob Stuart himself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think this also lends a lot of creedence to my theory that the remastering of the MQA tracks probably accounts for more of the sonic differences that anything else (MQA deblurring, high res, etc).


----------



## ThomasHK

stillhart said:


> I think this also lends a lot of creedence to my theory that the remastering of the MQA tracks probably accounts for more of the sonic differences that anything else (MQA deblurring, high res, etc).


 
 Or rather: that the MQA tracks are often resulting from later remasters than the CD quality FLACs that make up the HiFi offerings on Tidal.


----------



## maxh22

stillhart said:


> I think this also lends a lot of creedence to my theory that the remastering of the MQA tracks probably accounts for more of the sonic differences that anything else (MQA deblurring, high res, etc).


 
  
 Could be....
  
 There is different, and there is better. Everytime I A/B MQA tracks against their Hifi counterparts, I'm convinced its the latter.


----------



## doggiemom

jwbrent said:


> I though that, too, but I now think it will stay the same price or maybe go up by $5 when a lot more MQA files are available. If there is further unfolding in software, then I can see $29.99.


 

 I'm not thrilled with the idea of paying more, but if it comes down to it I will probably do it.  I figure that I buy at least an album or two a month from HDTracks, ProStudioMasters, etc., and each album is at least $20.  So I will probably do it.  But I don't want to do it.  And I wonder how many other people would be willing to do it.


----------



## canthearyou

doggiemom said:


> I'm not thrilled with the idea of paying more, but if it comes down to it I will probably do it.  I figure that I buy at least an album or two a month from HDTracks, ProStudioMasters, etc., and each album is at least $20.  So I will probably do it.  But I don't want to do it.  And I wonder how many other people would be willing to do it.




$360 a year is pretty outrageous for music that you don't own! Hell, $240 a year is outrageous!


----------



## pippen99

canthearyou said:


> $360 a year is pretty outrageous for music that you don't own! Hell, $240 a year is outrageous!


 
 Over the years I have spent thousands of dollars on CDs that I have only listened to once.  In the past year since I joined Tidal my musical horizons have been expanded because I have been able to sample various artists that I never would have tried before.  Listening to all these new artists and genres would have required the expenditure of more thousands of dollars making $240 not only a bargain but actually saved me at least hundreds of dollars.  So far I like what I have heard from the Tidal Masters even though my DAC is not MQA ready.  I have 5 figures invested in my system so under the right conditions I am OK with $360 a year.  Those conditions:  (1) Sony, UMG, and Warner being on board with MQA. (2) Tidal implementing MQA for my IOS based streamer(Aries Mini). (3) Either my DAC upgrading to MQA compatibility or Tidal implementing a complete software based MQA unfolding. YMMV is one of the mantras we in this hobby live by.  For me Tidal has been very much worth the cost.


----------



## jwbrent

thomashk said:


> That would be very silly move. Sound quality is the only marketing advantage they have over Spotify. Charging triple for the same music would kill their mass market appeal (if they have any now).




I wasn't clear about this. The $9.99 tier would remain as would the HiFi tier at $19.99. A Master tier would be created that may go as high as $29.99, but I think $24.99. That's a number those who are enjoying MQA files would pay, in my opinion. If TIDAL's app ends up doing all the unfolding, then I can see $29.99 being a viable charge.


----------



## Soundizer

The price is already outrageous at £20 which is double the rest. There is no remote App for Tidal software or even EQ settings. I think £15 is a fair value price.


----------



## all999

soundizer said:


> The price is already outrageous at £20 which is double the rest. There is no remote App for Tidal software or even EQ settings. I think £15 is a fair value price.




I'm paying equivalent of £8 here in Poland. 
For hifi option.


----------



## goldendarko

No way I'd pay $30 even with MQA. the interface already sucks compared to Spotify. $20 is the max for me. Especially if the MQA library stays the way it is.


----------



## 432789

29 Haha,


----------



## maxh22

jwbrent said:


> I wasn't clear about this. The $9.99 tier would remain as would the HiFi tier at $19.99. A Master tier would be created that may go as high as $29.99, but I think $24.99. That's a number those who are enjoying MQA files would pay, in my opinion. If TIDAL's app ends up doing all the unfolding, then I can see $29.99 being a viable charge.


 
  


goldendarko said:


> No way I'd pay $30 even with MQA. the interface already sucks compared to Spotify. $20 is the max for me. Especially if the MQA library stays the way it is.


 
  
 Pandora and Spotify have the best music recommendation algorithm IMO. Tidal is catching up and has improved this past year but the gap is still quite large.  If Tidal offered full MQA decoding, $25 is the max I would pay. IMO The difference between Spotify extreme quality and Tidal Hifi is very small for the majority of people who are using the service's. Most people would not pay the extra $10 a month to hear a 'little' more detail and clarity on their systems. 
  
 The difference between Spotify extreme and Tidal MQA is easily apparent and on its own justifies the $10 premium over spotify. Infact, I could even tell the difference with a pair of Apple earpods I had lying around.


----------



## stenog

Count yourself lucky . In Denmark I am paying 199 DKK for Tidal hi-fi. With current exchange rate that's about 28.5 USD.

Maybe I am naive but i hope some(a lot) of those money goes to the artists. I have been using Tidal more than a year and now prefer it over Spotify and notice big improvement. The app works and almost all the music I listen to I can find. That was not the case one year ago.


----------



## jwbrent

The TIDAL app for my Mac updated itself this morning, not sure what changes were made. 
  
 It doesn't appear there is an overall artist directory. I would like to see that in a future update. Also, purely for aesthetic reasons, the now playing screens with its rotating album cover needs a refresh. If this is supposed to represent a record, make it look like one with the center label area showing a cropped album cover and the grooves portion looking like grooves with an edge lip.
  
 Still diggin' the sound of the MQA files. As others have reported, not all the MQA files sound fantastic, but those that do are really great.


----------



## Currawong

It seems from both personal impressions and the technical limitations that indeed, the MQA re-mastering is only sometimes beneficial. It'd be nice if the MQA-remastered tracks had information about how they were made, and how they were re-mastered with what settings.


----------



## goldendarko

currawong said:


> It seems from both personal impressions and the technical limitations that indeed, the MQA re-mastering is only sometimes beneficial. It'd be nice if the MQA-remastered tracks had information about how they were made, and how they were re-mastered with what settings.


 
 Yeah, it all seems anecdotal at this point. Really needs to make it's way to more gear to really be beneficial, I'm thinking the new KEF LS50 Wireless speakers I just got would be a good place to start. Really need to integrate it with TIDAL mobile as well since most of the listening I do is not at the desktop but controlled via phone or tablet. Just some ideas, it's exciting but still has a way to go before it's really a game changer for me. 
  
 Also, the library needs to continue to grow most importantly I should add!


----------



## erich6

currawong said:


> It seems from both personal impressions and the technical limitations that indeed, the MQA re-mastering is only sometimes beneficial. It'd be nice if the MQA-remastered tracks had information about how they were made, and how they were re-mastered with what settings.


 

 ​Yeah, I agree!  I always enjoy reading the recording/mastering technical notes that NativeDSD publishes with its albums.  That should be the standard for all music distribution.


----------



## revand

After reading how can non-MQA DACs be used to enjoy TIDAL Masters something came to my mind:
 Isn't it possible to manufacture a small "magic" box with only one function? This function would be the second unfold of an MQA file coming from TIDAL Masters.
 This box should be installed between a PC/Notebook/MAC and a non-MQA DAC connecting it with a USB cable. After the first unfolding by the desktop app up to 24bit/96kHz the "magic" box is making the second unfolding to reach the resolution of the original master (up to 32bit/384kHz). The same process would apply if someone has an MQA capable device, like me having the Bluesound Node 2, which makes the first unfolding up to 24bit/96kHz. Installing the "magic" box (let us call it MQA hardware decode) between the Bluesound Node 2 (using an optical cable) and an external non-MQA DAC (e.g. Chord 2Qute or Schiit Bifros Multibit, using an USB cable).
 This way those having a non-MQA DAC already or intend to buy one with considering it's quality (some of them won't ever incorporating MQA technology like Schiit stated earlier) and not just whether it is MQA capable or not, could enjoy the full potential of MQA technology, not paying a fortune buying a new MQA capable DAC .
 This "magic" box's front panel should only have a display with five characters. Two for the bits (16/24/32) and three for the kHz (88/96/192/384) and two leds, one green (for MQA) and one blue (for MQA Studio, authenticated content)
 What do you think? Is it possible? If yes I do hope a manufacturer is also reading 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 Quit possible that this solution would be good for the customers, but not as good for the inventors of MQA...


----------



## lantian

revand said:


> After reading how can non-MQA DACs be used to enjoy TIDAL Masters something came to my mind:
> Isn't it possible to manufacture a small "magic" box with only one function? This function would be the second unfold of an MQA file coming from TIDAL Masters.
> This box should be installed between a PC/Notebook/MAC and a non-MQA DAC connecting it with a USB cable. After the first unfolding by the desktop app up to 24bit/96kHz the "magic" box is making the second unfolding to reach the resolution of the original master (up to 32bit/384kHz). The same process would apply if someone has an MQA capable device, like me having the Bluesound Node 2, which makes the first unfolding up to 24bit/96kHz. Installing the "magic" box (let us call it MQA hardware decode) between the Bluesound Node 2 (using an optical cable) and an external non-MQA DAC (e.g. Chord 2Qute or Schiit Bifros Multibit, using an USB cable).
> This way those having a non-MQA DAC already or intend to buy one with considering it's quality (some of them won't ever incorporating MQA technology like Schiit stated earlier) and not just whether it is MQA capable or not, could enjoy the full potential of MQA technology, not paying a fortune buying a new MQA capable DAC .
> ...


 
 The thing is there is no second unfolding, if your dac supports it it will unfold it all by itself and software feature in tidal should be disabled. It will not happen because as far as I know you can not get any access to technical papers unless you are a partner of MQA since you will need to pay licensing fees for use of it, legally impossible


----------



## revand

lantian said:


> The thing is there is no second unfolding, if your dac supports it it will unfold it all by itself and software feature in tidal should be disabled. It will not happen because as far as I know you can not get any access to technical papers unless you are a partner of MQA since you will need to pay licensing fees for use of it, legally impossible


 
 In this article Mr. Darko speaks some times about the second unfold. Only DACs are capable of doing this second unfold? If someone builds such a "magic" box he can pay the licencing fee to MQA. I am sure this would be a solution for many of the audiofils, who want to add a high quality DAC to their streamer, or computer.


----------



## Stillhart

revand said:


> After reading how can non-MQA DACs be used to enjoy TIDAL Masters something came to my mind:
> Isn't it possible to manufacture a small "magic" box with only one function? This function would be the second unfold of an MQA file coming from TIDAL Masters.
> This box should be installed between a PC/Notebook/MAC and a non-MQA DAC connecting it with a USB cable. After the first unfolding by the desktop app up to 24bit/96kHz the "magic" box is making the second unfolding to reach the resolution of the original master (up to 32bit/384kHz). The same process would apply if someone has an MQA capable device, like me having the Bluesound Node 2, which makes the first unfolding up to 24bit/96kHz. Installing the "magic" box (let us call it MQA hardware decode) between the Bluesound Node 2 (using an optical cable) and an external non-MQA DAC (e.g. Chord 2Qute or Schiit Bifros Multibit, using an USB cable).
> This way those having a non-MQA DAC already or intend to buy one with considering it's quality (some of them won't ever incorporating MQA technology like Schiit stated earlier) and not just whether it is MQA capable or not, could enjoy the full potential of MQA technology, not paying a fortune buying a new MQA capable DAC .
> ...


 
  
 This is essentially what the Schiit Loki was for DSD.  I see no reason someone couldn't do that for MQA too.


----------



## jwbrent

What I wonder about is whether the typical music lover will care about anything beyond 24/96 resolution, especially when it comes to popular music.
  
 Right now, 24/96 comes with the TIDAL experience. It will cost money to get 24/192 or better because a new DAC will be necessary. Will an inexpensive MQA compatible DAC reveal the purported advantages of 24/192 resolution? Likely not, which means a greater expense will have to be considered.
  
 Time will tell ...


----------



## Arnav Agharwal

My understanding is that correctly down-sampled, high-res music should sound no different from CD quality (44kHz), and there are off-the-shelf softwares that can do that. ABX tests have confirmed this (sourced from multiple online forums). Doing so to the Master recordings should eliminate the need for MQA... What did I miss?


----------



## Stillhart

arnav agharwal said:


> My understanding is that correctly down-sampled, high-res music should sound no different from CD quality (44kHz), and there are off-the-shelf softwares that can do that. ABX tests have confirmed this (sourced from multiple online forums). Doing so to the Master recordings should eliminate the need for MQA... What did I miss?


 
  
 There are many people who agree with this, which is why so many people are talking about mastering vs MQA.  The bigger picture here is that companies like Meridian and Tidal operate for profit and thus have no motivation to provide correctly down-sampled hi-res music that sounds no different.


----------



## Krutsch

stillhart said:


> This is essentially what the Schiit Loki was for DSD. * I see no reason someone couldn't do that for MQA too*.


 
  
 It wouldn't be allowed by the terms of licensing, so no one will be able to make such a device.
  
 But more importantly, MQA makes a point of needing specific knowledge of the DAC that will do the final digital-to-analog conversion to perform the full version of decoding. That's sort-of the whole point.


----------



## Stillhart

krutsch said:


> It wouldn't be allowed by the terms of licensing, so no one will be able to make such a device.
> 
> But more importantly, MQA makes a point of needing specific knowledge of the DAC that will do the final digital-to-analog conversion to perform the full version of decoding. That's sort-of the whole point.


 
  
 Those aren't technological limitations, though, they're just limitations enforced my Meridian.  If someone reverse engineered the tech, they could make such a box no problem.  
  
 Granted, there's no guarantee it would sound as good without Meridian's requirements, no guarantee the reverse engineering would be correct, and it would certainly be illegal most places besides China.  But that won't stop people from buying it if and when it happens.


----------



## Arnav Agharwal

stillhart said:


> There are many people who agree with this, which is why so many people are talking about mastering vs MQA.  The bigger picture here is that companies like Meridian and Tidal operate for profit and thus have no motivation to provide correctly down-sampled hi-res music that sounds no different.


 
 Ah, that helps clear the air. All this while, I've been wondering, "Is it just me or does this sound like a billion dollar scam?"


----------



## Stillhart

arnav agharwal said:


> Ah, that helps clear the air. All this while, I've been wondering, "Is it just me or does this sound like a billion dollar scam?"


 
  
 Well those are your words, not mine.  I've been starting to think of things a little differently after reading through this thread.
  
 It seems to me that the MQA format has two parts:  Part 1 is using nifty tech to fit a hi-res file into a CD-quality FLAC.  Part 2 is that the file has to be ripped from the original master using specific methods to achieve higher standards of SQ.  I've been thinking of part 1 as "MQA" and part 2 as "Mastering".  I think there's a problem with that kind of thinking because the Mastering process is part of the MQA process.  So I'm going to start calling it "Codec" and "Mastering".  
  
 Now understanding that MQA consists of both of these parts makes it harder to think of it as a scam.  In fact, just the opposite, I appreciate it MORE now because of it.  
  
 As I said before, the codec part of MQA (putting the newly mastered track into a hi-res file that's been "folded" into a CD quality file) is of questionable value to a some people.  But the vast majority of us do seem to hear a difference in the mastering.  It doesn't take extensive blind ABX testing to hear the difference between the "MASTER" album on Tidal and the "HI-FI" album and I think the general consensus has been that they're almost all improvements.
  
 Since mastering is part of the MQA process, we can conclude that MQA is not a scam and indeed is providing us with better versions of the music we know and love.  Without MQA, we wouldn't have these new higher quality masters of these albums.  Whether you believe in the "codec" side of things or not, MQA is an improvement in many cases.
  
 So I'm not thinking "this is all a big scam".  My take-away is if you don't believe in the benefits of hi-res music, don't waste money on a DAC that can unfold MQA.


----------



## pdickerson

stillhart said:


> So I'm not thinking "this is all a big scam".  My take-away is if you don't believe in the benefits of hi-res music, don't waste money on a DAC that can unfold MQA.




Isn't the Tidal app unfolding the MQA with software and passing the 88/24 96/24 streams to the DAC. I am seeing yggy show those boy streams.


----------



## jwbrent

pdickerson said:


> Isn't the Tidal app unfolding the MQA with software and passing the 88/24 96/24 streams to the DAC. I am seeing yggy show those boy streams.




Yes.


----------



## Stillhart

pdickerson said:


> Isn't the Tidal app unfolding the MQA with software and passing the 88/24 96/24 streams to the DAC. I am seeing yggy show those boy streams.


 
  
 Yes, but if you have an MQA capable DAC you can unfold them to higher sample rates (someone posted a pic of their DAC showing 24/308 or something like that).


----------



## pdickerson

Help GARBLED at TImes
I am hearing some glitches at times maybe someone else hasn't experienced the same problem??

When I stream MQA master, my yggy DAC identifies whether it is a 44/24 or 88/24 stream but sometimes the track will start out garbled. I can fix it most times by stopping the track and restarting or starting another one in the album. Sometimes it only take one time other times 3 or more attempts. Once it is working for the album it works all the way through. 

From the albums I have listened to so far I am unable to get past the garbled stream for Chicago 17. Is this perhaps a higher than 88/24?


----------



## Arnav Agharwal

stillhart said:


> It seems to me that the MQA format has two parts:  Part 1 is using nifty tech to fit a hi-res file into a CD-quality FLAC.  Part 2 is that the file has to be ripped from the original master using specific methods to achieve higher standards of SQ.  I've been thinking of part 1 as "MQA" and part 2 as "Mastering".  I think there's a problem with that kind of thinking because the Mastering process is part of the MQA process.  So I'm going to start calling it "Codec" and "Mastering".


 
 Very interesting perspective! And I cannot deny that the "Master" versions of tracks (software-unfolded) sound better than their "Hi-Fi" counterparts on TIDAL.
  
 What I understand from your description is that MQA is part of the A2D chain, rather than simply a method to "package" existing FLAC files. However, this encoding may be decoded to FLAC and is ultimately input DACs in the same format. Did I get it right?
  
 From an engineering perspective, the intent seems to be to keep MQA transparent to the end-users, while providing a superior digital mastering technology. So it is a bit confusing to see it implemented in a way that forces purchase of licensed DACs to reap the full benefits. I would've thought that this technology would be used to sell/stream "premium" high-res FLACs, which would be a convenient option for consumers, and a profitable option for the creators in the long-run.
  
 The troublesome part is the refusal to allow AB comparisons of MQA against CD quality FLAC mastered from the same analog source (from a statement by Jason (?) from Schiit Audio, probably linked to somewhere earlier in this thread). I can't see what they might have to lose, unless the benefits are only incremental, at best. Please excuse my skepticism


----------



## ThomasHK

Guys... if the MASTER sounds better than the HIFI, it's simply because it's a better mastered version. Nothing to do with the format it's stored in. MQA or Meridian has nothing to do with that.


----------



## jwbrent

thomashk said:


> Guys... if the MASTER sounds better than the HIFI, it's simply because it's a better mastered version. Nothing to do with the format it's stored in. MQA or Meridian has nothing to do with that.




Strong statement. Do you have evidence of this or are you stating your opinion?


----------



## Hansotek

thomashk said:


> Guys... if the MASTER sounds better than the HIFI, it's simply because it's a better mastered version. Nothing to do with the format it's stored in. MQA or Meridian has nothing to do with that.




I just picked up a Meridian Explorer 2 to find out if that was true. It some cases it is, in some cases it is not. Several of the "DAC unfolded" versions offered roughly similar performance to the "software unfolded" versions. However, some of them were actually quite different. For the most part, they were the tracks that unfolded all the way to 24/192, which definitely sounded better. But a few of them that only unfolded to 24/96 sounded quite different as well, particularly ELP's "Brain Salad Surgery" (which I also own in 24/96).

Whether or not it sounds better could be considered subjective, and I still feel that the use of exclusive, hardware-based decoding technology is an invitation to be usurped by a more openly adaptable design, but it is different.

Just to be clear, I don't think there's any "magic" going on here, but I'm fairly certain after a bit of listening that the folks who are mastering these MQA tracks are getting some degree of choice as to what is being compressed down into that noise layer. The fortunate part is that some of the folks who are mastering these new MQA versions are talented enough to essentially create what I see as not one but TWO good masters of these recordings, in some cases. Others are just putting their stamp on it with little additional effort. And yet another group seems to be making some positive changes, but not fully utilizing the technology.

So, IMO, you are partially right but not completely. It has everything to do with the master and who is doing the mastering, yes. But it also has to do with their willingness to use the technology and how adept they are with it on these first forays into MQA. In the end, there is no "magic" inherent in the technology - it is all about how skilled and creative the mastering engineers are in using it.


----------



## jwbrent

pdickerson said:


> Help GARBLED at TImes
> I am hearing some glitches at times maybe someone else hasn't experienced the same problem??
> 
> When I stream MQA master, my yggy DAC identifies whether it is a 44/24 or 88/24 stream but sometimes the track will start out garbled. I can fix it most times by stopping the track and restarting or starting another one in the album. Sometimes it only take one time other times 3 or more attempts. Once it is working for the album it works all the way through.
> ...




What kind of digital cable are you using from your computer to your DAC? Have you tried a different cable or port on your computer?

The highest resolution possible using the TIDAL app is 24/96 unless one's DAC is MQA compliant.

I've had no stuttering issues whatsoever: MacBook Air USB out to Mojo.


----------



## ThomasHK

jwbrent said:


> Strong statement. Do you have evidence of this or are you stating your opinion?


 
  
 Evidence, no, strong suspicions and a well informed opinion, yes.
  

there's no evidence that high res audio sounds better than redbook, so the basis of MQA unfolding to higher res leading to better sound quality is dubious at best.
The full MQA story also includes a system of "best practices" approach to A/D and D/A, based on the idea that temporal blur is detrimental to sound quality. So far this concept is based on assumptions related to the physiology of our hearing and how music transmits in air and has not been proven with ABX testing. This full MQA A/D - D/A process is not mainstream yet, the first commercially available MQA ADC is just out (Mytek). So... whatever you're hearing in the MQA Master files on Tidal only have potentially 2 flavors of MQA added
The folding/unfolding --> see point 1
The retrofitted temporal deblurring --> I've written a few posts on this in this thread already. You can look them up yourself. In short, it makes zero sense theoretically and Stuart himself says it's a "best guess" approach and that the mastering engineer still has final call on whether to do it or not. 

The majority of the MASTER albums are old albums for which various mastering versions exist. Of course one mastering can sound different than another and an increase for example in DNR will always be more noticeable than differences between redbook and a high res rip of the same original master.


----------



## jwbrent

thomashk said:


> Evidence, no, strong suspicions and a well informed opinion, yes.
> 
> 
> there's no evidence that high res audio sounds better than redbook, so the basis of MQA unfolding to higher res leading to better sound quality is dubious at best.
> ...




Thank you for sharing your opinion.


----------



## erich6

thomashk said:


> Evidence, no, strong suspicions and a well informed opinion, yes.
> 
> 
> there's no evidence that high res audio sounds better than redbook, so the basis of MQA unfolding to higher res leading to better sound quality is dubious at best.
> ...


 

 ​I agree with all of this but I also give credit to the MQA folks for forcing a change to how we talk about fidelity and sound quality in the new world of digital distribution.  MQA would agree with you that sampling ("high resolution") is an incomplete and deficient way of thinking about quality.  They are focusing the discussion on good mastering and on good analog reproduction.  This seems intuitively logical to me and an improvement over the current situation.  The trick to get good analog reproduction seems to be clever accounting/corrections for the distortions inherent in the ADC to DAC conversion process.  While doing this perfectly (as you've pointed out before) is not practical, an approximation could be an improvement (I agree this hasn't been proven conclusively).  Regardless, while I can imagine MQA is not a unique solution to making this work in a bandwidth-limited digital distribution model, it seems to be an adequate one that shows promise of being a standard.  So far this is bringing me better masters on Tidal and that fact alone is sufficient for me to root for it.


----------



## pdickerson

jwbrent said:


> What kind of digital cable are you using from your computer to your DAC? Have you tried a different cable or port on your computer?
> 
> The highest resolution possible using the TIDAL app is 24/96 unless one's DAC is MQA compliant.
> 
> I've had no stuttering issues whatsoever: MacBook Air USB out to Mojo.




To try out tidal/MQA I just picked up a USB 2.0 cable from BB for $24. Time for the $250 cable? I am using windows7. 

I am able to stream to YGGY from iTunes at higher bit rates it seems. Although whether it is a 88/24 file or 44/16 file the YGGY DAC continues to say 48 x 4. That makes no sense.


----------



## Stillhart

pdickerson said:


> To try out tidal/MQA I just picked up a USB 2.0 cable from BB for $24. Time for the $250 cable? I am using windows7.
> 
> I am able to stream to YGGY from iTunes at higher bit rates it seems. Although whether it is a 88/24 file or 44/16 file the YGGY DAC continues to say 48 x 4. That makes no sense.


 
  
 Last I checked, Yggy was really sensitive to bad USB cables.  And by sensitive, I mean sometimes it just isn't recognized.


----------



## Arnav Agharwal

stillhart said:


> Last I checked, Yggy was really sensitive to bad USB cables.  And by sensitive, I mean sometimes it just isn't recognized.


 
 I believe Yggy has a USB 3.0 interface, which might be the issue here.
  
 Edit: Fixed incorrect quote and response.


----------



## jwbrent

pdickerson said:


> To try out tidal/MQA I just picked up a USB 2.0 cable from BB for $24. Time for the $250 cable? I am using windows7.
> 
> I am able to stream to YGGY from iTunes at higher bit rates it seems. Although whether it is a 88/24 file or 44/16 file the YGGY DAC continues to say 48 x 4. That makes no sense.




Please try one other thing. In the TIDAL app, go to settings and choose the Streaming option. Under Sound Output, the name of your DAC should be present. Hover your cursor over the name and a gear icon will appear. Click on that icon. Make sure Use Exclusive Mode is on (light blue). Also make sure Force Volume is on. Do not turn on Passthrough MQA, this is only for those who have an MQA compliant DAC.

You do not have to buy a fancy USB cable, I use a $15 Anker cable that works fine (I'm not saying a better cable won't sound better, I'm just saying you don't need an expensive cable for everything to work properly).

Good luck.


----------



## pdickerson

arnav agharwal said:


> I believe Yggy has a USB 3.0 interface, which might be the issue here.
> 
> Edit: Fixed incorrect quote and response.




The manual that comes with yggy says it needs a. 2.0 compliant cable not a 1.0 and not a 3.0. 
They do say it is a 3.0 USB but it apparently does not work as one.


----------



## pdickerson

jwbrent said:


> Please try one other thing. In the TIDAL app, go to settings and choose the Streaming option. Under Sound Output, the name of your DAC should be present. Hover your cursor over the name and a gear icon will appear. Click on that icon. Make sure Use Exclusive Mode is on (light blue). Also make sure Force Volume is on. Do not turn on Passthrough MQA, this is only for those who have an MQA compliant DAC.
> 
> You do not have to buy a fancy USB cable, I use a $15 Anker cable that works fine (I'm not saying a better cable won't sound better, I'm just saying you don't need an expensive cable for everything to work properly).
> 
> Good luck.




Thanks for the reply. I have already configured it that way from what I read earlier in this forum. 
I have asked Schiit what the issue might be. Schiit says they will not support MQA, but this is just a pcm stream so Inhope they will acknowledge and look into the problem. 

Can some report what they see for the bit rate for the Master of Chicago 17. No matter now many times I try and stop and restart Tidal I can not get it to play over the DAC. 

MQA is the best sound I have heard from this DAC once the stream is working. I am excited to hear the depth of digital.


----------



## headfry

thomashk said:


> Guys... if the MASTER sounds better than the HIFI, it's simply because it's a better mastered version. Nothing to do with the format it's stored in. MQA or Meridian has nothing to do with that.





Which MQA dac do you own and use?


Your "scientific" speculation goes against a mountain of evidence out there and I predict will
be as discredited within the year - similar to the 1's and 0's crowd who have argued for many years that any USB 
cable more expensive than say a Belkin Gold is snake oil and couldn't possibly be worth it
foe SQ improvements in any system, even revealing high end ones.


----------



## pkcpga

pdickerson said:


> Thanks for the reply. I have already configured it that way from what I read earlier in this forum.
> I have asked Schiit what the issue might be. Schiit says they will not support MQA, but this is just a pcm stream so Inhope they will acknowledge and look into the problem.
> 
> Can some report what they see for the bit rate for the Master of Chicago 17. No matter now many times I try and stop and restart Tidal I can not get it to play over the DAC.
> ...




Connected to my Merridian Dac it's playing at 24/352.8, but it's playing MQA direct on a mqa dac.


----------



## pkcpga

pdickerson said:


> Thanks for the reply. I have already configured it that way from what I read earlier in this forum.
> I have asked Schiit what the issue might be. Schiit says they will not support MQA, but this is just a pcm stream so Inhope they will acknowledge and look into the problem.
> 
> Can some report what they see for the bit rate for the Master of Chicago 17. No matter now many times I try and stop and restart Tidal I can not get it to play over the DAC.
> ...




You also have to remember your Iggy is a 21 bit dac so if the MQA is 24 bit instead of 21 bit recording than the dac will not play it. Schiit is a master at low res or cd quality music playing probably the best for that in its price range but as schiit states and feel free to call them I did their DACs do not play true 24 bit music but schiit claim 99% of music is not 24 bit. That statement is probably no longer true with mqa release and it becoming part of Tidal and a record label. So even if mqa became free open source your dac would not be able to directly play mqa at full res.


----------



## ThurstonX

arnav agharwal said:


> I believe Yggy has a USB 3.0 interface, which might be the issue here.
> 
> Edit: Fixed incorrect quote and response.


 
  


pdickerson said:


> The manual that comes with yggy says it needs a. 2.0 compliant cable not a 1.0 and not a 3.0.
> They do say it is a 3.0 USB but it apparently does not work as one.


 
  
 I think the confusion is that the Yggy uses Schiit's "Gen 3" USB, whereas their lesser DACs use "Gen 2"... not sure any still use "Gen 1".
  
  
 I'm not holding my breath for TIDAL to make finding MQAs any easier; not from the company that lists John Coltrane's _Ascension_ as a "Single" because the description starts off, "Ascension is the single recording that placed John Coltrane firmly into the avant-garde."  I had to LOL.


----------



## pdickerson

i just purchased that DAC less than a year ago. 
If Schiit gives me their standard answer I will have to decide if I am going t take the financial loss on that decision.


----------



## germay0653

hansotek said:


> I just picked up a Meridian Explorer 2 to find out if that was true. It some cases it is, in some cases it is not. Several of the "DAC unfolded" versions offered roughly similar performance to the "software unfolded" versions. However, some of them were actually quite different. For the most part, they were the tracks that unfolded all the way to 24/192, which definitely sounded better. But a few of them that only unfolded to 24/96 sounded quite different as well, particularly ELP's "Brain Salad Surgery" (which I also own in 24/96).
> 
> Whether or not it sounds better could be considered subjective, and I still feel that the use of exclusive, hardware-based decoding technology is an invitation to be usurped by a more openly adaptable design, but it is different.
> 
> ...


 

 When you say "hardware-based decoding technology" do you mean software decoding, in the form of firmware on a chip, is what's occurring?


----------



## Hansotek

germay0653 said:


> When you say "hardware-based decoding technology" do you mean software decoding, in the form of firmware on a chip, is what's occurring?




I mean the DAC. To be specific, what I meant was "decoding technology requiring an additional external hardware purchase" (i.e.- an entirely different DAC that is incompatible with, and replaces your current DAC).

I think we can safely say that most of us would prefer it if Tidal could do the entire job of unfolding the file and we could choose our own DAC. Right now it seems more likely to me that the market will invent a competitive technology to alleviate this problem, rather than bowing to the licensing demands of Meridian - which nobody seems to want to do.


----------



## Stillhart

pkcpga said:


> You also have to remember your Iggy is a 21 bit dac so if the MQA is 24 bit instead of 21 bit recording than the dac will not play it. Schiit is a master at low res or cd quality music playing probably the best for that in its price range but as schiit states and feel free to call them I did their DACs do not play true 24 bit music but schiit claim 99% of music is not 24 bit. That statement is probably no longer true with mqa release and it becoming part of Tidal and a record label. So even if mqa became free open source your dac would not be able to directly play mqa at full res.


 
  
 There is so much wrong with this, I don't know where to start.  lol


----------



## germay0653

hansotek said:


> I mean the DAC. To be specific, what I meant was "decoding technology requiring an additional external hardware purchase" (i.e.- an entirely different DAC that is incompatible with, and replaces your current DAC).
> 
> I think we can safely say that most of us would prefer it if Tidal could do the entire job of unfolding the file and we could choose our own DAC. Right now it seems more likely to me that the market will invent a competitive technology to alleviate this problem, rather than bowing to the licensing demands of Meridian - which nobody seems to want to do.


 

 I just wonder why it had to be done within the DAC.  Yes, it would be more complicated to do it in software but it could have been implemented as a configuration item, meaning your DAC is found in a drop down of DAC chips they have profiles for, and the software decodes based on that configuration. The list of DAC chips could be pulled, dynamically, as new profiles are made available.  There's more involved as they'd also have to serve up the algorithm for the chip but it could be done.  No need to have it reside within the DAC.  If there isn't a profile for your specific DAC then have either a GENERAL DAC profile or just don't decode at that level at all.


----------



## Stillhart

germay0653 said:


> I just wonder why it had to be done within the DAC.  Yes, it would be more complicated to do it in software but it could have been implemented as a configuration item, meaning your DAC is found in a drop down of DAC chips they have profiles for, and the software decodes based on that configuration. The list of DAC chips could be pulled, dynamically, as new profiles are made available.  There's more involved as they'd also have to serve up the algorithm for the chip but it could be done.  No need to have it reside within the DAC.  If there isn't a profile for your specific DAC then have either a GENERAL DAC profile or just don't decode at that level at all.


 
  
 Don't overthink it.  They want it to be done in the DAC so they can sell you Meridian DAC's or DAC's that pay a license fee to Meridian.  Tidal has proven that you don't need hardware decoding.


----------



## jwbrent

I still wonder whether the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 on rock/pop albums is even noticeable to most people.


----------



## germay0653

stillhart said:


> Don't overthink it.  They want it to be done in the DAC so they can sell you Meridian DAC's or DAC's that pay a license fee to Meridian.  Tidal has proven that you don't need hardware decoding.


 

 Exactly, but they could have built the license fee into the software for each DAC chip decoder algorithm and could probably have gotten a bigger slice of the pie. Oooooh, did I just say that?


----------



## Stillhart

jwbrent said:


> I still wonder whether the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 on rock/pop albums is even noticeable to most people.


 
  
 Or the difference between 16/44 and 24/96 for that matter.  Fortunately, there's a massive thread in the Sound Science forum discussing it so we don't have to rehash the debate here.  :-D


----------



## jwbrent

When will we see these 30,000 MQA files that are supposed to be ready and waiting?


----------



## Arnav Agharwal

pdickerson said:


> The manual that comes with yggy says it needs a. 2.0 compliant cable not a 1.0 and not a 3.0.
> They do say it is a 3.0 USB but it apparently does not work as one.


 
  
  


thurstonx said:


> I think the confusion is that the Yggy uses Schiit's "Gen 3" USB, whereas their lesser DACs use "Gen 2"... not sure any still use "Gen 1".


 
 Interesting. Since they advertise their DACs as modular and upgradable, this might be an attempt to keep the design future-proof.


----------



## ThurstonX

arnav agharwal said:


> Interesting. Since they advertise their DACs as modular and upgradable, this might be an attempt to keep the design future-proof.


 
  
 Given that Yggy is their end-all-be-all DAC (until the next one , I'd say that their Gen 3 USB is a natural extension and upgrade from Gen 2, and, IIRC, Gen 3 is only available on the Yggy.  Given its stature in their product line, it makes sense they'd want to give it something like Gen 3 to set it apart, which then means it must be exclusive to the Yggy.    Regardless, Yggy tech has already trickled down to their lesser DACs in some fashion, which says a lot about how they think about their entire line.  Yes, upgradability is a Schiit hallmark, be it as a version 2 of some existing product, or as something the owner can pay to have done.  I was happy to be able to upgrade my Bifrost to Multibit.
  
 Be this is WAAAAY off-topic, esp. since there is no way in hell Schiit will ever put out an MQA DAC.... (until they do


----------



## RichardTownsend

thomashk said:


> Guys... if the MASTER sounds better than the HIFI, it's simply because it's a better mastered version. Nothing to do with the format it's stored in. MQA or Meridian has nothing to do with that.


 
 Hi Thomas,
  
 Can I share my experiences with you? I have a Mytek Brooklyn which can do a hardware decode of the MQA files on Tidal. On the Brooklyn it's possible to turn off the MQA processing so that the DAC treats the stream as standard PCM with exactly the same volume.  I've compared Tidal Hifi, Tidal Masters with MQA, Tidal Masters with MQA off, and a downloaded 24/96 version of 'Two Against Nature' by Steely Dan. I have to say I'm impressed with MQA. There is a lack of 'edge' to the sound that I've never heard with digital before. Having compared all these versions very closely, the MQA is better than the downloaded 24/96, and better than Masters without MQA. As far as I can tell, the mixing, EQ and compression of all these versions is the same, though of course that judgement could be wrong and there could be some subtle difference in mastering that I can't detect consciously. But what makes me think it's not just mastering is that the improvement I hear with MQA on many tracks, not just this album, is always of the same kind - a lack of digital edge, an ability to hear further into the mix, a greater sense of the space around each instrument, and a sense of ease that I have never heard before from digital.
  
 I've also compared the hardware decode with the Tidal software decode (both are to 24/96) and the software decode is to my ears sometimes impossible to tell from the standard 24/96, and it's clearly not as good as the hardware decode.
  
 Just one person's listening impressions...


----------



## jwbrent

richardtownsend said:


> Hi Thomas,
> 
> Can I share my experiences with you? I have a Mytek Brooklyn which can do a hardware decode of the MQA files on Tidal. On the Brooklyn it's possible to turn off the MQA processing so that the DAC treats the stream as standard PCM with exactly the same volume.  I've compared Tidal Hifi, Tidal Masters with MQA, Tidal Masters with MQA off, and a downloaded 24/96 version of 'Two Against Nature' by Steely Dan. I have to say I'm impressed with MQA. There is a lack of 'edge' to the sound that I've never heard with digital before. Having compared all these versions very closely, the MQA is better than the downloaded 24/96, and better than Masters without MQA. As far as I can tell, the mixing, EQ and compression of all these versions is the same, though of course that judgement could be wrong and there could be some subtle difference in mastering that I can't detect consciously. But what makes me think it's not just mastering is that the improvement I hear with MQA on many tracks, not just this album, is always of the same kind - a lack of digital edge, an ability to hear further into the mix, a greater sense of the space around each instrument, and a sense of ease that I have never heard before from digital.
> 
> ...




Very interesting observations. I concur that when I first listened to master files using the TIDAL app for unfolding, it became quite apparent there was an improvement in clarity to the sound, especially in the high frequencies. My reference was the 150+ hi res albums I purchased from HDtracks and Pono. I'm very excited about this development and I plan to subscribe to TIDAL when my trial period ends.

I also found your comment about the first unfolding sounding better with your Mytek DAC than with the TIDAL app interesting. I wondered whether this might be the case, that hardware unfolding would do a better job.

I hope Chord adopts MQA and upgrades the firmware of my Mojo so I don't have to buy another DAC. John at Chord wrote in another thread there was nothing preventing them from doing so from a technical standpoint.


----------



## mogulmaster

using the Tidal decoding with my micro iDSD and LCD-X, these masters files sound better to my ears. Especially in the high frequencies


----------



## mike138

I've been trying out the free month of TIDAL and I might stick with it. Not because of MQA - I can't tell a difference between it and the other hifi files. However, their music selection is really, really good.


----------



## pdickerson

I have been listening to MQA for the past week and albums that I have listened to hundreds of times over vinyl on marantz and dual turntable 30 years ago finally take me back to those days but x2. 

I applaude Bob for delivering better sound quality and providing an elegant solution that will make it available to the masses. 

We should all be behind improving audio quality delivering music as it should be


----------



## canthearyou

mike138 said:


> I've been trying out the free month of TIDAL and I might stick with it. Not because of MQA - I can't tell a difference between it and the other hifi files. However, their music selection is really, really good.




Probably the first to say they can't hear a difference.


----------



## pdickerson

jwbrent said:


> When will we see these 30,000 MQA files that are supposed to be ready and waiting?




They are adding albums everyday.


----------



## Roybenz

Anywhere to see complete list?


----------



## TadMorose

roybenz said:


> Anywhere to see complete list?


 
 It's not complete, but it's the best there is at the moment It's being updated every day.

 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10VtON9VjMAt3uyHC2-Oo2MjIa3orv9DKZfwiRQKmTAA/edit#gid=945476039


----------



## pippen99

tadmorose said:


> It's not complete, but it's the best there is at the moment It's being updated every day.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10VtON9VjMAt3uyHC2-Oo2MjIa3orv9DKZfwiRQKmTAA/edit#gid=945476039


 
 Is there anyway to put that into chronological order of addition or highlight new additions?


----------



## TadMorose

pippen99 said:


> Is there anyway to put that into chronological order of addition or highlight new additions?


 
 I doubt it. The file is being maintained by people from the Roon forum and it's open to anyone who wants to add things they find.


----------



## HesNot

So I've been listening to MQA Tidal on my MacBook Air - so I have software decoding but using the built in DAC (it sounds pretty good to be honest) but I'd like to try Tidal with a better DAC (and music in general although my MacBook is not my primary listening device). What is not clear to me is do I need an MQA compatible DAC as well to take advantage of the full abilities of MQA - or will any DAC capable of higher resolutions work since the decoding is happening on the software side? 

I have a Pioneer XDP100 and am looking forward to the Android app whenever it arrives but in the meantime I'd like to expand the range of the MacBook. Also I'd like a DAC I can use in a setup with my smartphone as well in certain situations so something like the Meridien Explorer2 is less than ideal since it does not have a built in battery.

Thanks!


----------



## L8MDL

A nice MQA article:
 http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/02/comparison-hardware-decoded-mqa-using.html


----------



## raypin

Mm...any news when Tidal MQA will be rolled-out for portable devices (DAPs)?


----------



## jwbrent

raypin said:


> Mm...any news when Tidal MQA will be rolled-out for portable devices (DAPs)?




Yes, looking forward to that ...


----------



## revand

Here is the best explanation of MQA "unfolding" so far:
  
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/748-mqa-civilians/
  
 Now I understand what does it mean renderer....
 I am eagerly waiting for the firmware update for my Audioquest Dragonfly Red...


----------



## Steve Buck

hesnot said:


> So I've been listening to MQA Tidal on my MacBook Air - so I have software decoding but using the built in DAC (it sounds pretty good to be honest) but I'd like to try Tidal with a better DAC (and music in general although my MacBook is not my primary listening device). What is not clear to me is do I need an MQA compatible DAC as well to take advantage of the full abilities of MQA - or will any DAC capable of higher resolutions work since the decoding is happening on the software side?
> 
> I have a Pioneer XDP100 and am looking forward to the Android app whenever it arrives but in the meantime I'd like to expand the range of the MacBook. Also I'd like a DAC I can use in a setup with my smartphone as well in certain situations so something like the Meridien Explorer2 is less than ideal since it does not have a built in battery.
> 
> Thanks!


 
 i think the tidal software unfolds to a certain level (88khz & 96khz). for the full unfold of 192khz and above , then thats where the mqa certified dacs come in.. there is an option on the tidal setting to set a passthrough uncoded option..then the mqa dac can do its magic and unfold fully 
 at least thats how i understand it..


----------



## erich6

steve buck said:


> i think the tidal software unfolds to a certain level (88khz & 96khz). for the full unfold of 192khz and above , then thats where the mqa certified dacs come in.. there is an option on the tidal setting to set a passthrough uncoded option..then the mqa dac can do its magic and unfold fully
> at least thats how i understand it..




This is correct


----------



## chaturanga

hesnot said:


> So I've been listening to MQA Tidal on my MacBook Air - so I have software decoding but using the built in DAC (it sounds pretty good to be honest) but I'd like to try Tidal with a better DAC (and music in general although my MacBook is not my primary listening device). What is not clear to me is do I need an MQA compatible DAC as well to take advantage of the full abilities of MQA - or will any DAC capable of higher resolutions work since the decoding is happening on the software side?
> 
> I have a Pioneer XDP100 and am looking forward to the Android app whenever it arrives but in the meantime I'd like to expand the range of the MacBook. Also I'd like a DAC I can use in a setup with my smartphone as well in certain situations so something like the Meridien Explorer2 is less than ideal since it does not have a built in battery.
> 
> Thanks!


 
  
 I strongly recommend Meridian Explorer 2, not only for built in MQA decoding but also it's way of processing music is incredible for me. I did not use any other DAC but I read some review of them, and at that price point Explorer 2 is extremely high quality. I am getting highest quality when I go with following setup (Keep in mind still Android Tidal app is is not supporting MQA, when it does I mean when we will be able to get MQA files on the phone following scenario will sound better I think): 
  
 Android phone (I have LG V20) > USB Audio Player Pro running with Bit Perfect option selected on my phone> A USB C Type to full USB converter cable connected to phone> a Y type Mini USB cable connected to converter cable > the other USB part of this Y type cable (which is for extra power if needed) is connected to a powerbank > an AMP (I have a simple one, Creative Sound Blaster E1) connected to Line Out of Explorer 2 > And finally my IEMs, 1 More Triple Driver plugged in to AMPs headphone out.
  
 I don't know why but this phone > USB Audio Player Pro with Bit Perfect > Explorer 2 setup sounds better than PC > Explorer 2 > IEM setup. May be PC doing some process to the music before transferring it to Explorer 2?? Because UAPP Bit Perfect guarantees that the digital bits of music file is not being modified on the phone in any meaning and it directly goes to the DAC. Theoritacally also PC must do same thing when a USB DAC connected to it right?   
  
 By the way. My LG20 did not feed Explorer 2 when I connected directly to the phone with USB C Type to USB converter. But I have seen a video that a man connected one of HTC phone to the Explorer 2 without a powerbank it got energy directly from phone.


----------



## discape

We A/B tested it here, and both of us, after being 100% sure we could tell an obvious difference when we *knew* we were listening to MQA, completely and utterly failed to tell any difference in A/B tests.
  
 The important thing in the test is to get the volume exactly the same, as the MQA files are quieter than HiFi.


----------



## revand

steve buck said:


> i think the tidal software unfolds to a certain level (88khz & 96khz). for the full unfold of 192khz and above , then thats where the mqa certified dacs come in.. there is an option on the tidal setting to set a passthrough uncoded option..then the mqa dac can do its magic and unfold fully
> at least thats how i understand it..


 
  
 Being an engineer I always visualize procedures. Therefore I elaborated some charts as a visual explanation of unfolding MQA as I understood the process.
 You can reach my visual explanation here.
 If anything wrong in it please do not hesitate to tell me


----------



## jwbrent

I just received a TIDAL app notification for my Mac. I was wondering if anyone knows what the update is about since there are no details ...


----------



## revand

pdickerson said:


> I have been listening to MQA for the past week and albums that I have listened to hundreds of times over vinyl on marantz and dual turntable 30 years ago finally take me back to those days but x2.
> 
> I applaude Bob for delivering better sound quality and providing an elegant solution that will make it available to the masses.
> 
> We should all be behind improving audio quality delivering music as it should be


 
  
 Fully agree with you!
  
I made some charts how I interpret the different processes:
1. What is the quality of the music received with a device doesn't decode MQA?
2. How the original master sound quality is delivered using rendering?
3. How the original master sound quality is delivered using devices capable of full decoding MQA?
4. What sound quality can be achieved using an MQA device with a non MQA external DAC? 
You can find them by clicking my name.
More thoughts can be found here


----------



## bigbeard

Should mqa pass through be enabled or disabled for optical out to schiit dac?


----------



## ThurstonX

bigbeard said:


> Should mqa pass through be enabled or disabled for optical out to schiit dac?


 
 Disabled.  Pass-through should only be used for MQA-capable DACs (decoding task bypasses TIDAL and is *passed through* to the DAC).


----------



## pibroch

Deleted post


----------



## Avatar1986

YES IT WORKS!!!!  MQA on Windows 7

Here is how I did it. 
I have the DAC Meridian Explorer2 (with MQA support chip integrated - bought in January 2016 in Sweden).
PC, Windows 7 - Service Pack 1. Tidal - "HiFi" account (trial).

1. Uninstall previous Meridian Explorer 2 drivers. 
2. Reboot the computer 
3. Press F2 or F8 to get to Advanced Boot Menu
4. Select the bottom most alternative "Disable Driver Signature Enforcement"
5. The computer starts what looks as normally.
(If the ME2 is connected, Windows might automatically install the driver and say "you need driver signature...", if so just uninstall it and proceed to install the latest driver.
6. Get the lates drivers 3.34.1.0 from Meridian support
7. Also get the DAC uploader 1717 (Win) - (this will update the internal firmware in the DAC later, continue reading...)
8. Execute the driver setup (with or without the DAC connected).
9. Follow the instructions normally. 
10. The DAC drivers will now be installed (without the "you need driver signature..." message popping up.)
11. The last this the setup will say is "disconnect and reconnect the driver", after doing this just click "No" and then "Finish". 
- So far so good 
12. Now open the DAC uploader
13. Click "Scan" and now the latest DAC driver should appear in the drop down curtain (in my case it said "found a device with firmware v.1675")
14. Select this one ("021.v1717.bin" i think) and then click "load".
15. After this I think the firmware upgrade stopped halfway through the update for somewhat 3-4 minutes ("be patient")
16. Then it continues until the green bar is full. 
17. The Uploader will ask you to disconnect and reconnect the DAC again. 
18. After doing this you get no "Finish" message so just exit the setup.
19. Now open Tidal (with HiFi account) and search for "mqa" in the search bar and under ALBUMS should be Mozart Violin concerto. 
20. Now play this album. (Still only one light on the ME2 shines)
21. Now, by the timer to the right it either says "HiFi" or "Master". Click on this. 
22. Select Quality: HiFi/Master
23. Sound output: Select the Speakers (Meridian Explorer2 USB DAC audio)
24. As you hold the mouse over this a settings sign appears. Click this.
25. Here when you select "Use exclusive mode" two lights will shine (when you play the song, or restart the song/ change song)
26. You must also select "Passthrough MQA" now all three light shine and the first one will shine Blue. (when you play the song, or restart the song/ change song).
27. Congratulations!!! 

Hope this helps! 
And thanks to Meridian Support for really good customer service! 
// Micke


----------



## Avatar1986

And here you find how to do steps 3-5 on Windows 8 and 10.
http://www.howtogeek.com/126016/three-ways-to-access-the-windows-8-boot-options-menu/


----------



## Avatar1986

...also, This method will require that you start up you computer this way for it to work (until Meridian fixes the signature problem).
And, if the DAC stops playing regular songs, try disconnecting and reconnecting it and restart tidal.


----------



## TadMorose

avatar1986 said:


> ...also, This method will require that you start up you computer this way for it to work (until Meridian fixes the signature problem).
> And, if the DAC stops playing regular songs, try disconnecting and reconnecting it and restart tidal.


 
  
 What is the point of Steps 3-5? I've used my ME2 on multiple computers running Windows 7 and 10 and it worked fine without these steps.


----------



## tonehk

Hi, when using the Meridian Explorer2 in tidal, do you have "force volume" on or off?


----------



## jude

​  ​  ​ *MQA and Universal Music Group Announce Collaboration To Advance Hi-Res On-Demand Streaming*
  
 With Warner already on board and streaming MQA-encoded hi-res music via TIDAL, another major has signed on, announcing their collaboration with MQA today: Universal Music Group (UMG). What labels is Universal Music Group home to? Blue Note, Capitol, Abbey Road Studios, EMI, Decca Records, Deutsche Grammophon, ECM, Mercury Classics, Motown, Polydor, Verve, Virgin EMI, and more. (Click on the following link to see *a complete list of Univeral Music Group's labels*.)
  
 Today's big news--and this is _big_ hi-res music news--is the announcement of the agreement. Timeline for releases and additional specifics will have to come from UMG, and I'm definitely looking forward to finding out more details as soon as they're ready to say more.
  
 I've attached the official press release file below.


----------



## Arnav Agharwal

jude said:


> ​  ​  ​ *MQA and Universal Music Group Announce Collaboration To Advance Hi-Res On-Demand Streaming*
> 
> With Warner already on board and streaming MQA-encoded hi-res music via TIDAL, another major has signed on, announcing their collaboration with MQA today: Universal Music Group (UMG). What labels is Universal Music Group home to? Blue Note, Capitol, Abbey Road Studios, EMI, Decca Records, Deutsche Grammophon, ECM, Mercury Classics, Motown, Polydor, Verve, Virgin EMI, and more. (Click on the following link to see *a complete list of Univeral Music Group's labels*.)
> 
> ...


----------



## goldendarko

Big news, getting a huge label like that is certainly something MQA needs to not just survive, but flourish. Hopefully MQA will soon be available on more devices so we don't need to buy new DAC's, and the big one Ill be waiting for, though it may be a way off, is when MQA comes to mobile platforms like the iPhone.


----------



## chaturanga

Good news, hope Tidal adds those new albums sooner.


----------



## manpowre

chaturanga said:


> Good news, hope Tidal adds those new albums sooner.


 
 I was thinking the same, where is the content ?


----------



## canthearyou

Nice!


----------



## canali

chaturanga said:


> Good news, hope Tidal adds those new albums sooner.


 
 and also that they start to categorize their mqa content via genre, artist, etc.
 like c'mon Tidal,...can't be all that difficult to do.
 i've emailed them on this (plus a request for an EQ app)
*support@tidal.com*
 more people should just send them an email, requesting such, too.
  
 i'm also sometimes getting buffering/stuttering upon
 using mqa on tidal..have to turn it on then off again.
 anyone else?


----------



## JeremyLaurenson

Woo hoo! I get to buy all my music all over again FTW!
  
 I suppose at least it'll be "available" and maybe we'll see some re-do of current and back catalogue. 
  
 What I would really like to see here is a new buying model (aside from streaming) where I get rights to an album outright.


----------



## jwbrent

goldendarko said:


> Big news, getting a huge label like that is certainly something MQA needs to not just survive, but flourish. Hopefully MQA will soon be available on more devices so we don't need to buy new DAC's, and the big one Ill be waiting for, though it may be a way off, is when MQA comes to mobile platforms like the iPhone.




Yes, I'll be very happy when the TIDAL app on my AK240SS can play MQA files.

So, I wonder what's holding up Sony from coming on board with its catalog?


----------



## pippen99

jwbrent said:


> Yes, I'll be very happy when the TIDAL app on my AK240SS can play MQA files.
> 
> So, I wonder what's holding up Sony from coming on board with its catalog?


 
 Think Betamax. Sony always plays differently.


----------



## lantian

Hope the beatles also get some mqa stuff, though i would rather just get the remaster Marting saved on 24bit since I doubt MQA would give much. Rather to have normal hires flac files than MQA encoded, then again MQA would still be better than the 16/24bit 44.1/48/96? khz versions available now


----------



## Stillhart

pippen99 said:


> Think Betamax. Sony always plays differently.


 
  
 Or think Blu-Ray for a less negative spin on it.


----------



## jwbrent

lantian said:


> Hope the beatles also get some mqa stuff, though i would rather just get the remaster Marting saved on 24bit since I doubt MQA would give much. Rather to have normal hires flac files than MQA encoded, then again MQA would still be better than the 16/24bit 44.1/48/96? khz versions available now


 

 My experience so far is that in many cases, MQA encoded files sound better than their FLAC Hi Res alternatives. The presentation in the high frequencies is smoother without any loss of detail. Same source components, so the only difference in comparison is the music.


----------



## lantian

The problem is that for full decoding you would need a new device, software decoding is only available on tidal app so far. so unless you spend money on a device with support you are stuck with 16/48 question is are they any better than whats already out there?


----------



## noplsestar

jwbrent said:


> My experience so far is that in many cases, MQA encoded files sound better than their FLAC Hi Res alternatives. The presentation in the high frequencies is smoother without any loss of detail. Same source components, so the only difference in comparison is the music.


 

 As I understood it MQA is like a zip or like flac that your dac (if it has the right firmware) can decode. how can a decoded file sound better than the original unpacked 24 bit master file? A flac file ((of a 16 bit original) also can´t sound "better" than the original 16 bit file, or am I wrong here? It´s just packed and the DAC decodes the file before playing it. hmm, but maybe you know more about that?


----------



## jwbrent

lantian said:


> The problem is that for full decoding you would need a new device, software decoding is only available on tidal app so far. so unless you spend money on a device with support you are stuck with 16/48 question is are they any better than whats already out there?


 

 I'm using the TIDAL app for my observations between MQA and Hi Res FLAC. Generally, MQA sounds better, in my view.


----------



## jwbrent

noplsestar said:


> As I understood it MQA is like a zip or like flac that your dac (if it has the right firmware) can decode. how can a decoded file sound better than the original unpacked 24 bit master file? A flac file ((of a 16 bit original) also can´t sound "better" than the original 16 bit file, or am I wrong here? It´s just packed and the DAC decodes the file before playing it. hmm, but maybe you know more about that?


 

 There's more to MQA than just making a Hi Res album able to stream. Part of the MQA experience is remastering and using a deblurring circuit to eliminate pre ringing innate in digital recordings, according to Meridian. I attribute the better sound of MQA to this deblurring process.


----------



## Left Channel

lantian said:


> The problem is that for full decoding you would need a new device, software decoding is only available on tidal app so far. so unless you spend money on a device with support you are stuck with 16/48 question is are they any better than whats already out there?


 
  


noplsestar said:


> As I understood it MQA is like a zip or like flac that your dac (if it has the right firmware) can decode. how can a decoded file sound better than the original unpacked 24 bit master file? A flac file ((of a 16 bit original) also can´t sound "better" than the original 16 bit file, or am I wrong here? It´s just packed and the DAC decodes the file before playing it. hmm, but maybe you know more about that?


 
  


jwbrent said:


> There's more to MQA than just making a Hi Res album able to stream. Part of the MQA experience is remastering and using a deblurring circuit to eliminate pre ringing innate in digital recordings, according to Meridian. I attribute the better sound of MQA to this deblurring process.


 
  
 With MQA software decoding, we get MQA 1x "unfolding" and up to 24/88.2 or 24/96.

 With an MQA DAC doing hardware decoding, we would get 4x unfolding and up to 24/192.

 Here's more on how MQA works:
 * MQA Decoding Explained | AudioStream
 * MQA Playback | Bob Talks

 I haven't heard anything at 4x. Remastering may be the only reason the 1x Tidal Masters sound better to me than the same tracks in Tidal HiFi, as is often case with hi-res tracks of any kind. I think I've got the facts straight, but can't form an opinion on quality without hearing 4x decoding side by side with the files _from the same source material_ in other formats.


----------



## jude

left channel said:


> With MQA software decoding, we get MQA 1x "unfolding" and up to 24/88.2 or 24/96.
> 
> With an MQA DAC doing hardware decoding, we would get 4x unfolding and up to 24/192.
> 
> ...


 
  
 If you're interested in reading up on MQA, I think one of the biggest must-reads is Chris Connaker's comprehensive Q&A with MQA's Bob Stuart. This was perhaps the single most comprehensive, easy-to-digest reading I've found about MQA, in which Bob welcomed any and all questions from the ComputerAudiophile community, and then answered them.
  
 I've spent hours talking to Bob about MQA over the last two years, and I still learned most of what I know about MQA from this Q&A. (Kudos to Chris Connaker for getting that together.)
  
 As I've said to Bob and his team countless times: Explaining MQA might be greatly served by some well-executed infographics.
  
*A Comprehensive Q&A With MQA's Bob Stuart*​


----------



## Left Channel

jude said:


> If you're interested in reading up on MQA,


 
 Can you check that link please? I think it's pointing back to this thread at the moment. 

 I've read that interview, but as you say graphics make a big difference which is why I started sharing the links in my previous post. Your link dives deep and IMHO is best left until the first two articles have been absorbed.


----------



## jude

left channel said:


> Can you check that link please? I think it's pointing back to this thread at the moment.
> 
> I've read that interview, but as you say graphics make a big difference which is why I started sharing the links in my previous post. Your link dives deep and IMHO is best left until the first two articles have been absorbed.


 
  
 Linked fixed (thanks for the heads-up).
  
 You make good points on the order of reading.


----------



## Yamantaka

Here is a very recent practical explanation of MQA, including a few graphs, by Chris Connaker of Computer Audiophile:
  
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/748-mqa-civilians/


----------



## Groot Geluid

when it is originally mastered MQA afterwards does not improve anything but perhaps the bit rate reduction. For producers of audio it only adds to extra costs and for consumers there is little to win.


----------



## lantian

Explanation is not what I am looking for and probably most are not either ( It has been done enough times). What I want to know if there are nay benefits from using MQA over normal flacs and as far a I can see the only benefits there are because of MQA remastering and then not guaranteed to be there in all cases


----------



## Trerit

canali said:


> and also that they start to categorize their mqa content via genre, artist, etc.
> like c'mon Tidal,...can't be all that difficult to do.
> i've emailed them on this (plus a request for an EQ app)
> *support@tidal.com*
> ...


 

 Last time i saw someone have buffering/stuttering issues they had to crap internet/connection. Check your network load. try changing to wired instead of wireless.
 My tidal peaked at 95Mbit/s once i first pressed play on George Benson - Affirmation (MQA version) then went on to doing 40Mbit/s in bursts around every 25th second.
 just by throwing a quick glance it seems like it doesnt use any bandwidth 3/4 the time meaning 10Mbit internet connection should give you just enough for that song but it might give you stuttering. I would advice against having a slower internet connection than 20Mbit/s.
 https://1drv.ms/i/s!AiTQgspGNYdg9yS759A8_AJnW7XH (this is the graph if any one wants to take a look.)


----------



## Trerit

jwbrent said:


> I'm using the TIDAL app for my observations between MQA and Hi Res FLAC. Generally, MQA sounds better, in my view.


 

 Comparing a tidal MQA remaster against a different remaster Hi Res FLAC  aint realy fair. They will sound different and not because of the MQA part. When comparing you should compare against the same remaster.


----------



## canali

trerit said:


> Last time i saw someone have buffering/stuttering issues they had to crap internet/connection. Check your network load. try changing to wired instead of wireless.
> My tidal peaked at 95Mbit/s once i first pressed play on George Benson - Affirmation (MQA version) then went on to doing 40Mbit/s in bursts around every 25th second.
> just by throwing a quick glance it seems like it doesnt use any bandwidth 3/4 the time meaning 10Mbit internet connection should give you just enough for that song but it might give you stuttering. I would advice against having a slower internet connection than 20Mbit/s.
> https://1drv.ms/i/s!AiTQgspGNYdg9yS759A8_AJnW7XH (this is the graph if any one wants to take a look.)


 
  
 yes i'll have to get an ethernet connection for my microrendu/lps 1 hookup
 ..but it does seem there IS a legit stuttering issue both audioquest and tidal are aware of.
  
 per their reply to me.
*TIDAL Support [DanielON]* (TIDAL)
Feb 16, 9:28 PM EST

 _Hello again_

_*We are currently working on an update to address some of the stuttering
 issues you are seeing, and hope to have the update available in the upcoming days.*_

_The audio should only switch to the system default if the dragonfly disappears,
 or temporarily gets access by another App in exclusive mode._

_Please check to see if any other App is using the Dragonfly exclusively as audio output._


----------



## Trerit

canali said:


> yes i'll have to get an ethernet connection for my microrendu/lps 1 hookup
> ..but it does seem there IS a legit stuttering issue both audioquest and tidal are aware of.
> 
> per their reply to me.
> ...


 

 Forgot to mention that the graph is in Megabytes, whilst regular internet connections are measured in Megabits.
 1Megabyte = 8Megabits.


----------



## bigro

left channel said:


> With MQA software decoding, we get MQA 1x "unfolding" and up to 24/88.2 or 24/96.
> 
> With an MQA DAC doing hardware decoding, we would get 4x unfolding and up to 24/192.
> 
> ...


 
 There is No ReMastering from everything I have read. There seems to be some processing possibly simialar to a DSP as pointed out by jwbrent but it is another Way of packing or as Meridian says "Folding" Files Similar to ALAC or Flac. The End Result is Still a PCM output. There is no special MQA dac chip. According to this
  http://www.stereophile.com/content/meridian-explorer-usb-da-processorheadphone-amplifier#JV1p2Rbl6zeaqcU9.97
 The Explorer 2 which is MQA capable Uses a TI PCM5102 which looks to me to be a standard D/S DAC chip which decodes PCM. Which means MQA Unfolded in all its Glory is still a PCM File. Just like FLAC and ALAC. If The 1X Unpacking can be done VIA Software on Tidal, I see No reason why it cannot be unpacked entirely via Tidal. Cough Cough $$$. 
   
 Here is a Interesting and slightly Technical Read from Benchmark. Which States that the filter used introduces jitter which has been an issue known to degrade sound quality in Digital audio since forever and ever Ok well probably since the early 80's. And also States that You get no more that 17 Bits even if fully unpacked. So Slightly better than CD's at which 16 Bit. Everything else aside if this is in fact the case I personally do not see it as being better Technically than FLAC as it does not do the same to files.  
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa
  
 I am not opposed to new files types and tech but my opinion is those behind the Tech should be forthcoming about these things. I am all for better streaming quality with lower bandwidth as many people listen to music like in that fashion. And that is probably the biggest strength to MQA.  Unless I missed it,( please post if you have some) Outside of the people saying It sounds better or it sounds worst there does not seem to be any hard evide which concur with the claims. I Gave the Tidal Masters a run (using theTidal Based Decoding) and compared To the Flac (16/44.1) Tidal Hi fi Version and the MQA version. To my Ears the MQA file lacked dynamics compared to the others. It did not sound bad in fact sounded far better than Many MP3's but it was not an improvement over the Standard Red book resolution. The other thing I noticed right away was I found the sound stage closed in a bit. The Flac FIle and the Tidal Hifi sounded practically the same. I was Curious about what it sounded like with MQA enabled DAC but There was nothing there that made me want to experiment further with a MQA enabled DAC especially after reading the benchmark piece on the topic.


----------



## ThomasHK

bigro said:


> There is No ReMastering from everything I have read. There seems to be some processing possibly simialar to a DSP as pointed out by jwbrent but it is another Way of packing or as Meridian says "Folding" Files Similar to ALAC or Flac. The End Result is Still a PCM output. There is no special MQA dac chip. According to this
> http://www.stereophile.com/content/meridian-explorer-usb-da-processorheadphone-amplifier#JV1p2Rbl6zeaqcU9.97
> The Explorer 2 which is MQA capable Uses a TI PCM5102 which looks to me to be a standard D/S DAC chip which decodes PCM. Which means MQA Unfolded in all its Glory is still a PCM File. Just like FLAC and ALAC. If The 1X Unpacking can be done VIA Software on Tidal, I see No reason why it cannot be unpacked entirely via Tidal. Cough Cough $$$.
> 
> ...




That Benchmark blog post is awesome. Full agree with all of it. As long as the claim that pre-ringing (or time smearing as the Meridians call it) is bad is not proven, this whole MQA story is very fluffy.


----------



## bigro

yamantaka said:


> Here is a very recent practical explanation of MQA, including a few graphs, by Chris Connaker of Computer Audiophile:
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/748-mqa-civilians/


 
 Ha Graphs. I was very Excited but there is no Specifics of the source of these graphs. HMMM


----------



## Left Channel

> Originally Posted by *bigro* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> There is No ReMastering from everything I have read.
> 
> <snip>


 
  
 All good points. I don't know how experts define remastering, but The Bob claims that in the first phase they are starting with original tapes, researching the original equipment, and working with the original engineers and artists. That's all good. However, his long-term goal is to put _everything _into MQA regardless of source quality, and "break the back" of the resistance. That's where it becomes completely smoke-and-mirrors for me, but I'm not sure the first phase is entirely above-board either.

 The source of hi-res music is often not specified, so it can be very hard to do any real listening comparison. MQA doubles down on that kind of obfuscation. The first "Tidal Masters" I stumbled upon included the "Steve Wilson Mix & Master" of Jethro Tull's _Aqualung_. Sure, it sounds better than the "Tidal HiFi" version of _Aqualung_, but so what? Is the difference I'm hearing MQA? How would I know? Why doesn't Meridian or MQA or whoever offer 1-to-1 comparisons of the same source? Like maybe _Jazz at the Pawnshop_ in MQA and FLAC, at the same native resolution from the same original tapes. Or is it to be "Don't look at the man behind the curtain!!!"? This is getting very frustrating, Toto. Sometimes I wish my feet weren't too big for the ruby slippers. 

 In another thread Jason Stoddard of Schiit Audio pointed us to some actual analysis on the following site, where I found objective measurements and discussions of both Tidal/software decoding and Mytek/hardware decoding. It's worth a look:
 * COMPARISON: TIDAL / MQA stream & high-resolution downloads; impressions & thoughts... | Archimago's Musings
 * COMPARISON: Hardware-Decoded MQA (using Mytek Brooklyn DAC) | Archimago's Musings


----------



## rmoody

Woo Hoo! DRM! All right! Licensing fees! Heck yeah! I can't wait!
  
 Ok, sarcasm off now.
  
 Yawn. If it's got DRM and/or not open source, kiss my shinny metal ...
  
 Just. Not. Interested.
  
 The only thing this advances is the pocketbooks of the MQA people. Period. End of discussion. The sooner it dies the better. At least SACD had increased sound quality. This? Just has increased cost and layers of DRM.


----------



## pkcpga

rmoody said:


> Woo Hoo! DRM! All right! Licensing fees! Heck yeah! I can't wait!
> 
> Ok, sarcasm off now.
> 
> ...




If you want technology to advance in sound quality than someone has to pay for the research and work. Open source is a nice concept but it doesn't pay the bills or promote drive.


----------



## canthearyou

What a bunch of negative Nancy's! If you don't like it or understand it, that's ok. Just move along and let others enjoy it.


----------



## Left Channel

I'm trying to keep an open mind, and am mostly just frustrated with the way Tidal is rolling this out. I just found a review in which the author says he was given matching MQA and original FLAC files to compare. This is impossible to figure out on Tidal alone, and though in some cases I can find matching non-MQA downloads on HDtracks, I don't have an MQA DAC so that still wouldn't be a true comparison. Maybe I'll get a chance to do a real A/B comparison at a store or a meet.


----------



## drez

So MQA has licencing?  
  
 Frankly I'm not convinced with the information about why full decoding is not possible with software.  If they are compensating for DAC digital filters surely there would be a way around this?
  
 Secondly storage is cheap.  Frankly I would rather deal with 786kHz file sizes than have to purchase a whole new digital chain, or pay premium for MQA hardware.
  
 Thirdly this is going to divide the high-res community into those with MQA and those without.  The proprietary nature will add cost and restrict full performance to more costly products and unfairly disadvantage smaller manufacturers and low cost products.
  
 Lastly I could imagine this being an existential threat to existing high-res formats and distribution.
  
 End rant sequence.


----------



## lantian

drez said:


> So MQA has licencing?
> 
> Frankly I'm not convinced with the information about why full decoding is not possible with software.  If they are compensating for DAC digital filters surely there would be a way around this?
> 
> ...


 

 For full decoding one has to pay meredian the licensing fees so they add support for your dac, atleast that is what they are saying, yes there is nothing special about it that would prevent existing hardware from using it. Only thing stopping it is money,  it can also be done in software, but again it's all about money they are greedy after all...


----------



## bigro

left channel said:


> All good points. I don't know how experts define remastering, but The Bob claims that in the first phase they are starting with original tapes, researching the original equipment, and working with the original engineers and artists. That's all good. However, his long-term goal is to put _everything _into MQA regardless of source quality, and "break the back" of the resistance. That's where it becomes completely smoke-and-mirrors for me, but I'm not sure the first phase is entirely above-board either.
> 
> The source of hi-res music is often not specified, so it can be very hard to do any real listening comparison. MQA doubles down on that kind of obfuscation. The first "Tidal Masters" I stumbled upon included the "Steve Wilson Mix & Master" of Jethro Tull's _Aqualung_. Sure, it sounds better than the "Tidal HiFi" version of _Aqualung_, but so what? Is the difference I'm hearing MQA? How would I know? Why doesn't Meridian or MQA or whoever offer 1-to-1 comparisons of the same source? Like maybe _Jazz at the Pawnshop_ in MQA and FLAC, at the same native resolution from the same original tapes. Or is it to be "Don't look at the man behind the curtain!!!"? This is getting very frustrating, Toto. Sometimes I wish my feet weren't too big for the ruby slippers.
> 
> ...


 

 Thank you. That was as one of the More informative articles on MQA I have seen beside the, Its sooo Much better. I am not sure if this was posted here, it was on other threads. It has little to do with Sound quality but goes into what the possible model behind MQA is.
https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music
  
  
  
  
 Quote:


canthearyou said:


> What a bunch of negative Nancy's! If you don't like it or understand it, that's ok. Just move along and let others enjoy it.


 
 Negative??? Yeah a Little. There is a lot of confusion about what MQA is and If meridian and MQA Chooses to leave everything so Ambiguous it leaves us to question their claims. At the end of the Day if it is your cup of tea and it sounds good to you that's all that matters, Enjoy. Im sure you know that This is a Hobby where people can be very OCD about every little detail from the alignment of the electrons in their power cables to the specific mine the Gold came from that plated their connectors. Smoke and Mirrors does not fly for many.


----------



## pkcpga

lantian said:


> For full decoding one has to pay meredian the licensing fees so they add support for your dac, atleast that is what they are saying, yes there is nothing special about it that would prevent existing hardware from using it. Only thing stopping it is money,  it can also be done in software, but again it's all about money they are greedy after all...




What I don't understand is if you work, you get paid, so why is it greedy for a new format and remasters, that obliviously took some time and work, to charge people for the ability to use it. Why don't you go to work and than not get paid?


----------



## lantian

We can buy the new music but why do we also have to buy new equipment for it when there is nothing on a hardware level that prevents it from working on any modern dac. I will gladly pay for better quality music, but not for equipment.


----------



## canthearyou

There is no need to buy additional equipment. I *believe* the improvement "most" are hearing is due to the "remastering" of the album, not the higher bit rate. If you want extra fancy glowing blue lights or big numbers on your DAC display, have at it.


----------



## all999

canthearyou said:


> There is no need to buy additional equipment. I *believe* the improvement "most" are hearing is due to the "remastering" of the album, not the higher bit rate. If you want extra fancy glowing blue lights or big numbers on your DAC display, have at it.




I don't think the mastering is different from "regular" release.


----------



## canthearyou

all999 said:


> I don't think the mastering is different from "regular" release.




Isn't that what I read multiple times?


----------



## ThurstonX

canthearyou said:


> Isn't that what I read multiple times?


 
  
 Sure, but what are the sources?  It's all speculation.  No offense to anyone, but I'd like to hear a plain and simple answer to that question from the horse's mouth (reckon that'd be Bob).  If anyone has a link to a quote from him answering that question, please do post.


----------



## pkcpga

lantian said:


> We can buy the new music but why do we also have to buy new equipment for it when there is nothing on a hardware level that prevents it from working on any modern dac. I will gladly pay for better quality music, but not for equipment.




I guess only time will tell if it becomes popular, than manufacturers will have to pay for the decoding. They'll always be companies that are first adapters and than mass adapters when it becomes more popular and non adapters like schiit. So it depends where you fall in the chain as well, I like being a first adapter, if I like the product and I don't mind if it's gone in a few years like dvda or sacd. I enjoyed the musical edge while it lasted until the next thing hit. I understand others are nonapadters and wait for things to go mainstream and that's their choice but I don't understand why nonadapters feel the need to state anything new is worthless.


----------



## rmoody

pkcpga said:


> If you want technology to advance in sound quality than someone has to pay for the research and work. Open source is a nice concept but it doesn't pay the bills or promote drive.



 


Received notification of your response on Thunderbird, replied in Firefox on Ubuntu Linux which came through my firewall running IPFire which runs Linux, music playing in the background from files encoded with FLAC, ripped with CDEX stored on my FreeNAS file server running FreeBSD played via Plex. Most of these can have support purchased, yet free from DRM and licensing fees.


----------



## Trerit

canthearyou said:


> Isn't that what I read multiple times?



Just grab a listen to the album Coltrane's sound. Non MQA and MQA version on tidal. Volume difference is huuge! Screams remaster


----------



## manpowre

I see the Madonna album Like a Virgin that was recorded and digitized in 14/44 is on Tidal Masters ! doesnt MQA guarantee a remaster of the original recording ?


----------



## OldRoadToad

pkcpga said:


> What I don't understand is if you work, you get paid, so why is it greedy for a new format and remasters, that obliviously took some time and work, to charge people for the ability to use it. Why don't you go to work and than not get paid?


 

 ​So I can force some one to pay me for work that they did not ask for me to do?  That is MQA's desire.  That every thing be MQA.  How about I come over and move your stuff around and then tell you to pay me for that work.  It does not matter that you never asked for it to be done nor did you even want it done by any one including your self.  I did the work so pay up.
  
 FTN.
  
 ORT


----------



## manpowre

pkcpga said:


> What I don't understand is if you work, you get paid, so why is it greedy for a new format and remasters, that obliviously took some time and work, to charge people for the ability to use it. Why don't you go to work and than not get paid?


 
  
 Every kind of work is expected to be able to VERIFY the quality of the specific type of work. With MQA not delivering encoders to the mass market, only to those who sign a contract with them, there is no way for the mass market to VERIFY their statements if their format is better than the established high res standards in the market ! Escpecially since their product is a compression algorithm. I dont have a problem with the cash grab, but I do have a problem with MQA group NOT giving us an opportunity to consider same remastering on their compressed format 24/96 vs uncompressed format eg. flac or another type. Problem is that we dont know if we are listening to a new remastered product or a converted version from an old remaster. Sometimes in Tidal it says when its remastered. But take Madonna album Like a Virgin. Nothing is stated when its remastered or even remastered. It was digitized 33 years ago in 14/44. If you throw it through a FFT spectrum, you can see a clear cut at 22 khz to a noise floor, thats added to fill in the gaps from the original recording. Blue light my ass on that specific recording ! and they get extra money from doing this ******** !
  
 I am starting to wonder if they DONT want us audiophiles to start measure their encoded files to find the flaws, especially when it comes to 24/192 HW decoding.


----------



## Left Channel

manpowre said:


> I see the Madonna album Like a Virgin that was recorded and digitized in 14/44 is on Tidal Masters! Doesn't MQA guarantee a remaster of the original recording ?


 
  
"According to *discussions here*, _Like A Virgin_ was a multi-track 16/44 recording mixed to _*14*/44_; so resolution-wise, it's not even of CD quality to begin with." ---Archimago's Musings (Comparison of Tidal/MQA stream and high-resolution downloads)


----------



## pkcpga

oldroadtoad said:


> ​So I can force some one to pay me for work that they did not ask for me to do?  That is MQA's desire.  That every thing be MQA.  How about I come over and move your stuff around and then tell you to pay me for that work.  It does not matter that you never asked for it to be done nor did you even want it done by any one including your self.  I did the work so pay up.
> 
> FTN.
> 
> ORT




No one forced people to buy records, tapes, cd's, sacd, dvda, MP3, dsd or any other format, people purchased them because they wanted to and formats changed.


----------



## OldRoadToad

pkcpga said:


> No one forced people to buy records, tapes, cd's, sacd, dvda, MP3, dsd or any other format, people purchased them because they wanted to and formats changed.


 

 ​Surely you jest?
  
 Being forced to have MQA is just fine with you then?  MQA on every digital device and if they can figure out a way, on vinyl is fine and dandy with you?  That is  what we were talking about, not people buying different physical formats but rather having to buy MQA equipped devices when they don't give a hoot for it, do not want it and should not have it forced upon them by Meridian because Meridian says it is "superior" and will let them "hear the artist as they artist intended them to be heard".   Ad copy ad nausea. MQA is in this for the MONEY, not to make the audio world a better place. 
  
 To Hades with that and any that would force it upon us.  Ridiculous.  And I know you under stood what I was saying and yet you still replied as quoted above.  Do not pretend to be naïve as I have read enough of your posts to know you are far removed from being ignorant.   
  
 Meridian's MQA is the current Blue Pill of frAudio.  So-called Audio Journalists eat it up.  Just because a bunch of self-proclaimed frAuido sophists call it palatable does not make it so.  They are like flies and what do flies eat?
  
 Pretty much any thing fed to them.
  
  
 ORT


----------



## JeremyLaurenson

oldroadtoad said:


> Meridian's MQA is the current Blue Pill of frAudio.  So-called Audio Journalists eat it up.  Just because a bunch of self-proclaimed frAuido sophists call it palatable does not make it so.  They are like flies and what do flies eat?
> 
> Pretty much any thing fed to them.
> 
> ...




Have you heard MQA? Where did you get the tracks from? I would like to audition it on static, non-straemed files before making any observtions.


----------



## OldRoadToad

jeremylaurenson said:


> Have you heard MQA? Where did you get the tracks from? I would like to audition it on static, non-straemed files before making any observtions.


 

 ​Yes sirI have at T.H.E. last year.  I did so with out knowing what I was listening to from start to finish and in between and all with out knowing when or what was being switched/played et al.  No difference was detected but in the real world you will have to pay for that no difference.
  
 And that is the only difference that matters to Meridian and by that I mean they get paid.  What a bunch of crap.   Screw that.  I doubt any one could tell a difference unless they were told when the difference was being presented.  frAudiophiles like to feeeeeel they are superior "listeners".   Once the little blue light (or what ever colour they choose for the MQA indicator) goes on, frAudiophiles crème their genes.  Yeah...a play on words because of  them are sad little nerdlings living an imitation of life.  Most.  Not all, just most.   
  
 As if any one with a modicum of intelligence is going to believe/trust some one that listens to cables and the like and claims to hear a difference.  Any one that makes such claims is doing so based upon a belief not scientific proof.  All that and I suspect more than a few of these nerdlings despise people that have a faith in any God because the nerdlings can not see him. 
  
 It is the Emperor's New Clothes, repackaged for audio...errrrrr...frAudio.
  
 ORT


----------



## jude

oldroadtoad said:


> Yes sirI have at T.H.E. last year.  I did so with out knowing what I was listening to from start to finish and in between and all with out knowing when or what was being switched/played et al.  No difference was detected but in the real world you will have to pay for that no difference.
> 
> And that is the only difference that matters to Meridian and by that I mean they get paid.  What a bunch of crap.   Screw that.  I doubt any one could tell a difference unless they were told when the difference was being presented.  frAudiophiles like to feeeeeel they are superior "listeners".   Once the little blue light (or what ever colour they choose for the MQA indicator) goes on, frAudiophiles crème their genes.  Yeah...a play on words because of  them are sad little nerdlings living an imitation of life.  Most.  Not all, just most.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I guess I don't understand your beef, ORT. There's nothing you have to pay for because of MQA if you don't want to pay for it.
  
 If you buy/download music that happens to be MQA-encoded--and I say _"happens to be"_ because I can't imagine you (given your position) would be buying it _because_ it's MQA-encoded--it's still going to work with whatever DAC or player you've got, and will play back at CD quality.
  
 If you subscribe to TIDAL--but not TIDAL Hi-Fi--then it's still going to work the same as it has before.
  
 If you subscribe to TIDAL Hi-Fi, then it's also going to work as it did before, only your DAC (if you allow TIDAL to software-decode) might see hi-res files when playing MQA-encoded files (I say _"might see"_ as it depends on the file, which could pass as anything from 44.1 to 96kHz with MQA software-decode).
  
 I suspect that maybe there's a misunderstanding here, so, just to be clear: MQA-encoded files do not require an MQA decoder/renderer to play back at CD quality.


----------



## OldRoadToad

jude said:


> I guess I don't understand your beef, ORT. There's nothing you have to pay for because of MQA if you don't want to pay for it.
> 
> If you buy/download music that happens to be MQA-encoded--and I say _"happens to be"_ because I can't imagine you (given your position) would be buying it _because_ it's MQA-encoded--it's still going to work with whatever DAC or player you've got, and will play back at CD quality.
> 
> ...


 

 ​If it is encoded into a CD I buy and the manufacturer/record company had to license this dross, I had to pay for some thing I will NEVER use.  I do not enjoy being made to pay for some thing that again, I will NEVER use.  I consider it a principal, not a beef.  For example,  I do not force my beliefs upon others, especially by making them pay for them even if they do not believe in them.
  
 Meridian wants this to happen.  They want money in the form of licensing, etc. for a service/software/ripoff that we never asked for and they seek to get it in what ever method they can employ.    Animal Farm.  No thank you!
  
 Thanks!
  
 ORT


----------



## doggiemom

oldroadtoad said:


> Meridian wants this to happen.  They want money in the form of licensing, etc. for a service/software/ripoff that we never asked for and they seek to get it in what ever method they can employ.    Animal Farm.  No thank you!
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> ORT


 
 Like it or not, music is a business, and the R&D that goes into developing and testing compression formats is not cheap.  How Music Got Free is an excellent history of the mp3, and offers some interesting insights about the business aspects (licensing, etc.) that are relevant to the MQA discussion.


----------



## TadMorose

jeremylaurenson said:


> Have you heard MQA? Where did you get the tracks from? I would like to audition it on static, non-straemed files before making any observtions.


 
  
 You can download samples in MQA from 2L's High Res Test Bench, which also offers the same music in other formats and resolutions for comparison:

 http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html?

 However, you need an MQA capable DAC to be able to take full advantage of the MQA files.


----------



## ThomasHK

trerit said:


> Just grab a listen to the album Coltrane's sound. Non MQA and MQA version on tidal. Volume difference is huuge! Screams remaster


 
 Good example. Did you find any others?


----------



## m0rancharles

This is HUGE for bringing the concept of Hi-Fi to the masses... and with it to cheaper and more available equipment...
  
 BUT. MQA is more frequency while sacrificing bit depth... soooo its cool for on the go, but seeing as I already doubt they're going to actually re master all those old vinyls (IMHO the only music I could give a hoot about in Hi-Res), I'm going to stick with a solid 16/44.1 vs a possible 13-15/(upsampled)192.
  
 I don't see many people on here sacrificing that kind of quality, when Tidal already offers 16/44.1 (although I think they often do a poor conversion as it is)... could be wrong, and don't wanna ruffle any feathers here, to each his own, but I tried MQA and got tired of it pretty quick..


----------



## JeremyLaurenson

tadmorose said:


> You can download samples in MQA from 2L's High Res Test Bench, which also offers the same music in other formats and resolutions for comparison:
> 
> http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html?
> 
> However, you need an MQA capable DAC to be able to take full advantage of the MQA files.


 

 Yup - got an Onkyo DP-X1 - its a DAP, not DAC do I can only test files.


----------



## canthearyou

I hear an improvement when I listen to Masters tracks on Tidal. I'm already paying for Tidal. Not much I can bitch about I guess.


----------



## JeremyLaurenson

oldroadtoad said:


> ​If it is encoded into a CD I buy and the manufacturer/record company had to license this dross, I had to pay for some thing I will NEVER use.  I do not enjoy being made to pay for some thing that again, I will NEVER use.  I consider it a principal, not a beef.  For example,  I do not force my beliefs upon others, especially by making them pay for them even if they do not believe in them.
> 
> Meridian wants this to happen.  They want money in the form of licensing, etc. for a service/software/ripoff that we never asked for and they seek to get it in what ever method they can employ.    Animal Farm.  No thank you!
> 
> ...


 

 Ill bet nobody wanted casettes or CDs either, especially since they had to switch players.... and Casettes were NOT s step up in quality.
  
 I don't see a single album for sale yet using MQA, so I'm not sure your cost concerns are in any way founded yet.
  
 Once its mainstream it makes no sense to produce both MQA and "Regular", and I suspect consumers will not be ok with any added cost (for which the alternate is free)
  
  
 I think the rub is that right now the labels have to put work into several formats, which costs money and time, or prevents some music from being released in "hires" formats.
 If this format is good enough with removed bits for the average consumer AND successfully unfolds to something we are more happy with you're likely to see more "higher res" music produced in the first place. I expect "higher res" and much lower prices. This, I am happy with.
  
 I suspect the single workflow vs multiple will negate any crazy cost implications you're expecting... or people just won't buy it and continue to stream ****ty music.
  
 This line may be an epic fail in hindsight, but: I would think the folks signing up with MQA are being very careful not to get bitten, either directly or indirectly via upset consumers. They've seen plenty of these horror movies before. I don't expect a big jump in prices, I expect more to be released, and I expect that this entire thing is about allowing them to exert control of the outlets (ala Tidal etc) this time around


----------



## noplsestar

What I don't understand: some of you were writing about remastered albums. Can you please tell me how that should work without "really" remastering it? Let's say Bob Ludwig has mastered an album a few years ago, let's say "morning phase" from "beck". And I purchased the album in 24/96. and let's say this year tidal (or another company) says: now you can download or stream it in MQA quality. What does that mean? Was it "remastered"? But by whom? By Bob Ludwig? I guess not!! So who would do it then? Or does this "remastered" only mean, that the original master tapes of Bob Ludwig were freshely converted into digital data? I think we should be more careful if we talk about remastered tapes. Because mastering an album is adding a typical sound to the mixed album. It's not just a button that says "mastering" and everything is ready. I also don't think Beck would authorize anything that alteres the sound. He had something in mind when asking Mr. Ludwig to master his album. So can anyone please tell me what MQA remastering is meant to be in difference to the "real" mastering?


----------



## bigro

noplsestar said:


> What I don't understand: some of you were writing about remastered albums. Can you please tell me how that should work without "really" remastering it? Let's say Bob Ludwig has mastered an album a few years ago, let's say "morning phase" from "beck". And I purchased the album in 24/96. and let's say this year tidal (or another company) says: now you can download or stream it in MQA quality. What does that mean? Was it "remastered"? But by whom? By Bob Ludwig? I guess not!! So who would do it then? Or does this "remastered" only mean, that the original master tapes of Bob Ludwig were freshely converted into digital data? I think we should be more careful if we talk about remastered tapes. Because mastering an album is adding a typical sound to the mixed album. It's not just a button that says "mastering" and everything is ready. I also don't think Beck would authorize anything that alteres the sound. He had something in mind when asking Mr. Ludwig to master his album. So can anyone please tell me what MQA remastering is meant to be in difference to the "real" mastering?


 

 Good question. I suspect its all software, Running it through a some sort of DSP is not "remastering"


----------



## noplsestar

bigro said:


> Good question. I suspect its all software, Running it through a some sort of DSP is not "remastering"




Exactly! So as I see it the MQA procedure more resembles something like "mastered for iTunes" which also doesn't mean, that the album was remastered but the original master file was only computed in a specific manner. So I guess if Beck's album will be available in MQA, it means nothing else than that: Bob Ludwig's mastering file is being processed or rendered or you name it for MQA. And that means that the quality if the product I'm buying (in comparison to the "old" 24/96 file) could be "better" indeed BUT it means Beck's Album was NOT remastered. So I guess there should be a new wording for that procedure so that we don't mess around with our imprecise labeling, because if we would continue to call it "remastering" we would insult all the engineers that are really mastering or remastering old tapes (such as the remastered Beatles albums etc. which was a "real" remastering by the people involved in the original recordings etc.)


----------



## RichardTownsend

Hi ORT,

I think MQA are genuinely motivated by improving audio. Bob Stuart has achieved his financial success with Meridian. He would now like to change the audio landscape, I think.

Vinyl has survived 30 years of digital audio. If there's demand for non MQA material, then that will survive too. As bandwidths increase over the next years, standard PCM will be economic to stream everywhere and if people want it, that will happen.

I think streaming will become the norm and those that stream are to some extent protected against changes to formats. I've been signed up to Tidal now for a couple of months and I don't envisage buying much if any material in future. There's no extra cost in getting MQA for me. 

The MQA license fees are low and give record companies the ability to reduce the number of formats they produce because a single MQA file can be decoded differently depending on the maximum resolution of the player. That reduces production costs. I don't know how the two stack up against each other but I suspect this is one reason MQA is attractive to record companies, along with authentication of the approved master and allowing them to keep their actual masters to themselves.

My own listening tests indicate that I can't reliably tell the difference between MQA and standard 24/96 versions of the same material, so I'm personally happy there doesn't seem to be a penalty. Plus where I am I'm currently limited to 100GB per month, so I'm very happy I can stream 24/96 quality material at 24/48 bandwidths. 

Best,

Rich


----------



## L8MDL

You're dreaming if you believe Tidal will not raise prices when their MQA demo mode runs out.


----------



## RichardTownsend

I think there are different ways in which audio is 'remastered' for MQA.

Analog masters for which there is no hires digital master would have to go through a new A to D involving MQA processing.

Hi res digital masters would have to go through an MQA encoding process. This can be done by taking into account the characteristics of the original digital encoder, if known.

In the studio, the mastering engineer can optimise each type of output that MQA can deliver. What this optimising involves I don't know, unfortunately, beyond shaping the noise profile. 

Neither of these would count as traditional remastering. I doubt that traditional remastering is done that often in encoding MQA as this is a significant undertaking and would likely involve going back to a multitrack master.

I'm not a professional mastering engineer so don't treat this as gospel.


----------



## RichardTownsend

L8MDL,

Evidence?


----------



## mirekti

For those who still don't get this right this video should be able to get you to the point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_wxRGiBoJg
 PS There is also part 2.


----------



## erich6

richardtownsend said:


> I think there are different ways in which audio is 'remastered' for MQA.
> 
> Analog masters for which there is no hires digital master would have to go through a new A to D involving MQA processing.
> 
> ...


 

 ​This is consistent with what I've read.  My understanding is most MQA releases so far are going back to an existing master and going through the encoding process.  It's only "remastered" if the studio mix they are going to is a remaster from a previous release (for example, Steven Wilsons' remasters of Jethro Tull albums). 
  
 MQA is also supposed to provide standards for analog-digital conversion equipment so studios could go back to original analog recordings and make a new master specifically for MQA release.  This isn't a new concept...Steven Wilson went back to original analog recordings for his remasters of Yes albums.  That said, I don't think this has happened for MQA yet.


----------



## erich6

oldroadtoad said:


> ​If it is encoded into a CD I buy and the manufacturer/record company had to license this dross, I had to pay for some thing I will NEVER use.  I do not enjoy being made to pay for some thing that again, I will NEVER use.  I consider it a principal, not a beef.  For example,  I do not force my beliefs upon others, especially by making them pay for them even if they do not believe in them.
> 
> Meridian wants this to happen.  They want money in the form of licensing, etc. for a service/software/ripoff that we never asked for and they seek to get it in what ever method they can employ.    Animal Farm.  No thank you!
> 
> ...


 
  
 You have a valid point if MQA becomes ubiquitous and you have no choice but to pay for music that was encoded with it.  I seriously doubt that will happen, but if it does, it will be no different than the fact most music is released through studios and distributors--nobody consciously wants to pay for that (the ideal is getting the music directly from the artist) but in the end the industry exists because there are benefits to scale and production you get from studios.  Maybe in the future with more technology diffusion independent artists will finally disrupt the industry and get to your ideal of getting music directly from them.
  
 Please understand that your view, while admirably idealistic, requires a wholesale change to the music industry...a revolt indeed. Unfortunately, until the alternative model you seek shows it's better value, or the current one shows itself to be horribly overpriced, I don't think it will happen.


----------



## erich6

jeremylaurenson said:


> I think the rub is that right now the labels have to put work into several formats, which costs money and time, or prevents some music from being released in "hires" formats.
> If this format is good enough with removed bits for the average consumer AND successfully unfolds to something we are more happy with you're likely to see more "higher res" music produced in the first place. I expect "higher res" and much lower prices. This, I am happy with.
> 
> I suspect the single workflow vs multiple will negate any crazy cost implications you're expecting... or people just won't buy it and continue to stream ****ty music.
> ...


 

 ​You make some very interesting points here...I hadn't thought about how MQA might simplify the overall cost of production by having a single scheme to publish music across various formats and distribution channels.  Maybe wishful thinking, but if it pans out, then the cost of MQA will never be something consumers will have to shoulder with the exception of buying an MQA DAC if they really want one (with software decoding this is truly a "luxury" and not a "need" in my opinion).


----------



## erich6

thurstonx said:


> Sure, but what are the sources?  It's all speculation.  No offense to anyone, but I'd like to hear a plain and simple answer to that question from the horse's mouth (reckon that'd be Bob).  If anyone has a link to a quote from him answering that question, please do post.


 

 Go to this link:
  
 See the following Q&A (among others): http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/694-comprehensive-q-mqa-s-bob-stuart/
  


> *Q16*. My understanding is MQA is supposed to be "end to end", therefore:
> Will there be separate analogue and digital masters? In other words, with many analogue (vinyl)
> recordings starting off as digital masters what will be the extent of MQA in the analogue signal chain?
> My understanding of the MQA process is that when the files are encoded, corrections are made for "damage" done by the original ADC.
> ...


 
  
 Also, check their website for professionals which has other descriptions of the mastering/distribution process: http://www.mqa.co.uk/professional/for-content-producers


----------



## L8MDL

richardtownsend said:


> L8MDL,
> 
> Evidence?




You didn't get Tidal HiFi for free, you won't get Tidal MQA free either. They're not going to absorb the added licensing costs when they are already losing millions every year. Time will prove me right. Bookmark this post and come back to it in 6 months. I would be happy to eat my words.


----------



## chaturanga

l8mdl said:


> You didn't get Tidal HiFi for free, you won't get Tidal MQA free either. They're not going to absorb the added licensing costs when they are already losing millions every year. Time will prove me right. Bookmark this post and come back to it in 6 months. I would be happy to eat my words.


 
  
 If Tidal asks a few more bucks for Master quality, why is that becoming so much problem?
  
 When compared HI-FI versions vs MQAs, if sound quality is noticable for someone, those people can pay few more bucks to Tidal Masters. If not they will not pay. No one forcing you to pay Masters more, if you don't like you will not pay.
  
 Sorry but, if music lovers will not support high quality services so they will have only Spotify quality in the hands. I like Tidal's effort, they care about sound quality. Are they successful or not? This is another issue. MQA is necessary or not? This is another issue, the point is that at least Tidal is trying something to increase sound quality in streaming technology limits. Such efforts should be supported.


----------



## raypin

Mm...Tidal masters is the only game in town. It is the only streaming service that exists today to serve the need/want for 24-bìt music streaming. On that score alone, MQA/Tidal Masters is worth supporting. For critics, can you offer or cite a better alternative??? Open source/non-DRM sounds fine.....on paper but absent any practical and viable service, it is a non-starter.


----------



## shamu144

Indeed ! And it is exciting to think that more streaming services will eventually follow. While I partially understand critics from a pure "maths" point of view (MQA is not true 24 bits, it is lossy), I do believe this new clever format has the ability to significantly raise the bar of music production and delivery for us to enjoy it !
  
 I would like to share again this graph from the interview of Bob Stuart with Chris Connaker on CA:
  

  
 What I see with this new MQA format is the convergence of a high quality format together with true convenience for end consumers. This was not the case at all with DSD/SACD despite the promises of sonic improvements.
  
 From my limited experience with digital filters settings through Audrivana over the last 4 years, I have come to believe strongly in the impact of this "de-blurring" effect in digital audio reproduction. It has made a noticeable difference in my system (be it with the Audio-gd Ref 7.1 or the NFB-28) which only treated the DAC part of it. Music flows better, more natural and relaxed. Now it is so exciting to see that "de-blurring" can also be applied to the recording itself before playback. I would assume Meridian uses some kind of "apodising" filters for this. I now really look forward to the release of the Audrivana 3.0 software and Dragonfly firmware updates to have the opportunity to listen a fully unfolded "origami" MQA album. I have also started a Tidal account to enjoy those MQA albums available today. I bet much more will follow. I am no visionary, but this time, we might as well be witnessing the birth of a true revolution in the digital audio industry. A deep thank you to all those who contributed to this !


----------



## shamu144

On a side note, I would imagine that through MQA enabled softwares like Audirvana, you can still decode the MQA file and do the first unfold to 88khz/96khz, while you can also apply further software upsampling to this signal up to 384khz with an appropriate digital filter setting (Audirvana let you play with this). While maybe not 100% of the full MQA sound as intended by Meridian, you could get pretty close without the need for a MQA approved DAC. This widens considerably the possibility to experience the best of digital audio.
 At least, that is what I plan to do, because I have no intention to purchase a new DAC for this !


----------



## bigro

Raypin and L8MDL. I agree That we need to support the movement for better quality audio. I was a Subscriber to Tidal Before Jay-z bought it and plastered it with friends and family and meaningless videos. I continue to fork over cash because I find the quality of streaming close to CD or flac and you are right there is no one else in the game at least in the US that offers anything close. The MQA Licensing Model is end to end so I woudl not say it will be out of the question that price increases are possible. We will see.
  
 The two main Selling points of MQA are the compression or origami and the deblurring, my thoughts.
  
 The Bandwidth Issue with the exception of streaming on phones is becoming a non issue for the most part so the Origami function is neat but may be mitigated in the near future as we streaming 4k Movies are a reality, a 24/192 file with be cake in the near future. I think it has merit in its function on its own however it has been pointed out that MQA is actually lossy compared to a 24/192 file so it is not actually what the mastering engineers Final Copy would have been. If they would not market it as such, I think the concept initself is not a terrible one.
  
 On the Deblurring algorithm. Some Reading on Delta Sigma DAC Chips and Sigma Delta ADC's  show they are probably the Source of the "Blurring" as Companies went to the Cheap easier to manufacture chips that in fact do not keep their instead of the more expensive Multi Bit chips that are known to be better for audio production and Playback. Maybe the Folks at Meridian, if they were so concerned about the quality of recordings should start building better ADC's for Studios to use so that analog to digital conversion is a better quality to begin with.
  
  
 This explains it in good detail the differences between both. I do not understand everything here admittedly, but outside of the trying to decode the measurements their findings and conclusions are not hard to decipher
  
http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Lib/SACD.pdf
  
_"ABSTRACT_
_Single-stage, 1-bit sigma-delta converters are in principle imperfectible. We prove this fact. The reason, simply_
_stated, is that, when properly dithered, they are in constant overload. Prevention of overload allows only partial_
_dithering to be performed. The consequence is that distortion, limit cycles, instability, and noise modulation can_
_never be totally avoided. We demonstrate these effects, and using coherent averaging techniques, are able to display_
_the consequent profusion of nonlinear artefacts which are usually hidden in the noise floor. Recording, editing,_
_storage, or conversion systems using single-stage, 1-bit sigma-delta modulators, are thus inimical to audio of the_
_highest quality. In contrast, multi-bit sigma-delta converters, which output linear PCM code, are in principle_
_infinitely perfectible. (Here, multi-bit refers to at least two bits in the converter.) They can be properly dithered so_
_as to guarantee the absence of all distortion, limit cycles, and noise modulation. The audio industry is misguided if_
_it adopts 1-bit sigma-delta conversion as the basis for any high-quality processing, archiving, or distribution format_
_to replace multi-bit, linear PCM"_


----------



## raypin

Mm...well 5G is the next wave and some Telcos are working on LTE that is faster than today's home fiber. When widespread adoption takes place, origami will be a thing of the past and we can all enjoy high def music without any of the existing limitations. So yes. I agree.


----------



## germay0653

raypin said:


> Mm...well 5G is the next wave and some Telcos are working on LTE that is faster than today's home fiber. When widespread adoption takes place, origami will be a thing of the past and we can all enjoy high def music without any of the existing limitations. So yes. I agree.


 

 The origami is just a means to efficiently distribute within current transport, bandwidth, constraints and will, indeed, disappear.  However, the correction of the artifacts, mainly timing related, introduced as part of the recording/playback process should remain.  Hopefully, a process to never introduce them in the first place would be ideal.


----------



## castleofargh

I think the full audio chain MQA control has already been scrapped and will at best become some niche stuff in a few years. why would the studios go through the trouble of changing their gears, restricting what they can do in mixing and mastering, just for a compression format because some dudes at Meridian said they subjectively preferred the band limiting filters they made? it makes very little sense IMO.
  
 plus think about all that already exists, there is no recording all that again just to fool around with a special sauce in the ADC which, as far as I know, isn't even proved to lead to better fidelity. I don't want to make crazy claims, but could it be possible that the entire recording industry didn't wait on Meridian to try a few options to band limit a recorded track? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  
 anyway, it's much more realistic to treat MQA as a compression format instead of some dubious theory that "it sounds better, it has sample electrolytes, it's what the plants crave!". or whatever marketing time smearing unproved concept they have(unproved that it's audible in music at those levels).  those who believe they need more samples and less bits for "better" subjective audio, can use MQA files and save some space compared to the same signal resolution(and not file resolution) of a wav equivalent. compared to flac, it will depend on the compression settings used for the flac. is it better to have higher compression flac or average flac setting+MQA decoding? from a file size perspective? from a CPU perspective? IDK. 
 can I upsample my file and still have it decoded at the MQA compatible DAC? IDK
 can I EQ and have the file decoded at the MQA compatible DAC? 100% no. the decoding would have to be done by the player before applying EQ or we'd end up with a file that doesn't even resolve it's container resolution(kind of sad for a compression format).  that's clearly why they started marketing this as a full pack wonders in the DAC, but very fast moved on to offering software decoding alternative. even without those problems, Tidal wasn't going to wait for consumers to buy a meridian DAC. it wouldn't have made any sense. so software decoding I believe will be the main existence for MQA.
  
 then we have MQA masters, which in the end will really be just masters, like any other masters they don't need DSD MQA highres or itune. stuff are remastered all the time(often for copyright reason and not for music but let's forget that depressing detail). associating new masters with a format is just a "feel good" trick for the format to look good by association. the only obvious result is that it makes it harder to get such masters in other formats if that's how we wished to have them.
  
 the last element of MQA is Meridian pushing for their apodizing filter. a few DAC manufacturers have already expressed how happy they are about having a satellite of Meridian demanding access to design information(go ask Shiit or Benchmark for some good old "I tell it like it is" talk).  but that doesn't really matter, because of course if the consumer starts believing he wants something(even for the wrong reasons), then manufacturers will start selling it. it's an economical logic, so who knows? those stuff might come if they're hyped enough for no reason.
 but to be perfectly clear, many DAC designers disagree with MQA/Meridian claims about an apodizing filter being the better choice. and those who are also into the time smearing paranoia(which always comes with a cost for the frequency domain, you don't play god reshaping time without impact on the other axis of a sine signal), all have all their own designs and filters to make pretty impulse responses too. here too, the industry didn't wait for Meridian to do whatever they felt they needed to do. any evidence that a MQA dac does better for fidelity than a mega combo burrito from shiit? than an anti time smearing thingy from Ayre? than the gazillion taps from Chord? etc.
 it's easy for Meridian to talk the talk, they even sponsored their own paper to agree with themselves on the audibility of low pass filters. but it's still just one brand making marketing claims that they know better. which is what everybody does.
  
  
 oh no sorry I forgot. the true last element of MQA is how they control the file and generate their own certificates. DRMs never die, just like Jason in Friday the 13Th.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 oh but it's not a DRM, it's an "authenticity certificate". you know like widows10 "we're not spying on you, we're collecting data". 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 what's not to like. and then there is the marketing. the half correct videos, the heavy insinuations about better subjective sound from variables at magnitudes that were never proved to be audible. the play with real values used out of context to try and make a point, like the  5 to 8µs delay that humans can detects, brought up as if those values were realistic with musical content. then the misguiding ideas to make people think that the delay between 2 samples is an expression of the resolution and the same sort of delay mentioned above(which it 100% isn't!!). 
 and then of course from time to time you can see stupid crap like that :


 labeled as :


> Notional sound quality vs sample rates


 
 "Notional", it could just the same read "I know a guy and he had an opinion on things".  I almost grow a third hand just so that I can facepalm in proportion to the pseudo science.
  
 but hey it's nothing new. Pono came up with the little birds and fishes on a resolution graph, and a video where they mistook file compression with dynamic compression... I should be used to that marketing crap by now.
 and just like it was with Pono, I expect mostly people who don't understand digital audio to become convinced that MQA is the best thing since sliced bread. subjectivists convinced by unproved objective arguments and sighted tests. that too is an old recipe.
  
 edit: angrish correction


----------



## germay0653

castleofargh said:


> I think the full audio chain MQA control has already been scrapped and will at best become some niche stuff in a few years. why would all the studios go through the trouble of changing their gears, restricting what they can do in mixing and mastering, just for a compression format because some dudes at Meridian said they subjectively preferred the band limiting filters they made? it makes very little sense IMO.
> 
> plus think about all that already exists, there is no recording all that again just to fool around with an special sauce in the ADC that, as far as I know, isn't even proved to lead to better fidelity. I don't want to make crazy claims, but could it be possible that the entire recording industry didn't wait on Meridian to try a few options for band limiting a recorded track?
> 
> ...


 

 I'll be the first to admit that I know little, scientifically, about digital audio but how about you try not insulting those of us who don't have your level of knowledge and respectfully educate us with the scientific proof that it's all marketing BS.  I'll gladly listen and learn!


----------



## tradyblix

To say that streams are only as good as cassette quality wise isn't right. Streams from tidal especially, the lossless ones, are quite good.


----------



## erich6

germay0653 said:


> I'll be the first to admit that I know little, scientifically, about digital audio but how about you try not insulting those of us who don't have your level of knowledge and respectfully educate us with the scientific proof that it's all marketing BS.  I'll gladly listen and learn!


 

 He was doing fine until the end when he posted this:
  


> and just like it was with Pono, I expect mostly people who don't understand digital audio to become convinced that MQA is the best thing since sliced bread. subjectivists convinced by unproved objective arguments and sighted tests. that too is an old recipe.


 
  
 The point he is making is there are a lot of technical details that when you dissect them you will find that there isn't a lot that's unique or revolutionary in the technology MQA is marketing.  Additionally, he is also suggesting that MQA's approach of "authenticating" is potentially another DRM-like scheme something the studios would appreciate.  The insinuation is that this is the way they got adopted by their content partners.  Finally, he suggests that coupling the rollout of the MQA encoding/format with the release of better masters is a way of masking the real benefits of MQA because you are more likely to perceive the benefits of the new masters instead of the technology and associate all the benefits to MQA.  Given the marketing hype, the slight-of-hand in the release, and the potential for conspiracy his point is you shouldn't trust MQA.
  
 I think he made valid points.  It's unfortunate when smart people put down others like he did.  Try looking past it and think critically about what he is saying.
  
 I for one like the fact that better masters are getting released and I can get them with less bandwidth than current high-resolution digital releases.  That is a good thing in my book and I'm willing to roll with it despite the reservations above for that reason.  I also give credit to Meridian for figuring out how to navigate a complex industry with powerful players and still deliver something of value to music lovers.


----------



## germay0653

I agree that he has very valid points. What I disagree with is, as you pointed out, how it was presented. 

I would love to see actual testing results especially related to the supposed de blurring. Is there a way to definitively prove we can't detect the miniscule timing differences identified or what effect the pre and post ringing have on the signal from digital reproduction as compared to the absence of them during a live presentation.

I like to keep an open mind until proven otherwise.


----------



## tradyblix

Regardless of all the hand wringing, accusations and other ideas going on in the thread, the fact of the matter is that if you use streaming services, Tidal's masters are some of the best sound quality you can get from streamed audio atm without having to **** around with players, files and all that other crap from the dinosaur age.


----------



## castleofargh

just to say sorry for torturing English so much in my last post(and probably this one too ^_^). I don't know if it's this week or if I just start to realize how bad I am, but something is off.
  
 Quote:


germay0653 said:


> I'll be the first to admit that I know little, scientifically, about digital audio but how about you try not insulting those of us who don't have your level of knowledge and respectfully educate us with the scientific proof that it's all marketing BS.  I'll gladly listen and learn!


 
 I don't think I'm insulting anybody. nobody is an expert on everything. I've been using computers since I'm 12, I'm 40 now but all I know is as a user, I can't make one, I can't code anything, I don't follow the PC master race and don't know what is TOTL or not. and TBH I'm not really interested in learning or I would have done so by now. I'm your average computer user who's ignorant about computers. it's a fact. and of course being ignorant about those stuff makes me way more gullible to unrealistic marketing. a guy with more knowledge would pick up on some half empty claims, or contradicting points about computer specs. I wouldn't.
 now try to sell me fake pringles and you'd see the all extent of my expertise. for some it's nerdy audio tech, for some it's cat figurines, we're going to be ignorant about something.
  
  for some products, the target will logically be people who don't know too much about the technology. take pono with a campaign showing a DAP used as a line out in a car vs low bit rate mp3, while making statements about providing the real sound like artist intended, there was from the start a certain need to be ignorant about a good deal, not to start laughing. often Neil Young became overwhelmed by his own topics on TV.  people, IMO, clearly were attracted by a philosophy of pono, not by component details and objective demonstrations. how could they, for all the campaign there was close to no actual information about the device or its objective fidelity. reason why I didn't back it, I spent 2 years waiting for output specs that never came. it was all about the idea of good sound instead of actual good sound.
 I feel that MQA is attracting the same people. some general idea of good sound like the artist intended, some confusing impulse response that looks like a clear and serious argument to people who don't know much about impulse responses, and off we go. but objectively, it's basically a file with more samples. like any other file with more samples. and the DAC is a DAC, it just reads one more format and may or may not apply a particular filter. not much to make a tech obsessed audiophile wet his pants. those who will come to MQA are, IMO, more likely to be those who once again are attracted by a philosophy of good sound, but don't necessarily get much else of the process. and I expect a good deal of people to be convinced of the format's "superiority" just because they enjoy some masters and mistake the master for the format. something a more objective, more techy person would wish to control with certainty before making any claim about how good the format is.


----------



## shamu144

I personnally welcome those discussions. We are stepping into the unknown, and it is no suprise that it comes with resistance. We can now start talking about the importance of digital filters and time response, which have had very little exposure in the audio enthusiats circles since the birth of digital audio I believe. Yes, every manufacturer has its own understanding of what should be the "best" filter which is why I guess some are strongly reluctant to adopt MQA in their DAC, and that's understandable. But all those discussions about who has the best implementation are pointless, and manufacturers should really take note of this. You can just get Audirvana (or other brilliant  software like HQPlayer, etc...) and start playing with digital filters settings, minimizing considerably the impact of the proprietary filters in your DACs. The "best" settings is simply the one that will sound best to your ears. No proprietary filters in DACs make any sense to me in the future of digital audio. Customizable filters is already a reality and appear to me much more attractive for end users.
  
 Where I do see great value for MQA is in introducing a new standards for the mastering process to achieve the best possible sound at the source as well. This could allow reliable consistency in music production, something that I believe is far from being true today. Meridian to me seems a very credible actor in the field to push for such a standard. Others are more than welcome to try. Also, the fact that MQA high res files can be packed into 24/48khz makes it terribly convenient for today's audio distribution infrastructures. I sincerely hope they will succeed.


----------



## bigro

tradyblix said:


> Regardless of all the hand wringing, accusations and other ideas going on in the thread, the fact of the matter is that if you use streaming services, Tidal's masters are some of the best sound quality you can get from streamed audio atm without having to **** around with players, files and all that other crap from the dinosaur age.


 
 Not really, inside all of that foldy file stuff the output that goes to the DAC chip is still PCM. Like all the other "crap from the dinosaur age".


----------



## germay0653

castleofargh said:


> I don't think I'm insulting anybody. nobody is an expert on everything. I've been using computers since I'm 12, I'm 40 now but all I know is as a user, I can't make one, I can't code anything, I don't follow the PC master race and don't know what is TOTL or not. and TBH I'm not really interested in learning or I would have done so by now. I'm your average computer user who's ignorant about computers. it's a fact. and of course being ignorant about those stuff makes me way more gullible to unrealistic marketing. a guy with more knowledge would pick up on some half empty claims, or contradicting points about computer specs. I wouldn't.
> now try to sell me fake pringles and you'd see the all extent of my expertise. for some it's nerdy audio tech, for some it's cat figurines, we're going to be ignorant about something.
> 
> for some products, the target will logically be people who don't know too much about the technology. take pono with a campaign showing a DAP used as a line out in a car vs low bit rate mp3, while making statements about providing the real sound like artist intended, there was from the start a certain need to be ignorant about a good deal, not to start laughing. often Neil Young became overwhelmed by his own topics on TV.  people, IMO, clearly were attracted by a philosophy of pono, not by component details and objective demonstrations. how could they, for all the campaign there was close to no actual information about the device or its objective fidelity. reason why I didn't back it, I spent 2 years waiting for output specs that never came. it was all about the idea of good sound instead of actual good sound.
> I feel that MQA is attracting the same people. some general idea of good sound like the artist intended, some confusing impulse response that looks like a clear and serious argument to people who don't know much about impulse responses, and off we go. but objectively, it's basically a file with more samples. like any other file with more samples. and the DAC is a DAC, it just reads one more format and may or may not apply a particular filter. not much to make a tech obsessed audiophile wet his pants. those who will come to MQA are, IMO, more likely to be those who once again are attracted by a philosophy of good sound, but don't necessarily get much else of the process. and I expect a good deal of people to be convinced of the format's "superiority" just because they enjoy some masters and mistake the master for the format. something a more objective, more techy person would wish to control with certainty before making any claim about how good the format is.


 

 You are definitely passionate and I wish some people that I've met in my life had as much as you do.  It's to be applauded.  These weren't your words, but to metaphorically imply that we're like sheep following the pied piper, in the case of MQA, can cause one to be bit defensive in response.  I was defensive and apologize for that. I do not want to turn this into an emotional shoving contest. I agree that objective, scientifically applied, testing with metrics to back it up is the best way to go.  My intent is to learn and grow.
  
 I have a little bit of a scientific background, a degree in Biology, and know enough about computers, I have been an operator, a programmer, systems administrator, manager and director in that field.  Am I an expert?  By no means.  I know enough to be dangerous, so to speak, but I do have enough knowledge to understand some of the basics.  I'll rely on the real experts in digital audio like Vincent Brient, Jason Stoddard, Bob Stuart, Jurgen Reis, etc. to offer their opinions and hopefully guide us without deception. 
  
 But back to the topic of MQA.  Some, not all, aspects of what MQA is trying to accomplish, at least in my mind, could possibly have some merit based on the basic understanding I have of it, specifically the de blurring.  Are there tests to physically, electrically and chemically measure how our ears and brains react to and perceive the time differences or the pre and post ring additions to a signal?  I don't believe there are and I could be blowing smoke out my butt but in the absence of such testing, I am keeping an open mind to the possibility that we can perceive the differences and we just have not developed the science to the point where it can be measured.


----------



## Dbrau544

I have been a Tidal Premium subscriber for some time now and have been enjoying the MQA files through the Explorer2 for the past few days.  Great sound through Sony-MDR-7Z headphones or through my home system utilizing a 20 year old Jolida integrated amp.  Compares well with HD FLACs and much improved over other steaming options.  I hope Tidal and others continue to support and expand the available catalog.


----------



## castleofargh

Quote:


germay0653 said:


> You are definitely passionate and I wish some people that I've met in my life had as much as you do.  It's to be applauded.  These weren't your words, but to metaphorically imply that we're like sheep following the pied piper, in the case of MQA, can cause one to be bit defensive in response.  I was defensive and apologize for that. I do not want to turn this into an emotional shoving contest. I agree that objective, scientifically applied, testing with metrics to back it up is the best way to go.  My intent is to learn and grow.
> 
> I have a little bit of a scientific background, a degree in Biology, and know enough about computers, I have been an operator, a programmer, systems administrator, manager and director in that field.  Am I an expert?  By no means.  I know enough to be dangerous, so to speak, but I do have enough knowledge to understand some of the basics.  I'll rely on the real experts in digital audio like Vincent Brient, Jason Stoddard, Bob Stuart, Jurgen Reis, etc. to offer their opinions and hopefully guide us without deception.
> 
> But back to the topic of MQA.  Some, not all, aspects of what MQA is trying to accomplish, at least in my mind, could possibly have some merit based on the basic understanding I have of it, specifically the de blurring.  Are there tests to physically, electrically and chemically measure how our ears and brains react to and perceive the time differences or the pre and post ring additions to a signal?  I don't believe there are and I could be blowing smoke out my butt but in the absence of such testing, I am keeping an open mind to the possibility that we can perceive the differences and we just have not developed the science to the point where it can be measured.


 
  
 I understand how what I say can come as an attack. but to be clear, marketing is manipulation. an accepted one but just the same. I never thought that mislead consumers were idiots, you can't know what you don't know. if anything they could sometimes be victims.
 a professional must knows what he's doing, it's his job. when a brand markets a product with half truths and unproved insinuations, I find it fair that it becomes a ****strom. it's in the game, you play and when you get caught, your PR campaign becomes a nightmare. a fair reward for an unclean job.
  I'm almost always raging at marketing. and more specifically at unproved claims. the pono DAP is in fact a fine DAP. MQA is a format, why would I hate a format? if I don't like it, I don't use it. the end. I always rage about DSD(because I still believe it's a stupid concept to go 1bit and waste so much data on removing noise), but it's also just a format and the effective resolution is very good. I rarely have problems with objects and software, what I don't like I don't use. I'm more of a mad dog barking at the marketing guy when he passes in my street ^_^.
  
  
  
 about audibility of time delays in music, it would be like trying to give a fixed value to audible distortion levels. the answer is always contextual. depending on frequency, how loud are the other sounds, what type of disto/delays...
 but you can find a few papers testing different things, like the one making mention of the 5 to 8µs used so often by the MQA guys as if it was a relevant value when it's an absolute extreme using very specific test signal in the way that would give the optimal result.
 that's like taking this guy's result

 and then going everywhere telling people how humans are know to run 100m in 9.45s.  it comes from a true value, but it's silly(dishonest) to take it out of context just to try and make a point. ^_^ (there is also the guy running downhill
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 but he didn't break that record and did a lame 9.5s).
  
 ok enough silliness from me for today.


----------



## germay0653

castleofargh said:


> Quote:
> 
> I understand how what I say can come as an attack. but to be clear, marketing is manipulation. an accepted one but just the same. I never thought that mislead consumers were idiots, you can't know what you don't know. if anything they could sometimes be victims.
> a professional must knows what he's doing, it's his job. when a brand markets a product with half truths and unproved insinuations, I find it fair that it becomes a ****strom. it's in the game, you play and when you get caught, your PR campaign becomes a nightmare. a fair reward for an unclean job.
> ...




  
 Thanks!  Appreciate the honesty.


----------



## leaky74

Just stumbled across this:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.sempre-audio.at/HIGHRESAUDIO_stellt_Angebot_an_MQA_Daten_ein.id.5543.htm&usg=ALkJrhhZEEzhlS4IhZ9_pdGZhn5PFRYa3w


----------



## TheTrace

leaky74 said:


> Just stumbled across this:
> 
> https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.sempre-audio.at/HIGHRESAUDIO_stellt_Angebot_an_MQA_Daten_ein.id.5543.htm&usg=ALkJrhhZEEzhlS4IhZ9_pdGZhn5PFRYa3w


boom


----------



## castleofargh

leaky74 said:


> Just stumbled across this:
> 
> https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.sempre-audio.at/HIGHRESAUDIO_stellt_Angebot_an_MQA_Daten_ein.id.5543.htm&usg=ALkJrhhZEEzhlS4IhZ9_pdGZhn5PFRYa3w


 

 if they really stopped because they just now realized they wouldn't get 24bit, someone clearly didn't do his homework at highresaudio. information on MQA was fairly clear about that from the start even when they started with the "origami" analogy. it was explained that they were filling the lower bits with information about ultrasonic content. anybody can read the patent and clearly get this part(but admittedly it's long and super boring to read).
 I'm guessing there was some huge misunderstanding about the "lossless" reconstruction of the signal mentioned by MQA. it meant lossless 17/192 or something like that. never 24/192. MQA is potentially lossless, the same way 16/44 can be lossless. it's also not 24/192.
 and about aliasing... one can't reject strong filters because of ringing, and at the same time expect no aliasing from a gentle low pass. or maybe I'm missing something obvious?
  
 I feel like all the information was here and highresaudio just missed it until now.(am I defending MQA now? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## shamu144

No problem, I'll stick with Tidal


----------



## manpowre

The last 2 weeks Ive been spending alot of time listening to the Tidal MQA albums, and found a few albums that I really enjoy, for me new music to listen to, which is the awesome part of this great hobby, there is always something new to listen to!
  
 Especially the album Three by Blue Man Group, with alot of great slammy drums and cymbals and other street instruments. Complex soundstage with alot going on in the songs. Album is a 2016 recording, so its updated with recording equipment.
  
 Last weekend I had light tinnitus (is that the english word), and I bought a sound pressure device to measure the DBA coming from my headphones, and the MQA albums Ive been listening to are 3-6 decibel louder on MQA than the 16/44 normal Tidal hifi stream! I figured I had been playing this album Three at 83 decibel, while the peaks of some of the songs when all instruments are playing was 86 decibel. So I turned down my volume knob 2 notches to get it below 80 decibel on the MQA albums. 
  
 Listening to the Three album every day, going between the MQA version and the 16/44 version, I preferred the 16/44 version as some of the heavy drum beats when the songs explode just cracks up on MQA while in normal 16/44 it is under control. If this is due to the extra loudness I dont know.
  
 Then a few more days have gone by, the light tinnitus is gone, and I read about the MQA being effectively 17 bits after decoding, and thinking, this Three album needs high dynamic range to play efficient, so I decided to purchase the album on hdtracks.com in 24/44.1. Seems like this album was mastered in 44.1 but 24 bits dynamic range, so great I thought, exactly what I was after to get more dynamic range. Lets download it and start listening to it.
  
 And I have to say that is a pretty big difference ! First of all, the mastering of it from hdtracks is similar loudness level as the tidal 16/44, so I could turn up the volume a bit again, getting it to 79-80 decibel. 
  
 Second, the details of every plastic drum/hit I can clearly hear the hit before the slam comes, even when the songs explode with alot of instruments its spot on. Instrument separation is glass clear with the hdtracks version.
  
 Third, I am thinking that over the last 2 weeks listening to the MQA albums I have been turning the volume knob on my amp between songs in albums not to get it too loud, and also sometimes within a song I had to turn the volume knob to compensate either for sound to be too low or too high. With the HDtracks version of this Blue Man Group album I didnt turn the volume knob even once playing the whole album from hdtracks version.
  
 I start to wonder if the MQA encoder will change the loudness even within a single song ? I read about the 17 bits and noise being added to the song being decoded, is this the main reason for the extra loudness ? I doubt this album Three is mastered over again for the Tidal MQA version. So something happened to the MQA version of this album for sure in a audible negative way !
  
 I actually start to dislike MQA due to the extra loudness level. I just cant purchase every album I hear from hdtracks to confirm this (gonna be expencive). But I think I will continue purchase albums I really enjoy and spend alot of time with from HDtracks !.


----------



## groove93

Be careful with Tinnitus. I've had it since my teenage years in Highschool and it got really bad in 1991 my Junior year.
  
 I've done A/B comparisons with MQA and non-MQA streams, which also included Flac files I own of the same content. Flac files are mainly 44.1/16 and some are at 24-bit but I don't notice a difference.
  
 The MQA streams are louder for me as well. I use a Laptop connected to a Meridian Explorer 2, Sennheiser HD600 Headphones, and a Schiit Asgard2 Headphone Amp. Diminishing Returns is what I'm dealing with. I've listened to a variety of music in the Master Library such as Coltrane, Ornette Coleman, Fleetwood Mac's "Rumors", Van Morrison, Chaka Khan, Prince, and ELP. While they all sound great, my expectations for some type of enhancement with the MQA files was not met. 
  
 I have a 3 month free trial as a result of purchasing the Explorer 2 and I will take full advantage of it, but after that it appears I won't miss it, for my local library of Flac files suits my needs.


----------



## saddleup

People need to stop taking things so personally.  This is a public forum after all.


----------



## JeremyLaurenson

Has anyone found a decent online store that actually serves up in MQA in the USA? Hiresaudio never allowed purchases and us.7digital.com haz zip.


----------



## HesNot

Anyone heard word on the Android and/or IOS apps with MQA enabled?  I have a Pioneer XDP which is compatible from a hardware perspective but no Tidal software yet...


----------



## Left Channel

hesnot said:


> Anyone heard word on the Android and/or IOS apps with MQA enabled?  I have a Pioneer XDP which is compatible from a hardware perspective but no Tidal software yet...


 

 I believe all or most of the internal DACs in smartphones and tablets are limited to 16/44.1, so they wouldn't be able by themselves to produce even 1x MQA software decoding which is 24/88.2 or 24/96. Your Pioneer XDP may be able to do more, but I suspect there would have to be far more such devices on the market before we see an app for that. 

 Using most Android or iOS devices you'd have to send digital output directly to an MQA-capable hardware DAC. Currently this is possible, for non-MQA files and streams, using third-party apps like USB Audio Player PRO and exactly the right USB (or Thunderbolt/USB) cable. These apps support hi-res files and also streaming including Tidal, but as I said they do not specifically support MQA unless it just so happens that they output a bitperfect stream that an MQA DAC can decode anyway. The number of people who do any of this is, for Tidal anyway, an exceedingly small market, though the Tidal folks have not publicly ruled out this or any other MQA support. 

 In my uninformed opinion, it's more likely that third parties like the developers of USB Audio Player PRO will step up and implement direct output to DACs of software-decoded Tidal MQA streaming and MQA downloads...if anyone ever does, as there is after all licensing involved. And it would be nice if they'd also develop an app that would take advantage of the internal DAC in your player. But as I said, if the internal DACs in the most popular smartphones and tablets get better first, that just might nudge Tidal into doing this themselves. Meanwhile, you have MQA downloads in your Pioneer DAP.


----------



## JeremyLaurenson

hesnot said:


> Anyone heard word on the Android and/or IOS apps with MQA enabled?  I have a Pioneer XDP which is compatible from a hardware perspective but no Tidal software yet...


 

 Not yet.
  
 MQA can live in a standard 44 kHz data stream which android can handle, and since your Pioneer (or Onkyo) player has the DAC hardware this is up to Tidal to produce.
  
Alternately one day we may be able to actually download MQA Albums and try those locally


----------



## jwbrent

I'm looking forward to when my AK240SS can play Master titles.


----------



## tradyblix

I think everyone is because right now it can only be done through the desktop app which is constructed primarily from javascript as far as I can tell and it has several known problems, including ones like crashing, not supporting all dacs correctly (probably as a result of the javascript libraries they use) and other issues. 
  
 The mac web  app is just a version of the desktop app with no support for master yet, no idea why. technical issues most likely. Same for mobile.


----------



## Left Channel

jeremylaurenson said:


> hesnot said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone heard word on the Android and/or IOS apps with MQA enabled?  I have a Pioneer XDP which is compatible from a hardware perspective but no Tidal software yet...
> ...


 
  
 In a 44 kHz data stream there is no decoding. Some MQA files at that level may offer some benefit from having been re-digitized or in some way processed from whatever masters exist (there is wide debate about whether that can truly be called "remastering") but many others will not, and in general that is not what people are excited about. Please see this article: MQA Decoding Explained (Audiostream).  As for his Pioneer XDP player, again, that is far too small a market for Tidal, and I'm not even certain UAPP would or could develop for it. IMHO so we'll have to wait until more devices support at least 24/96.


----------



## tradyblix

MQA is going to have a hard time being accepted for a couple reasons, one is that the major players in the market (Apple, Sony) have a vested interest in NOT supporting it. Apple's already coming out with their own standards for hi res audio supposedly and Sony is pushing DSD. So... we'll see what happens I guess. The fact that it is on Tidal is a win, but we need more than the couple tens or so albums currently available for it to get any traction


----------



## jwbrent

tradyblix said:


> MQA is going to have a hard time being accepted for a couple reasons, one is that the major players in the market (Apple, Sony) have a vested interest in NOT supporting it. Apple's already coming out with their own standards for hi res audio supposedly and Sony is pushing DSD. So... we'll see what happens I guess. The fact that it is on Tidal is a win, but we need more than the couple tens or so albums currently available for it to get any traction




I never considered Sony not being interested in MQA due to DSD--DSD64 albums tend to be around 2GB from the library I have. Pretty hard to stream with current, commonly used internet speeds. Perhaps they are working on their own version of MQA.

I've not read about Apple adopting hi res, link?

The TIDAL MQA library is approaching 1,000 albums, I believe. Plus, a lot more on the way ...


----------



## tradyblix

Well, I'm talking about hardware support for it. 
  
 They just came out with an amp that does DSD upsampling, so how could they position a hardware MQA decoder, plus that DSD upsampling on the fly capability and still make any kind of sense ? They can't. That's what I mean. 
  
 I have Tidal and if that is 1000 albums I will eat my hat. Maybe I just don't like that many albums... (at least the selection is good) 
  
 Apple rumors link : http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/12/20/apple-music-reportedly-preparing-hi-res-audio-streaming-for-2016
  
 Just rumors. Nothing has come of this in a year, but you never know with them. I am surprised they don't stream ALAC already. 
  
 I think at the end of the day I'd be happy with a lossless format and let my equipment do the rest.


----------



## jwbrent

tradyblix said:


> Well, I'm talking about hardware support for it.
> 
> They just came out with an amp that does DSD upsampling, so how could they position a hardware MQA decoder, plus that DSD upsampling on the fly capability and still make any kind of sense ? They can't. That's what I mean.
> 
> I have Tidal and if that is 1000 albums I will eat my hat. Maybe I just don't like that many albums... (at least the selection is good)




There's a spreadsheet online that lists all the MQA files on TIDAL that is purportedly updated frequently. Perhaps someone can provide a link to it.


----------



## tradyblix

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10VtON9VjMAt3uyHC2-Oo2MjIa3orv9DKZfwiRQKmTAA/edit#gid=945476039
  
 Done. This lists 1,600 or so. So maybe there are more than 1,000. It didn't seem that way to me going through the masters list on tidal. It's a little depressing to think there's only like 5 or 6 albums in that list that I care about in MQA format, lol


----------



## jwbrent

tradyblix said:


> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10VtON9VjMAt3uyHC2-Oo2MjIa3orv9DKZfwiRQKmTAA/edit#gid=945476039
> 
> Done. This lists 1,600 or so. So maybe there are more than 1,000. It didn't seem that way to me going through the masters list on tidal. It's a little depressing to think there's only like 5 or 6 albums in that list that I care about in MQA format, lol


 

 There are many albums that are MQA encoded that are not listed in the "What's New" Masters area. I can't understand why they don't have a separate MQA directory, seems like such a simple thing to do.


----------



## JeremyLaurenson

left channel said:


> In a 44 kHz data stream there is no decoding. Some MQA files at that level may offer some benefit from having been re-digitized or in some way processed from whatever masters exist (there is wide debate about whether that can truly be called "remastering") but many others will not, and in general that is not what people are excited about. Please see this article: MQA Decoding Explained (Audiostream).  As for his Pioneer XDP player, again, that is far too small a market for Tidal, and I'm not even certain UAPP would or could develop for it. IMHO so we'll have to wait until more devices support at least 24/96.




I believe you are wrong here. A "full blown MQA recording" is encoded and stored in PCM at 44kHz. It can be uncompressed/unfolded back up to a higher spec using software or hardware... but the container is compatible with any android OS.

The 44kHz file stream goes to the hardware decoder in the Player and theere is unfolded into its slightly-lossy 192kHz glory.

Please quote directly from Bob Stuart ro MQA website on the actual MQA file itself, not the original source or ultimate destination resolution.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tB5p5HePxU[/VIDEO]

And some more detail from Bob on just how they can "steal space" in the 44kHz file to encode the data

[VIDEO]https://youtu.be/BrgjycGhoSM[/VIDEO]


----------



## tradyblix

jwbrent said:


> There are many albums that are MQA encoded that are not listed in the "What's New" Masters area. I can't understand why they don't have a separate MQA directory, seems like such a simple thing to do.


 
  
 I work in software and I can tell you, once you get a team of sufficient size, and UI decisions are involved, and different teams, team leads, project managers, and executives, and sign offs, then things cannot be done quickly. That's why small companies can eat big companies lunch if they stay small and lean and allow their engineers to cowboy code instead of getting stuck in something like agile


----------



## jwbrent

tradyblix said:


> I work in software and I can tell you, once you get a team of sufficient size, and UI decisions are involved, and different teams, team leads, project managers, and executives, and sign offs, then things cannot be done quickly. That's why small companies can eat big companies lunch if they stay small and lean and allow their engineers to cowboy code instead of getting stuck in something like agile




I see.


----------



## tradyblix

Searching for files, really good discovery algorithms and whether those files are available to Tidal is their biggest issue right now. 
  
 Although they have some cool exclusives, they're missing stuff Spotify and Apple have. 
  
 I had to temporarily go back to iTunes because a bug in the Tidal player prevents it from working with my new Sony TA-ZH1ES and I can tell you, wow, I discovered one of my favorite bands has an EP available only on iTunes that I was missing. 
  
 Although I think Tidal has better sound quality, Apple does (although their UI sucks) a better job at getting you in front of new music that you like, which Tidal isn't so great at. We really need a player that is able to play from all the different music sources, but I imagine legally that would be a problem.


----------



## Left Channel

jeremylaurenson said:


> left channel said:
> 
> 
> > In a 44 kHz data stream there is no decoding. Some MQA files at that level may offer some benefit from having been re-digitized or in some way processed from whatever masters exist (there is wide debate about whether that can truly be called "remastering") but many others will not, and in general that is not what people are excited about. Please see this article: MQA Decoding Explained (Audiostream).  As for his Pioneer XDP player, again, that is far too small a market for Tidal, and I'm not even certain UAPP would or could develop for it. IMHO so we'll have to wait until more devices support at least 24/96.
> ...


 
  
 I believe you're missing my point, which is only that

 (a) at 44 kHz the file is not decoded/uncompressed/unfolded — which you repeated here, and I did not say it is incompatible with Android or iOS — and, 

 (b) after listening carefully to Bob Stuart it is debatable whether each and every file at that unfolded stage is anything special, though some may be, and,

 (c) most important — since this was the original topic — in my uninformed opinion there are unlikely to be many users of 16/44.1 devices interested in MQA, which means owners of more powerful devices like the Pioneer XDP plus the relatively small number of Android/iOS users who use external DAC are in total are probably too small a market to interest Tidal in updating their mobile apps for MQA.
  
 OK?


----------



## JeremyLaurenson

left channel said:


> I believe you're missing my point, which is only that
> 
> (a) at 44 kHz the file is not decoded/uncompressed/unfolded — which you repeated here, and I did not say it is incompatible with Android or iOS — and,
> 
> ...


 

 Yup.


----------



## castleofargh

jeremylaurenson said:


> left channel said:
> 
> 
> > In a 44 kHz data stream there is no decoding. Some MQA files at that level may offer some benefit from having been re-digitized or in some way processed from whatever masters exist (there is wide debate about whether that can truly be called "remastering") but many others will not, and in general that is not what people are excited about. Please see this article: MQA Decoding Explained (Audiostream).  As for his Pioneer XDP player, again, that is far too small a market for Tidal, and I'm not even certain UAPP would or could develop for it. IMHO so we'll have to wait until more devices support at least 24/96.
> ...


 
 the detail is that no MQA signal is ever 24bit(or I really misunderstood something crucial if it is). only the container is 24bit. Lavorgna misses that "detail" entirely with in his blog, and Stuart didn't feel the need to correct him in his comment for some reason 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.
 they work in a 13+3+whatever configuration to allocate data as bit values, the first 13 are good old PCM signal down to 13bit, the rest is the MQA salsa basically coding extra samples in the bit values. the bit usage can change depending of setting decision at the encoding if I got that right. probably depending on the target sample rate, maybe the amplitude of "signal" contained in the ultrasonic part of the master, ...
 so you get a signal(not the file, the signal!!!!) in the audible range going from 13bit to ... I'm not sure, I'll go with 17bit as I think it's the biggest value I've seen in the patent.
 if you happen to get a 13bit signal folded in a 24/48 MQA file and you use no software decompression at all, you end up with a 13/48 song that weights as much as a 24/48 song. not really ideal ^_^. that's why there really is no point in using MQA files outside of, at the very least, some software decoding. yes it's music in PCM container, and yes it works but it's lower resolution that a basic PCM album of the same file size. 
 with at least software decoding you then will tend to get back at least part of the ultrasonic content resulting in let's say for the sake of my made up example, 13/96 music(or maybe 17/96 if that was the encoded bit depth target, I'm not very clear on that and couldn't find any clear answer), played from the container that was the 24/48 file. it's mainly and in a complicated way, a trade of bits for samples. not spontaneous generation of extra data pulled out of a digital magic hat.


----------



## JeremyLaurenson

left channel said:


> I believe you're missing my point, which is only that
> 
> 
> (a) at 44 kHz the file is not decoded/uncompressed/unfolded — which you repeated here, and I did not say it is incompatible with Android or iOS — and,
> ...




So long as Tidal or others deliver the lossless 44kHz stream to the innards of whatever player can do MQA, the player should recognize it.

So its really just up to Tidal to have an "MQA On" button. Not too much work for them at all.


----------



## Left Channel

> So long as Tidal or others deliver the lossless 44kHz stream to the innards of whatever player can do MQA, the player should recognize it.
> 
> So its really just up to Tidal to have an "MQA On" button. Not too much work for them at all.


 
  
 With software it's never that simple. Adding a feature is always more like opening a can of worms, especially in this case with the vast number of different Android models and Android OS customizations out there.


----------



## innocentblood

hesnot said:


> Anyone heard word on the Android and/or IOS apps with MQA enabled?  I have a Pioneer XDP which is compatible from a hardware perspective but no Tidal software yet...


 
  
 I'm eagerly waiting for this too  I'm using an Onkyo DP-X1 myself. very tempted to get the Meridian Explorer v2 during Can Jam SG next week if it's going for a great price so that I can listen to some MQA goodness with Audirvana Plus 3, which is also due to be out in the near future.


----------



## chaturanga

tradyblix said:


> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10VtON9VjMAt3uyHC2-Oo2MjIa3orv9DKZfwiRQKmTAA/edit#gid=945476039
> 
> Done. This lists 1,600 or so. So maybe there are more than 1,000. It didn't seem that way to me going through the masters list on tidal. It's a little depressing to think there's only like 5 or 6 albums in that list that I care about in MQA format, lol




I did not know it reached 1600 albums, I was checking from Master catalogue  That's great! I am eager to listen Maria Callas for example!


----------



## tradyblix

I'm not sure that list is completely correct. I tried to find some master versions listed there and supposedly on Tidal and could not do so.


----------



## erich6

left channel said:


> With software it's never that simple. Adding a feature is always more like opening a can of worms, especially in this case with the vast number of different Android models and Android OS customizations out there.


 

 ​There are two parts to the implementation and I can image one is harder than the other:
  
 1) Adding MQA "passthrough" mode so that an MQA-enabled DAC can decode the stream (should be relatively easy).
 2) Add software MQA decoding to the mobile app (relatively harder).


----------



## TadMorose

tradyblix said:


> I'm not sure that list is completely correct. I tried to find some master versions listed there and supposedly on Tidal and could not do so.


 
 Some of the releases listed in the file are available only in certain countries, e.g, UK.


----------



## tradyblix

castleofargh said:


> the detail is that no MQA signal is ever 24bit(or I really misunderstood something crucial if it is). only the container is 24bit. Lavorgna misses that "detail" entirely with in his blog, and Stuart didn't feel the need to correct him in his comment for some reason
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think you are getting into the habit of looking at numbers and thinking larger numbers == better sound. Just use your ears to demo MQA and keep in mind this is streaming music, for streaming music, it is some of the best quality around.
  
 If you have dedicated files then you'll probably want to use those if you have a ton of 24/96khz or better stuff or DSD stuff. But even then the quality of the original mastering affects greatly it's sound, and again, it's not the same market as people that use streaming services. The advantage of streaming services is people who are discovering new music, not listening to their favorites at the highest quality, and so, although MQA is a lossy mechanism, it still is fulfilling a market segment.


----------



## tradyblix

tadmorose said:


> Some of the releases listed in the file are available only in certain countries, e.g, UK.


 
  
 Ah, so that is pretty depressing. So it isn't as much as I suspected, which is what I thought.


----------



## castleofargh

tradyblix said:


> I think you are getting into the habit of looking at numbers and thinking larger numbers == better sound. Just use your ears to demo MQA and keep in mind this is streaming music, for streaming music, it is some of the best quality around.
> 
> If you have dedicated files then you'll probably want to use those if you have a ton of 24/96khz or better stuff or DSD stuff. But even then the quality of the original mastering affects greatly it's sound, and again, it's not the same market as people that use streaming services. The advantage of streaming services is people who are discovering new music, not listening to their favorites at the highest quality, and so, although MQA is a lossy mechanism, it still is fulfilling a market segment.


 
 eheh, I'm not thinking that larger numbers equal better sound, at least not from an audibility perspective(I fail to consistently identify 320mp3 so... ^_^). I just don't want people to get the wrong idea that somehow it's all bonuses and unicorns in a """small""" streaming format. marketing does marketing, and I'm here to be grumpy about everything as ordained by the yin & yang forces in the universe. or maybe I just like to complain a lot. but it's one of those 2 options for sure. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 for bit depth in particular, in my own tests(non MQA related) 12 or 13bits were about the bit depth limit for transparency even at what I consider loud on rather calm passages, and very much transparent to me at normal listening levels. add a nice dither just in case and all is well. my post didn't mean that not having 24bit would sound bad, I don't believe that. I'm definitely a threshold guy, not a higher is better dude.


----------



## manpowre

tradyblix said:


> I think you are getting into the habit of looking at numbers and thinking larger numbers == better sound. Just use your ears to demo MQA and keep in mind this is streaming music, for streaming music, it is some of the best quality around.
> 
> If you have dedicated files then you'll probably want to use those if you have a ton of 24/96khz or better stuff or DSD stuff. But even then the quality of the original mastering affects greatly it's sound, and again, it's not the same market as people that use streaming services. The advantage of streaming services is people who are discovering new music, not listening to their favorites at the highest quality, and so, although MQA is a lossy mechanism, it still is fulfilling a market segment.


 
 To be honest, I did almost 2 weeks of MQA listening from Tidal, and I stopped as I found the MQA decoding to be louder (3-6db depending on albums) and they were obvious same master. Knowing that MQA has a 13 +3 bit dynamic range I suspect (personally suspect) that the encoding process increase the loudness to lift it up from the 13 bit noise floor, and that makes us "think" MQA sounds better.
  
 I found a few high dynamic albums with alot of drums and instruments in MQA library from Tidal, and it sounds so much better on 16/44.1 and even 24/44.1 since these are high dynamic albums they sound more like how they mastered them, and not the MQA stream that increases the loudness.
  
 At the moment Im working on installing a linear power supply to my ADC as it has some artifacts due to EMI, and once that is done in a few weeks (just ordered a new linear PSU) I will start measuring the MQA albums on tidal to prove my point through FFT spectrum. 16bit vs MQA bits (apparently 24 bits, which we now know is not).


----------



## waveSounds

lol there's no increased loudness on MQA albums.
  
 If what you heard "were obvious same master", then you're doing it wrong.


----------



## revand

left channel said:


> I believe all or most of the internal DACs in smartphones and tablets are limited to 16/44.1, so they wouldn't be able by themselves to produce even 1x MQA software decoding which is 24/88.2 or 24/96.


 
  
 My HTC 10 is capable of producing 24bit/192 kHz, and has an excellent headphone amp as well.
 Having been a HTC fan over the past years I was excited to hear the news from CES 2016, that HTC had a demo with the A9 smartphone decoding MQA.
 HTC 10 is having better audio parts as the A9, so I do hope my HTC 10 will be capable of decoding MQA soon.


----------



## revand

tadmorose said:


> Some of the releases listed in the file are available only in certain countries, e.g, UK.


 
  
 I can confirm it like in case of Buena Vista Social Club and Mark Knopfler.
 They are not available in Hungary at the moment, but most of the albums in the Roon community sheet are working!


----------



## Left Channel

revand said:


> My HTC 10 is capable of producing 24bit/192 kHz, and has an excellent headphone amp as well.
> Having been a HTC fan over the past years I was excited to hear the news from CES 2016, that HTC had a demo with the A9 smartphone decoding MQA.
> HTC 10 is having better audio parts as the A9, so I do hope my HTC 10 will be capable of decoding MQA soon.


 
  
 That's good news.


----------



## Arnav Agharwal

Distinguishing Master albums just got easier -- TIDAL has added an "M" icon against the Master versions


----------



## headfry

...is anybody else here as enthusiastic about  the improved musicality of Tidal Masters
over the same FLAC master w/out MQA?

This is just with Tidal software decoding, to me generally an amazing advance in listening
and basically for me [COLOR=4B0082]lives up to the hype[/COLOR]!

For example, I recommend listening to [COLOR=A52A2A]Bonnie Raitt[/COLOR]'s opening track [COLOR=0000CD]Unavoided Consequence[/COLOR] [COLOR=0000CD]of Love[/COLOR] from the album [COLOR=FF0000]Dig In Deep[/COLOR] 2016 and compare with the Tidal HIFI version!


----------



## pdickerson

headfry said:


> ...is anybody else here as enthusiastic about  the improved musicality of Tidal Masters
> over the same FLAC master w/out MQA?
> 
> This is just with Tidal software decoding, to me generally an amazing advance in listening
> ...




Yes, I have only listened to MQA since Tidal release it. Once Roon adds MQA I'll be a Roon subscriber. 
The Cars never sounded better.


----------



## goldendarko

Well I'd be more excited if all the MQA music wasn't stuff I already have in Hi Res downloads from HDTracks. Plus it needs to hurry up and come to TIDAL on mobile to really make a difference to me. But it'll get there eventually I'm sure.


----------



## pdickerson

Tidal has added A Masters section under Playlists. 
Playlists must suffer from volume level differences across songs.


----------



## TadMorose

arnav agharwal said:


> Distinguishing Master albums just got easier -- TIDAL has added an "M" icon against the Master versions


 
 Finally!


----------



## jwbrent

goldendarko said:


> Well I'd be more excited if all the MQA music wasn't stuff I already have in Hi Res downloads from HDTracks. Plus it needs to hurry up and come to TIDAL on mobile to really make a difference to me. But it'll get there eventually I'm sure.


 

 I agree on the playback on mobile devices. I'm not sure if A&K is responsible for updating the TIDAL app on my AK240 or if it will be automatically done when TIDAL updates all the apps on portable devices.


----------



## jwbrent

tadmorose said:


> Finally!


 

 Happy!


----------



## tradyblix

goldendarko said:


> Well I'd be more excited if all the MQA music wasn't stuff I already have in Hi Res downloads from HDTracks. Plus it needs to hurry up and come to TIDAL on mobile to really make a difference to me. But it'll get there eventually I'm sure.


 

 It's not the same thing anyway. Tidal's app quality sucks. They have a ton of problems talking to high end dacs and other exotic equipment compared to Apple so. I can't recommend tidal for now. It's also inexcusable there's no MQA support on mobile 2 months later. 
  
 As soon as apple / spotify have a lossless streaming option they'll lose most of their market advantage IMO. MQA is not so great that it beats a better music library, proper music discovery options, etc. And the fact they don't work properly with Sony's top of the line equipment is not a good look either


----------



## goldendarko

I agree. I'll be moving to Spotify the minute they go lossless. Much preferred the UI they had. Even MQA on TIDAL probably wouldn't be enough to keep me around especially if Spotify ends up charging $15 a month


----------



## Left Channel

tradyblix said:


> goldendarko said:
> 
> 
> > Well I'd be more excited if all the MQA music wasn't stuff I already have in Hi Res downloads from HDTracks. Plus it needs to hurry up and come to TIDAL on mobile to really make a difference to me. But it'll get there eventually I'm sure.
> ...


 

 Lack of mobile support is actually quite excusable, because most mobile phones cannot exceed 16/44.1 so wouldn't benefit from even the first-level MQA "unfolding". Yes MQA is backwards compatible so it would "work" on those phones too, but without much or any audible results, and yes some phones like the HTC 10 are capable of hi-res. Here in the rarefied atmosphere of Head-Fi, you'll even find people with mobile apps like UAPP outputting direct to external DACs. But most users will not understand these things, and releasing something that doesn't work as expected on most phones is a surefire way to get even worse app reviews.


----------



## germay0653

left channel said:


> Lack of mobile support is actually quite excusable, because most mobile phones cannot exceed 16/44.1 so wouldn't benefit from even the first-level MQA "unfolding". Yes MQA is backwards compatible so it would "work" on those phones too, but without much or any audible results, and yes some phones like the HTC 10 are capable of hi-res. Here in the rarefied atmosphere of Head-Fi, you'll even find people with mobile apps like UAPP outputting direct to external DACs. But most users will not understand these things, and releasing something that doesn't work as expected on most phones is a surefire way to get even worse app reviews.


 

 Like you imply, that 16/44.1 limit, on most phones, is only imposed when using the phones internal DAC.  Granted, I agree, most won't understand and go the USB digital out from a phone to an external DAC but that bit depth/sampling rate limitation is removed when doing so.


----------



## Left Channel

germay0653 said:


> left channel said:
> 
> 
> > Lack of mobile support is actually quite excusable, because most mobile phones cannot exceed 16/44.1 so wouldn't benefit from even the first-level MQA "unfolding". Yes MQA is backwards compatible so it would "work" on those phones too, but without much or any audible results, and yes some phones like the HTC 10 are capable of hi-res. Here in the rarefied atmosphere of Head-Fi, you'll even find people with mobile apps like UAPP outputting direct to external DACs. But most users will not understand these things, and releasing something that doesn't work as expected on most phones is a surefire way to get even worse app reviews.
> ...


 
  
 Ya. just. can't. win.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  I edited that post several times trying to protect against any possible poke, but didn't spell out "cannot exceed 16/44.1 _by itself_" or "_with it's own internal DAC_". I just mentioned outputting direct to external DACs later in the paragraph.

 Sigh. Thanks, that's what editors are for and I ain't got one. But I'm glad we agree most users won't understand those issues. Tidal's not about to make a mobile app just for us Head-Fiers. The majority of phones have to get better internal DACs first.


----------



## manpowre

goldendarko said:


> I agree. I'll be moving to Spotify the minute they go lossless. Much preferred the UI they had. Even MQA on TIDAL probably wouldn't be enough to keep me around especially if Spotify ends up charging $15 a month


 
 I hate the slow UI with Tidal, and all those music videos (to hell with those). Spotify is way faster to use. Im going back to Spotify the moment they go lossless too. Ill just spend the difference between the two purchasing one hdtracks album a month, as usually the album I purchase is an album I end up listening alot to..


----------



## jwbrent

With the recent influx of cash from the Sprint investment, my hope is some of the money is spent on improving the app UI for all devices.


----------



## chaturanga

left channel said:


> Lack of mobile support is actually quite excusable, because most mobile phones cannot exceed 16/44.1 so wouldn't benefit from even the first-level MQA "unfolding". Yes MQA is backwards compatible so it would "work" on those phones too, but without much or any audible results, and yes some phones like the HTC 10 are capable of hi-res. Here in the rarefied atmosphere of Head-Fi, you'll even find people with mobile apps like UAPP outputting direct to external DACs. But most users will not understand these things, and releasing something that doesn't work as expected on most phones is a surefire way to get even worse app reviews.


 
  
 Tidal "have to" give MQA support to the mobile apps, too. And it must be as soon as possible. If not, why people will choose Tidal instead of Spotify that will offer HI-FI soon with a richer library? Tidal have to offer always a step further to keep its subscribers, it's not an option for them it's a mandatory way to go.
  
 They can add an announcement inside the application that every subscriber will see such as :"Your operating system does not have native MQA support, therefore it can play MQA files by downgrading quality. To get real benefit of MQA tracks, we suggest using an external DAC" 
  
 Another thing is that, probably Tidal Masters will be a seperate Tidal package as Tidal HI-FI. People who knew this technology and know how to get maximum gain will go to Masters, others will be happy with HI-FI.


----------



## pkcpga

I've had Tidal for a few years now and love it's music quality, it's user interface is less than stellar but Spotify's music quality right now is worse than dealing with a poor interface. If Spotify were to actually gain similar music quality than I would considering moving unless Tidal offered mobile MQA at the same subscription price I'm currently paying otherwise Tidal loses it's advantage of better sound quality for it's extra cost.


----------



## Left Channel

chaturanga said:


> left channel said:
> 
> 
> > Lack of mobile support is actually quite excusable, because most mobile phones cannot exceed 16/44.1 so wouldn't benefit from even the first-level MQA "unfolding". Yes MQA is backwards compatible so it would "work" on those phones too, but without much or any audible results, and yes some phones like the HTC 10 are capable of hi-res. Here in the rarefied atmosphere of Head-Fi, you'll even find people with mobile apps like UAPP outputting direct to external DACs. But most users will not understand these things, and releasing something that doesn't work as expected on most phones is a surefire way to get even worse app reviews.
> ...


 
  
 I agree that Tidal may have to respond to Spotify's move into "hi-fi" (CD quality), eventually. I've edited this post a couple of different ways to illustrate the business and technical issues, but fundamentally IMHO Tidal has a two-year lead on Spotify in offering hi-fi for mobiles, is the first-mover in desktop MQA streaming, and can afford to — and should — wait until MQA makes more technical and business sense for mobiles.


----------



## pkcpga

left channel said:


> I agree that Tidal may have to respond to Spotify's move into "hi-fi" (CD quality), eventually. I've edited this post a couple of different ways to illustrate the business and technical issues, but fundamentally IMHO Tidal has a two-year lead on Spotify in offering hi-fi for mobiles, is the first-mover in desktop MQA streaming, and can afford to — and should — wait until MQA makes more technical and business sense for mobiles.




I think Tidal's main customers are after better quality music than Spotify otherwise why pay the premium so Tidal coming up with another way to keep better sound quality will be their only hope of keeping customers otherwise why would any of them including myself spend more. That's why I think Tidal needs Mqa or some sort of higher res in mobile as well as desktop since Tidal states about 50% of music through Tidal is from mobile devices. For home listening I occasionally use Tidal through bluesound but honestly with my home system regular filed HiRes music sounds better so the desktop app is there but for myself is fairly useless. Yes Mqa works through bluesound if you use bluesounds cheap dac. I guess it'll be interesting to see which is released first, Spotify lossless or Tidal MQA or Tidal lowering its price or Tidal going out of business. I like Tidal and have had it for a few years but feel it's a bit overpriced for its poor interface and poor playlist and poor recommendations, if I'm already listening to the song I don't need recommendations of 5 different recordings or mastering of the same song. Only reason I don't switch to Spotify is spotify poor sound quality right now but if that changes and it's less why stay?


----------



## Mr Rick

I'll happily stay on Spotify, as I'm one of the lucky ones, that can't hear a difference.


----------



## Left Channel

pkcpga said:


> left channel said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that Tidal may have to respond to Spotify's move into "hi-fi" (CD quality), eventually. I've edited this post a couple of different ways to illustrate the business and technical issues, but fundamentally IMHO Tidal has a two-year lead on Spotify in offering hi-fi for mobiles, is the first-mover in desktop MQA streaming, and can afford to — and should — wait until MQA makes more technical and business sense for mobiles.
> ...


 


 Tidal has had "lossless" Hi-Fi in their mobile app for years. Spotify is only just now rolling out a copycat feature. We don't yet know how well it will be implemented, or whether it will be priced competitively over the long run, especially if Tidal reacts with a price drop. Tidal is still working on desktop MQA features, and has plenty of time to watch Spotify and respond in other ways while waiting for MQA to make sense on mobile. Since most phones and tablets don't yet have internal DACs that can do over 44.1/16, they can't do any MQA "unfolding", so it doesn't make much business sense for either company to offer an MQA mobile feature just yet.
  
 Edit: to take that thought a little further...having the mobile app tell people to use an external DAC as you suggest will just confuse or anger most users, and result in even more bad app reviews. The market for mobile MQA is simply not large enough to be worth the cost and effort right now, but in consumer electronics and software a year is a lifetime, two years is an eternity, and I have hope we'll see what we want "soon".


----------



## JeremyLaurenson

left channel said:


> Edit: to take that thought a little further...having the mobile app tell people to use an external DAC as you suggest will just confuse or anger most users, and result in even more bad app reviews. The market for mobile MQA is simply not large enough to be worth the cost and effort right now, but in consumer electronics and software a year is a lifetime, two years is an eternity, and I have hope we'll see what we want "soon".




Why tell the users anything? Their dap's MQA light will light.... or not.


----------



## canthearyou

I've listened to a mix of MQA and non-MQA files via Tidal. What I've come to hear is that it seems MQA benefits speakers more than headphones. While the headphones sound to have a narrower soundstage, with speakers it has more depth.


----------



## JeremyLaurenson

canthearyou said:


> I've listened to a mix of MQA and non-MQA files via Tidal. What I've come to hear is that it seems MQA benefits speakers more than headphones. While the headphones sound to have a narrower soundstage, with speakers it has more depth.




Ill be the first to ask... what headphones?


----------



## pkcpga

left channel said:


> Tidal has had "lossless" Hi-Fi in their mobile app for years. Spotify is only just now rolling out a copycat feature. We don't yet know how well it will be implemented, or whether it will be priced competitively over the long run, especially if Tidal reacts with a price drop. Tidal is still working on desktop MQA features, and has plenty of time to watch Spotify and respond in other ways while waiting for MQA to make sense on mobile. Since most phones and tablets don't yet have internal DACs that can do over 44.1/16, they can't do any MQA "unfolding", so it doesn't make much business sense for either company to offer an MQA mobile feature just yet.
> 
> Edit: to take that thought a little further...having the mobile app tell people to use an external DAC as you suggest will just confuse or anger most users, and result in even more bad app reviews. The market for mobile MQA is simply not large enough to be worth the cost and effort right now, but in consumer electronics and software a year is a lifetime, two years is an eternity, and I have hope we'll see what we want "soon".




You do realize Apple no longer has a built in dac/amp or headphone jack, so people have to buy their own. I'm sure other brands will follow suit to keep up with the thin war. So internal DACs are no longer as much of a consideration as they used to be, plus mqa states when it's playing that way and not.


----------



## canthearyou

jeremylaurenson said:


> Ill be the first to ask... what headphones?




Hifiman HE-500 and AKG K7XX.


----------



## saddleup

canthearyou said:


> I've listened to a mix of MQA and non-MQA files via Tidal. What I've come to hear is that it seems MQA benefits speakers more than headphones. While the headphones sound to have a narrower soundstage, with speakers it has more depth.


 

 I found it exactly the opposite with a speaker system.  The sound stage collapsed front to to back and narrowed.  In your face was my impression of Tidal.  This on a highly resolving system.  We kept reaching for the volume on the remote control to turn it down.


----------



## Left Channel

pkcpga said:


> left channel said:
> 
> 
> > Tidal has had "lossless" Hi-Fi in their mobile app for years. Spotify is only just now rolling out a copycat feature. We don't yet know how well it will be implemented, or whether it will be priced competitively over the long run, especially if Tidal reacts with a price drop. Tidal is still working on desktop MQA features, and has plenty of time to watch Spotify and respond in other ways while waiting for MQA to make sense on mobile. Since most phones and tablets don't yet have internal DACs that can do over 44.1/16, they can't do any MQA "unfolding", so it doesn't make much business sense for either company to offer an MQA mobile feature just yet.
> ...


 
 Well like I said above, in the consumer electronics and software biz a year is a lifetime, two years is an eternity, and it will be interesting to see if that happens.
  
 You and I would benefit from that. But until MQA is much more common, it will be dangerous territory to get into with average users. Most people expect an app to just work. They don't even want to think about what's in their accessories or what all these initialisms like DAC and MQA stand for. IMHO, the market isn't ready for this yet, and Tidal doesn't need yet another headache.

 [Once again, I've edited a post than once, dagnabbit. When I looked again I realized I'd started answering while thinking about other phones entirely in fact. Better to distill this down to my main point, which is that the solution is quite simple: time.]


----------



## SpiderNhan

The first MQA CD is going into production now. CD quality sound on conventional CD players and MQA decoding with the proper DAC. Time smearing corrections are present with a decoder present or not and this comes at no additional cost to the listener. Win-win?

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-encoded-cds-yes#QyTMFW7bhM36XXKV.97


----------



## L8MDL

"Finally, I was confident that MQA-CD will usher in a new era of CD."

Better start saving to buy everything again...


----------



## castleofargh

spidernhan said:


> The first MQA CD is going into production now. CD quality sound on conventional CD players and MQA decoding with the proper DAC. Time smearing corrections are present with a decoder present or not and this comes at no additional cost to the listener. Win-win?
> 
> http://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-encoded-cds-yes#QyTMFW7bhM36XXKV.97


 
  
 my comments to the stereophile quotes in blue
  


> _Is the master file 16/44.1 with MQA or higher resolution?_
> This Ottava MQA CD starts from a 176/24 master(resolution of the PCM master they started with, not the resolution of the signal on the MQA CD!). The Origami process is used to fold the audio into a 44.1kHz file which can be post-processed to provide a 16-bit MQA file(don't misinterpret that they put 176/24 content into 16/44 files, because they cannot).
> FYI, an MQA CD can be made starting from masters at 44.1, 88.2, 176.4 or 352.8kHz.(yeah and I can make a 128kbps mp3 starting from masters a 352.8khz)


 


> An MQA CD is a Red Book CD and is 100% compatible with any existing CD player(meaning it's effectively a 16/44 file and most of it is a classic PCM signal encoded in PCM, which leaves very little storage available to contain the extra sample resolution). The audio on the disc is MQA-encoded PCM, and will play back happily without a decoder. In this case, the sound quality is slightly better than a typical CD, because the audio is already de-blurred in the studio.(what a load of crap, the undecoded signal will be at a resolution of something like 11/44 or 13/44 which is not even as good as CD resolution. and the "de-blurred" audio at such resolution can only mean treble roll off. of course that doesn't sound as nice as "de-blurred", but that's what it is. I'll need a lot of imagination to think that a rolled off and inferior resolution signal is "slightly better". even from a subjective point of view). However. if the bitstream is passed to an MQA decoder, it is unfolded to 176kHz (in this case) and rendered to the DAC at 24-bit.(means that the DAC will be set to 24bit, like I usually do to enjoy using digital volume control on my computer without discarding the LSB of my 16bit albums. of course it does not mean that the signal will have 24bit resolution!!!!!!! even with noise shaping it won't even have 16bit of the original 176/24 master).


 
  
  
  
 look mama I'm "de-blurring" all my CDs with this amazing tool called EQ. take this ringing at 20khz!

 (if it's true is this still a troll?)


----------



## SpiderNhan

I thought the whole point of this hobby is to maximize our enjoyment of music. Whatever MQA is in most cases the Tidal Masters sound better than their Hifi equivalents. My DAC is not capable of decoding MQA, but even the software decoding yields a noticable difference. If it's simply an EQ and a way of tricking my DAC into thinking it's playing a high-res file, I'll take it because the improvements (or different EQ-ing if you will) is more enjoyable to listen to.

It's funny all the time spent rolling cables and tubes and op amps to reach a desired sound, not to mention headphone signatures, open/closed, in-ear/over-ear etc., but when it comes to tweaking the source file for optimum fidelity there's such backlash. Now not liking the way MQA affects sound, or thinking their claims are bogus I understand. But to my ears it sounds better. I can't deny that. And it's not like MQA is trying to become the new industry standard, and even if it did there is no mandate that one has to buy into it. It works with all current DACs and CD players without additional hardware. Maybe that's because it's really just a 16/44 file with EQ. Given a choice, I'll take it.


----------



## headfry

Agreed SpiderNhan, thanks for your considered reply -
 sums up my position on Tidal Masters/MQA on this forum too. The explanation of MQA may have inconsistencies and scientifically it appears to some as a marketing scam - yet to thousands of us, including Bob Ludwig, John Darko, Steven Stone - expert esteemed audio reviewers - hear much better sound than the non MQA masters.

It's not the science, it's the much better soundstage, much more accurate imaging - blacker background, more realistic instrument and vocal reproduction; in short significantly more of the emotion and artistic expression - what hifi has been pursuing from the beginning. Top end DAC makers including Brinkmann, Cary Audio, Aurender, Mytek and others are supporting MQA.

The concensus seems to be that MQA gives similar musical quality to conventional hires - many feel it may be even better - while allowing a much smaller streaming size.

My point is this - if a competing format could give similar musical quality without MQA and in a similar small file size - then MQA wouldn't likey survive longterm despite the aggressive marketing.

I love the SQ and musicality of most of the MQA albums I've heard, and so do many professional and seasoned reviewers, such as at WhatHIFI. We're not all deluded, nor do we have faulty hearing, nor are we all sighted-biased. We know what our perceptions tell us regarding the SQ of MQA . Those who are biased against MQA because they find inconsistencies in the theory may also have expectation bias - believing it's a laughable fraud may condition them so that they don't allow themselves to hear any improvement.

Just my opinion - and let's not assume that theories explain everything in the audiophile realm. The ear is much more discriminating in the time realm - for example - than today's instruments are.


----------



## Baldr

spidernhan said:


> The first MQA CD is going into production now. CD quality sound on conventional CD players and MQA decoding with the proper DAC. Time smearing corrections are present with a decoder present or not and this comes at no additional cost to the listener. Win-win?
> 
> http://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-encoded-cds-yes#QyTMFW7bhM36XXKV.97


 
 It is a pleasure to see new recordings coming available for the progressive audiophile.
 Brings to mind the plaintive recordings of the Dhung Clup, one indigenous Amazonian tribe whose mournful recordings were spatially recorded in the wild and made available exclusively on DVD audio multichannel format. The fact that the Dhung Clups communicate only in clicks and grunts make for such a thrilling recording of total empathy. It is well worth searching out DVD Audio players which have not been made in 20 years.
 A similar thrilling moment was the men's chorus of the Latvian men's sex offender's prison chorus singing Steven Foster Songs for children, spectacularly recorded in HDCD. A HDCD player was offered on eBay less than a year ago, and well worth the wait.
 Finally we have the Poems of Ecstasy live recording by Shepherds in the wilds of the northern Scottish Orkney Islands. The shephards are clad in kilts, so there are no annoying zipper sounds destroying the ambience of the happily bleating sheep. The best news is that this DSD recording at 32X DSD is only a 150 Gigabyte file. Since DSD is still only on deathwatch, it is still reasonably easy to find a suitable decoder.


----------



## jwbrent

spidernhan said:


> I thought the whole point of this hobby is to maximize our enjoyment of music. Whatever MQA is in most cases the Tidal Masters sound better than their Hifi equivalents. My DAC is not capable of decoding MQA, but even the software decoding yields a noticable difference. If it's simply an EQ and a way of tricking my DAC into thinking it's playing a high-res file, I'll take it because the improvements (or different EQ-ing if you will) is more enjoyable to listen to.
> 
> It's funny all the time spent rolling cables and tubes and op amps to reach a desired sound, not to mention headphone signatures, open/closed, in-ear/over-ear etc., but when it comes to tweaking the source file for optimum fidelity there's such backlash. Now not liking the way MQA affects sound, or thinking their claims are bogus I understand. But to my ears it sounds better. I can't deny that. And it's not like MQA is trying to become the new industry standard, and even if it did there is no mandate that one has to buy into it. It works with all current DACs and CD players without additional hardware. Maybe that's because it's really just a 16/44 file with EQ. Given a choice, I'll take it.




Agreed.


----------



## saddleup

baldr said:


> It is a pleasure to see new recordings coming available for the progressive audiophile.
> Brings to mind the plaintive recordings of the Dhung Clup, one indigenous Amazonian tribe whose mournful recordings were spatially recorded in the wild and made available exclusively on DVD audio multichannel format. The fact that the Dhung Clups communicate only in clicks and grunts make for such a thrilling recording of total empathy. It is well worth searching out DVD Audio players which have not been made in 20 years.
> A similar thrilling moment was the men's chorus of the Latvian men's sex offender's prison chorus singing Steven Foster Songs for children, spectacularly recorded in HDCD. A HDCD player was offered on eBay less than a year ago, and well worth the wait.
> Finally we have the Poems of Ecstasy live recording by Shepherds in the wilds of the northern Scottish Orkney Islands. The shephards are clad in kilts, so there are no annoying zipper sounds destroying the ambience of the happily bleating sheep. The best news is that this DSD recording at 32X DSD is only a 150 Gigabyte file. Since DSD is still only on deathwatch, it is still reasonably easy to find a suitable decoder.


 

 Now that is funny.


----------



## erich6

castleofargh said:


> my comments to the stereophile quotes in blue
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 ​While the MQA de-blurring may have the side effect of a tonal roll-off at 20kHz I don't think it is right to suggest that an EQ roll-off will result in de-blurring so that's misleading.  Also, for some ears, the de-blurring benefits will outweigh the high-frequency tonal roll-off.  Judging by the subjective impressions I've seen on this thread and on other sites I think most people will prefer it.
  
 I agree with the rest of your clarifications of the Stereophile article.


----------



## rkw

goldendarko said:


> I agree. I'll be moving to Spotify the minute they go lossless. Much preferred the UI they had. Even MQA on TIDAL probably wouldn't be enough to keep me around especially if Spotify ends up charging $15 a month


 
  
 I'm guessing that many Tidal HiFi subscribers originally come from Spotify, who wanted a higher quality stream. With Spotify adding lossless, Tidal will lose that source of new HiFi subscribers, and they will lose some current subscribers who defect back to Spotify. In this business, size counts and paid subscriptions is a zero sum game. IMO, Tidal is already in trouble and won't survive.
 http://fortune.com/2017/01/21/tidal-subscriber-number-inflation/


----------



## Left Channel

rkw said:


> goldendarko said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. I'll be moving to Spotify the minute they go lossless. Much preferred the UI they had. Even MQA on TIDAL probably wouldn't be enough to keep me around especially if Spotify ends up charging $15 a month
> ...


 


 Could be. I imagine I'll hang around Tidal at least a bit longer out of curiosity about MQA as more albums are processed. But so far I really can't hear a difference at 1x unfolding.
  
 I haven't listened extensively, just picked out a few random albums I've always liked. Those happen to already be high-quality remastered releases, so any difference is likely to be small, and on my desktop rig I just can't hear it.


----------



## castleofargh

erich6 said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > my comments to the stereophile quotes in blue
> ...


 
 well I hope I'm not as misleading as all the doublespeak in the article at least ^_^.
   
here is my DIY lowfi1337 example:

 if I apply this EQ, which is kind of hard but not even as hard as what can be typically applied when down converting to 44.1khz(usually very hard filter for minimum aliazing),


 I get this in my crappy loop

  
  
  
  
  
 now if I use a gentler EQ

  
 I get this

 QED. 
 I use the same misleading reliance on impulse response to convince all the people who don't understand impulse response that looking at one with the naked eye is relevant and that I have "improved" time.
 but to be clear, unlike Meridian, I think my first example has superior fidelity and is preferable for 16/44. I don't get why I should find altered sound in the audible range to be preferable to more ringing at an inaudible frequency. I don't own a dog.


----------



## jwbrent

What I find interesting in the debate about MQA are those who assert there is no difference in sound quality tend to berate those who find value in MQA. I've seen this same stance taken by some who feel Hi Res recordings are a rip off.

Music listening _is_ a subjective experience. I think we can all agree on the fact that any emotional experience comes from its subjective interpretation.

When I listen to many of the MQA recordings on TIDAL, I feel more connected to the music, my head starts bopping, my feet start tapping, and I feel just great. Spending $20 a month for this experience is of value to me, especially since the $600+ I typically have spent each year on music is no longer required. In this sense, TIDAL affords me the opportunity to save money, plus, I get greater enjoyment from my favorite hobby.

In my humble opinion, of course.


----------



## OldRoadToad

jwbrent said:


> What I find interesting in the debate about MQA are those who assert there is no difference in sound quality tend to berate those who find value in MQA. I've seen this same stance taken by some who feel Hi Res recordings are a rip off.
> 
> Music listening _is_ a subjective experience. I think we can all agree on the fact that any emotional experience comes from its subjective interpretation.
> 
> ...


 

 ​What I find disgusting is this -  If you want MQA's hands up the dress of every DAC and music producer and in doing so, force those who do not want this tripe to have to pay for it all the same, then to Hades with that.  Follow the money.  Your opinion is valid for you, not I.  It does not give MQA license to take my hard earned money by forcing every one to pay for some thing that the truth of the matter is none can hear in a genuine double-bind test. 
  
 You "feel more connected to the music"?  Really.  No offence (and I was not offended) but just what does this mean?  I can hear a song on an AM radio and if it has meaning to me, i.e., it brings forth a memory or memories associated with a period of time in my life, I do not need some DSP for that.  I do not need "deblurring" or "unfolding" of either the memories or music.  My feelings toward a particular song do not require a light coming on to tell me that the Turtles "Happy Together" makes me think back to when I was a child and all that entails. 
  
 Did the light tell you MQA  was on?  Can you double blind and pick it out every time?  Or are you caught up in the hype of the tailors of MQA and now repeat their buzzwords as rote?  "Deblurring" and "unfolding" are two biggies for these thieves and are so far exclusive to the MQA "experience".  MQA has become the newest variation on the theme of the frAudiophile's Scientology.  
  
 "Bigger, grander soundstage"!  "Instruments floating in air but still positioned with laser like accuracy!"  "Transparency so clear I could see and hear right through it !"  And more.  These people are full of themselves.  They berate those that speak the truth with such retorts as "You're deaf"  or "Did you critically listen to the wire, cable, M&Ms on the tops of the speakers", etc.
  
 ORT
 .


----------



## dglow

Well, I'm willing to endure MQA *so long as* we have pure software players/decoders which perform the first unfolding and output bog-standard PCM.
  
 Why? Because 1) the first unfolding gets us past the sub-standard redbook layer; 2) software decoding means we can ignore this 'authorized hardware' nonsense; 3) the most audible jump in SQ for high-rez comes between 1x (44/48) and 2x (88/96) sample rates; 4x is diminishing returns.
  
 I'm just glad MQA decided to offer the software option. When first announced it didn't sound like they would.


----------



## doggiemom

pdickerson said:


> Tidal has added A Masters section under Playlists.
> Playlists must suffer from volume level differences across songs.


 
 I'm really enjoying the playlists.  It is nice to see Tidal featuring something other than R&B and hip hop.  Listening to the Americana playlist now.


----------



## pdickerson

manpowre said:


> I hate the slow UI with Tidal, and all those music videos (to hell with those). Spotify is way faster to use. Im going back to Spotify the moment they go lossless too. Ill just spend the difference between the two purchasing one hdtracks album a month, as usually the album I purchase is an album I end up listening alot to..




That is one one the most logical responses I have read here.


----------



## pdickerson

I have really enjoyed the albums on MQA pretty much exclusively over the past 2 months. But TIDAL is one serious piece of crap. Deezer interface blows it away, Spotify wipes it up. JC Penny just shut down 138+ stores. I heard a Rumor they were going to lunch a new lossless+DSD+HIDef+MQA site.


----------



## OldRoadToad

Q
  


headfry said:


> In your opinion.
> 
> I would guess that you haven't given it a protracted audition with an open mind, since you've already decided that it's all just an obvious marketing scam.
> 
> ...


 

 ​Why, pray tell, would any one with an iota of smartses want to strain to hear that which is not audible but rather, audiBULL.
  
 And just what in the name of the Belly of the Buddha is "time smear" and how is it heard by humans?  Sounds like a test women get called a "pap smear" or the one we older men get that is jokingly called a "poop smear".  Time smear must be the audio equivalent of poop smear.
  
 Some people suffer from Zelig Syndrome.  They want to be one of the cool kids, even if it means sacrificing the truth that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.  And now you justify your disbelief of my having heard MQA and pronounce it a fraud by saying, "I guess that you haven't given it a protracted audition with an open mind".    Grasping at straws for the sake of the Kool-Aid is beneath you. I believe you are smarter than this but suffer from the aforementioned Zelig Syndrome as so many neophyte frAudiophiles do.  They want to belong.  They want to sit at the lunch table with Fonzie. 
  
 I am far too Alpha Nerd to give up my testicular fortitude.  And again, nothing personal just as I do not think any thing you have said is personal but rather in defense of what you believe and with a sense of humor. My thoughts are what I think with a touch of humor too.
  
  
 ORT


----------



## chaturanga

Good news! Recent USB Audio Player Pro update added MQA playing capability for Tidal MQA tracks (Bit perfect should be ON), through MQA supporting DACs (I think currently only Meridian Explorer 2)
  
 I just tried with Lemonade album and boom. Blue light is ON!


----------



## jwbrent

oldroadtoad said:


> ​What I find disgusting is this -  If you want MQA's hands up the dress of every DAC and music producer and in doing so, force those who do not want this tripe to have to pay for it all the same, then to Hades with that.  Follow the money.  Your opinion is valid for you, not I.  It does not give MQA license to take my hard earned money by forcing every one to pay for some thing that the truth of the matter is none can hear in a genuine double-bind test.
> 
> You "feel more connected to the music"?  Really.  No offence (and I was not offended) but just what does this mean?  I can hear a song on an AM radio and if it has meaning to me, i.e., it brings forth a memory or memories associated with a period of time in my life, I do not need some DSP for that.  I do not need "deblurring" or "unfolding" of either the memories or music.  My feelings toward a particular song do not require a light coming on to tell me that the Turtles "Happy Together" makes me think back to when I was a child and all that entails.
> 
> ...




I find your reply incomprehensible. Peace.


----------



## Left Channel

chaturanga said:


> Good news! Recent USB Audio Player Pro update added MQA playing capability for Tidal MQA tracks (Bit perfect should be ON), through MQA supporting DACs (I think currently only Meridian Explorer 2)
> 
> I just tried with Lemonade album and boom. Blue light is ON!


 

 Have you found a way to identify MQA albums other than just playing each version of an album until your DAC lights up? UAPP seems a step behind Tidal, which just rolled out MQA labels.
  
 Sometime there are three versions of an album side-by-side: old, remastered, and MQA. Can't even tell by drilling down and looking at most track labels. Several taps are needed to get in and out of each album, because when you exit an album you're taken back to the playing queue each time.
  
 I guess the only way do this right now would be to reorganize in the desktop app first, maybe replacing everything in "My Albums" with MQA versions. No?  I don't have an MQA DAC, and the developers of UAPP have not licensed MQA 1x software decoding — nor do I expect them to pay for that at this time — but I am exploring the interface for MQA features and so far I find it very frustrating.


----------



## jwbrent

saddleup said:


> I like that.  Dude you should use that in your signature.
> 
> Edit: Now that I've thought about it some more Bob Stuart is the cross between Hubbard and Noel Lee.  All of the jibber jabber reminds me of Lee.




Why this hate towards Bob Stuart?

Meridian has been developing high end digital sound going back to the early 80s. They have earned a reputation for state of the art gear. I was lucky enough to own their top end, 808 CD player, and at the time it was revelatory. 

Due to my experience with the company, I trust that Bob Stuart is amply qualified to put together a team to take digital audio further, and so I view his efforts regarding MQA as a continuation of 40 years of repeated success, enviable success for that matter.

It sounds like this thread has some Linn acolytes given the harsh words on display.


----------



## chaturanga

left channel said:


> Have you found a way to identify MQA albums other than just playing each version of an album until your DAC lights up? UAPP seems a step behind Tidal, which just rolled out MQA labels.
> 
> Sometime there are three versions of an album side-by-side: old, remastered, and MQA. Can't even tell by drilling down and looking at most track labels. Several taps are needed to get in and out of each album, because when you exit an album you're taken back to the playing queue each time.
> 
> I guess the only way do this right now would be to reorganize in the desktop app first, maybe replacing everything in "My Albums" with MQA versions. No?  I don't have an MQA DAC, and the developers of UAPP have not licensed MQA 1x software decoding — nor do I expect them to pay for that at this time — but I am exploring the interface for MQA features and so far I find it very frustrating.


 
  
 I could not find a way to easly list MQA albums on Tidal Mobile app or UAPP. As you know recently Tidal added an M letter to show Master tracks on desktop app. May be they will add this M on mobile too. For now, it seems only way is finding MQA album list from Tidal desktop and search them through UAPP and make a playlist on UAPP for MQA albums.


----------



## OldRoadToad

jwbrent said:


> I find your reply incomprehensible. Peace.


 

 ​Do not pretend to be ignorant.  Doing so only serves to make you appear so to the general public.
  
 I was alive in the 60s.  "Peace" is hippy-speak for "I have nothing of worth to add", only subjective feelings that can not be proven scientifically by a double blind test.
  
 You seek to discredit my words by your passivity which is some what akin to demonstrators/trespassers  going limp when being arrested.  It does not work.
  
 Do as you desire but do not expect the normal folk of the audio world to stand for being made to pay for MQA when they neither want nor need it.
  
 ORT


----------



## OldRoadToad

jwbrent said:


> Why this hate towards Bob Stuart?
> 
> Meridian has been developing high end digital sound going back to the early 80s. They have earned a reputation for state of the art gear. I was lucky enough to own their top end, 808 CD player, and at the time it was revelatory.
> 
> ...


 

 ​Not hate.  Disgust. But you more than likely knew that so why you chose that word is known only to you.   
  
 And the truth is only "harsh" to those that would run from it like a cockroach from a kitchen light.  You are not a roach.
  
 Years ago I fooled a frAudiophile friend that would often make fun of my stereo into thinking I had a new high end CD player.  I had borrowed such a player and had hooked it up but instead of actually playing the CD through that player I played an identical CD through a cheap portable CD player.  Not knowing this and only hearing with his eyes and ego, he waxed euphoric over the liquidity and fluidity and mucalifragelisticexpealidociousness of it all.
  
 And then I showed him the truth.  He was humiliated and deservedly so.  A cheapo Yorx had fooled him because he listened with eyes and his EGO.
  
 We do not talk much but we are still friends and he laughs about it because that is all he can do. He was pwned big time. 
  
 ORT


----------



## dglow

chaturanga said:


> left channel said:
> 
> 
> > Have you found a way to identify MQA albums other than just playing each version of an album until your DAC lights up? UAPP seems a step behind Tidal, which just rolled out MQA labels.
> ...


 

 Unless I am mistaken MQA tracks are not available through Tidal Mobile.


----------



## rkw

dglow said:


> Unless I am mistaken MQA tracks are not available through Tidal Mobile.


 
  
 Yes MQA tracks are available through Tidal Mobile. You can favorite an MQA track or album in the desktop app and it will appear in the mobile app, which will play it in HiFi resolution. The mobile app doesn't do software MQA unfolding but the bits can be streamed to an external DAC that has MQA capability.


----------



## jwbrent

rkw said:


> Yes MQA tracks are available through Tidal Mobile. You can favorite an MQA track or album in the desktop app and it will appear in the mobile app, which will play it in HiFi resolution. The mobile app doesn't do software MQA unfolding but the bits can be streamed to an external DAC that has MQA capability.




Didn't know this, thank you.


----------



## Left Channel

rkw said:


> dglow said:
> 
> 
> > Unless I am mistaken MQA tracks are not available through Tidal Mobile.
> ...


 
  
 Can we assume you're streaming those bits from an iPhone 7? Or have you found a way to do this from the Tidal app on other devices?


----------



## dglow

rkw said:


> dglow said:
> 
> 
> > Unless I am mistaken MQA tracks are not available through Tidal Mobile.
> ...


 

 Thank you, good to know. To be sure I understand:
  
 1. MQA tracks are not labeled or indicated as such in Tidal Mobile.
 2. One cannot listen to MQA-quality audio (> 44/48 SR) directly through a phone via Tidal Mobile. Correct?


----------



## chaturanga

dglow said:


> Thank you, good to know. To be sure I understand:
> 
> 1. MQA tracks are not labeled or indicated as such in Tidal Mobile.
> 2. One cannot listen to MQA-quality audio (> 44/48 SR) directly through a phone via Tidal Mobile. Correct?


 
  
 1. Yes only desktop application shows Master albums and playlists
 2. Sure. You need an MQA capable external DAC and USB Audio Player Pro app to be able to send bit perfect MQA data from Tidal master albums to the external DAC.


----------



## rkw

dglow said:


> rkw said:
> 
> 
> > dglow said:
> ...


 
  
 Yes, that's exactly what I meant. MQA tracks are _available_ on mobile (although they are not labeled as MQA). There's no reason not to make them available since the files can be played like standard 44/48 resolution files. However, the mobile app doesn't do MQA unfolding and won't play at higher than 44/48 resolution.


----------



## rkw

left channel said:


> rkw said:
> 
> 
> > dglow said:
> ...


 
  
 My comment was referring to UAPP Pro which was being discussed earlier.


----------



## chaturanga

rkw said:


> My comment was referring to UAPP Pro which was being discussed earlier.


 
  
 With recent update of UAPP,
  
 UAPP Pro + Meridian Explorer 2 can play MQA tracks from Tidal. It's confirmed.


----------



## SpiderNhan




----------



## tmarshl

I am one of those who never forked out the money to "re-purchase" my entire library in high-resolution formats.  I did buy a dozen 24/192 PCM albums and a similar amount of DSD albums.  One of the reasons that I didn't download more is that some of the purveyors of hi-res downloads did not provide the provenance of their offerings, and in some cases I was delivered substandard results from a poor master or just a conversion from PCM to DSD.  I am not paying $25 per album for that kind of product.  
 
So when Tidal streaming came along, I found the SQ to be acceptable, but the interface not.  But Roon / Tidal + Masters checks all of the boxes for me: great interface and reasonable SQ.  
 
The biggest advantage I find is in music discovery: I am able to find the music that I really like, so that I can make a price / performance judgement on whether it is worth buying as a DSD download, or whether Tidal / Masters is good enough.  Another advantage is that I don't feel compelled to purchase complete albums any more, just the tracks that I like.  Frankly I feel that the record labels, by marketing their music primarily as albums, got me to buy a lot of tracks that I really didn't want or like. My experience so far has been to really enjoy Roon / Tidal / Master streaming to the point that I have not purchased a hi-res download since Tidal / Masters became available.  
 
I will continue to discover new music and will continue to make the judgement each time on whether I want to purchase a hi-resolution version through download.  The nice thing is that with Roon, it seamlessly integrates the downloaded tracks with favorited streaming tracks.
 
I don't think that I am that unique, and the bottom line is that I am enjoying the experience of discovery and listening even more.


----------



## dglow

rkw said:


> dglow said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you, good to know. To be sure I understand:
> ...


 
  
 Thanks. Then it's accurate to say MQA-quality isn't available _on _mobile_, _which for me is the operational fact that matters.
 One can listen to MQA through a PC or by using external components, but not via the mobile device itself.
  
 FWIW, I _really_ want MQA on my phone. I'm sure it would sound excellent on my bluetooth earbuds...  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 (that's sarcasm, fyi)


----------



## innocentblood

Is it possible to install UAPP on a DAP like the onkyo dp-X1 to get the full decoding benefits of MQA?


----------



## chaturanga

innocentblood said:


> Is it possible to install UAPP on a DAP like the onkyo dp-X1 to get the full decoding benefits of MQA?


 
  
 Since it's an Android DAP, it should be installed easily. But the problem is if Onkyo DP-X1 will power up the external DAC or not. Does it support OTG host?
  
 And one more thing, DP-X1 has already MQA support itself  It's one of the rare DAPs supporting MQA, but I am not sure it's a software level or hardware level support.


----------



## castleofargh

tmarshl said:


> I am one of those who never forked out the money to "re-purchase" my entire library in high-resolution formats.  I did buy a dozen 24/192 PCM albums and a similar amount of DSD albums.  One of the reasons that I didn't download more is that some of the purveyors of hi-res downloads did not provide the provenance of their offerings, and in some cases I was delivered substandard results from a poor master or just a conversion from PCM to DSD.  I am not paying $25 per album for that kind of product.
> 
> So when Tidal streaming came along, I found the SQ to be acceptable, but the interface not.  But Roon / Tidal + Masters checks all of the boxes for me: great interface and reasonable SQ.
> 
> ...


 
 well of course discovery is amazing on streaming services. many moons ago, Pandora took me out of my audio cave where I was fine listening to the same album in a loop for 3 months(I know Queen and Pink Floyd songs veeeeery well ^_^). online music has been, at least to me, the most significant audio progress since the K7 walkman. both really changed my way to experience music at a level that makes audio formats and resolutions insignificant in comparison.
  
  


innocentblood said:


> Is it possible to install UAPP on a DAP like the onkyo dp-X1 to get the full decoding benefits of MQA?


 
 UAPP does nothing for MQA, it's a mean to try and output basic digital audio when your source doesn't work with some external usb DAC. people talking about this, I guess, are thinking of using a DAC that does all the MQA decoding itself.
 but your dp-x1 is supposed to do MQA decoding on its own and doesn't require the app nor an external MQA compatible DAC to offer you the fancy green or blue light depending on what sort of MQA it's playing.  now how that goes with tidal, I have no idea.


----------



## erich6

castleofargh said:


> well I hope I'm not as misleading as all the doublespeak in the article at least ^_^.
> 
> here is my DIY lowfi1337 example:
> if I apply this EQ, which is kind of hard but not even as hard as what can be typically applied when down converting to 44.1khz(usually very hard filter for minimum aliazing),
> ...


 

 ​I'm not sure what you are using as your input but assuming you are using an analog source and that you have measured the output through an analog scope and posted a screenshot then you are seeing just the effect of the EQ.  The MQA filtering is supposed to incorporate the effect of the original analog to digital conversion, which I think includes a specific digital sampling approach (a nonlinear operation), as well as the digital to analog conversion at the user end.  You can approximately represent this with a convolution kernel that looks similar to what you've measured here but is not exactly the same.  We can argue to what extent the differences are significant (i.e., is it audibly perceptible) but mathematically they are not the same thing.  And, the theory is that while the ringing frequency is inaudible (if it were to be represented by a singular tone), the impact of that ringing (it's convolution with the original continuous signal) is perceptible because it affects the timing of notes relative to each other.  Now, I'll concede that the painstaking approach MQA takes to reproduce the analog signal ultimately can be invalidated by the analog speaker/headphone system being used as room acoustics, driver angle, etc. will probably swamp these effects. I am also aware of the amped-up hype and marketing...but that's normal for ANY product.
  
 On a separate (more subjective) note, many including myself have noted the improved sound quality of Tidal Masters.... I believe this is more of a function of the actual remastering quality than the MQA encoding but if MQA is helping/encouraging studios to distribute better masters than I'm all for it!


----------



## castleofargh

erich6 said:


> ​I'm not sure what you are using as your input but assuming you are using an analog source and that you have measured the output through an analog scope and posted a screenshot then you are seeing just the effect of the EQ.  The MQA filtering is supposed to incorporate the effect of the original analog to digital conversion, which I think includes a specific digital sampling approach (a nonlinear operation), as well as the digital to analog conversion at the user end.  You can approximately represent this with a convolution kernel that looks similar to what you've measured here but is not exactly the same.  We can argue to what extent the differences are significant (i.e., is it audibly perceptible) but mathematically they are not the same thing.  And, the theory is that while the ringing frequency is inaudible (if it were to be represented by a singular tone), the impact of that ringing (it's convolution with the original continuous signal) is perceptible because it affects the timing of notes relative to each other.  Now, I'll concede that the painstaking approach MQA takes to reproduce the analog signal ultimately can be invalidated by the analog speaker/headphone system being used as room acoustics, driver angle, etc. will probably swamp these effects. I am also aware of the amped-up hype and marketing...but that's normal for ANY product.
> 
> On a separate (more subjective) note, many including myself have noted the improved sound quality of Tidal Masters.... I believe this is more of a function of the actual remastering quality than the MQA encoding but if MQA is helping/encouraging studios to distribute better masters than I'm all for it!


 
 I could have explained what I was doing a little better, sorry about that. I'm generating a sweep, sending it to my EQ(used in both instances just for consistency in the signal path to show that only the applied EQ is the reason for change in the impulse). and the output of the EQ is measured in REW(because I know I can get an impulse response easily that way and I'm lazy^_^).
 and of course I'm not saying I'm doing the exact same thing as MQA does with same settings and all, but the principle is massively the same. most of the timing blablah can be simplified as sample rate and low pass filter. they explain it with marketing lingo trying to make it look like a big deal, but that's all there is to timing accuracy in digital audio. more samples increase the time accuracy, different low pass filters will create some phase shift and do a few other things.
 in fact more bits also increase the timing accuracy(because sine waves), so discarding some is bad for time (ok I'm half trolling again but it's still true).
  
 for example, take a typical 24/96 master. because unlike Meridian, the studio cares about doing nominal band limiting while keeping as much content as possible and avoiding aliasing, they tend to apply a very strong low pass close to 48khz that will ring at those freqs, but everything else is kept with great fidelity in time and amplitude. that's what the master side of MQA is supposed to "improve"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
   so how can they "improve" this 24/96 original master in the time domain? well they can't really pull higher sample rate data out of a hat to increase time domain accuracy. 96khz is all the data they have for this album and the hard low pass is in the signal now. so that's dead.
 we're left with the idea of a new low pass filter before the low pass filter. to make a cleaner cut on the cheese, you cut it again. all of MQA aside from the compression design is based on that. they use a gentler slope for the filter, kind of like my poor example, and some extra salsa for the apodizing filter of the MQA DACs in the playback. all so that at the end of the audio band, there will be very little ringing. basically because there will be very little signal left at the ringing frequency and before. that's why they're so focused on time domain everything, because in the amplitude domain, they take no prisoner.
  
 about making new nice sounding masters(which has nothing to do with the MQA format itself), I've already expressed my opinion. I'm all for more nice sounding music, but good masters available only in a particular format is a solution to milk the cow. choice means having all the masters available in all formats and resolutions equal or below the original. be it from the seller, or as a free convertion tool for the consumer who purchased the high resolution album. any other offer is restrictive and plays against us consumers.
 also if I can only get a master in one format, I'd rather have it in one that is actually high fidelity, MQA is destructive compared to PCM.
  
 now all this is my rant, I find the entire MQA solution to be bad for us and I would never purchase a MQA album unless everything else has disappeared(you can call me on that in 10 years if you want, it's an easy bet for me to win). but about MQA as a streaming solution, why not, those who want it can have it. those who don't, don't need to. the world is big and all is well. I just find a little strange how people would use tidal to avoid lossy formats(because let's be honest, people aren't all in love with tidal's interface....), but some of them are now enthusiastic even about listening to some 13/48 undecoded MQA on their phone. I find that strange.


----------



## saddleup

jwbrent said:


> Why this hate towards Bob Stuart?
> 
> Meridian has been developing high end digital sound going back to the early 80s. They have earned a reputation for state of the art gear. I was lucky enough to own their top end, 808 CD player, and at the time it was revelatory.
> 
> ...


 

 Because I find the MQA business model insidious.  If people believe that it exists to bring better sound to the masses you are dreaming.  It's about one thing and one thing only.  Licensing and the steady stream of income it brings the license holder.
  
 The reason DVD Audio and SA-CD were brought to market was because the CD had reached the end of it's licensing cycle.  Sony wanted that back so came up with SA-CD/DSD.  Everyone else backed DVD Audio with the help of good old Bob.  We all know what happened there.  Both failed but DVD Audio did get a little bit of an ass kicking from SA-CD.  Bob Stuart is still butt hurt about this.  All that licensing money gone, poof!
  
 So the mad scientist worked on his next licensing scheme late nights for years and years and has finally come up with MQA.  Of course the labels will sign up, just like they did with DVD Audio and SA-CD.  They love to sell you the same stuff only different over and over. 
  
 Meridian has gone from cutting edge products to crappy $250 DACS.  There is no money in PCM for Bob anymore.  There are manufacturers that are selling better Schiit for far less money.
  
 I'm not going to participate in this latest money grab.  I have 0 respect for it's mastermind.


----------



## goldendarko

You do realize you don't need an to actually buy anything new though right? I'm literally listening on my Schiit DAC & Amp just using TIDAL. Didn't cost me a thing. May not be full MQA but it's benefit to me didn't cost a dime.


----------



## Groot Geluid

saddleup said:


> Because I find the MQA business model insidious.  If people believe that it exists to bring better sound to the masses you are dreaming.  It's about one thing and one thing only.  Licensing and the steady stream of income it brings the license holder.
> 
> The reason DVD Audio and SA-CD were brought to market was because the CD had reached the end of it's licensing cycle.  Sony wanted that back so came up with SA-CD/DSD.  Everyone else backed DVD Audio with the help of good old Bob.  We all know what happened there.  Both failed but DVD Audio did get a little bit of an ass kicking from SA-CD.  Bob Stuart is still butt hurt about this.  All that licensing money gone, poof!
> 
> ...


 

 The biggest difference with SA-CD: there was an actual technical innovation that brought high quality audio to the consumer (which before SA-CD did not exist). And also in multi channel, which on a headphone site is perhaps less relevant, but which can actually deliver superior audio playback results for music on all important quality factors....
  
 And most important for the Labels, the delivery format was and is costing nothing extra as there is no need to pay a licence fee. Only the necessary mastering tools and away you go.
 For Bluray this is not the case (costs money to the licences holders to produce product) but for download files we can now (still) use the same authored SA-CD files and use SA-CD-iso files to play back on audio players (or extract the lossless DSD files from them).
  
 For PCM, WAV and FLAC can deliver lossless high resolution "masters" to the consumers (also streaming) and we do not need another format to complicate and make the business model for delivery of music to the consumers more expensive. There is already very little to earn by the music product owners and makers and that makes that I am also very much against MQA.


----------



## chaturanga

groot geluid said:


> The biggest difference with SA-CD: there was an actual technical innovation that brought high quality audio to the consumer (which before SA-CD did not exist). And also in multi channel, which on a headphone site is perhaps less relevant, but which can actually deliver superior audio playback results for music on all important quality factors....
> 
> And most important for the Labels, the delivery format was and is costing nothing extra as there is no need to pay a licence fee. Only the necessary mastering tools and away you go.
> For Bluray this is not the case (costs money to the licences holders to produce product) but for download files we can now (still) use the same authored SA-CD files and use SA-CD-iso files to play back on audio players (or extract the lossless DSD files from them).
> ...




Noone can stop someone to do something! Meridian is a company, it's doing something like every others did and do. None of us are forced to buy. This discussion comes me meaningless. 

I personally did like so much Meridian Explorer 2 and MQA tracks, if someone calls this DAC "crap" and sees MQA as a marketing thing, so what! My ears loved this DAC and this marketing thing.


----------



## jwbrent

This continuing rant against MQA is pointless. For those who don't find value, fine, your choice. Move on to another thread.


----------



## raypin

Mm..yup. Getting tiresome to read pointless rants. Geez....move on. No one is putting a gun on your head to support MQA. Stick with whatever format you prefer. It is a free marketplace, where choice abounds.


----------



## manpowre

jwbrent said:


> This continuing rant against MQA is pointless. For those who don't find value, fine, your choice. Move on to another thread.


 
 wait, what ? your saying you only want positive things about MQA in this thread ?


----------



## chaturanga

manpowre said:


> wait, what ? your saying you only want positive things about MQA in this thread ?




Of course there will be positive and negative posts about MQA in this thread, but saying MQA is just a marketing baloon or saying Meridian 250 USD DACs are "craps" are not negative comments, these are even not comments these are biased words and bothers people who are using Meridian Explore 2 and who are finding value on MQA music.

Showing no respect to people who are trying to create some software or hardware is not a good way to go.

We are not saying anything who is focusing quality of MQA vs others.


----------



## jwbrent

manpowre said:


> wait, what ? your saying you only want positive things about MQA in this thread ?




No, not exactly. But when individuals demonize Bob Stuart, or for that matter, any other noted audio industry leader, I question the validity of such posts. 

If one doesn't find MQA to be good for them, sure, share your viewpoint, but be respectful ... that's all I'm saying.

Some of these posts come across as nothing other than trolling.


----------



## castleofargh

chaturanga said:


> manpowre said:
> 
> 
> > wait, what ? your saying you only want positive things about MQA in this thread ?
> ...


 

 went back as far as page 34 and couldn't find even one critic of the Explorer2. perhaps complain about something that actually relates to the posts in the topic?
  
 otherwise yeah, enough with the biased words on headfi. let's remove all the posts that are biased from the forum, the 25 posts left about how to solder will be real interesting. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 people have opinions, some are ignorant, some are more informed, a great many are false, and all are biased. freedom of speech, means accepting them all. you also have the freedom to disagree with them and express that disagreement(probably better with relevant argument, but even that is an option), so all is good IMO.


----------



## pkcpga

castleofargh said:


> went back as far as page 34 and couldn't find even one critic of the Explorer2. perhaps complain about something that actually relates to the posts in the topic?
> 
> otherwise yeah, enough with the biased words on headfi. let's remove all the posts that are biased from the forum, the 25 posts left about how to solder will be real interesting. :wink_face:
> people have opinions, some are ignorant, some are more informed, a great many are false, and all are biased. freedom of speech, means accepting them all. you also have the freedom to disagree with them and express that disagreement(probably better with relevant argument, but even that is an option), so all is good IMO.


----------



## chaturanga

castleofargh said:


> went back as far as page 34 and couldn't find even one critic of the Explorer2. perhaps complain about something that actually relates to the posts in the topic?
> 
> otherwise yeah, enough with the biased words on headfi. let's remove all the posts that are biased from the forum, the 25 posts left about how to solder will be real interesting. :wink_face:
> people have opinions, some are ignorant, some are more informed, a great many are false, and all are biased. freedom of speech, means accepting them all. you also have the freedom to disagree with them and express that disagreement(probably better with relevant argument, but even that is an option), so all is good IMO.




Look at this page not needed to go page 34:

"Meridian has gone from cutting edge products to *crappy $250 DACS*" Can you tell me what are those 250 USD crappy DACs of Meridian? Isn't ME2 in this price level?


----------



## manpowre

chaturanga said:


> Look at this page not needed to go page 34:
> 
> "Meridian has gone from cutting edge products to *crappy $250 DACS*" Can you tell me what are those 250 USD crappy DACs of Meridian? Isn't ME2 in this price level?


 
 every manufacturer needs to extend its market. Only selling a few thousand high end dac's wont make the company run, but selling 100k or even more 250 dollar dacs for mass market to large distributors can make the company atleast fund the next project they are probably working on. Once they have the design of the high end version, they can change parts and make a lower end version for a way cheaper price !


----------



## shamu144

I have the feeling that Meridian has gone to great length to offer the explorer at such a low price point to "flood" the market with their MQA enabled device, allowing the format to flourish, while getting their revenues from licensing MQA to studios/manufacturers/streaming services/etc... At the current retail price around $150, I feel the explorer offers outstanding value considering the technology packed inside. There should be no excuse not to own one 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 However, I do not think this alone would be a sustainable business for Meridian, and even though Meridian and MQA are now separated companies, they obviously share the same interests (It would be interesting to know who is sitting on the boards of both companies). Maybe this is similar to what is happening with game consoles (cheap hardware, sold with minimal margins, while money is made on games/licensing fees). This seems to me a better approach to expand the MQA format compared to selling SACD players at a premium to end consumers.


----------



## tradyblix

shamu144 said:


> I have the feeling that Meridian has gone to great length to offer the explorer at such a low price point to "flood" the market with their MQA enabled device, allowing the format to flourish, while getting their revenues from licensing MQA to studios/manufacturers/streaming services/etc... At the current retail price around $150, I feel the explorer offers outstanding value considering the technology packed inside. There should be no excuse not to own one
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 You don't need hardware decoding to listen to MQA tho. You can listen to MQA on any dac since Tidal decodes it in software. It's just a container and encoding scheme.


----------



## L8MDL

tradyblix said:


> You don't need hardware decoding to listen to MQA tho. You can listen to MQA on any dac since Tidal decodes it in software. It's just a container and encoding scheme.




Although you don't get the complete MQA "unfolding" that way, just first level.


----------



## dglow

manpowre said:


> chaturanga said:
> 
> 
> > Look at this page not needed to go page 34:
> ...


 
  
 Question: what DAC IC does Meridian use in the Explorer? Or the Ultra, for that matter. I cannot find this documented anywhere on their site. The Explorer page mentions an XMOS chip – is _that_ the DAC, or just for DSP and/or USB interface?
  
 Does Meridian craft its own custom DAC ICs, like MSB does?


----------



## tradyblix

l8mdl said:


> Although you don't get the complete MQA "unfolding" that way, just first level.


 

 So what does that mean exactly ?


----------



## SpiderNhan

tradyblix said:


> So what does that mean exactly ?


 

 ​This is a super simplified explanation and some of my numbers might be off, but I'll give you the gist of it.
  
 Tidal takes the 24/48 MQA file and unfolds it one level, which in most cases will net you 24/88.2 or 24/96 playback. This is done regardless of the DAC you use assuming that your DAC is capable of 24/88.1 and 24/96 playback. So, with the first unfolding you get high-res audio streaming through Tidal without having to spend money on any extra hardware.
  
 However, if you have an MQA capable DAC, then you can unfold the MQA file past 88.1 or 96 so it's possible to get 24/192 or even 24/384 playback through streaming the same sized 24/48 MQA file. Either way, with one unfolding or four, Tidal and MQA allow high-res streaming at about the same data draw as streaming CD-quality 16/44.1 files.


----------



## RCBinTN

spidernhan said:


> ​This is a super simplified explanation and some of my numbers might be off, but I'll give you the gist of it.
> 
> Tidal takes the 24/48 MQA file and unfolds it one level, which in most cases will net you 24/88.2 or 24/96 playback. This is done regardless of the DAC you use assuming that your DAC is capable of 24/88.1 and 24/96 playback. So, with the first unfolding you get high-res audio streaming through Tidal without having to spend money on any extra hardware.
> 
> However, if you have an MQA capable DAC, then you can unfold the MQA file past 88.1 or 96 so it's possible to get 24/192 or even 24/384 playback through streaming the same sized 24/48 MQA file. Either way, with one unfolding or four, Tidal and MQA allow high-res streaming at about the same data draw as streaming CD-quality 16/44.1 files.


 
 I don't know anything about it, really, but I was not aware you could make a 24/96 file out of a 24/48 file.


----------



## SpiderNhan

rcbintn said:


> I don't know anything about it, really, but I was not aware you could make a 24/96 file out of a 24/48 file.


 
 And there you have summed up most of the controversy.
  
 This should help you understand the tech behind it.


----------



## castleofargh

rcbintn said:


> spidernhan said:
> 
> 
> > ​This is a super simplified explanation and some of my numbers might be off, but I'll give you the gist of it.
> ...


 
 and of course they don't. it's all the fun about the constant confusion between signal range of resolution, and file range of resolutions that leads to people misinterpreting (to MQA's benefit) what is really going on. us having no idea about the factual bit depth resolution of any MQA album we listen to, is just icing on the cake.
  
 if the original file is 24/96, the MQA encoding will do let's say a 17/96***** file of it.  in this made up situation the data from 17 to 24bits is forever lost, that's a done deal. then they take that 17/96 signal, and fold it into a 24/48 container with their origami thing. so you have a 24bit PCM file that doesn't contain 24bit of resolution. in a 48khz PCM file that contains more than 24khz of signal. it's obvious that one goes down for the other to go up, data isn't created out of nowhere.
  
  
  
  
  
  
*****   to be precise, I make up an example where 7bits are lost, but the patent https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/c9207ae3fbb2bdf725cc/US20150154969A1.pdf seems to imply that the discarded bits can change from 3 to 8bits depending on the signal they need to encode and the resolution they need to encode.


----------



## tradyblix

I would just say use your ears. Even partially unfolded MQA sounds great to me via Tidal. But I'm not gonna stress about having it on hardware or not


----------



## jwbrent

tradyblix said:


> I would just say use your ears. Even partially unfolded MQA sounds great to me via Tidal. But I'm not gonna stress about having it on hardware or not




Agreed.


----------



## erich6

tradyblix said:


> I would just say use your ears. Even partially unfolded MQA sounds great to me via Tidal. But I'm not gonna stress about having it on hardware or not


 

 ​Yes, to a point.
  
 I agree the MQA debate when framed in terms of just bits and sampling frequency is flawed because these two parameters (bit resolution and sampling frequency) DO NOT fully represent audio quality.  In this point I agree with Meridian--the digital age has done a disservice by focusing the discussion on these parameters at the expense of a more holistic perspective rooted in the quality of the analog reproduction of the music as the end objective.  That said, for us geeks that like to dissect the MQA methodology it is worth diving in to these silly details.
  
 The real debate is whether the MQA scheme (both the digital packaging and filtering which does involve compromising certain bits and frequencies) is helpful or not to audio quality (I'm ignoring the business debate for now which is a valid one also).  Unfortunately, "just using your ears" may not be adequate.  As some have correctly pointed out, the improvement you hear may simply be the fact that the MQA versions of albums on Tidal are better masters to begin with...it's very difficult to tell if the improvement comes from the MQA scheme or from the quality of the mastering.  The only way to get at this is by setting up a scientifically sound comparative psychoacoustic experiment with good controls to differentiate from the mastering and MQA scheme (such as requiring blind tests, playback of the same master in a "lossless" FLAC vs. MQA, etc.).  Your average consumer, or even home audiophile, does not have the time or resource to do this kind of test so the debate will rage on until someone commissions such a test and publishes those results.


----------



## jwbrent

Whatever the reason why MQA albums sound better, better masters, deblurring, observer bias, etc., the end experience is what matters to me—a deeper connection to my favorite music.


----------



## chaturanga

jwbrent said:


> Whatever the reason why MQA albums sound better, better masters, deblurring, observer bias, etc., the end experience is what matters to me—a deeper connection to my favorite music.




I agree. Let's think if the heard improvement is just because of mastering and MQA has zero effect and it was just a zipping encoder. So, why any other company or person did not ask the question to themselves why they were using worse mastered versions before? May be is it because they were already earning money from us with less quality music? And no one challenged them?

If to use better mastered music came to the Stuart's and Meridian guys' mind, and they even just zipped those into small file sizes and called the algorithm "MQA", so why someone blaming them to make money from this.

Even MQA has no effect on the SQ, we should thank those people who caused us to know we can get better quality in some way.


----------



## headfry

If what you are saying is true -  then let a competitor come out with a competing format,
 with equal sq and streamable file size with either open-source or very low licensing fee. That would undercut
 MQA and should find wide adoption.


----------



## chaturanga

headfry said:


> If what you are saying is true -  then let a competitor come out with a competing format,
> with equal sq and streamable file size with either open-source or very low licensing fee. That would undercut
> MQA and should find wide adoption.




Who is stopping them? Let those competitors show us, if that is so much easy. What was the motivation stopped those competitors before Meridian released MQA, why they did not use better master versions of the tracks to give us a better quality. Why they waited till now?


----------



## Left Channel

I think I have a decent enough setup, and should be able to hear a difference in Tidal 1x unfolding. But so far I've only found a few examples of what seem to be albums of the same provenance, in both HiFi and MQA, and I cannot hear any difference between them. Maybe I just need to find the right albums? I have a nice little Schitt stack with a range of cans, IEMs, and speakers. I have looked at the Brooklyn DAC and other MQA boxes above and below that price point, but I need to be convinced it will be worth time and money.

 It should not be so difficult to find tracks to compare. Mostly I've found MQA files processed from a higher-quality quality masters than the reproductions that were already on Tidal. Those are not useful comparisons. I do believe that I've found a few Jethro Tull albums that are a match: the Steve Wilson mixes in both HiFi and MQA. But although I hear a clear step-up in quality from older versions to the Wilson remixes, I hear no difference between the HiFi and MQA Wilsons.

 Maybe jazz would be a better choice for my ears. The way Tidal is organized I can't easily find albums to compare, but even armed with the Google Sheet of MQA albums on Tidal, I'm not finding useful matches. For example, the Modern Jazz Quartet is listed as having albums in both formats, like European Concert Vols. 1 & 2, and Lonely Woman. But those are clearly of different provenance, with tracks of different lengths, and even different album art. This is getting tedious, and I have better things to do with my time.
  
 Can anyone suggest albums for me to compare on Tidal? Albums you know are from the same source? Maybe some jazz? I know about the free downloads on the 2L Test Bench page, but for now this needs to all happen on Tidal here.


----------



## AxelCloris

I've gone through and cleaned up the thread. Please keep posts on topic and about MQA, not one another.


----------



## Share2Care

I own a delightful Jotunheim which hits the spot when it comes to desktop control centre. Not looking to upgrade. I looked at Tidal a while ago and nearly purchased just based on the improvement I found with the tracks. So I am tempted by Tidal, for the increase in quality...BUT...I am not sure how the MQA part will fit in. Do I need to purchase something to unleash the unfolding of the tracks?
  
 You will have to excuse my ignorance and I am trying to read up, but is there a way to spend the least amount of money so it can work with my Jot or does it not work like that?
  
 Guidance would be most appreciated. I am still slowly just walking out of pure beginner so be gentle! 
  
  
 Thanks!


----------



## SpiderNhan

share2care said:


> I own a delightful Jotunheim which hits the spot when it comes to desktop control centre. Not looking to upgrade. I looked at Tidal a while ago and nearly purchased just based on the improvement I found with the tracks. So I am tempted by Tidal, for the increase in quality...BUT...I am not sure how the MQA part will fit in. Do I need to purchase something to unleash the unfolding of the tracks?
> 
> You will have to excuse my ignorance and I am trying to read up, but is there a way to spend the least amount of money so it can work with my Jot or does it not work like that?
> 
> ...


 
 Tidal will decode MQA 1x for you without any additional equipment so the Jotunheim will receive either a 24/88.2 or 24/96 stream. Higher levels of decoding are currently only possible with a MQA enabled DAC.


----------



## OldRoadToad

share2care said:


> I own a delightful Jotunheim which hits the spot when it comes to desktop control centre. Not looking to upgrade. I looked at Tidal a while ago and nearly purchased just based on the improvement I found with the tracks. So I am tempted by Tidal, for the increase in quality...BUT...I am not sure how the MQA part will fit in. Do I need to purchase something to unleash the unfolding of the tracks?
> 
> You will have to excuse my ignorance and I am trying to read up, but is there a way to spend the least amount of money so it can work with my Jot or does it not work like that?
> 
> ...


 
 The following is public service announcement:  RUN!
  
 ORT


----------



## goldendarko

share2care said:


> I own a delightful Jotunheim which hits the spot when it comes to desktop control centre. Not looking to upgrade. I looked at Tidal a while ago and nearly purchased just based on the improvement I found with the tracks. So I am tempted by Tidal, for the increase in quality...BUT...I am not sure how the MQA part will fit in. Do I need to purchase something to unleash the unfolding of the tracks?
> 
> You will have to excuse my ignorance and I am trying to read up, but is there a way to spend the least amount of money so it can work with my Jot or does it not work like that?
> 
> ...


I also use the Jotunheim with my PC and it works great with the TIDAL desktop application which allows you to listen to partially unfolded (24/96) hi res master tracks that are available through TIDAL. Nothing else you need to buy. If you had an MQA DAC you could get the fully unfolded master tracks (24/192) but I doubt you'd hear much difference the current albums available in master format already sound great.


----------



## AxelCloris

Had to remove some posts for going against the posting guidelines. Please keep posts directly related to MQA and not one another.


----------



## headfry

left channel said:


> I think I have a decent enough setup, and should be able to hear a difference in Tidal 1x unfolding. But so far I've only found a few examples of what seem to be albums of the same provenance, in both HiFi and MQA, and I cannot hear any difference between them. Maybe I just need to find the right albums? I have a nice little Schitt stack with a range of cans, IEMs, and speakers. I have looked at the Brooklyn DAC and other MQA boxes above and below that price point, but I need to be convinced it will be worth time and money.
> 
> It should not be so difficult to find tracks to compare. Mostly I've found MQA files processed from a higher-quality quality masters than the reproductions that were already on Tidal. Those are not useful comparisons. I do believe that I've found a few Jethro Tull albums that are a match: the Steve Wilson mixes in both HiFi and MQA. But although I hear a clear step-up in quality from older versions to the Wilson remixes, I hear no difference between the HiFi and MQA Wilsons.
> 
> ...


 

 Check out James Taylor's album "Gorilla" - track Angry Blues. The regular HIFI sounds somewhat brasher,
 messier, somewhat blurred - images are quite flat and indistinct in both shape and position within the sound field.
 The Masters/MQA version is more natural, higher resolution-sounding, with
 much more believable imaging, much better space and position within the recording...and it not only sounds
 more detailed but sweeter/more natural,coherent,refined and is for me easier to enjoy.
  
 To sum up, MQA sounds higher resolution, more natural and once appreciated makes
 me seek out the MQA version against the regular FLAC. Well done conventional hires albums are (probably)
 roughly about as musical to me as Tidal software-decoded MQA.
  
  
 ....this is pretty much my experience with most if not all of the Masters recordings that I've heard (again,
 played through Tidal software-decoding, now in Audirvana Plus 3).


----------



## jwbrent

headfry said:


> ....this is pretty much my experience with most if not all of the Masters recordings that I've heard (again,
> played through Tidal software-decoding, now in Audirvana Plus 3).




What differences do you hear between TIDAL's software and Audirvana? Are there any functional improvements with Audirvana?


----------



## shamu144

I also use Audirvana 3 and love it to stream MQA albums with TIDAL. Audirvana to my ears offers a much more clear background and better resolution. Tidal alone sounds a bit muffled in comparaison. However, what I appreciate most with Audirvana 3 is that I can use the powerfull izotope upsampler on the fly and upsample the MQA files unfolded at 24/44, 24/88 or 24/96 up to 24/192 currently (old mac, so it does not support 24/384 but that is technically possible). In essence, it should be possible to replicate the second MQA unfolding done in hardware with the correct settings in Audirvana 3.


----------



## headfry

jwbrent said:


> What differences do you hear between TIDAL's software and Audirvana? Are there any functional improvements with Audirvana?


 

 hi there....when I discovered that TIdal no longer streams Yes Master albums - keeps loading 
 and never plays - but through Audirvana 3 Plus they play fine - plus the fact that I can use
 my equalizer (AudioUnits/Voxengo Marvel eq) - and that it sounds as least as good as Tidal desktop - 
 maybe better - but with eq Audirvana is obviously better with my headphones - no eq possible through the current Tidal desktop.
  
 With my setup, I find music sounds best without izotope upsampling.
  
 The software set itself up seamlessly, with my Tidal logged in as well as all of the best settings
 automatically set - I was beyond impressed. (I upgraded from the demo).
  
 On a side note - I'm also _greatly_ enjoying my portable setup with conventional hires files -
 iPod Touch 6th gen with Kaisertone sw/USB3CCK/AQ Jitterbug//Mojo/SR325e. Properly eq'd to
 subdue the highs - very slight subtle drop from 4k to 20k- I find that the 325e's sound amazing -
 supremely musical and not far off from my GS1000i's.


----------



## chaturanga

headfry said:


> hi there....when I discovered that TIdal no longer streams Yes Master albums - keeps loading
> and never plays - but through Audirvana 3 Plus they play fine - plus the fact that I can use
> my equalizer (AudioUnits/Voxengo Marvel eq) - and that it sounds as least as good as Tidal desktop -
> maybe better - but [COLOR=000080]with eq[/COLOR] Audirvana is [COLOR=4B0082]obviously[/COLOR] better with my headphones - no eq possible through the current Tidal desktop.
> ...




What do you mean with "...when I discovered that TIdal no longer streams Yes Master" ?


----------



## headfry

Master albums by the classic all-time prog group "Yes" (non-Masters play fine):
  
  
 http://www.allmusic.com/artist/yes-mn0000685647/discography


----------



## TadMorose

headfry said:


> Master albums by the classic all-time prog group "Yes" (non-Masters play fine):
> 
> 
> http://www.allmusic.com/artist/yes-mn0000685647/discography




Strange. Yes Masters work for me. I tired 90125 and Big Generator and both played just fine in the desktop app. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## headfry

tadmorose said:


> Strange. Yes Masters work for me. I tired 90125 and Big Generator and both played just fine in the desktop app.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


 

 The Masters albums in questions are Close to the Edge, The Yes Album, Fragile and Relayer - four of
 their very best albums


----------



## TadMorose

headfry said:


> The Masters albums in questions are Close to the Edge, The Yes Album, Fragile and Relayer - four of
> their very best albums


 
 I will try them and let you know.


----------



## TadMorose

@headfry I tried all four albums you mentioned. All four Master versions play fine on my desktop app running on Windows 10.
  
 My setup: ASUS laptop, Meridian Explorer² USB DAC, WireWorld Ultraviolet USB cable, Sonus faber PRYMA headphones.


----------



## headfry

Thanks for trying that - good to know that -on my Mac they don't play through Tidal - really enjoying Audirvana anyway.

Are you familiar with Close to The Edge and The Yes Album? Two superb ones for Yes fans - highly recommended!


----------



## headfry

Do they play fine using Tidal software decoding - as opposed to straight through to the Explorer?


----------



## TadMorose

headfry said:


> Thanks for trying that - good to know that -on my Mac they don't play through Tidal - really enjoying Audirvana anyway.
> 
> Are you familiar with Close to The Edge and The Yes Album? Two superb ones for Yes fans - highly recommended!


 
  
 Yes, but my favourite Yes albums are Fragile and 90125.
  


headfry said:


> Do they play fine using Tidal software decoding - as opposed to straight through to the Explorer?


 

 Hmm, I just tried it without the DAC. At first the albums wouldn't play. It was just buffering, but eventually they started playing. It took a good couple of minutes until the music began. So looks like something is not right. I've read other people complaining about buffering in this very thread over the past few months.

  
 Now, since I helped you a bit, maybe you can help me too. Are you familiar with Uriah Heep albums, specifically Demons and Wizards?

 There is a Master version that is on TIDAL. The first 9 tracks are shown as 2017 Remastered. I believe they are MQA 24/88 or 24/96, as my DAC shows two lights, with the first one being blue (for MQA). The rest of the tracks are shown as Alternative Version. They are MQA 24/44 or 24/48, but they sound much better than the remastered ones. Clearer, more detailed, better instrument separation. 

 Would you mind trying it on your system and let me know what you think? First play track 8 Paradise (2017 Remastered) and then track 13, which is the Alternate Version of the same song.

 Thanks!


----------



## Left Channel

headfry said:


> > Originally Posted by *Left Channel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> ...


 
  
 Thank you! That's a fair comparison, and not on the unofficial spreadsheet. It does sound very nice. Unfortunately at 1x 24/96 (or 17/88.2 or whatever) I'm not hearing a big difference between the Master and HiFi versions. In fact the difference is so slight, I can't be sure I'm not imagining it without doing a blind listening test.

 Maybe it's my ears? Or my system?
 Tidal app on Win10 i7 → UpTone Audio USB REGEN → Schiit Audio Modi 2U DAC → Schiit Audio Magni 2U headphone amp → Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro 250 Ω or Sony MDR-Z7.

 I'd hate to spend money on an MQA DAC, only to discover I can't hear a difference with that either. And in general I'm puzzled over whether all or most of the benefit is from MQA specifically, or from any careful re-digitizing from an original master.

 Someone else directed me to the jazz album "Bags & Trane" on Tidal, which also wasn't on the spreadsheet. That MQA/Master _does _sound fantastic — like* wow* fantastic — and was likely produced from the 1961 original. Unfortunately there's nothing to compare it with, as the HiFi versions on Tidal are based on a 1988 CD with additional tracks, different track lengths, and very different mixing. The MQA version sounds clear, pure, and separated the way they used to do it back in the day. The HiFi versions sound muddy at best and fatiguing at worst, although when I use my flattest headphones I can see how they might have intended to make that mix more stimulating on cheaper systems at the time. We've come a long way, baby. But this alone doesn't tell me anything about MQA, just about better production values in general. Still searching...


----------



## headfry

Your perceptions of "Bags And Train" are similar 
to mine of the improvements of the Masters in general.
I don't think I'd recommend investing in an MQA DAC right now - 
as time moves on there will likely be more MQA DAC choices, plus some more time
and albums for the format to prove successful or not...and your DAC is very good!


The consensus of many- and of mine- is that the SQ benefits of Tidal- decoded MQA is very similar to that of conventional hires - but in a much smaller, easier to stream file - if true this is enough vindication of the format for me, as no one is releasing an SQ-competitive format as of yet - 
if this is what it takes to hear much better mastered albums then I look forward to more selection coming!


----------



## Share2Care

oldroadtoad said:


> The following is public service announcement:  RUN!
> 
> ORT


 
  
 Why run away Mr. Toad?!


----------



## rkw

I think I've found a workaround to the MQA tracks/albums that don't play (spinner goes forever).
  
 I mostly listen to classical music, and I came across many albums and tracks that won't start up. If an album doesn't start from the beginning, some (but not all) tracks within the album might still play. However, I noticed that if I start playing a "good" track, it will continue to the next track, even if that track wouldn't start when I tried to start it directly. So it seems to be a software bug where a track won't start up directly, but it's in the play queue, the previous track playing will cause the next track to be properly buffered and queued up.
  
 If you encounter an MQA track or album that won't start up, try this:

Start playing any track (doesn't have to be an MQA track).
While the track is playing, go to the MQA track or album you want to play
Click on the 3 dots option icon and select "Play Next"
When the current track finishes playing, it will continue to the MQA track/album and begin playing properly
  
 This has worked in every case I've tried.


----------



## Brahmsian

erich6 said:


> So, a few things to clarify what's been said and what I'm seeing with the Tidal update for MQA:
> 
> 
> 5) There are many more MQA albums than those listed under the "What's New"-"Masters" tab.  As others have stated, the only way you can immediately tell if an album has an MQA version is if you see two (or more) versions--one might be MQA.  You can definitely tell when a track is playing as where you used to se "HIFI" you will see "MASTER."


 
 Good rundown. But Tidal now seems to be marking the Tidal Masters with an M logo. What's odd is that when I play them I'm still showing HIFI. That's in the lower right directly to the left of the volume control. The only indication it's a Master is that M logo (it's an M in a square) up top in the tittle section.


----------



## rkw

brahmsian said:


> Good rundown. But Tidal now seems to be marking the Tidal Masters with an M logo. What's odd is that when I play them I'm still showing HIFI.


 
  
 They show MASTER for me when I play. You need to install and run the Tidal app on Mac or PC. A web browser or mobile app will only play as HIFI.


----------



## Brahmsian

rkw said:


> They show MASTER for me when I play. You need to install and run the Tidal app on Mac or PC. A web browser or mobile app will only play as HIFI.


 
 Thanks. I was using Chrome. I just downloaded the Tidal app, and now it shows as Master. I have to say the recordings I was listening to already sounded great on HIFI, and they sound at least as good as Master. I highly recommend Tidal.


----------



## rkw

brahmsian said:


> I have to say the recordings I was listening to already sounded great on HIFI, and they sound at least as good as Master.


 
  
 For MQA to succeed, Master needs to sound noticeably better than HIFI. Otherwise there would be no point in MQA encoding and it will become a failed format.


----------



## mike138

I signed up with Tidal to check out MQA> Can't really say that I can hear any great improvement in quality. However, I've stuck with Tidal because their Hifi catalog is ridiculous to begin with.


----------



## manpowre

> Originally Posted by *@rkw*
> For MQA to succeed, Master needs to sound noticeably better than HIFI. Otherwise there would be no point in MQA encoding and it will become a failed format.


 
  
 Quote:


mike138 said:


> I signed up with Tidal to check out MQA> Can't really say that I can hear any great improvement in quality. However, I've stuck with Tidal because their Hifi catalog is ridiculous to begin with.


 
  
 It sounds different on appropriate equipment, I hear a noticeable difference for sure. Also I suspect some people forget to change their windows driver settings to 24/96 listening to Master version of the albums in Windows. Also some of the Master albums Ive heard, and measured with ADC is louder, up to 3-5db sometimes.


----------



## Brahmsian

rkw said:


> For MQA to succeed, Master needs to sound noticeably better than HIFI. Otherwise there would be no point in MQA encoding and it will become a failed format.


 
  
 I'm listening straight from my MacBook w/out an external DAC. Moreover, my good headphones broke. Right now I'm listening with Sennheiser HD 280 and PX 100-II, neither of which are hi-res phones. I'm pretty much over both of these phones and looking for something much better (looking at Oppo, Bowers & Wilkins and STAX SRS-3100 system, although I don't think you can stream with the latter). By the way, does anybody know what the optimum Audio MIDI format setting should be for Tidal Masters on a Mac? I have it at 24/96.


----------



## Brahmsian

The following is from the comprehensive Q&A with Bob Stuart. Understanding what he's saying here strikes me as essential for understanding MQA.
  
 "Q36. Is MQA really lossless? (bonus question)
 
*A36*. This question often seems to assume that lossless is always best but in fact all "lossless" does is to take some bits and to reproduce those same bits at another time or place. It that's all you wanted to do, FLAC would be fine and there would be no need for MQA.
 
The team behind MQA understand not only lossless compression but also lossless processing and data burying. As explained earlier, there is a fundamental difficulty if we focus solely on strict lossless delivery. It is understood that a digital distribution system (including MQA) can be lossless in distribution. The problem is that the result is not delivered today; current DACs do not have lossless behaviour in the digital domain and all behave differently. Also the replay chain has several (sometimes unintended) places where losslessness breaks down. This is covered in our papers.
 
So MQA is set up to deliver a ‘closer-to-lossless’ digital path up to the DAC modulator with the goal of approaching analogue-to-analogue ‘lossless’ within appropriate thermal limits, including protecting the signals above ‘acoustic absolute zero.’
 
MQA does not have the capability to defeat information theory.
 
More important is to capture and protect (in a lossless manner) all the information in the file that relates to the music content. This means capturing safely at least everything in the triangle on the Origami diagrams; this is then conveyed and protected without loss. This triangle is important for defending the content but also to achieve the low-blur hierarchical sampling chain.
 
Furthermore, the system path from analogue to analogue is more precise because of the other parts of the technology. Lossless deals with data in the digital domain. The biggest problem, in our experience, is getting it from analogue and back to analogue with the least audible damage. Unless you understand this perspective MQA looks strange.
 
The problem that MQA is addressing is how to transport an analogue signal to another time or place. It is the analogue signal from the mixing desk that the producer heard and that is the signal that you want to reproduce at your loudspeaker.
 
Many recording and mastering engineers have testified that MQA improves very considerably on the conventional methods, recreating the sound they actually hear or remember from the original session or, in the case of archive material, the sound from an analogue tape recorder.
 
 
*Q37*. Lossless:
 

Is MQA lossless in the sense of the data? Not is it audibly lossless, does it have the ability to
 unpack the exact data that was recorded at higher sample rates?
Clarification on "lossless" please. Clearly frequencies >24kHz are not losslessly compressed in the usual way we think of "lossless", right?
  
*A37*.
 

MQA has the ability to unpack exactly (bit-for-bit) the data that was previewed with our plug-in tools in the studio. This is true for the maximum quality fed to a reference DAC as well as each of the other renderings that may happen, such as in mobile phones.
It is incorrect and a serious misunderstanding to assert ‘Clearly frequencies >24kHz are not ...’.
  
 As described elsewhere, there are two types of Origami fold and the frequencies where they are used depend on the ratio of the original sample rate to the transport rate. When the packing is folding a ‘kernel’, the process is losslessly reversible for the encapsulated audio and even at the lowest transmission rate, for content 2x or higher, the octave 24–48 kHz (or 22-44 in base 44.1) is a lossless process for the encapsulated audio. The lossless compressor used is proprietary and optimised for ultrasonic components; the folds use lossless processing. However, there is a great deal of intricacy here.
  
We don’t advise asserting: ‘MQA does this one thing’ based on examining a few files. MQA is complex and the mastering engineer and encoder between them have 6 million million combinations to choose from. We will talk about this more on our blog."


----------



## Currawong

That's a long way of saying that, much of the time, it isn't lossless. 3 bits of the 16-bit encoded file are not lossless -- it's in the patent.
  
 Anyhow: INXS. I went and had a listen to the HIFI vs. Master of Never Tear Us Apart and the MQA has a major change in pitch.  This seems to be the major confusion: People are hearing a difference, but are confusing a fundamental change in the actual recording with the fact that it is encoded as MQA.  They could re-master it and output it as a regular, non-MQA track and we'd get almost all the sonic benefits.


----------



## rkw

currawong said:


> Anyhow: INXS. I went and had a listen to the HIFI vs. Master of Never Tear Us Apart and the MQA has a major change in pitch.  This seems to be the major confusion: People are hearing a difference, but are confusing a fundamental change in the actual recording with the fact that it is encoded as MQA.  They could re-master it and output it as a regular, non-MQA track and we'd get almost all the sonic benefits.


 
  
 Here's how you can compare between HIFI and Master of the same track. If you play Tidal on the web browser, the track will play as HIFI (16/44 undecoded). The Tidal Mac/PC app will play the same track as Master with MQA unfolding applied.
  
 When I've tried this comparison, I find that Master plays at a louder level than HIFI. You have to try to match the levels for a proper comparison. Member manpowre has also observed Master playing at a louder level:
  


manpowre said:


> It sounds different on appropriate equipment, I hear a noticeable difference for sure. Also I suspect some people forget to change their windows driver settings to 24/96 listening to Master version of the albums in Windows. _*Also some of the Master albums Ive heard, and measured with ADC is louder, up to 3-5db sometimes. *_


----------



## Currawong

rkw said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > Anyhow: INXS. I went and had a listen to the HIFI vs. Master of Never Tear Us Apart and the MQA has a major change in pitch.  This seems to be the major confusion: People are hearing a difference, but are confusing a fundamental change in the actual recording with the fact that it is encoded as MQA.  They could re-master it and output it as a regular, non-MQA track and we'd get almost all the sonic benefits.
> ...


 
  
 Someone else wrote about this. I can't help wondering why. From a logical point of view, the louder level means more bits there to encode the music itself, but it makes comparisons much harder, and might be seen by someone as MQA trying to fool people into thinking their version sounds better because it is louder.


----------



## castleofargh

they might just remove extra headroom from some tracks that have any before converting to MQA. given how many bits they are left with after MQA encoding, it could make sense to use all the dynamic range left for signal instead of keeping digital headroom.
  
 another possibility might simply be that they apply something like loudness normalization but only for playing the files a given way, or maybe it's pre-applied on usual files but not on MQA files(because they can't do it before the file is uncompressed or that would kill the data).
  
 or maybe they do make one louder as a marketing trick. let's not forget that tidal already fooled people with the online audio test where an EQ was applied on bass and trebles to make lossy files sound clearly different. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 but of course before considering such possibilities, we'd first need to know for sure that differences don't originate from using a different playback method, or simply from 2 different masters being played, or from bad testing method.


----------



## manpowre

currawong said:


> Someone else wrote about this. I can't help wondering why. From a logical point of view, the louder level means more bits there to encode the music itself, but it makes comparisons much harder, and might be seen by someone as MQA trying to fool people into thinking their version sounds better because it is louder.


 
 Or, it means that noise floor has been lifted upwards to give bit-headroom for the different unfolding mechanisms.. Who knows what it means. Im working these days with a blog to show this, just working on the test methods for me and everyone else to fully understand it.


----------



## Steve Buck

TIdal updated on IOS but not Android
 25th april..
  
  
 Still no mqa/masters support but IOS gets a new GUI 
  
 Eagerly awaiting something for android.


----------



## Steve Buck

However... Glitches on offline saved to sd card seem to have been cured.

1 album down and all good so far..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve Buck

steve buck said:


> TIdal updated on IOS and Android 25th april..
> 
> 
> Still no mqa/masters support on either platform
> ...




Sorry false alarm...ios only.. 
Android not updated.
( but glitches gone from my pioneer ??)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## erich6

Brahmsian said:


> Good rundown. But Tidal now seems to be marking the Tidal Masters with an M logo. What's odd is that when I play them I'm still showing HIFI. That's in the lower right directly to the left of the volume control. The only indication it's a Master is that M logo (it's an M in a square) up top in the tittle section.



Glad my post was helpful.

Yes, Tidal added the "M in a square" feature after I posted my rundown.  It's a very helpful designator when sorting through a large grid of album covers.  I see you figured out the desktop app works for MASTER quality.  Enjoy!


----------



## oscarp (May 5, 2017)

Is MQA on Onkyo a stand alone App or does it use Tidal's MQA unfolding App, I understand the MQA decoder on Explorer 2 is a hardware solution ?? So if Tidal settings for MQA is bypassed, the stand alone app would do the decoding to it's maximum resolution ?  Also the bit I have read on Tidal ,(44 pages too much it affects my eye sight ) no one seems to mention that the file is smaller than normal decoding. Hope all of this has not been mentioned before.


----------



## canthearyou (May 25, 2017)

Deleted.


----------



## JeremyLaurenson

oscarp said:


> Is MQA on Onkyo a stand alone App or does it use Tidal's MQA unfolding App, I understand the MQA decoder on Explorer 2 is a hardware solution ??.



Its built into the Onkyo Music App on the Onkyo.
I have downloaded and tested a few songs, "demos".
Unfortunately in the U.S. despite the relentless marketing theres really nothing to buy in MQA.


----------



## waveSounds

Apart from the greatly reduced file size, you mean.


----------



## headfry

agree with this article!


http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/07/dont-worry-usb-happy-reprise/


....Still loving Steve Earle's album "So You Want to Be An Outlaw:" on Masters!


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Left Channel said:


> I think I have a decent enough setup, and should be able to hear a difference in Tidal 1x unfolding. But so far I've only found a few examples of what seem to be albums of the same provenance, in both HiFi and MQA, and I cannot hear any difference between them. Maybe I just need to find the right albums? I have a nice little Schitt stack with a range of cans, IEMs, and speakers. I have looked at the Brooklyn DAC and other MQA boxes above and below that price point, but I need to be convinced it will be worth time and money.
> 
> It should not be so difficult to find tracks to compare. Mostly I've found MQA files processed from a higher-quality quality masters than the reproductions that were already on Tidal. Those are not useful comparisons. I do believe that I've found a few Jethro Tull albums that are a match: the Steve Wilson mixes in both HiFi and MQA. But although I hear a clear step-up in quality from older versions to the Wilson remixes, I hear no difference between the HiFi and MQA Wilsons.
> 
> ...



A bit late but listen to Elton John's Captain Fantastic if you haven't already. The MQA version sounds like vinyl, especially the cut called Writing. Superb!


----------



## Left Channel

gimmeheadroom said:


> A bit late but listen to Elton John's Captain Fantastic if you haven't already. The MQA version sounds like vinyl, especially the cut called Writing. Superb!



Thanks but wow you're replying to a very old post. I've since purchased a lot more equipment including an MQA DAC. I compared fully unfolded Tidal MQA to Qobuz Hi-Res streaming and HD Tracks Hi-Res downloads. I find MQA and other Hi-Res music equally good, so not sure MQA is worth all the trouble but I do enjoy helping other people set it up. I could go on, but you'll find many more posts from me throughout this thread and others.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Left Channel said:


> Thanks but wow you're replying to a very old post. I've since purchased a lot more equipment including an MQA DAC. I compared fully unfolded Tidal MQA to Qobuz Hi-Res streaming and HD Tracks Hi-Res downloads. I find MQA and other Hi-Res music equally good, so not sure MQA is worth all the trouble but I do enjoy helping other people set it up. I could go on, but you'll find many more posts from me throughout this thread and others.



Thanks, no need to go on. I am happy with MQA and it's quite cheap here, no brainer to be on Tidal hifi compared to anything else.


----------



## Jazz1

Sorry to dig up old thread. But, I am trying to determine if there is a Apple BigSur OS 11.1 friendly version of AudioQuest's DragonFlyRed firmware updater out there. I went the AudioQuest site, and found the "AQ Device Manger" app. It will not run on macOS Big Sur 11.1 citing the developer needs to update the app. for security reasons.

Maybe, I've already don this in a earlier version of Mac OS? Tidal give me a choice to "pass through MQA", which I think means turn it off. Would this be an indicator that my DragonFlyRed is indeed working with Tidal's MQA?

Finally, I have a Schiit Asgard TrueMultibit on order. I know this doesn't support MQA. I mostly listen to music on Tidal. Should I hold out for an MQA compatible amp/DAC? I see Cambridge is coming out with one in February.

Thanks for your help.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Jazz1 said:


> Sorry to dig up old thread. But, I am trying to determine if there is a Apple BigSur OS 11.1 friendly version of AudioQuest's DragonFlyRed firmware updater out there. I went the AudioQuest site, and found the "AQ Device Manger" app. It will not run on macOS Big Sur 11.1 citing the developer needs to update the app. for security reasons.
> 
> Maybe, I've already don this in a earlier version of Mac OS? Tidal give me a choice to "pass through MQA", which I think means turn it off. Would this be an indicator that my DragonFlyRed is indeed working with Tidal's MQA?
> 
> ...


Hi I don't have anything from Apple but when I used to not have Windows installed anywhere I was often screwed with various updaters so yeah. Is it possible to install Windows in a VM on your apple and maybe run the updater from there or do it on a trusted buddie's PC?

Passthrough MQA means the desktop app will pass the data stream to your DAC without processing it. This is to support DACs that have MQA support. If you want the desktop app to do the first unfold you uncheck that, the app will unfold, and then the DAC sees a higher rate bitstream in some cases. You can flip passthrough on or off regardless of whether the DAC supports MQA. And I think some of the Audioquest DACs don't do full unfolds so anyway they're not better than the desktop app probably.

I don't see any reason to wait for Cambridge for anything. They and schiit have been reticent / militant regarding DSD and MQA while other companies have given us choices. There are enough good companies around to be able to choose good gear that plays anything and everything.

You didn't say where you are or how much you want to spend. I have several MQA DACs and I think it's worth having one if you want the best of Tidal from a technical standpoint. But after listening to the desktop app doing the 1st unfold and fully unfolded streams I don't think there is a big difference most of the time. The desktop app does a pretty good job. I don't think you lose much if you use software unfold especially if you have a good external DAC.


----------



## Jet Black

Anyone using spotify here? 😅 I've been reading all those mqa stuffs from 2017 upto 2021 in this forum, never heard a single spotify user. I think they already have a lossless as well, though in my country it isn't supported.


----------



## warrenpchi

Lossless Spotify (Spotify HiFi) hasn't launched yet, though it is expected to be up and running here in the U.S. in the latter half of this year.  If it goes off without a hitch, I may even try it out, even though I already subscribe to TIDAL, Qobuz and Apple Music.  Spotify has one of the largest catalogs around, and there is at least one track that is available on Spotify that I cannot find on any other service.


----------



## jwbrent

warrenpchi said:


> Lossless Spotify (Spotify HiFi) hasn't launched yet, though it is expected to be up and running here in the U.S. in the latter half of this year.  If it goes off without a hitch, I may even try it out, even though I already subscribe to TIDAL, Qobuz and Apple Music.  Spotify has one of the largest catalogs around, and there is at least one track that is available on Spotify that I cannot find on any other service.



I’ve tried all three of the services you have, and due to there not being an artist directory (at least when I tried them), I find music discovery to be lacking. As a result, my entire music library consists of CD rips and hi-res material bought off of Pono and HDtracks.

Just one man’s thought about streaming services. ✌️


----------



## MrWalkman

Jazz1 said:


> Sorry to dig up old thread. But, I am trying to determine if there is a Apple BigSur OS 11.1 friendly version of AudioQuest's DragonFlyRed firmware updater out there. I went the AudioQuest site, and found the "AQ Device Manger" app. It will not run on macOS Big Sur 11.1 citing the developer needs to update the app. for security reasons.
> 
> Maybe, I've already don this in a earlier version of Mac OS? Tidal give me a choice to "pass through MQA", which I think means turn it off. Would this be an indicator that my DragonFlyRed is indeed working with Tidal's MQA?
> 
> ...



At least in Windows, there is a setting, "Exclusive mode", which needs to be active. The passthrough option has to be off for AQ DACs.

Exclusive mode means that Tidal will pass the audio data without this data being resampled by the operating system. Not having the passthrough option set to on means that Tidal will do a first unfold of the MQA track, and then the AQ DAC will further unfold it. 

The AQ DAC is only a MQA Renderer, and not a MQA Decoder, hence why just passing the whole MQA file to the DAC (without Tidal doing a first unfold) will not work, so you need Passthrough set to off.


----------



## warrenpchi

jwbrent said:


> I’ve tried all three of the services you have, and due to there not being an artist directory (at least when I tried them), I find music discovery to be lacking. As a result, my entire music library consists of CD rips and hi-res material bought off of Pono and HDtracks.
> 
> Just one man’s thought about streaming services. ✌️



I'm personally okay with searching, and then following related artist suggestions - not to mention periodically scanning the new releases section of each service.

That said, I wouldn't mind having access to as large a catalog as I can get - and that's why I'm actually curious about Spotify HiFi myself.


----------



## jwbrent

MrWalkman said:


> At least in Windows, there is a setting, "Exclusive mode", which needs to be active. The passthrough option has to be off for AQ DACs.
> 
> Exclusive mode means that Tidal will pass the audio data without this data being resampled by the operating system. Not having the passthrough option set to on means that Tidal will do a first unfold of the MQA track, and then the AQ DAC will further unfold it.
> 
> The AQ DAC is only a MQA Renderer, and not a MQA Decoder, hence why just passing the whole MQA file to the DAC (without Tidal doing a first unfold) will not work, so you need Passthrough set to off.



Nice to see you posting again, I had read you moved or something like that. I’m hoping Sony does a refresh of the WM1A and Z so you can apply your custom firmware to those as well. ✌️


----------



## gimmeheadroom

warrenpchi said:


> I'm personally okay with searching, and then following related artist suggestions - not to mention periodically scanning the new releases section of each service.
> 
> That said, I wouldn't mind having access to as large a catalog as I can get - and that's why I'm actually curious about Spotify HiFi myself.


I almost don't look for new music. To me not much music made after 1976 is worth listening to 

Anyway regarding Spotify's vaporware lossless, I would be on board with that definitely. Qobuz isn't available here and Deezer doesn't have a bitperfect desktop app. 

The Spotify Hifi program seems like a no-brainer but so far nothing. I haven't seen an explanation for why it's taking so long since they announced it for it to actual happen.


----------



## warrenpchi

gimmeheadroom said:


> To me not much music made after 1976 is worth listening to



Luckily I was made before that so you can still listen to meee!  🤣 



gimmeheadroom said:


> The Spotify Hifi program seems like a no-brainer but so far nothing. I haven't seen an explanation for why it's taking so long since they announced it for it to actual happen.



Yeah, I'm pretty disappointed myself, especially since there are certain recordings that I can only find on Spotify.


----------

