# Tidal Masters & MQA Thread!



## headfry

I thought I would start a thread for those who appreciate the SQ of MQA - both files and Tidal Masters -.(as opposed to those
debating the merits from a scientific standpoint).
 
I'm going by my perceptions, but on Tidal decoded MQA by and large I'm getting a smoother, cleaner
music with much less hash, grain ....to the point where it sounds much more inviting, less fatiguing,
smoother. More musical! Blacker background, removal (or drastic reduction) of digital "gloss" from the sound.
 
Greater ease of sound and performance, more intimacy.
 
Some of MQA's claims may be exaggerated, but I believe the stated main benefits are basically true.
 
Arguments saying that MQA is lossy or is locked by DRM are not true - in my opinion.
I'd also like to counter the generally negative and/or suspicious posts on this site (and elsewhere).
 
All I know is I've been a fan of higher quality audiophile sound for many many years
and like what I hear from MQA so far.
 
Which is, hi-res quality sound (or perhaps even better SQ) from a significantly smaller file size than
a conventional hi-res stream.
 
 
 
=====================
 
------>>If you enjoy MQA'd music, looking forward to hearing from you!
 
 
 
 
 
 
..


----------



## winders

Yawn.....


----------



## headfry

I take it you don't like?


----------



## 514077

I'm subbing.  Not that I expect to hear MQA in the near or mediate future.  My choice of DAC, DAP and music sources don't allow for that.  I prefer to own files rather than stream, and I'm upgrading to a new version of a Chord DAC.
 But, for all that, I don't have a vitrial hatred of the format, and I'm interested in the outcome of the MQA story.  
 If you haven't yet-though I'm sure you have, you could check out the HB channel with Hans Beekhuisen.  He does, what I thought, a great job making a case for both hi-res and MQA codec.
 More power to you.  Hope it becomes a busy thread.


----------



## winders

headfry said:


> I take it you don't like?


 

 I have no interest in it.
  
 Counter what this blog has to say:
  
 https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa


----------



## headfry

winders said:


> I have no interest in it.
> 
> Counter what this blog has to say:
> 
> https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa


 
 It's fine that you have no interest in it, there isn't only one road to music nirvana!
  
 To each his own.

On the other hand, I'm not interesed in countering the above, which is Benchmark rationalizing/explaining why they are not 
 implementing MQA in their products. Some other DAC manufacturers just as esteemed as Benchmark - Cary Audio
 Aurender, Mytek, ultra-high end Brinkmann Nyquist DAC and others are implementing
 MQA, so it's not as black and white as companies like Benchmark, Linn and a few others make it out to be.
  
 I personally don't need to read theory that attempts to explain that my enjoment for
 MQA is all placebo. I don't care how it's achieved, the proof is in the listening; aesthetics and musical
 expression are felt and appreciated.
  
 No, this thread is not about tearing down MQA's claims - there are already enough other threads here and elsewhere doing that.
  
 I don't care for theory, only results.
  
  
 I'm interested in your perceptions listening to MQA music.
  
  
 I have heard MQA for a couple months now and like what I hear, and I would like to hear other appreciations for this format.


----------



## gregorio

headfry said:


> Arguments saying that MQA is lossy or is locked by DRM are not true - in my opinion.


 
  
 Why should we take your opinion over what even the creator of MQA has stated? (that MQA is lossy)!
  
 Even if we ignore the reliable evidence/facts/science and assume for a minute that MQA really is a revolutionary, superior format and does indeed sound better than 16/44.1 (or a lossless format like FLAC or ALAC), there's still a serious problem! The MQA technology, unlike say FLAC or ALAC, has to be licensed, the studios/mastering engineers/artists have to pay more to produce an MQA product. Whatever money is spent on the MQA technology and licensing, is time/money not spent by the artists/studios on creating the best possible recording/master in the first place! So, do you want a better quality format in order to distribute worse quality masters/recordings? ... And, if we assume, as the reliable evidence suggests, that MQA is not an improvement, then you'll be getting both worse quality masters AND a worse (or no better) quality format for distributing those worse masters!
  
 This is all your (the consumers) choice and you have to suffer the consequences of that choice. There is no free lunch! Consumers can't dictate a reduction in the amount of time/money spent on creating quality recordings (as has happened in the past by paying less or nothing for them) AND then complain about the resultant poorer quality of those recordings/masters!
  
 G


----------



## headfry

Please let me know for roughly how long you've spent listening to partly or fully decoded MQA music and what your findings were.

I'm not asking for anyone to take my opinion - everyone
who has an interest could try it and reach their own conclusions.

If the Tidal Masters are any indication of the quality of future
MQA releases, then I'm greatly looking forward to them.

What we're after here are perceptions, appreciations for this format. Debates as to the validity of the benefits of the process belong to other MQA threads.


----------



## saddleup

Won't be long before this thread is locked.


----------



## TokenGesture

I've yet to be blown away by any MQA track I've heard in Tidal. Can you recommend me something where you consider there to be noticeable improvement as against the standard version?


----------



## old tech

tokengesture said:


> I've yet to be blown away by any MQA track I've heard in Tidal. Can you recommend me something where you consider there to be noticeable improvement as against the standard version?


 
 I agree, that would be a great start OP.
  
 I have heard a few MQA files and they have indeed sounded very good.  However, they do not sound any better than my other music sources whether they be CDs, hi res files or even vinyl when the mastering/recording is of high quality and have yet to hear one that matches the sound quality of my best sounding CD and 24/96 download.  In other words, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to know whether the nice sound from the MQA files are attributable to better mastering sources or something else.
  
 My stereo chain is quite revealing and I also have invested a fair bit in proper room treatment.  One of the upsides and downsides of the stereo is that the sound quality from the playback system is highly dependent on the source mastering/recording. Well produced recordings sound great but poorly produced ones sound awful as all the flaws are revealed.  So in practice, the media format is very secondary to production on how great the music sound.
  
 I also don't understand subjective comments such as "hash", "digital sheen" or "fatigue" etc in relation to media.  I get none of that from the media or playback chain, just excellent, good, average or poor recordings.  It is the same with my analog media, I don't get things like "veiled" or "dull, "excess roll-off" or sibilance from vinyl when the production of the record is high quality.
  
 The bottom line is that nothing has changed which violates the three most important things for sound reproduction fidelity - quality of recording/mastering, speakers and room acoustics.  A poor recording is a poor recording and MQA is not going to change that fundamental.


----------



## mswlogo

headfry said:


> Please let me know for roughly how long you've spent listening to partly or fully decoded MQA music and what your findings were.
> 
> I'm not asking for anyone to take my opinion - everyone
> who has an interest could try it and reach their own conclusions.
> ...




Please list some Tidal (or other) examples that I can A/B that are clearly an improvement over non MQA hi-res or even better than red book CD. 

I listen to a wide variety of music but a little variety in genre would be great. 

So far I hear no difference in MQA using Meridian Prime with HiFiMan X V2 

They must be from the same Master and be the same level. 

I'd be happy to hear a difference even if it's just different or even worse. They sound the same to me.


----------



## headfry

Try the Masters versions of the following albums for starters:


David Crosby - Croz ( I really like the track Holding On To Nothing)


Steely Dan - Two Against Nature


Jethro Tull - A Passion Play


Yes - The Yes Album


Yes - Relayer


Joni Mitchell - Court And Spark (I like to skip the first two tracks - the rest is absolutely golden music)



Compare with the matching non-MQA masters and see!



Looking forward to your findings.


.....BTW if you like other MQA albums I would enjoy hearing about them!


----------



## pinnahertz

headfry said:


> Try the Masters versions of the following albums for starters:
> 
> 
> David Crosby - Croz ( I really like the track Holding On To Nothing)
> ...


 
 But what would you be comparing?  The Masters version to your CD?  That's just a comparison of the Masters version to the CD, not an evaluation of MQA. You don't know if the masters both were made from were the same.  Unless you know that for certain you can't consider it an MQA comparison. 
  
 If the Masters version sounds better, great.  But that's in no way an endorsement for MQA, it's an endorsement for a specific recording in the Masters version. 
  
 Keep in mind there has never been a verifiable ABX test of MQA vs ..well, anything. It's absolutely NOT something you can do yourself!
  
 BTW, how exactly do you A/B (much less ABX) between a streaming service and a local recording? You do you get them in sync?  How do you verify matched levels...and so on...and so on...


----------



## headfry

hi pinnahertz - thanks for your measured reply!
  
  
 The answer is in the third last line of my post - as you'll be comparing
 the master copy that is non-MQA'd I would like to know if you hear any
 significant improvements or not in the MQA version.
  
 To me there IS a significant improvement, hence this thread.
  
 The improvements I hear in the clarity/detail smoothness and overall 
 non-artifact naturalness are comparable to the best hi-res recordings
 I've heard, and actually may be better in some aspects. The fact that this
 is achieved in a practical-sized, smaller streaming container and without an MQA dac is great!
  
 Looking forward to more feedback from all interested parties!


----------



## bfreedma

headfry said:


> hi pinnahertz - thanks for your measured reply!
> 
> 
> The answer is in the third last line of my post - as you'll be comparing
> ...


 
  
 Mastering and MQA encoding are two entirely different topics.  No one is going to argue that two distinct masters can't sound different - that would be the case whether MQA encoding is done or not.
  
 The question is, IMO, does a the same master sound different with and without MQA encoding applied.  To date, there is no evidence to support that and with MQA controlling their new masters, it may not ever be possible to properly test the impact of the encoding on audible reproduction.  It does raise an interesting question - if MQA truly believes their encoding improves an identical master, then why not make that master available for comparative testing?


----------



## digitaldodd

It doesn't take much to notice that several of the Masters titles on Tidal sound better to me - cleaner, more articulate, fuller - than the same title played via the normal HiFi version on Tidal. Whether they are from the same masters or not may be of concern to some, but not to me. What really matters is whether I enjoy the sound entering my ears. In that regard, I can say that "yes", I do 'appreciate' MQA in a way that I believe the OP had in mind. And that's just listening to Tidal doing the initial software unfold. I'm confident if I had the requisite hardware, some titles would sound even better.

That's not to say that every title is fabulous. For example, there are a couple of Chicago titles in MQA apparently from non-remastered masters that I don't enjoy as much as the remastered versions in HiFi. So, it's not a complete win across the board. But there's enough goodness to be found to really enjoy the experience. 

And for people like myself who have limited capital to spend on musical bliss, the ability to get such terrific sound from a streaming service is absolutely fantastic. If I buy one hi-res album a month, after 10 years I will have 120 albums. Or, I will have enjoyed countless hours of pleasure listening to thousands of MQA titles being streamed from Tidal. So again, I can appreciate what Tidal is doing with MQA.

I'll let others debate the technical merits of MQA. All I know is that it puts a smile on my face.


----------



## old tech

headfry said:


> hi pinnahertz - thanks for your measured reply!
> 
> 
> *The answer is in the third last line of my post - as you'll be comparing*
> ...


 
 Correct me if I am wrong, your reply here seems to suggest that there is only one master copy of an album.  That may sometimes be the case but that would be very rare.  For example, there are at least 11 different digital masters of Pink Floyd's DSOTM.  There are many CD, hi res and vinyl pressing of a particular album that sound different depending on which release/remaster/pressing that is being played.
  
 So just to be clear, are you asking us to compare the mastering that was used for a particular MQA release with another?  If so, which other?  Any one in particular or against all different masterings that one has heard to date?   If that is the case then yes, it is an interesting exercise but no more interesting than comparing a CD with its later remasters or different record pressings of an album.
  
 One thing is for sure, as pointed out by others, it is not a comparison of MQA against other formats.  That sort of comparison cannot be done as yet due to reasons others here have expanded on.


----------



## spook76

headfry said:


> Try the Masters versions of the following albums for starters:
> 
> 
> David Crosby - Croz ( I really like the track Holding On To Nothing)
> ...




Are you kidding me? I know progressive rock and are you comparing the unbelievable 96/24 Steven Wilson remixes of Yes' 'Relayer' and 'The Yes Album' to a MQA remaster? The man has 4 Grammy nominations and is almost universally considered the greatest musician/engineer in modern progressive music. Compare your MQA remaster to Steven Wilson's band approved remixes and tell me.


----------



## headfry

That the MQA Relayer sounds excellent 
doesn't preclude Wilson's version from also being excellent.

In no way does one diminish the quality of the other.
They could BOTH be excellent yet in some different ways.


I will compare both in the next few days and will report back.

BTW, I'm a big Steve Wilson fan - own his last two albums
and have listened many many times, saw his last
show live and have listened greatly to many of
his remasters on Tidal, esp. from Yes and Jethro Tull.


...I'm assuming from your post that the MQA version is Not based on Wilson's remaster - is that the case?


----------



## spook76

headfry said:


> That the MQA Relayer sounds excellent
> doesn't preclude Wilson's version from also being excellent.
> 
> In no way does one diminish the quality of the other.
> ...



That would be impossible unless someone else remastered Wilson's remix. Steven Wilson never remasters any album. He makes it very clear he remixes with the goal of returning the album back to what the artist's intended working directly with the approval of the artist. 

I can pretty much guarantee he would have nothing to do with MQA if you know the story of his remix of Jethro Tull's 'Thick As A Brick'. After he remixed the album the record company had another engineer remaster it to brighten the recording. Wilson was indignant and released his 96/24 flat transfer on HDTracks. 

As MQA, to my understanding, requires remastering to encode. If that is so, you will never hear an MQA album from Steven Wilson.


----------



## digitaldodd

spook76 said:


> That would be impossible unless someone else remastered Wilson's remix. Steven Wilson never remasters any album. He makes it very clear he remixes with the goal of returning the album back to what the artist's intended working directly with the approval of the artist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 



So, I'm a bit confused because the Steve Wilson remix of Chicago II shows up as an MQA album.


----------



## Slaphead

headfry said:


> Try the Masters versions of the following albums for starters:
> 
> 
> David Crosby - Croz ( I really like the track Holding On To Nothing)
> ...




The key word here is master, not MQA. It's the mastering (and mixing) of the music that makes it sound better. The actual delivery format only makes a negligible difference at best once you're already at 16/44 

Call me cynical, but Meridian has done an expert marketing campaign on MQA, creating a massive amount of hype, to point that a lot of DAC makers feel the need to incorporate it into their products, for which they need to pay Meridian a licensing fee.

Also pumping MQA through a DAC that doesn't support it lowers sound quality from a technical perspective - the 3 LSB bits used to encode MQA effectively become just noise.

Nah - MQA is an audio equivalent of the emperor's new clothes.


----------



## mswlogo

headfry said:


> Try the Masters versions of the following albums for starters:
> 
> 
> David Crosby - Croz ( I really like the track Holding On To Nothing)
> ...




Thanks for the list. 

I did hear a difference and I talked about it my Meridian Prime Headphone Amp review. 

http://www.head-fi.org/products/meridian-prime-headphone-amplifier/reviews/18160


----------



## pinnahertz

headfry said:


> hi pinnahertz - thanks for your measured reply!
> 
> 
> The answer is in the third last line of my post - as you'll be comparing
> ...


 
 Perhaps my reply was a bit too measured.
  
 The problem is not that there is an audible difference, the problem is what you are attributing it to.  There is no evidence at all that MQA had anything to do with anything.  Unless you have complete knowledge of the entire path to the end copies you are comparing, you have no idea what you are comparing.  And that makes the comparison a waste of time.  
  
 And you've probably mistitled the thread as you really have no idea (nobody does) what MQA actually does, and therefore, what you actually are appreciating.  And just listening and comparing will not tell you anything.


----------



## 514077

bfreedma said:


> headfry said:
> 
> 
> > hi pinnahertz - thanks for your measured reply!
> ...


 
 The cable gadfly known as Dr. Aix, stated he offered some of his own masters to MQA's Bob Stewart to be encoded for comparison.  So far, he hasn't been responded to.  It could be a conclusive test yay or nay. Makes me wonder why it hasn't happened, yet.  Are they busy or not confident?


----------



## spook76

digitaldodd said:


> spook76 said:
> 
> 
> > That would be impossible unless someone else remastered Wilson's remix. Steven Wilson never remasters any album. He makes it very clear he remixes with the goal of returning the album back to what the artist's intended working directly with the approval of the artist.
> ...




Nothing to be confused about, the record company remastered Steven Wilson's remix of Chicago II to encode for MQA. Some unknown engineer came in after the fact and probably screwed with his remix. 

I own the Steven Wilson 96/24 remix of Chicago II. It was just released in January and it is a glorious remix.


----------



## headfry

Thanks for the responses so far.... To be clear.... this thread is not about proving that the MQA process
itself is responsible for what we're hearing and appreciating.... there's another thread for that.


Let's say that the improvements made could be had with a standard, good hirez master -
and that MQA's only benefit is to get the hirez quality in a smaller, streamable package.
I don't think that's all there is to it... but let's postulate that for now. 


That would be good enough for me.... as we're benefitting from higher quality Tidal streams.... assuming the quality continues.


Again....this is a subjective thread about the perceived enjoyment of
MQA recordings... regardless of the scientific or engineering reasons AND regardless 
whether all of MQA's claims are true. 

....anyone else want to share enthusiasm for the better sound of MQA albums???


----------



## headfry

slaphead said:


> The key word here is master, not MQA. It's the mastering (and mixing) of the music that makes it sound better. The actual delivery format only makes a negligible difference at best once you're already at 16/44
> 
> Call me cynical, but Meridian has done an expert marketing campaign on MQA, creating a massive amount of hype, to point that a lot of DAC makers feel the need to incorporate it into their products, for which they need to pay Meridian a licensing fee.
> 
> ...





Well, if MQA is a scam it's fooling many of the best audiophile reviewers and engineers - Bob Ludwig, John Darko, etc.
including engineers that have made their own field recordings and have noticed MQA improvements 
such as more accurate and better 3D soundstage - clearer low level details 
and a more natural sound with greater ease.... among others:


http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/mytek-brooklyn-mqa-compatible-dac/?page=2


If this is a scam then some industry experts who are accurate about just about everything
else are on the take - a conspiracy view that I reject.

If specialist, boutique companies like Brinkmann - makers of very high end equipment are only caving in to
marketing pressure - while possible is unlikely to the extreme.

Again, debating the scientific worth of MQA is not this thread..... sharing enjoyment is.



Anyone listen to some of the tracks in my previously posted list? Any other MQA album appreciations?


----------



## pinnahertz

headfry said:


> Thanks for the responses so far.... To be clear.... this thread is not about proving that the MQA process
> itself is responsible for what we're hearing and appreciating.... there's another thread for that.


 
 But you've titled the thread the MQA Appreciation Thread. How can you express appreciation for something you don't know?
  
 A couple who met on the Internet has been email and text-dating for a few weeks. She says, "I just spent $300 at the hairdresser for their new Miraculous Quality Application...it makes your hair much more beautiful!" He says, "Wow, that was expensive. How did it turn out?" She says, "It's the most beautiful hair now! Here's a picture..." and she sends him a picture the back of a head of beautiful hair. He doesn't know what her hair looked like before, so he can't evaluate the improvement, or if there even is any. Worse, he doesn't even know if that's really her hair.
  
 That's what you've got here.


headfry said:


> Let's say that the improvements made could be had with a standard, good hirez master -
> and that MQA's only benefit is to get the hirez quality in a smaller, streamable package.
> I don't think that's all there is to it... but let's postulate that for now.


 
 Those are all huge assumptions based on what you've been fed. There may be more to it, there may be nothing to it. That's really all we know.  What are you actually appreciating?


headfry said:


> That would be good enough for me.... as we're benefitting from higher quality Tidal streams.... assuming the quality continues.


 
 Then retitle your thread, The Tidal Stream Appreciation Thread, and don't attribute the difference to anything in particular other than the choices Tidal has made in presenting their product.


headfry said:


> Again....this is a subjective thread about the perceived enjoyment of
> MQA recordings... regardless of the scientific or engineering reasons AND regardless
> whether all of MQA's claims are true.
> 
> ....anyone else want to share enthusiasm for the better sound of MQA albums???


 
 Sorry, you've still got nothing here.
  
 "Better sound of MQA albums"? Better than what? What's your reference? And is that the same reference the MQA version was made from? Is the non-MQA version the best it could be?
  
 What are you appreciating?
  
 Let me point out, the "process" of gaining "appreciation" in this thread seems to be listening to a Tidal-streamed track or album, then playing some other version. That's a fully sighted, fully biased A/B comparison, and the result is fully biased opinion, with nothing whatever to do with reality.
  
 You want to appreciate the Tidal stream vs some other version?? You've got this task: Find a way to play the Tidal stream AND the other version in perfect sync, and via identical hardware. Find a way to instantly switch between them.  That's instantly, with no gap.  Find a way to remove the sighted bias and introduce a blind control (X). Collect a few hundred trials, compile, and publish.   Otherwise, you're stating your appreciation based on expectation.  What if someone else has heard that MQA throws away a lot of data then resynthesizes it?  How does that sound? So they listen to an up-sampled 24/96 version of 16/44 master of a 1970s analog tape master, and think it's better because there's no "missing data" and no "resynthesis".  See what I mean?  How's that for spin?  And yet, with at least several of your suggestions, that's exactly what's going on.  
  
 You cannot appreciate what you don't know.
  
 And so far, you don't even know what you don't know.


----------



## mswlogo

pinnahertz said:


> But you've titled the thread the MQA Appreciation Thread. How can you express appreciation for something you don't know?
> 
> A couple who met on the Internet has been email and text-dating for a few weeks. She says, "I just spent $300 at the hairdresser for their new Miraculous Quality Application...it makes your hair much more beautiful!" He says, "Wow, that was expensive. How did it turn out?" She says, "It's the most beautiful hair now! Here's a picture..." and she sends him a picture the back of a head of beautiful hair. He doesn't know what her hair looked like before, so he can't evaluate the improvement, or if there even is any. Worse, he doesn't even know if that's really her hair.
> 
> ...


 

 ​I am NOT a fan of MQA for some of the reasons you sited. But I think it's unfair to go bashing MQA for a group of folks that look very favorably upon MQA or want to have an open mind about it.
  
 Like he said there are plenty of threads for that.
  
 It's unfair to question their reasoning for "Appreciating it" when they requested a group of folks that already do.
  
 If there was a group formed that loved that hairdresser that wanted to meet over a cup of Tea. You have no right to barge in and say that they all don't look so hot and should find another hairdresser. It's just disrespectful.
  
 Even though I'm not an MQA fan, I say just let it ride and see where it goes. In the end the consumer will decide.


----------



## cfbruck

I also don't see the problem /critique. 

There are many albums/masters on tidal where the same master is available as either mqa'd or not mqa'd. You can just compare them and see if you like the mqa'd better. 

One should be aware that mqa'd is not lossless, and the developers do not claim that it is. 

This is not strange, however, since (part of) the point of mqa is to alter the file, namely perform corrections for the hardware both at a/d level and d/a. 

If the dac is not licensed, no correction is done at d/a level (since the correction is hardware specific) 

As I understand however, even when a/d hardware is unknown (old masters for example) they still perform some corrections, based on general assumptions about the hardware. 

If it sounds better is up to you to determine.


----------



## mswlogo

cfbruck said:


> One should be aware that mqa'd is not lossless, and the developers does not claim that it is.


 
  
 Again, I'm not an MQA fan. But this comment is also unfair. And also doesn't belong in this thread.
  
 If say a recording was recorded at 768 and Mixed and 384 and released at 44, 192, and 384 (all FLAC)
  
 Is the 44 Considered "Lossy"?
 Is the 192 Considered "Lossy"?
 Is the 384 Considered "Lossy"?
  
 Let's just say the 384 is considered Lossless because that's what the Master Mix was released at and everything else was downsampled from.
 If a later version is released at 768 does that now make the 384 one lossy?
  
 MQA lingo has certainly made the term "lossless" more fuzzy. But it was already getting fuzzy.
  
 I think what lossless really means in practice is, is it below Redbook or At-or-Above, that is about the only consistent definition left.


----------



## cfbruck

Yes, I think you are right. Lossy/lossless seems like a bad distinction in this context. (But they do not claim that mqa can transmit a 196 24 file compressed losslessly into 24 48)

My point what simply that mqa is not only about delivering hi res files more easily. 

It is also about actively altering the file based on ideas that you can perform certain corrections based on knowledge of the hardware, much like modern digital cameras process the image and perform certain corrections for the physical lens in the camera, and software can process the image and perform corrections for known printer models when you are about to print the picture. 

I have no idea if this works with regard to audio, but it sounds interesting, and I'm all for listening and comparing.


----------



## oneway23

Is everyone on the internet required to share their opinions in every thread?  The OP politely requested a space in which fans of MQA could discuss their enjoyment.  If you're not a fan, or you believe it to be the equivalent of audio voodoo, why not show the OP the same respect and politely ignore the thread?  Plenty of other places to discuss the scientific merits (or lack thereof).


----------



## pinnahertz

mswlogo said:


> ​I am NOT a fan of MQA for some of the reasons you sited. But I think it's unfair to go bashing MQA for a group of folks that look very favorably upon MQA or want to have an open mind about it.
> 
> Like he said there are plenty of threads for that.
> 
> ...


 
 I'm not bashing MQA, I'm simply saying that nobody can "appreciate" something that they don't know anything about (except what they've been told to expect).


----------



## pinnahertz

mswlogo said:


> Again, I'm not an MQA fan. But this comment is also unfair. And also doesn't belong in this thread.
> 
> If say a recording was recorded at 768 and Mixed and 384 and released at 44, 192, and 384 (all FLAC)
> 
> ...


 
 Resampling and lossy compression are not the same thing.  For a codec to be "lossy" it would be eliminating "inaudible" data within the audio spectrum based on some form of psychoacoustic masking model.  Resampling does not eliminate data in the audio spectrum until you resample to a rate that that is so low the eliminates a portion of the audible spectrum.  
  
 Many consider Redbook, 16/44.1, to be a basic minimum in terms of representing the full audible spectrum.


----------



## pinnahertz

oneway23 said:


> Is everyone on the internet required to share their opinions in every thread?  The OP politely requested a space in which fans of MQA could discuss their enjoyment.  If you're not a fan, or you believe it to be the equivalent of audio voodoo, why not show the OP the same respect and politely ignore the thread?  Plenty of other places to discuss the scientific merits (or lack thereof).


 
 Simple: the convicted expression of opinion without basis is a serious mutation of truth.  
  
 Here's a green cube.  I say, with conviction "That's a blue cube!  It's the best, most pure blue I've ever seen!".   But, is it blue or green?  
  
 Just because the opinions are emphatic doesn't mean there's a wit of truth to them, other than they are, truthfully, just opinions.  
  
 With MQA, it's impossible to have an opinion on it because we have absolutely no means of reference.  Yet, strong opinions will always be taken as fact.  
  
 I'm not saying MQA is bad, good, or neutral. I'm saying we have no way to know.


----------



## TokenGesture

Just compare a Tidal MQA Master against the non-MQA Tidal version and point out if you prefer the MQA Master version. Thats all the OP is asking to be done. Its not that complicated. Or compulsary.


----------



## oneway23

pinnahertz said:


> Simple: the convicted expression of opinion without basis is a serious mutation of truth.
> 
> Here's a green cube.  I say, with conviction "That's a blue cube!  It's the best, most pure blue I've ever seen!".   But, is it blue or green?
> 
> ...


 
  
 All well and good, but, I don't think the OP's stated intention was to offer empirical proof that MQA was THE superior audio delivery format, merely that they wanted to share their enjoyment, which is a belief and not in need of proof.  
  
 I don't have a problem with varying opinions, but, I DO take issue when someone infringes on another's enjoyment in an attempt to "prove" that they are right, and that the person somehow maybe shouldn't be enjoying what they are hearing. There are a lot of places to discuss the science behind MQA, and the OP explicitly stated that they didn't want this to be one of them.
  
 Back on topic, I really enjoyed Booker T. & the MGs "Green Onions" in MQA via Tidal.  Sounds fantastic!


----------



## pinnahertz

tokengesture said:


> Just compare a Tidal MQA Master against the non-MQA Tidal version and point out if you prefer the MQA Master version. Thats all the OP is asking to be done. Its not that complicated. Or compulsary.


 
 Fine.  I'm just pointing out that if there is a difference it may or may not be MQA because you have no idea if they were made from the same master, or if anything was done between the master and MQA.
  
 You're not simply comparing MQA to non-MQA.  That, folks, is at this point, an impossibility.   And yet, in this thread, we're asking people to evaluate "MQA".  That's absolutely NOT what's going on.


----------



## headfry

Appreciation, enjoyment is for its own sake.

I may not understand all of the mechanics of how MQA 
works - nor do I care. All I want to do is to share my appreciation of a number of MQA recordings and encourage others to do so and to reach their own conclusions and hopefully share them - good, bad, indifferent all welcome.

Deep enjoyment of recorded music is why most of us are in this hobby....can we all agree here? Many of the above posts criticizing or disputing MQA's valudity, claims and/or musical quality - while perhaps being intellectually stimulating or providing an outlet for expression unrelated to this passion appear to be in the wrong forum (with all due respect fellow headfiers).

The truth is found by auditioning over a reasonable time period.


----------



## pinnahertz

oneway23 said:


> All well and good, but, I don't think the OP's stated intention was to offer empirical proof that MQA was THE superior audio delivery format, merely that they wanted to share their enjoyment, which is a belief and not in need of proof.


 
 Not asking for proof it's better! We don't have it anyway. I have no problem sharing the opinions and sharing the enjoyment. I do have a BIG issue with attributing that enjoyment or forming opinions without a clue as to what we're actually hearing.  If you just say, "I think the Tidal track is better", fine.  If you add "because they are using MQA"....nope.  Because you cannot know that.  Nobody does.


headfry said:


> I don't have a problem with varying opinions, but, I DO take issue when someone infringes on another's enjoyment in an attempt to "prove" that they are right, and that the person somehow maybe shouldn't be enjoying what they are hearing. There are a lot of places to discuss the science behind MQA, and the OP explicitly stated that they didn't want this to be one of them.


 
 Yeah, the delusion of enjoyment is addictive. The real thing is SO much better.


----------



## pinnahertz

headfry said:


> Appreciation, enjoyment is for its own sake.


 
 That's ridiculous. That's like a blind man having a favorite color.


headfry said:


> I may not understand all of the mechanics of how MQA
> works - nor do I care. All I want to do is to share my appreciation of a number of MQA recordings and encourage others to do so and to reach their own conclusions and hopefully share them - good, bad, indifferent all welcome.


 
 No problem with any of that until you attribute your appreciate to MQA.


headfry said:


> The truth is found by auditioning over a reasonable time period.


 
 That would be scientifically incorrect.


----------



## pinnahertz

oneway23 said:


> Back on topic, I really enjoyed Booker T. & the MGs "Green Onions" in MQA via Tidal.  Sounds fantastic!


 
 A 1962 recording made on Scotch 111 tape in mono would be the perfect test of MQA.  
  
 I give up.


----------



## oneway23

For those who enjoy heavier music, Pantera's catalog in MQA, via Tidal, sounds really great as well.  They aren't listed in the section on Tidal, you need to click into the "Pantera: The Complete Albums" collection to hear the "Masters" versions.  The individual albums are the regular releases.


----------



## gregorio

Quote:


oneway23 said:


> If you're not a fan, or you believe it to be the equivalent of audio voodoo, why not show the OP the same respect and politely ignore the thread?


 
  
 Two obvious responses to this question:
  
 1. Those people questioning the validity of this thread ARE showing the OP exactly the SAME RESPECT that he has shown those people! The OP posted several times to a thread on MQA in the science forum arguing with the science, based on his subjective appreciation/comparison of factors which most likely have nothing whatsoever to do with MQA but which he insisted on attributing to MQA.
  
 2. This thread is based on an obvious fallacy. The thread title indicates, and the first line of the OP states this thread is about appreciating the SQ of MQA but as has been explained, this thread is in reality more about appreciating different masters and likely has nothing to do with MQA. Normally, I and many others simply ignore such fallacy based threads, not so much out of respect but because it's not worth the effort/insults. If those audiophiles want to be suckered by endorsements and other standard marketing tactics and scammed out of their money without ever even realising it, it's no skin off my nose, they're not hurting anyone else and they're getting exactly they deserve. However, that's not the case here! As I explained in post #7 of this thread, because of the pricing/cost structure of this particular audiophile product, "appreciating" or otherwise promoting it could indeed lead to skin off my nose and hurting everyone else. With potentially high stakes to the entire industry, rather than just the pockets of a relatively few gullible audiophiles, it should be important to anyone, who cares about the quality of available music, whether the stated "appreciation" is actually due to this new audiophile product or some completely unrelated variable!!
  


cfbruck said:


> It is also about actively altering the file based on ideas that you can perform certain corrections based on knowledge of the hardware, much like modern digital cameras process the image and perform certain corrections for the physical lens in the camera ...


 
  
 In practice that's a poor analogy. A digital camera can perform those certain corrections only if a number of assumptions are true, for example; that the lens and it's physical faults are known and consistent, that there's only one lens, that the light only passes through that lens once. These are pretty reasonable assumptions for a modern digital camera but not so for digital audio, where for many years more than one ADC was typically employed in the recording/mixing/mastering chain and commonly, more than one trip through those ADCs. Additionally, there were usually a number of other extremely relevant variables at play (use of an external clock and/or plugin processors which internally decimate/upsample for example) and typically little or none of this was ever documented.
  
 Quote:


mswlogo said:


> MQA lingo has certainly made the term "lossless" more fuzzy. But it was already getting fuzzy.


 
  
 To be honest, it wasn't fuzzy at all. A lossless format/codec has to produce an output (after encoding and decoding) which is bit perfect identical to it's input. If it doesn't then it's not lossless, it's lossy. As a HD audiophile product, MQA/Meridian obviously decided that being lossy was bad for marketing and therefore decided to obfuscate the meaning of the term lossy. They've done this by confusing digital audio resolutions with digital audio formats, two different, independent, unrelated things. Given an input of 192/24 how does MQA compare to another audio format, such as FLAC or WAV? Given an input of 16/44, how does MQA compare to FLAC or WAV? If we're going to use any resolution against any other, then no rational comparison of the formats is possible. According to the obfuscation of MQA, if we feed 24bit/96kHz into say AAC, the result would be far less "lossy" than feeding 8bit/22kHz into MQA. Would this example prove that AAC is far less lossy (audibly lossless) and far superior to MQA?
  
 You have to admire this and a number of other similar examples in MQA's marketing. It not a new audiophile marketing strategy by any means, it's been around for several decades but it has been particularly well/cleverly considered and implemented in this instance and is apparently very effective. As demonstrated by the fact that there are a number of people vehemently arguing that MQA is lossless even though that's only a marketing implication and the creator himself has stated that MQA is lossy, as do the published papers supporting the product and even the filed patent!
  
 Quote:


headfry said:


> If this is a scam then some industry experts who are accurate about just about everything
> else are on the take - a conspiracy view that I reject.


 
  
 You're free to reject anything you like of course but then if you're going to publicly post your rejection be prepared to take criticism, especially if that rejection can be considered particularly irrational or naive. What you're calling "a conspiracy view" is in fact completely standard, well established marketing! Have you never heard of expert or celebrity endorsements? Have you never heard of (or don't understand) what is meant by the term "marketing campaign"? Admittedly, MQA's marketing campaign is much more sophisticated than that of most other audiophile products but then it needs to be, because the scope of this product is far larger/wider!
  
 G


----------



## oneway23

Thank goodness the moral crusaders have arrived to salvage the integrity of the audio industry and rescue us mere plebeians from our own ignorance!  Bless you, kind sir!
  
 Please, respectfully, get over yourself.  Again, this isn't the science forum.  Feel free to post your investigations there.  I'm not sure why some people feel compelled to make sure this thread gets removed.


----------



## saddleup

This thread really should have been called "The Tidal Streaming Service Appreciation Thread".


----------



## canthearyou

Here's my take. I DO hear a difference in MQA files. It sounds a bit clearer and smoother. In most instances it has a blacker background than the non-MQA file. 

But what I have started to notice is the MQA files seem to have a narrower soundstage.

Edit:Using Tidal Masters with both a MQA and standard DAC.


----------



## oneway23

canthearyou said:


> Here's my take. I DO hear a difference in MQA files. It sounds a bit clearer and smoother. In most instances it has a blacker background than the non-MQA file.
> 
> But what I have started to notice is the MQA files seem to have a narrower soundstage.
> 
> Edit:Using Tidal Masters with both a MQA and standard DAC.


 
  
 I'm also listening to Tidal Masters with a non-MQA DAC, though I hope to soon have a Bluesound Node 2 at the compound to do some testing.


----------



## headfry

canthearyou said:


> Here's my take. I DO hear a difference in MQA files. It sounds a bit clearer and smoother. In most instances it has a blacker background than the non-MQA file.
> 
> But what I have started to notice is the MQA files seem to have a narrower soundstage.
> 
> Edit:Using Tidal Masters with both a MQA and standard DAC.


 

 the clean, natural sounding smoothness is something I heard right away - along with the blacker
 background and seeming removal of "haze" or "grain" - which allows the music to come through
 with greater density, textural detail and overall enjoyment. On well done MQA albums, which in my case often although not
 always seems to be the older albums e.g. from the 70's. David Crosby's "Croz' is a recent album
 that really shines in MQA - esp. love his track "Holding on To Nothing" - genius. 
  
 ...all of this with the non-MQA dac Mojo!
  
  
 ....thanks for sharing!  << =============


----------



## smartin

The MQA remasters that sound better, would not exist were it not for MQA...  Just saying.


----------



## TokenGesture

smartin said:


> The MQA remasters that sound better, would not exist were it not for MQA...  Just saying.


 

 Exactly! Well said


----------



## pinnahertz

smartin said:


> The MQA remasters that sound better, would not exist were it not for MQA...  Just saying.


 
 Why on earth not?  There's a substantial market for remasters, and there has been for decades.


----------



## pinnahertz

oneway23 said:


> Again, this isn't the science forum.


 
  
 THAT is for sure!
  
 It's more like a "don't bother me with scientific facts, I'm in love with my delusion" thread.


----------



## oneway23

For those unaware, there are numerous MQA Tidal Masters albums which aren't listed in the designated section.  Oftentimes, if the section lists one album by an artist or band and you click in, you'll usually see the rest of their catalog available as Masters as well.  Don't know if that was obvious, but, I've seen it for Rush, Yes, Red Hot Chili Peppers, ZZ Top, Deep Purple, Jethro Tull, etc.


----------



## pinnahertz

...and, more for "those unaware"...
  
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/03/highresaudio-com-calls-for-a-deeper-technical-analysis-of-mqa/
  
  
 This excerpt proves "you don't know what you don't know":
  
"_I have asked MQA weeks ago to correct the marketing communication towards the end user and media. As long as MQA is not prepared to straighten the facts, we will not offer MQA any more. __The customer needs to know what he pays for__, and we have to be able to check technically what we offer and sell to our customers."_
  
_--_Lothar Kerestedjian, highresaudio.com


----------



## headfry

That goes both ways, you have no way of proving that 
our appreciating the better SQ of Tidal Masters & MQA files ISN'T real.

....my ears says that it is.

Science cannot explain everything, and the ear is _much_ more time domain sensitive 
than was previously believed and than modern measuring instruments - hence the main reason why Chord DACs such as
the Mojo sound so good - much more accurate in the time domain than the competition - 
as well as great engineering, low distortion and noise, better coherence, ease, musicality.

As was said a few posts back.... these improved masters wouldn't exist without MQA -
reason is that hires has been here formany years but no easily streamable format
has come ou "till MQA did it.


This isn't a science thread. Sure, not everyone needs or wants MQA, no argument there....

As I've said there are different paths to musical playback satisfaction - none of them have a monopoly.


----------



## smartin

pinnahertz said:


> Why on earth not?  There's a substantial market for remasters, and there has been for decades.


 
 Future of industry lies in monitizing streaming.  There is zero incentive to remaster in this scenario.  Labels won't be able to charge more/stream for a remaster that is encoded at Redbook or below.  They can only charge more for something different.  MQA is something different.
  
 Perfectly fine to argue MQA's other qualities, but I have no doubt more remasters will be done if MQA is successful in the market.


----------



## pinnahertz

headfry said:


> That goes both ways, you have no way of proving that
> our appreciating the better SQ of Tidal Masters & MQA files ISN'T real.
> 
> ....my ears says that it is.


 
 My issue isn't so much one of IF there's a difference, though there are enough doubts there to build a real case, it's what you attribute that difference to. About that, there is no question, you have no idea.


headfry said:


> Science cannot explain everything,


 
 Agreed in principle, though "everything" is too broad a term to apply here.


headfry said:


> and the ear is _much_ more time domain sensitive
> than was previously believed and than modern measuring instruments


 
 Quite wrong. Instrumentation today, and for the last several decades, has been able to measure in the time domain with precision well beyond hearing ability. Your assumption that hearing has some supernatural ability to discern something in the time domain that cannot be measured is based in your belief system, not reality.


headfry said:


> - hence the main reason why Chord DACs such as
> the Mojo sound so good - much more accurate in the time domain than the competition -
> as well as great engineering, low distortion and noise, better coherence, ease, musicality.


 
 If any of that is true, do you think the design got where it is without measurement and science?  Or, somehow, in spite of science?  What did they do, put on sacred ground and dance in a circle chanting?  Come on, now.  Engineering is applied science..  


headfry said:


> As was said a few posts back.... these improved masters wouldn't exist without MQA -


 
 And I answered that a few posts back: there's been a notable market for remasters for decades dating back to the pre-digital days. MQA had nothing whatever to do with that. There's no reason MQA would have prompted remastering other than to deliberately make MQA sound different and obscure the fact that it's not really doing anything. And, if they are in fact doing that, that's not bad, but they aren't saying so! There's the problem, it's one of integrity.  The guys at highresaudio.com, at least, have enough integrity of their own to recognize Blue Smoke when then see it.


headfry said:


> reason is that hires has been here formany years but no easily streamable format
> has come ou "till MQA did it.


 
 Again, nonsense. You over-credit MQA completely.


headfry said:


> This isn't a science thread. Sure, not everyone needs or wants MQA, no argument there....
> 
> As I've said there are different paths to musical playback satisfaction - none of them have a monopoly.


 
 I've actually said nothing here about the applied science at all. My points have been entirely about credibility, authenticity, and the complete lack of any form of proof that your MQA is actually improving anything at all.  I'm just calling out the Emperor's New Clothes.  And, evidently, I'm not alone. 
  
 I recognize some are in love with delusion, myth, and make-believe. That's just fine, right up until they try to infuse their delusions and mythology on others who swallow it whole.  
  
 Supporting a product without even knowing what it does or if it's doing anything at all is irresponsible.  But then extolling the virtues of the fully unsubstantiated results is the propagation of untruth, rumor, myth, marketing lies as if they were fact.  Attributing a fully biased opinion to an undefined and unsubstantiated and unverified process, presenting that opinion publically, that's worse than irresponsible.  
  
 Then you object to an opposing view in "your" thread because it's asking for verification, credibility, and oddly given the MQA name, authenticity.  If the opposing view you object to is asking for all of that, what does that say about your view?  
  
 And oddest of all, if the MQA process is so wonderfully and obviously an improvement, it should be easy and simple to provide that data, demonstration, etc.  and dispel all doubt once and for all.  But we don't have that.   Where is it?  Why don't we have it?  So, all we have is marketing Blue Smoke?  
  
 That's just not good enough.


----------



## pinnahertz

smartin said:


> Future of industry lies in monitizing streaming.  There is zero incentive to remaster in this scenario.  Labels won't be able to charge more/stream for a remaster that is encoded at Redbook or below.  They can only charge more for something different.  MQA is something different.
> 
> Perfectly fine to argue MQA's other qualities, but I have no doubt more remasters will be done if MQA is successful in the market.


 
 It's too late.  The future is now the past.  The bulk of streaming, and I mean the BIG BULK of it cares not a wit for quality, they want it free.  And they have it.  YouTube is already the biggest music streaming source.  
  
 Remastering has always had a market, strong, but tiny.  MQA didn't start that, isn't going to expand that, and it can go one quite nicely without MQA.
  
 Labels won't be able to charge more for a remaster for very long.  Labels charging for streaming, and music in general, is coming to an end, and fairly soon.  The music industry has already changed, and labels are just a little slow on the uptake.  Music distribution is moving to a free model.  HiRes is a miniscule splinter and won't drive the music industry at all.  
  
 The music industry missed it's chance to market the entire catalog in a way that was unmistakably different: 5.1 surround.  But it was too hard to do, too much market confusion, too many speakers, etc. etc.,  But 5.1 music is a major definite difference over two-channel, anyone could hear it, and there were millions of installed systems.  They blew that. A vague, possibly non-existant quality change has no market to speak of apart from the audiophile who won't support the music industry.  
  
 Remasters will remain a tiny market, with or without MQA.  If MQA could be proven to be a major definite improvement, they might have something.  But that's very, very unlikely.


----------



## TokenGesture

I don't think any one in the music industry is looking to let streaming go free any time soon. Far far from it. Youtube is the elephant in the room anomaly, which the marketeers have pumped up into a serious threat. But aside from that, streaming ain't free. It's cheap though, and sure the industry is looking to pursuade a market to go up the value chain into hi res, and MQA is a big bet on that direction. For that alone, it is to me a worthwhile endeavour.  The HiResAudi guys complaints matter not a jot to me as I am not buying files in MQA. I'm streaming them (or will do if and when I come across ones I actually want to listen to).  You can stream 24bit via Qobuz but it is a bandwidth killer, and wifi is often not up to the job.  Thats the main sell for MQA - smaller file sizes which are easily, painlessly streamable.  And then we come back to the original question - does it sound as good as the alternatives, or maybe better? Subjectively.
  
 I think we have done the debunking arguments to death now. We get it. Now lets let our ears do the talking, so to speak. In this thread, at least.


----------



## gregorio

oneway23 said:


> [1] Thank goodness the moral crusaders have arrived ...
> 
> [2] Please, respectfully, get over yourself.  [3] Again, this isn't the science forum.


 
  
 1. Yes, thanks for arriving kind sir. It was you who led with the "show the same respect" post wasn't it?
  
 2. Really, you think that's being "respectfully"? After your starting post about showing respect, don't you think this comment is at least a tad hypocritical?
  
 3. Not sure I understand, are you saying that: talking about appreciating something different to what's been stated, discussing basic modern marketing methods and the economic impact of a pernicious product, are all science? Maybe it would be easier if you just listed all those subject areas you personally consider to be science and therefore what we're not allowed to discuss here?
  


headfry said:


> the clean, natural sounding smoothness is something I heard right away - along with the blacker background and seeming removal of "haze" or "grain"


 
  
 That's one of the best rationales I've seen yet for avoiding MQA! The very last thing I want is for a digital audio format to change the smoothness, black background or remove the haze or grain the artists and audio pros have put there in the first place! Imagine changing the smoothness or background of say the Mona Lisa!
  


headfry said:


> [1] Science cannot explain everything ....
> 
> [2] This isn't a science thread.


 
  
 1. As far as digital audio is concerned, yes it can! This fundamental fact was theorised about 90 years ago and proven mathematically nearly 70 years ago. You think you can disprove that proof? If so, make sure you publish your name and address somewhere, so you can be showered with riches and accolades as the greatest mathematician of the age or, are you just making up complete nonsense because you don't actually have any idea what science can explain?
  
 2. Does that mean that no one is allowed to mention science here, or that it can only be mentioned if it's lied about or misrepresented (as above)?
  
 G


----------



## pinnahertz

tokengesture said:


> I don't think any one in the music industry is looking to let streaming go free any time soon. Far far from it. Youtube is the elephant in the room anomaly, which the marketeers have pumped up into a serious threat. But aside from that, streaming ain't free. It's cheap though, and sure the industry is looking to pursuade a market to go up the value chain into hi res, and MQA is a big bet on that direction. For that alone, it is to me a worthwhile endeavour.  The HiResAudi guys complaints matter not a jot to me as I am not buying files in MQA. I'm streaming them (or will do if and when I come across ones I actually want to listen to).  You can stream 24bit via Qobuz but it is a bandwidth killer, and wifi is often not up to the job.  Thats the main sell for MQA - smaller file sizes which are easily, painlessly streamable.


 
 Missing the point entirely. MQA is not pivotal to hi-res streaming. It's a proprietary process that is licensed. There are plenty of other ways to stream a high quality lossy file, and without license. You can't really say YouTube is the "elephant in the room" because it pretty much IS the room. It's free, it wins, it's done. Yes we can pay for streaming, and some of us may want to to get the higher quality stream. But the "industry" has nuked itself for paid streaming, it just hasn't figured it out yet, and there's no going back.


tokengesture said:


> And then we come back to the original question - does it sound as good as the alternatives, or maybe better? Subjectively.


 
 There's no way to know, we have no reference or knowledge of what's been done, or what process is having any effect.


tokengesture said:


> I think we have done the debunking arguments to death now. We get it. Now lets let our ears do the talking, so to speak. In this thread, at least.


 
 And with that last statement you've just crystalized the problem here. *"Let our ears to the talking".* You mean, you're going to listen and decide if you like MQA?
  
 Have you not read/understood anything in this thread yet? _*Listening and deciding, when it comes to MQA on Tidal (or anything else) an impossibility.*_ You don't know what you're listening to.  *There is no authentication. * It's missing the very aspect they're touting.  Anybody that hears an MQA stream/file and says, "Hey, that's better!" has no knowledge of what made it better.  You can listen, love, hate, all you want.  At this point, it's all pointless because you don't know what you're listening to.
  
 And did I mention you don't know what you're listening to?  Nobody does.


----------



## TokenGesture

Bye


----------



## Steven Stone1

pinnahertz said:


> Missing the point entirely. MQA is not pivotal to hi-res streaming. It's a proprietary process that is licensed. There are plenty of other ways to stream a high quality lossy file, and without license. You can't really say YouTube is the "elephant in the room" because it pretty much IS the room. It's free, it wins, it's done. Yes we can pay for streaming, and some of us may want to to get the higher quality stream. But the "industry" has nuked itself for paid streaming, it just hasn't figured it out yet, and there's no going back.
> There's no way to know, we have no reference or knowledge of what's been done, or what process is having any effect.
> And with that last statement you've just crystalized the problem here. *"Let our ears to the talking".* You mean, you're going to listen and decide if you like MQA?
> 
> ...


 
 Actually those of us who have had files they recorded converted to MQA and compared them to the original files via matched-level A/B have...but I don't want to upset your arguments


----------



## pinnahertz

steven stone1 said:


> Actually those of us who have had files they recorded converted to MQA and compared them to the original files via matched-level A/B have...but I don't want to upset your arguments


 
 Care to share the details, or just trolling?


----------



## Steven Stone1

pinnahertz said:


> Care to share the details, or just trolling?


 

 I've already written about it in TAS. Check their site.


----------



## pinnahertz

steven stone1 said:


> I've already written about it in TAS. Check their site.


 
 I found an article dated 9/6/2016, regarding the Mytek Brooklyn.  It's all I could find with MQA and your name.
  
 If that was the article you refer to, then I'll just repeat my question:
  
 Care to share the details, or just trolling?


----------



## Steven Stone1

pinnahertz said:


> I found an article dated 9/6/2016, regarding the Mytek Brooklyn.  It's all I could find with MQA and your name.
> 
> If that was the article you refer to, then I'll just repeat my question:
> 
> Care to share the details, or just trolling?


 

 You found the article. It has what I found using my own recordings.


----------



## pinnahertz

steven stone1 said:


> You found the article. It has what I found using my own recordings.


 
 There isn't enough detail in the article to verify anything.


----------



## headfry

pinnahertz said:


> There isn't enough detail in the article to verify anything.


 

 hello again pinnahertz - - how long have you been auditioning MQA? 
  
 I've found your position on MQA in earlier posts and basically you seem to feel it is a cash grab
 and not the revolution it purports to be......do you agree and if so do you still feel that way?
  
 If you do hear a meaningful improvement and if the type of improvement hasn't been found in the streaming
 format before then why the skepticism?
 If you don't fine a meaningful improvement with MQA inline with what Steven and
 other professional audio reviewers have found and after listening for a few weeks
 please just let us know - your feedback will be appreciated.
  
If there is a significant, meaningful improvement but you don't think it's due to the MQA process, then 
let competitors move in and copy what they've done in some other format.
  
 =============================================
  
 Thank You Steven for your participation in this thread - I've been enjoying your articles for years!
  
  
 I've already posted the link to your MQA/Brooklyn impressions, which for me corroborates other trusted reviewer's 
 as well as my own impressions:
  
  
 http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/mytek-brooklyn-mqa-compatible-dac/?page=2
  
 ​For myself......it verifies that you hear improvement in the MQA playback as well as the kinds of improvements
 and this means a lot to myself and to many audiophile readers.
  
 Always looking for new impressions! Any Tidal Masters or MQA songs or albums any of you have enjoyed and can recommend?


----------



## smartin

pinnahertz said:


> Missing the point entirely. MQA is not pivotal to hi-res streaming. It's a proprietary process that is licensed. There are plenty of other ways to stream a high quality lossy file, and without license. You can't really say YouTube is the "elephant in the room" because it pretty much IS the room. It's free, it wins, it's done. Yes we can pay for streaming, and some of us may want to to get the higher quality stream. But the "industry" has nuked itself for paid streaming, it just hasn't figured it out yet, and there's no going back.
> There's no way to know, we have no reference or knowledge of what's been done, or what process is having any effect.
> And with that last statement you've just crystalized the problem here. *"Let our ears to the talking".* You mean, you're going to listen and decide if you like MQA?
> 
> ...


 
  
 Industry revenue has been essentially flat for 10 years.  The source has changed, to where streaming is not the largest source.  Streaming services have continued to add subscribers, despite YouTube.  Pandora/Spotify/Spotify/Apple serve a different market segment than people that only consume YouTube music.  Subscription retention is very high.  While there are other ways of streaming HiRes besides MQA, it's a lot harder to market and monitize a process (say streaming 18/96 FLAC, similar size, less 'lossy') than a thing (MQA), for example, 24 is better than 18 right?  Future revenue for the industry lies in streaming, to cash in on that they need to find a way to entice a percentage of the people that pay $4 (Pandora) or $10 (Spotify) a month to pay $5-$10 more.
  
 In regards to direct testing, you can compare the 2L test tracks.  They provide all sorts of different encodings from the same master(just please don't do ABX testing like I see touted in science forum, worthless protocol.)


----------



## old tech

mswlogo said:


> Again, I'm not an MQA fan. But this comment is also unfair. And also doesn't belong in this thread.
> 
> If say a recording was recorded at 768 and Mixed and 384 and released at 44, 192, and 384 (all FLAC)
> 
> ...


 
 You are right of course, a lot of people seem to confuse "lossless" with "resolution".  Uncompressed PCM, like CDs, is lossless by definition.  It is a factual statement not a point of debate.
  
 24 bits is higher resolution than 16 bits and 16bits is higher resolution than 8 bits.  However, as has been proved over and over again, no human can hear the difference between a 16bit file and a 24bit file, providing it is the same master source, competent DAC, level matched and importantly, double blind to take expectation bias and placebo effects out of the equation.
  
 The more important point is what exactly is a high resolution music or file?  The industry cannot agree on a common definition and it is not possible to say that the music on a 24/96 or higher file is true high res as it depends on the recording and production chain.  This is the point made by Waldrep in the video below (he is the owner of the AIX true hi res music label).  If the source is analog tape (which is nearly all recordings before 1990) then it is impossible to be high resolution, regardless of the delivery file or playback chain.  Even the best analog master tapes recorded on the best Neeve machines are equivalent to around 13 to 14 bits.  Converting this to 24 digital is not going to suddenly make these recordings hi res - except perhaps more nuanced tape hiss.  This is another reason why 24bits cannot sound better than 16bits because even if there was a human freak out there that can hear the difference between a 96db noise floor and a 144db noise floor, there is nothing there but noise.
  
 The music in the AIX label are true certified hi res music as they are all DDD recordings of at least 24/96 all the way through production, so a freak perhaps could hear a difference with that music comparing 16bits to 24.  But at the end of the day, nearly all recorded music, even full symphonic orchestras, would not use more than 13bits or 13bits equivalent in analog tape.  What does make a difference, and where many audiophiles are led astray, is how well the music was recorded in the first place and the mastering effort/choices put in by the engineer.  So there is nothing MQA can possibly do to improve the sound of any source, even compared to a CD.  Whether it does sound different is only due to either or a combination of different masterings, flaws in the playback chain or expectation bias.
  
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5S_DI99wd8


----------



## old tech

gregorio said:


> That's one of the best rationales I've seen yet for avoiding MQA! The very last thing I want is for a digital audio format to change the smoothness, black background or remove the haze or grain the artists and audio pros have put there in the first place! Imagine changing the smoothness or background of say the Mona Lisa!


 


>


 
 Kinda reminds me of noise reduction that is used in some recordings.  Some people like it, saying "wow it has eliminated all the tape hiss" but any serious audiophile avoids it like a plague as it affects the depth and "good" parts of the music.


----------



## old tech

headfry said:


> That goes both ways, you have no way of proving that
> our appreciating the better SQ of Tidal Masters & MQA files ISN'T real.
> 
> ....my ears says that it is.
> ...


 
 Yeah right.  NASA spent over $400 million on very sophisticated equipment to hear gravity waves - which detecting its presence is highly dependent on the time domain.
  
 What a waste of money, they should have just used their ears.
  
 There is over a hundred years of real world hearing studies and measurements.  Human hearing, well at least the limits of it, are very well understood.
  
 And I am sure science can explain something which was invented from science.


----------



## winders

So I just listened to Fleetwood Mac's Rumors album using MQA. My DAC, an Yggdrasil, does not support MQA but my software does so it was unwrapped to a 24/96 format. I don't know anything about how the songs were mixed or manipulated. All I know is they do sound different in 24/96 MQA than they do Red Book *sourced* 16/44.1 256 Kbps lossy.
  
 The MQA tracks were more lively and boisterous than the Red Book tracks. Voices had more airiness to them. Drums stood out more. It's almost like a loudness button was pushed or some EQ was applied. I don't know that is a good thing. I certainly heard no extra detail. The soundstage was a little different. Not bigger or smaller. The instrument and voice separation was different. I can't put my finger on it. Let's put it this way, I didn't hear anything that made me want to listen to MQA all day every day. I didn't hear anything that made me not want to listen either. I do have concerns about the change in sound. But that could come down to the album being a different mix.


----------



## pinnahertz

headfry said:


> hello again pinnahertz - - how long have you been auditioning MQA?


 
 Lacking any information as to how MQA files were created, the question would be, has anybody been auditioning MQA....at all?  We don't know what we've been listening to.


headfry said:


> I've found your position on MQA in earlier posts and basically you seem to feel it is a cash grab
> and not the revolution it purports to be......do you agree and if so do you still feel that way?


 
 There is no evidence to support that is provides any improvement.


headfry said:


> If you do hear a meaningful improvement and if the type of improvement hasn't been found in the streaming
> format before then why the skepticism?


 
 If...and another if....too many ifs....


headfry said:


> If you don't fine a meaningful improvement with MQA inline with what Steven and
> other professional audio reviewers have found and after listening for a few weeks
> please just let us know - your feedback will be appreciated.


 
 Sorry, that's impossible. Read my posts again.


headfry said:


> If there is a significant, meaningful improvement but you don't think it's due to the MQA process, then
> let competitors move in and copy what they've done in some other format.


 
 As if it's up to me....
  
 As I've said too many times now to count, we have no positive way to know if MQA offers and improvement or not.  We don't have the file's heritage.  If there is a difference, is it MQA or something else?  
  
 Let me turn it around: if YOU think the percieved improvement is solely due to MQA processing, can you prove that nothing else has been done?


----------



## headfry

winders said:


> So I just listened to Fleetwood Mac's Rumors album using MQA. My DAC, an Yggdrasil, does not support MQA but my software does so it was unwrapped to a 24/96 format. I don't know anything about how the songs were mixed or manipulated. All I know is they do sound different in 24/96 MQA than they do Red Book 16/44.1 256 Kbps lossy.
> 
> The MQA tracks were more lively and boisterous than the Red Book tracks. Voices had more airiness to them. Drums stood out more. It's almost like a loudness button was pushed or some EQ was applied. I don't know that is a good thing. I certainly heard no extra detail. The soundstage was a little different. Not bigger or smaller. The instrument and voice separation was different. I can't put my finger on it. Let's put it this way, I didn't hear anything that made me want to listen to MQA all day every day. I didn't hear anything that made me not want to listen either. I do have concerns about the change in sound. But that could come down to the album being a different mix.


 

 Tthanks for your impressions - as I said before if it's strictly due to a different mix then let competitors come
in and provide similar SQ with a different stream-friendly format.
  
So far it hasn't happened, we"ll see. BTW, I'm not a fan of the MQA version of Rumors as I'm not a fan of the album,
 there are many more MQA albums to try.
  
 That you hear differences but don't think they are significant improvements is fine, I and many others do think so, but
 opinions will vary and so the rationale for this thread.


----------



## saddleup

winders said:


> So I just listened to Fleetwood Mac's Rumors album using MQA. My DAC, an Yggdrasil, does not support MQA but my software does so it was unwrapped to a 24/96 format. I don't know anything about how the songs were mixed or manipulated. All I know is they do sound different in 24/96 MQA than they do Red Book 16/44.1 256 Kbps lossy.


 
 Red Book is 16/44.1 period is it not?  256 Kbps lossy is not Red Book.


----------



## smartin

pinnahertz said:


> Lacking any information as to how MQA files were created, the question would be, has anybody been auditioning MQA....at all?  We don't know what we've been listening to.
> There is no evidence to support that is provides any improvement.
> If...and another if....too many ifs....
> Sorry, that's impossible. Read my posts again.
> ...


 
  
 As I said before, compare from the 2L test tracks, different formats from same source (which they list, including one MQA remaster) http://www.2l.no/hires/
  
 Also, not sure if this has been linked here, but Archimago did a good review where he did a DAC-ADC chain and compared the digital output (he also provides listening impressions, for what that is worth...) http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/02/comparison-hardware-decoded-mqa-using.html
  
 Short version is that MQA does a very good (certainly psychoacousticly transparent) job of reproducing native 24/96 (beyond that is sketchier).  You can argue whether there is any 'benefit' of 24/96 over Redbook, but that is a different argument.


----------



## pinnahertz

smartin said:


> As I said before, compare from the 2L test tracks, different formats from same source (which they list, including one MQA remaster) http://www.2l.no/hires/
> 
> Also, not sure if this has been linked here, but Archimago did a good review where he did a DAC-ADC chain and compared the digital output (he also provides listening impressions, for what that is worth...) http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/02/comparison-hardware-decoded-mqa-using.html


 
 The 2L "test tracks", unless I've misread, originated as DSD.  So, the comparison would have to be the original DSD to the MQA version.   That presents more than a few issues, and frankly, doesn't relate to the discussion of more common material processed to MQA. 
  


smartin said:


> Short version is that MQA does a very good (certainly psychoacousticly transparent) job of reproducing native 24/96 (beyond that is sketchier).  You can argue whether there is any 'benefit' of 24/96 over Redbook, but that is a different argument.


 
 The argument that relates to the thread would be whether MQA "improves" anything over Redbook or above, as that's the primary source type for most material pre-MQA.   
  
 In my tests of the 2L tracksI heard what I thought was a slight upper midrange rise in the MQA files, otherwise, no difference.  I was able to check that perception by nulling an MQA and non-MQA to the mid 50dB, but only after adding a bit of EQ in the upper mid.  It was pretty consistent track to track, with one requiring a slightly different EQ, but still nulling well.  Again, the source files were DSD, and that's a different path we aren't specifically discussing here.


----------



## smartin

pinnahertz said:


> The 2L "test tracks", unless I've misread, originated as DSD.  So, the comparison would have to be the original DSD to the MQA version.   That presents more than a few issues, and frankly, doesn't relate to the discussion of more common material processed to MQA.
> 
> The argument that relates to the thread would be whether MQA "improves" anything over Redbook or above, as that's the primary source type for most material pre-MQA.
> 
> In my tests of the 2L tracksI heard what I thought was a slight upper midrange rise in the MQA files, otherwise, no difference.  I was able to check that perception by nulling an MQA and non-MQA to the mid 50dB, but only after adding a bit of EQ in the upper mid.  It was pretty consistent track to track, with one requiring a slightly different EQ, but still nulling well.  Again, the source files were DSD, and that's a different path we aren't specifically discussing here.


 
 The 2L test track originals are almost all DXD (it says original format in the far right column).  Two are lower resolution, but none are DSD.
  
 The relevant argument is whether MQA improves on Redbook, not 'Redbook or above'.  MQA is designed to be a HiRes streaming protocol.  MQA is ~60% the size of native 24/96.  If, as Archimago showed, MQA can provide an acoustically transparent version of 24/96 (or higher), then it's met its goal.  As I said above, you could provide a mathematically better (but not necesarrily acoustically better) format (i.e. 18/96) at similar bit rates, but at the moment noone is (and from a marketing standpoint, it's easy to understand why), so that's a strawman argument.  If you want to argue thet 24/96 is no better than Redbook, that's fine, but that is a completely different argument.
  
 In regards to your listening impressions, and being the objectivist you seem to be, I'd ask, considering Archimago's frequency plots, what exactly is causing the upper mid-range rise, specifically this plot http://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_148908082184813&key=a7cf329d5bd13115736c5131a3c772ff&libId=j02o7xad0100rcxm000DAbg8bq03l&loc=http%3A%2F%2Farchimago.blogspot.com%2F2017%2F02%2Fcomparison-hardware-decoded-mqa-using.html&v=1&out=https%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-2wFpyluLLno%2FWJU2mk3M6II%2FAAAAAAAAJks%2FnfOl0PiTG3IlorPq6pTM0E8WpHnnw0NewCLcB%2Fs1600%2FSpectral.png&ref=http%3A%2F%2Farchimago.blogspot.com%2F&title=Archimago%27s%20Musings%3A%20COMPARISON%3A%20Hardware-Decoded%20MQA%20(using%20Mytek%20Brooklyn%20DAC)&txt=
  
 the differences null out at -90dB.  Objectively, where is that upper mid-range rise coming from?


----------



## winders

saddleup said:


> Red Book is 16/44.1 period is it not?  256 Kbps lossy is not Red Book.


 

 Technically, that would be correct. But I am talking about Red Book content compressed using a lossy algorithm.


----------



## castleofargh

winders said:


> saddleup said:
> 
> 
> > Red Book is 16/44.1 period is it not?  256 Kbps lossy is not Red Book.
> ...


 
  if it's not 16/44 LPCM it isn't redbook spec.


----------



## winders

castleofargh said:


> if it's not 16/44 LPCM it isn't redbook spec.


 

 Why do you feel the need to post something that has already been agreed to?


----------



## pinnahertz

smartin said:


> The 2L test track originals are almost all DXD (it says original format in the far right column).  Two are lower resolution, but none are DSD.


 
 DXD, yes, sorry, my mistake. That doesn't change anything though.


smartin said:


> The relevant argument is whether MQA improves on Redbook, not 'Redbook or above'.


 
 Yes, correct. I included the "above" part because they do. But it's not part of the discussion specifically centered on improving Redbook. However, in this discussion, the 2L files become useless anyway.


smartin said:


> MQA is designed to be a HiRes streaming protocol.  MQA is ~60% the size of native 24/96.  If, as Archimago showed, MQA can provide an acoustically transparent version of 24/96 (or higher), then it's met its goal.  As I said above, you could provide a mathematically better (but not necesarrily acoustically better) format (i.e. 18/96) at similar bit rates, but at the moment noone is (and from a marketing standpoint, it's easy to understand why), so that's a strawman argument.


 
 What's your point?


smartin said:


> If you want to argue thet 24/96 is no better than Redbook, that's fine, but that is a completely different argument.


 
 Haven't said anything of the kind in this discussion.


smartin said:


> In regards to your listening impressions, and being the objectivist you seem to be, I'd ask, considering Archimago's frequency plots, what exactly is causing the upper mid-range rise, specifically this plot&


 
 The plot linked to is useless other than to show there is a difference of some kind.
  
 As to why, how should I know? Or anybody know except those inside MQA?
  
 Why would you ask me this?


smartin said:


> the differences null out at -90dB.  Objectively, where is that upper mid-range rise coming from?


 
 I didn't say they null to -90dB.
  
 And again, how should I, or anyone outside of MQA know that?


----------



## smartin

pinnahertz said:


> DXD, yes, sorry, my mistake. That doesn't change anything though.
> Yes, correct. I included the "above" part because they do. But it's not part of the discussion specifically centered on improving Redbook. However, in this discussion, the 2L files become useless anyway.
> What's your point?
> Haven't said anything of the kind in this discussion.
> ...


 
 Why is it useless?  Your argument has been that when people say an MQA stream on Tidal sounds better than the Redbook version Tidal stream, they don't know what they are comparing.  Ignoring the fact that only a tiny number of re-masters have been done (Warner has acknowledged that 95%+ of their MQA conversions are automated encodings of their current master, not re-masters) so they were in almost all cases comparing from the same master, the 2L tracks take away any question.  You can directly compare Redbook and MQA encodings of the same source master.  Isn't that exactly what you were saying isn't possible?
  
 That plot shows that the differences between software decoded Tidal MQA(Tidal only, no hardware decode), and a lossless, native 24/96 version of the same file, are minuscule and way below the ability of any human to differentiate(if you are an objectivist that is...), this comparison nulls at -90dB, objectively, period.  The files become even more similar with hardware decoding, but since the difference was already inaudible, it's sort of moot (though I suspect many will say MQA decoded to 24/384 sounds better than software decoded to 24/96, but that, like so many other things is another argument...).
  
 You said one cannot compare because there's no way to know what is being compared.  That is simply not true.
  
 There are lots of valid critiques of MQA, but saying it does not provide an acoustically transparent fascimile of HiRes is not one of them.  People can subjectively compare themselves (with all the caveats that entails), something that anyone can actually do fairly easily, contrary to what you keep saying.  They can also objectively compare (as Archimago did), albeit not quite as easily.


----------



## old tech

smartin said:


> Why is it useless?  Your argument has been that when people say an MQA stream on Tidal sounds better than the Redbook version Tidal stream, they don't know what they are comparing.  *Ignoring the fact that only a tiny number of re-masters have been done (Warner has acknowledged that 95%+ of their MQA conversions are automated encodings of their current master, not re-masters)* so they were in almost all cases comparing from the same master, the 2L tracks take away any question.  You can directly compare Redbook and MQA encodings of the same source master.  Isn't that exactly what you were saying isn't possible?


 
 How do you know that?  Pick any popular album and it is likely that there are several masterings of it.  Even back in the analog days there were variations in pressings depending on which masters or remasters were used.  With digital, remasterings are much easier and more prevalent.
  
 As for the Warner comment, I'm not sure as to what is meant by their "current master" and not a remaster.  The current master is in all likely hood a remaster, unless you mean the current release of that album?
  
 Lastly, and probably a different debate, unless the recording is 24/96 DDD it is not high res music, so even if you accept that a human can detect a sound difference between redbook and 24/96, it is simply not possible (assuming the same master) if the source was analog tape or a CD master.  If there is a difference it means that there is an issue with the way MQA is treating the source, or hardware imperfections or, most likely, expectation biases.


----------



## pinnahertz

smartin said:


> Why is it useless?  Your argument has been that when people say an MQA stream on Tidal sounds better than the Redbook version Tidal stream, they don't know what they are comparing.  Ignoring the fact that only a tiny number of re-masters have been done (Warner has acknowledged that 95%+ of their MQA conversions are automated encodings of their current master, not re-masters) so they were in almost all cases comparing from the same master, the 2L tracks take away any question.  You can directly compare Redbook and MQA encodings of the same source master.  Isn't that exactly what you were saying isn't possible?


 
 Unless I'm not reading right, it seems the 2L files were native DXD, isn't that correct? That means they are transcoded to get to Redbook, and separately transcoded to get to MQA. Those are separate paths, and thus not directly comparable. The Warner files need to be verified, there have been far too many "masters" around and since we don't have any way to do that, those are not valid test files. I realize how pedantic this sounds, but unless we have total verifiability, we can't be sure of what is being auditioned.


smartin said:


> That plot shows that the differences between software decoded Tidal MQA(Tidal only, no hardware decode), and a lossless, native 24/96 version of the same file, are minuscule and way below the ability of any human to differentiate(if you are an objectivist that is...), this comparison nulls at -90dB, objectively, period.


 
 The "plots" are spectrograms, wrong tool for the job, and almost impossible to get any meaningful detail out of them. There are FAR better tools that could have been used. However, yes, I agree, a 90dB null is identical enough. I didn't get that in my tests, though I have a pretty good idea why.


smartin said:


> The files become even more similar with hardware decoding, but since the difference was already inaudible, it's sort of moot (though I suspect many will say MQA decoded to 24/384 sounds better than software decoded to 24/96, but that, like so many other things is another argument...).


 
 The reality is, if two files null to a real -90dB, there can be no audible difference at all. So hardware decoding may be "better", but not audibly.  Given perfect timing match (not actually possible), the level match for a 50dB null must be within 0.017dB.  Assuming perfect level match, the phase alignment for a 50dB null must be under 6 degrees at all frequencies. So you see, a 50dB null represents no audible difference.  A 90dB null is practically perfect (and I believe impossible, BTW).  And, we're splitting inaudible hairs.


smartin said:


> You said one cannot compare because there's no way to know what is being compared.  That is simply not true.


 
 Beg to differ. I have yet to see an MQA file that was made, verifiably, from a specific 16/44 master.


smartin said:


> There are lots of valid critiques of MQA, but saying it does not provide an acoustically transparent fascimile of HiRes is not one of them.


 
 Agreed. I'm not saying that.


smartin said:


> People can subjectively compare themselves (with all the caveats that entails), something that anyone can actually do fairly easily, contrary to what you keep saying.  They can also objectively compare (as Archimago did), albeit not quite as easily.


 
 Until we have 100% verifiable and traceable production path from a specific 16/44 master to an MQA version, verified by someone other than a content provider (with their motives for difference and improvement) and MQA (with their motives for difference and improvement), we cannot do that comparison with any degree of validity. There are far too many players in the game with monetary stakes. All of those stakes are biases that must be under control.


----------



## smartin

I think I finally understand what you're arguing.
  
 I doubt anyone in this thread is hanging their hat on the premise that MQA improves Redbook, and if so it would be a false premise, because MQA is not applied to native Redbook.  The labels that have signed up with MQA have only applied MQA to their HiRes masters.  While there are certainly some HiRes masters that are just upsampled crap (i.e. all of Madonna's stuff), a vast majority are native HiRes (depending on definition, there are 24/44 masters).  In most of those cases the Redbook version is transcoded from the same source (as is the case for all the 2L files).  There are no MQA files encoded from native Redbook, none.  It would make no sense to do so.  The patent doesn't even cover this scenario (it does include the possibility of encoding to a lower resolution than 24/48, but it's still from a HiRes master)
  
 When people say they are enthusiastic for MQA, I suspect it's because they think it sounds good, better than the Redbook alternative that Tidal also has.  They are enjoying being able to stream a HiRes facsimile for the same price they pay to stream Redbook.
  
 The results of the encoding process are the reproduction of a HiRes master.  If you enjoy that, then you are enjoying the results of the encoding.


----------



## pinnahertz

smartin said:


> I think I finally understand what you're arguing.
> 
> I doubt anyone in this thread is hanging their hat on the premise that MQA improves Redbook, and if so it would be a false premise, because MQA is not applied to native Redbook.  The labels that have signed up with MQA have only applied MQA to their HiRes masters.  While there are certainly some HiRes masters that are just upsampled crap (i.e. all of Madonna's stuff), a vast majority are native HiRes (depending on definition, there are 24/44 masters).  In most of those cases the Redbook version is transcoded from the same source (as is the case for all the 2L files).


 
 If you're saying that all the masters in the Warner catalog are hi-res, I'll have to doubt that strongly. The final mixdown would be to redbook in every single case because it must then be used to create the CD master, and the AAC/MP3 release. To think there are 24/96 masters for all of that is ludicrous. The multitracks, sure, but the final master, not a chance.  But masters are the stereo mixdown, equalized..."mastered", and ready for CD.  They're never going to release a non-"mastered" stereo mixdown.  And you don't release a CD, or standard file from 24/96. 


smartin said:


> There are no MQA files encoded from native Redbook, none.


 
 Proof? I have none either way.


smartin said:


> It would make no sense to do so.  The patent doesn't even cover this scenario (it does include the possibility of encoding to a lower resolution than 24/48, but it's still from a HiRes master)


 
 MQA claims to be able, with a single filter, correct the impulse response anomalies of every single ADC and DAC used in production all the way back to analog masters. That's a whole lotta redbook. The improvement of Redbook is one of their biggest points.


smartin said:


> When people say they are enthusiastic for MQA, I suspect it's because they think it sounds good, better than the Redbook alternative that Tidal also has.  They are enjoying being able to stream a HiRes facsimile for the same price they pay to stream Redbook.


 
 And I say, "Nonsense". It's highly unlikely they are actually hearing any difference at all. But we don't know, so my argument isn't any better than yours.


smartin said:


> The results of the encoding process are the reproduction of a HiRes master.  If you enjoy that, then you are enjoying the results of the encoding.


 
 MQA has two points.  One is delivery of high resolution audio in smaller files.  The second is an improvement over the original by "correcting timing errors".  
  
 From the MQA site, _"With MQA, we go all the way back to the original master recording and* capture the missing timing detail.* We then use advanced digital processing to deliver it in a form that’s small enough to download or stream. The result is astonishing. Every nuance and subtlety of the artist’s performance – every tiny drop of emotion – is authentically reproduced. When you listen, you’ll be transported right into the very moment of creation. You’re there. MQA keeps all this timing information, and folds it into a file that's only a little bigger than a CD. Played back on any existing system, *it will sound better than CD.* But on an MQA-capable system, the music will be unfolded, reproducing every element that's in the original recording."_
  
 The implication is clear: capture the missing detail, better than the CD.  How you capture something that's missing is the problem. And that's any master, all the way back to the analog days, and of course redbook.  Yes, they are processing redbook masters.  For the vast bulk of the global library, that's all there is to work with.


----------



## old tech

smartin said:


> I think I finally understand what you're arguing.
> 
> I doubt anyone in this thread is hanging their hat on the premise that MQA improves Redbook, and if so it would be a false premise, because MQA is not applied to native Redbook.  The labels that have signed up with MQA have only applied MQA to their HiRes masters.  While there are certainly some HiRes masters that are just upsampled crap (i.e. all of Madonna's stuff), a vast majority are native HiRes (depending on definition, there are 24/44 masters).  *In most of those cases the Redbook version is transcoded from the same source (as is the case for all the 2L files)*.  There are no MQA files encoded from native Redbook, none.  It would make no sense to do so.  The patent doesn't even cover this scenario (it does include the possibility of encoding to a lower resolution than 24/48, but it's still from a HiRes master)
> 
> ...


 
 But where did those 24/44 masters come from?  I'm pretty sure that Fleetwood Mac for example would have originally been a copy from the analog tape.  Analog tapes are not hi res, they are lower res than CDs.  So it is a false premise unless MQA can prove the music source was at least a 24/44 recording with no analog processing in the production chain.


----------



## pinnahertz

old tech said:


> But where did those 24/44 masters come from?


 
 Up-sampling?


old tech said:


> I'm pretty sure that Fleetwood Mac for example would have originally been a copy from the analog tape.


 
 If memory serves, and it may not, either Rumors or Tusk was done on an early digital system, though there wouldn't have been digital multitracks at that point yet. But yeah, analog, digitized...happened a lot. AAD, ADD, etc.


old tech said:


> Analog tapes are not hi res, they are lower res than CDs.


 
 Correct.


old tech said:


> So it is a false premise unless MQA can prove the music source was at least a 24/44 recording with no analog processing in the production chain.


 
 Well, not according to MQA. Their claims have not been definitively proven either way. Unlikely, but the jury hasn't even heard the evidence.
  
 BTW, not sure how much was done in 24/44, more like 24/48 or 24/96 and of course 16/44.1. Yeah, the .1 to make 16 bit stereo format into an NTSC video field/frame. A lot of early stuff was 16/44.1 because sample rate conversion back then was kind of not too nice, adding 3dB at least. Even when we could record at 48 we didn't if it was headed to CD. And most of it was.


----------



## old tech

pinnahertz said:


> BTW, not sure how much was done in 24/44, more like 24/48 or 24/96 and of course 16/44.1. Yeah, the .1 to make 16 bit stereo format into an NTSC video field/frame. A lot of early stuff was 16/44.1 because sample rate conversion back then was kind of not too nice, adding 3dB at least. Even when we could record at 48 we didn't if it was headed to CD. And most of it was.


 
 Sorry I did mean 24/48 and you are right most recordings were done in 24/48.
  
 A lot of early CDs that were sold as DDD were actually DAD as it wasn't later that digital consoles were used.
  
 I don't know if this is correct, but I understand that Dire Straits Brothers in Arms was recorded in 16bit digital (and processed through an analog workstation, though classified as DDD).  It sure sounded nice though with a lot more dynamic breadth than most modern pop recordings.


----------



## pinnahertz

old tech said:


> Sorry I did mean 24/48 and you are right most recordings were done in 24/48.
> 
> A lot of early CDs that were sold as DDD were actually DAD as it wasn't later that digital consoles were used.
> 
> I don't know if this is correct, but I understand that Dire Straits Brothers in Arms was recorded in 16bit digital (and processed through an analog workstation, though classified as DDD).  It sure sounded nice though with a lot more dynamic breadth than most modern pop recordings.


 
 Most most recordings were done in 16/44.1 for the first 20 years of digital audio.  
  
 There were plenty of actual DDDs, mostly classical, as a good many of those were  mixed to stereo directly and recorded on 16 bit stereo digital systems.  I worked in that world.  My two CD projects,mid 1980s, were live mix to 2 track stereo, Sony PCM 1630, edited on a DAE-1100.  DDD all the way.  The pop stuff that needed multitrack would have had DASH machines after 1982, up to 48 tracks on 1/2" reel to reel (digital) tape.  Fully digital consoles were rare birds for the first decade, but got cheap fast after that.  Still, we worked in 16/44.1 to avoid a format bump for quite a while.  Film guys did 48kHz because they weren't going to CD. 
  
 You know those early Soundstream tapes?  16/50!


----------



## old tech

pinnahertz said:


> Most most recordings were done in 16/44.1 for the first 20 years of digital audio.
> 
> There were plenty of actual DDDs, mostly classical, as a good many of those were  mixed to stereo directly and recorded on 16 bit stereo digital systems.  I worked in that world.  My two CD projects,mid 1980s, were live mix to 2 track stereo, Sony PCM 1630, edited on a DAE-1100.  DDD all the way.  The pop stuff that needed multitrack would have had DASH machines after 1982, up to 48 tracks on 1/2" reel to reel (digital) tape.  Fully digital consoles were rare birds for the first decade, but got cheap fast after that.  Still, we worked in 16/44.1 to avoid a format bump for quite a while.  Film guys did 48kHz because they weren't going to CD.
> 
> You know those early Soundstream tapes?  16/50!


 
 Thanks for that info.  Yeah I didn't click on the live mixes.  Now I remember that a 1987 Telarc CD in my collection (Andre Previn Holts the Planets) was a pure digital recording and phenomenal sounding too.
  
 Those early days of digital must have been quite interesting with the technology moving so fast and the need to experiment and learn how best to use the new media.  The use of digital in music production goes back to the mid/late 70s when digital delay lines were used on LP cutting lathes, but it wasn't until CDs were released that the technology accelerated.
  
 This is getting a bit off topic though... but the point remains, do all the recordings from this era and the analog era prior to it suddenly become hi res because the masters are MQA authenticated? It is more than a stretch to believe so.


----------



## gregorio

smartin said:


> The relevant argument is whether MQA improves on Redbook, not 'Redbook or above'.  MQA is designed to be a HiRes streaming protocol.  MQA is ~60% the size of native 24/96.  If, as Archimago showed, MQA can provide an acoustically transparent version of 24/96 (or higher), then it's met its goal.  As I said above, you could provide a mathematically better (but not necesarrily acoustically better) format (i.e. 18/96) at similar bit rates, but at the moment noone is (and from a marketing standpoint, it's easy to understand why), so that's a strawman argument.  If you want to argue thet 24/96 is no better than Redbook, that's fine, but that is a completely different argument.


 
  
 That's not a different argument, if you're going to play the "audibly transparent" card then you have to apply that card to everything! If MQA were audibly transparent compared to a 24/96 master and if a noise-shaped dithered 16/44 version of that same master is also audibly transparent to the original, then the answer to your "relevant argument" must be no, MQA does not improve on Redbook. Furthermore, if it can be shown that say AAC, a high bitrate MP3 or a FLAC of that same 24/96 master are also audibly transparent, then MQA is not an improvement over any of them either. If we're talking about accuracy rather than audibly transparent, then with the exception of FLAC, all of these formats/versions are effectively lossy compared to the 24/96 original, including MQA.
  
 I get your point about "current" masters but how do you know that the non-MQA version being streamed by tidal (and used by many posters for comparison) is also that current master and not some other (non-current) master? Even if it is the same master, that's still only the first and most obvious variable, there's the slightly less obvious but just as important variable of biased hearing which also has to be removed BEFORE the differences/improvements that some are reporting can be attributed to anything the MQA codec is doing!
  
 G


----------



## AxelCloris

I've gone through and cleaned up this thread a little. Please keep the posts from getting personal.


----------



## headfry

OK folks:
  
  
 I've found a Tidal Masters track that sounds so musical and artistic
 I want all of you interested to check it out:
  
  
  
John Coltrane   -     Giant Steps (Mono 2014 reMaster)
  
  
Title Track (1st one!)
  
  
  
Sounds so direct and expressive. Sounds to me that Coltrane
 was out to make his trumpet portray some of the fullness of an orchestra.
  
  
 ...Success!
  
  
 ...really good!


----------



## headfry

One more amazing track from Tidal Masters:
  
  
  
 Joni Mitchell    Hejira (2014 Tidal Master'ing)
  
  
  
track:   Coyote
  
  
  
 Seriously. Just listen!
  
  
  
 I think this is one of Joni's innovative masterpieces.....as good as anything
 on Court and Spark. (to my tastes her highest artistic achievement.....great album!)


----------



## old tech

headfry said:


> One more amazing track from Tidal Masters:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Ok, I have listened to Coyote on Tidal through my Bluesound streamer.  Before I give my thoughts we'll get one thing straight. This is not high res music.  Hejira was recorded in 1976 using the analog tape and the analog equipment of the day, which in resolution is less than 16bits of digital. The only way it could be hi res was if the remaster involved recalling Joni back to the studio to re-record the album at least 24/96 - it did not happen and will never happen.  Having said that, nearly all of Joni Mitchell's recordings (as with John Coltrane, which also is not hi res for the same reason) are of very high quality.
  
 Anyway, I agree that this is both great music and a great sounding stream.  I would be happy with that but if you are also seeking comparisons, unfortunately I only have this album on LP which is stored away at the moment.  However, given I was listening through the streamer, I thought I'd compare it with a random track (Down to You) from my DCC Court and Spark CD, the one in the link below.
  
 Now this is not a fair comparison as it is different tracks on different albums and most importantly, different mastering engineers.  Comparing them side by side, Down to You has overall better sound quality.  What I mean by better is smoother, more dynamic and less pumped up and compressed like MQA's Coyote.  To the uninitiated the Coyote track can sound better initially as it is louder with more tizz but after a few minutes Down to You proves to be a more relaxed listen.
  
 http://avaxhome.unblocker.xyz/music/joni_mitchell_court_spark_dcc.html
  
 How about finding some true hi res music for us to comment?


----------



## canthearyou

old tech said:


> Kinda reminds me of noise reduction that is used in some recordings.  Some people like it, saying "wow it has eliminated all the tape hiss" but any serious audiophile avoids it like a plague as it affects the depth and "good" parts of the music.




So, tape hiss is the good part of music?


----------



## winders

canthearyou said:


> So, tape hiss is the good part of music?


 

 No. But there is sound you want to hear at the same frequencies as the tape hiss. So using some kind of EQ to reduce tape hiss also reduces the sound you want to hear at those frequencies.
  
 There were Dolby B encoded tapes to reduce tape hiss. How? The frequencies where tape hiss were prevalent were boosted on the recording. When played back, those frequencies were reduced to a normal level and that lowered the tape hiss as well.
  
 There was also dbx......


----------



## pinnahertz

winders said:


> canthearyou said:
> 
> 
> > So, tape hiss is the good part of music?
> ...



Well, not exactly how Dolby B works. What you described is pre/de-emphasis. Dolby NR in all forms changes emphasis dynamically based on content and level. Above a certain point it's actions reduce to zero, which was part of the trick to making their systems innocuous. Dbx was static pre/de-emphasis with full bandwidth companding, and thus not so innocuous, and didn't cover its tracks quite so well.


----------



## winders

pinnahertz said:


> Well, not exactly how Dolby B works. What you described is pre/de-emphasis. Dolby NR in all forms changes emphasis dynamically based on content and level. Above a certain point it's actions reduce to zero, which was part of the trick to making their systems innocuous. Dbx was static pre/de-emphasis with full bandwidth companding, and thus not so innocuous, and didn't cover its tracks quite so well.


 

 I was giving the 30,000 feet description of Dolby B....not the micro level view. Not everything has to be described as it would be in Phd thesis.....


----------



## pinnahertz

winders said:


> I was giving the 30,000 feet description of Dolby B....not the micro level view. Not everything has to be described as it would be in Phd thesis.....


 
 No worries. You handle the 30Kft, I'll do the micro.  
  
 I'm WAY below PHD level here.  I never mentioned the actual architecture, or the other permutations of Dolby.  But, since the Wall Street Journal just did a piece about cassette tapes making a "come-back" (seriously???), it may be useful to know a little detail at least, especially in the context of hi-res, tape hiss, and how far from hi-res tape actually is, NR or not.


----------



## castleofargh

I fail to notice differences in proper use of 320 mp3, I never fail to notice an old k7 tape recording. 'nough said.
  
 about MQA and this thread, I'm starting to feel sorry for @headfry. he's been kind enough to stop writing unproved stuff in the sound science topic and made this one to discuss with MQA friends. and you guys are killing the topic with technical stuff.


----------



## headdict

headfry said:


> OK folks:
> 
> 
> I've found a Tidal Masters track that sounds so musical and artistic
> ...


 

 The Tidal mastering totally screwed it, if you really hear a trumpet on that album.


----------



## old tech

castleofargh said:


> I fail to notice differences in proper use of 320 mp3, I never fail to notice an old k7 tape recording. 'nough said.
> 
> *about MQA and this thread, I'm starting to feel sorry for @headfry. he's been kind enough to stop writing unproved stuff in the sound science topic and made this one to discuss with MQA friends. and you guys are killing the topic with technical stuff.*


 
 Well not always.  As he requested I did do a subjective listening test of Coyote streamed as an MQA file.  I even compared it, subjectively, with a non MQA Joni Mitchell file, albeit a different track from a different album from a different remaster. 
  
 I did make a technical point, well common sense really, that these Joni Mitchell albums are not hi res music as they were not recorded in hi res but it seems headfry only replies to what he started this thread for if it totally agrees with his subjective opinions.


----------



## old tech

winders said:


> No. But there is sound you want to hear at the same frequencies as the tape hiss. So using some kind of EQ to reduce tape hiss also reduces the sound you want to hear at those frequencies.
> 
> There were Dolby B encoded tapes to reduce tape hiss. How? The frequencies where tape hiss were prevalent were boosted on the recording. When played back, those frequencies were reduced to a normal level and that lowered the tape hiss as well.
> 
> *There was also dbx.....*.


 
 Ah, DBX.  Kinda reminded me of CX encoded records and playback.  Both were quite impressive how they eerily reduced the hiss (and even the clicks and pops on LPs with CX) but they got tiring after a while.  Although they resulted in a much cleaner sound, and it might be just me, they also sounded somewhat "fake" which became more obvious after a lot of listening.  Hard to describe but sort of a long hall effect without background white noise.


----------



## winders

old tech said:


> Ah, DBX.  Kinda reminded me of CX encoded records and playback.  Both were quite impressive how they eerily reduced the hiss (and even the clicks and pops on LPs with CX) but they got tiring after a while.  Although they resulted in a much cleaner sound, and it might be just me, they also sounded somewhat "fake" which became more obvious after a lot of listening.  Hard to describe but sort of a long hall effect without background white noise.


 

 The dynamic range of classical music pressed on dbx encoded vinyl was impressive. I had a dbx 224 unit and about 25 albums. That vinyl was expensive for the day.


----------



## pinnahertz

winders said:


> The dynamic range of classical music pressed on dbx encoded vinyl was impressive. I had a dbx 224 unit and about 25 albums. That vinyl was expensive for the day.


 
 Yes, the DR was impressive.  So was the noise "breathing" problem.  Once you got over the impressive DR, that's what you were left with.  dbx also exaggerated response anomalies.


----------



## headfry

old tech said:


> Well not always.  As he requested I did do a subjective listening test of Coyote streamed as an MQA file.  I even compared it, subjectively, with a non MQA Joni Mitchell file, albeit a different track from a different album from a different remaster.
> 
> I did make a technical point, well common sense really, that these Joni Mitchell albums are not hi res music as they were not recorded in hi res but it seems headfry only replies to what he started this thread for if it totally agrees with his subjective opinions.


 

 well, it turns out high res isn't everything.....there still can be amusical distortions even with higher bits. 
  
 Hejira, even though it's an analogue tape master, does sound better to me with MQA....not just in my opinion either.
 So do many older recordings of superb music done on tape, e.g.:
  
 Yes's Relayer and The Yes Album
 Jethro Tull     Passion Play
  
 Joni Mitchell  Court and Spark (I agree Down to You is classic....Troubled Child is great too, like a companion track - C&S is one of the greatest
 classic pop albums of all time except for the first two tracks-  to my taste)
  
  
  
 ..  tape masters friends and yet they have the usual MQA improvements to me. I don't see why 
 being from a tape master should exclude it from benefitting.....as I've said resolution clearly isn't everything when it comes to perceived musicality.
  
My suggestion: forget everything and just listen.
  
 My intention is not that of sharing naive beliefs of MQA's benefits with "friends"....it's to encourage more to approach MQA with an open mind
 and not have an indignant I-know-it-can't-be-any-good cynical attitude that is so prevalant here and elsewhere.
  
 ....any other MQA or Tidal Master listening perceptions out there?


----------



## saddleup

castleofargh said:


> I fail to notice differences in proper use of 320 mp3, I never fail to notice an old k7 tape recording. 'nough said.
> 
> about MQA and this thread, I'm starting to feel sorry for @headfry. he's been kind enough to stop writing unproved stuff in the sound science topic and made this one to discuss with MQA friends. and you guys are killing the topic with technical stuff.


 

 Sometimes people need to be saved from themselves.
  
 I had a chance to listen to Tidal and MQA on a very revealing system and came away underwhelmed quite frankly.


----------



## headfry

saddleup said:


> Sometimes people need to be saved from themselves.
> 
> I had a chance to listen to Tidal and MQA on a very revealing system and came away underwhelmed quite frankly.





I think that the saving from themselves bit is being drastically overdone - repetitive posts many of which are re-exressing the same
point in different ways to make it seem original -  so many of these posts and so few expressing any significant benefit -which 
many of us _are_ hearing and enjoying....despite all the attempts at "saving" us - my preference for Tidal decoded Masters continues the same - it's not something I have to think about the differences to me so far continue obvious.

why should only those that are positive towards MQA need saving? If I have a strong belief against 
MQA - that expectation could prevent me from relaxing and just be "auditioning" - one must relax into
the experience without any agenda to fully appreciate the experience. This goes for all aesthetic enjoyment - craft beer, art ,film, life, whatever.


...anyways, thanks for your impressions!


----------



## saddleup

Sorry man, I'm being an ass first thing in the morning.  My apologies.
  
 Tidal is an amazing product for new music discovery.


----------



## winders

pinnahertz said:


> Yes, the DR was impressive.  So was the noise "breathing" problem.  Once you got over the impressive DR, that's what you were left with.  dbx also exaggerated response anomalies.


 

 The breathing problem wasn't as bad as you make it out to be. Overall it sounded better than non-dbx discs. Classical recordings of the same material on regular vinyl sounded completely flat.


----------



## pinnahertz

winders said:


> The breathing problem wasn't as bad as you make it out to be. Overall it sounded better than non-dbx discs. Classical recordings of the same material on regular vinyl sounded completely flat.


 
 My dbx experience is confined to pro studio use.  We had Dolby A and SR, and digits as well as dbx II and the K9 cards.  Against Dolby A or SR it failed every time.  We did mostly classical and some jazz.  We also played with High Com, not bad, but not well adopted either.  We never used dbx to record because it had too much artifact, it was only used to decode tapes from outside and records. Otherwise, performance was unacceptable for our work. 
  
 I guess in the consumer market where you only had Dolby B, C, HX to compare with dbx, it may have been impressive, but outside of semi-pro reel to reel it never really made it in the consumer world.  Cassettes had too much FR variance for it to track well, and I believe it had to be an external box, never was built-in.  The cost of their last LSI was very high compared to the fully integrated Dolby B chip, and with the dbx record market topping out at 200 releases over approx 10 years, it was pretty much a non-starter.  Where dbx won the market was semi-pro and economy-pro recording applications.  Home studios were just getting going in the early 1980s with 1/2" 8 track machines becoming affordable.  Sure, their head-bumps made it a Type II application only, but that's really where it won.  That, and their marvelous 165 compressor!  I think their real, lasting contribution was excellent VCAs, which is still true.
  
 Trivia...the worst sounding variant of dbx was the hyped 3:1 version used on NPR's SCPC satellite system.  Essential to get the system to work, but pretty bad overall. And we all got to hear that on NPR stations all the time.


----------



## old tech

headfry said:


> *You appear to be using your knowledge of the recording process to dictate what should be the case. Only your musical appreciation*
> *(with an open mind) over time will reveal your preference....this hobby is all about aesthetic/artistic, musical, listening pleasure.*
> 
> My intention is not that of sharing naive beliefs of MQA's benefits with "friends"....it's to encourage more to approach MQA with an open mind
> ...


 
  
 When I listen to music and decide what is best to my ears I focus on the music not the format it is on, hence why I have CDs, hi res and vinyl in my colllection.  With than in mind, have a re-read what you said in the bold part and reflect that you have described yourself as evident in all your posts.  Projecting that thought on to others may make you feel good but it is not constructive and gets in the way of understanding what makes music sound great.  Just because someone knows that 2 + 2 = 4 does not mean that person is closed minded to entertain someone else's belief that 2 + 2 = 5.  Again reflect that perhaps you might appreciate music more if you let go of your beliefs that have no basis in reality and understand that there are different masterings and the general idea is to get hold of the best one, regardless if it is CD, hi res or even vinyl.  Perhaps then you may come to appreciate that the sound quality is always in the recording and mastering and rather than assuming that MQA is some sort of magic.


----------



## headfry

Thanks for your opinion.


----------



## headfry

Here's another track to try if interested that may-or may not - demonstrate some of the experienced
 benefits of MQA (to some of us only it seems):
  
 Bjork.  album:  Biophilia - the opening track "Moon" opens with a harp -
  
 on the Master version (software decoded), notice how much of the tone of the instrument comes through, with good 
 dimensionality and density.
  
 To me, the non-MQA track this harp sounds thinner, with less of the sound of the resonating instrument -
 sounds more like a recording, (to my ears) the MQA track has more of the complexity, warmth,
 density and natural sweetness and ambience of the real instrument -
  
 The MQA'd harp to me sounds like a better harp played more expertly with better expression - the song makes more musical sense to me. To isolate just one component of many in the sound.
  
 -this thin-ness of density is a frequent criticism of computer-based audio
  
 to me the Master reproduction generally has more saturated tonal colors, texture and weight,
 as well as being nicely smoother and somewhat more coherent and refined. Non MQA I've heard tends to sound
 more matter of fact - not quite as accomplished in the playing, a bit rougher sound and somewhat flatter
 with less ambient cues - also some less impact/weight in the bass, dynamics and drive; not as desirable to me if there is a choice.
  
I understand that these differences can be somewhat subtle and _may_ at times be easy to miss for some on certain
recordings, fair enough. If MQA doesn't work for you no biggie - we all have differing variables. When not making
comparisons, the matching non-MQA recoding generally sounds very good and fine on its own.
  
can be subtle but to myself these are important and consistent differences
.
These improved sounding albums weren't on Tidal before MQA, and if MQA is a scam
let another publisher create the same stream-friendly sound quality in another, competitive format. So far it hasn't happened.
 *****************************************************************************************
​Musically, I'l also like to recommend listening to the Bjork's opening track Hidden Place from the
album Verspertine for such great layers -
shaman-poet singer/songwriter in the vein of Kate Bush, Peter Gabriel or perhaps Laurie Anderson (yay late 60's/early-mid 70's pop!). Also, check out the 3rd track "It's not Up to You".
  
 *********************************************************************************************
  
It's perfectly OK to disagree as systems, ears, albums, tastes and priorities vary. 
  
 Open Mind, relaxed mind. No preconceptions.
  
If any of you would like to advance this discussion of enjoying MQA albums or tracks - feel free to express
your experiences!e.g. Any of you prefer Tidal Masters to Tidal Hifi, or MQA to Redbook (for example)? 
  
Looking forward to more feedback and respondents! Happy Listening!


----------



## winders

One thing I have noticed with these MQA tracks compared to the 16/44.1 FLAC equivalents is that the volume is off between the two. The MQA files almost always play louder. So if you aren't careful and volume match, you are going to hear things that aren't really there. I was listening to the MQA Fleetwood Mac "Rumors" album and then switched to the 16/44.1 FLAC version. At first, I thought the MQA version was fuller and more engaging. Then I realized the volume was off. As soon as I matched sound levels I noticed little difference...and that difference I would not categorize as better or worse. Just different.


----------



## headfry

winders said:


> One thing I have noticed with these MQA tracks compared to the 16/44.1 FLAC equivalents is that the volume is off between the two. The MQA files almost always play louder. So if you aren't careful and volume match, you are going to hear things that aren't really there. I was listening to the MQA Fleetwood Mac "Rumors" album and then switched to the 16/44.1 FLAC version. At first, I thought the MQA version was fuller and more engaging. Then I realized the volume was off. As soon as I matched sound levels I noticed little difference...and that difference I would not categorize as better or worse. Just different.


 
 You acknowledge that there is a difference....fuller and more engaging is what I'm hearing too...among other improvements -
 smoothness, better space and soundstage, more natural sweetness to the mids and highs......not subtle 
 improvements either.
  
 On the albums I've heard I notice no volume difference, however I find the Master tracks have their usual improvements
 even at lower volumes relative to the non MQA - I would call the differences I hear better sound quality, similar to good conventional hires, but in a much smaller stream. If the improvements disappeared at lower volumes I'd
be calling the Emperor's New Clothes too.
  
IMHO, MQA is not a scam folks, I don't care if anyone thinks I'm gullible and foolish for preferring it.....
 I'm in some very good company too (not that it matters to me, I hear what I hear).
  
 ABX is useless in determining the above, usually it is  recommended that auditioning should happen
 over a reasonable time frame - e.g. listen to the Master/MQA tracks for a few days - then the non Master tracks
 version for the next few days, alternate. Of course ABX won't reveal a preference -music can't be enjoyed that way.
 (If still no preference is determined, well you've given it a fair chance and MQA obviously isn't for you).
  
Posts trying to discredit MQA  - including those that keep repeating the same agenda that has 
been endlessly posted here and elsewhere - with all due respect - don't belong in this thread


----------



## saddleup

My listening was done with a speaker system not with headphones.  The sound stage collapses.  I didn't associate the difference to volume.  It was more to do with the depth of the sound stage.  With Tidal in general and with MQA titles in particular the sound stage in in your face.  Suddenly the system sounded too loud and we'd reach for the volume control.  Never experienced this on the system before.


----------



## headfry

saddleup said:


> My listening was done with a speaker system not with headphones.  The sound stage collapses.  I didn't associate the difference to volume.  It was more to do with the depth of the sound stage.  With Tidal in general and with MQA titles in particular the sound stage in in your face.  Suddenly the system sounded too loud and we'd reach for the volume control.  Never experienced this on the system before.


 

 thanks for your reply saddleup......perhaps Tidal decoded Masters sounds best on a highly resolving headphone setup?
  
 I've listened through my speaker setup and liked what I heard, but I generally listen through my superb-sounding GS1000i's!
  
 ...any other impressions out there? Esp. album and track recommendations.


----------



## AxelCloris

I've had to remove several personal posts again. Please keep the discussion on the topic and not about other members' opinions. I'd rather avoid having to lock the thread.


----------



## winders

headfry said:


> You acknowledge that there is a difference....fuller and more engaging is what I'm hearing too...among other improvements -
> smoothness, better space and soundstage, more natural sweetness to the mids and highs......not subtle
> improvements either.
> 
> ...


 

 The difference that sounds like "fuller and more engaging" disappeared when I volume matched......


----------



## headfry

winders said:


> The difference that sounds like "fuller and more engaging" disappeared when I volume matched......


 
  
  
 it did for you but not for myself nor for many others; perfectly valid conclusion for yourself.
  
I respect your opinion but different person, system and usage could have a different take.
  
 If that was all it took - matching volume - then this process continues to fool many industry professionals and what
 a waste of many millions in funds, man-hours of research and work, for such an obvious, commonly adjusted-for factor.
  
  
 Contrary to some poster's views on my intentions- I'm not here only to get praise for MQA and Tidal Masters -
 I'm here to encourage open-minded listening and 
 reaching one's own conclusions - positive, negative, indifferent, whatever & separate from marketing claims and other poster's beliefs and findings.


----------



## winders

headfry said:


> it did for you but not for myself nor for many others; perfectly valid conclusion for yourself.
> 
> I respect your opinion but different person, system and usage could have a different take.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Clearly you do not respect my opinion because I have to be wrong otherwise everyone else is fooled and has wasted millions of dollars. Thank you.


----------



## headfry

I'm sorry that you feel that way....and I think that you're reading waaay too much into my comments -
 in my comment I said that I respected your opinion.
  
No slight in any form was intended; my opinion is just mine and naturally
 my opinion isn't going to be everyone's. I'm also open to the possibility that my opinion
 could be wrong.
  
  
 I've previously stated here that MQA isn't going to be for everyone; it didn't
 sound better to you and I totally respect and accept that. We can both express ourselves
 and have a thick enough skin to not read more in than was written; I think that it's a good policy
 that unless a post is obviously otherwise to assume positive intent.
  
 Headfi is supposed to be interesting and enjoyable; not about one's position being any better
 than another's.
  
  
 ...anyone else want to contribute to this thread?


----------



## headfry

OK - so I'm listening to the track Almost Gothic from Steely Dan's "Two Against Nature" - recorded Feb 29 2000 
  
 here are _my_ impressions:
  
 the MQA version has more drive in the bass, sounds more refined and coherent with noticeably better ambiance around instruments and voices, naturally extended front to back with everything more in its own, believable space
  
 the Tidal HIFI version by comparison sounds spacially flattened, the sound less refined and somewhat more aggressive, with everything competing and squashed, limited 3D soundstage
  
 better focus on the Master/MQA track in general, for example the backing voice that says:  "The summer - this could be the cool part of the summer" ​sounds nicer, as if sung by a better singer (and recorded better) and the triangle on the left has more space and also sounds more enticing
  
 ...everything does, like moving from a pretty good budget Dac to an upscale, audiophile one
 simply better, not even close...a more enjoyable listen for me!
  
 - this is with software unfolding only and a non-MQA dac through highly resolving headphones
  
 every time I compare I generally much prefer the MQA version - the differences so far are very consistent
 on really good recordings
  
 BTW really enjoying my trial of *Audirvana Plus* 3 - worth an audition as well. Tidal sounds very close,
 hard to say which sounds better but I'm enjoying comparing.
  
  
...anyone out there have some impressions on Tidal Master/MQA sound quality?


----------



## headfry

Comparing David Crosby’s track: Holding Unto Nothing. from "Croz" -  2014
  
 This is with Tidal software decoding and listening with 
 very resolving headphones
  
 Both versions show same release date; therefore I’m
 assuming that the both versions are based on the same master
  
  
 After listening to both versions, the differences are vast to my ears
  
 the Tidal HIFI version sounds spatially compressed, 
 for example Crosby’s voice sounds very close and large - actually
 it and the entire soundstage is like an unnaturally flat sheet of sound and again very close - too close to be optimal
 - the images are large and only vaguely defined spatially
  
 On the Masters version Crosby’s voice sounds a bit further away, with a much
 more natural size, shape and focus and extends in 3D, more the way a live voice sounds 
  
 ... much more real and natural sounding and not an artificially large, flat image on a flat soundstage
  
 also, fine detail is better resolved on the Masters version, along with the natural 3D
 depth and better focus of the audio images; 
 e.g. Winton’s trumpet sounds much more ethereal/emotional/poignant and more convincing in sound and artistic emotion
  
 - Masters/MQA version more musically engaging and for me much nicer to listen to - no contest
  

comparing the two reminds me a bit  of the 3D naturalness  of a really good tube amp instead of a lesser solid state one with images like flat cardboard cutouts
  
  
 or like comparing a very good midfi dac with a high end one that excels in naturalness,
 refinement  and imaging/soundstage
  
or like the difference between a flat recording and the way it sounds live from an excellent performance in a really good sounding venue


----------



## oneway23

Just started my work morning listening to The Flaming Lips' "Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots" via Tidal MQA, and, I have to say, it sounds completely indistinguishable from my previously-owned hi-res download.  This is a good thing, IMO, seeing as Warner is simply encoding their existing hi-res masters (which can still be purchased individually, if one should choose) with the MQA process for use via Tidal.  
  
 Those $20 per hi-res downloads that stung my wallet on a regular basis can now be enjoyed by anyone with a Tidal Hi-Fi subscription at no additional cost, and yet, they still sound exactly the same, or, if you want to be a little more objective, let's say audibly transparent.  Good times!  
  
 Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but, I believe that the hi-res download/MQA/whatever for this album is simply a transfer of the 24-96 stereo layer from the DVD-A that was released all those years ago?


----------



## headfry

thanks for that.enjoyed reading - I've reached some conclusions about MQA,
 at least Tidal - decoded MQA listening through headphones.
  
 First of all, it is not in any real way overhyped - all they are claiming  on their web site
 is the delivery of hi resolution sound quality in a much reduced file size, more practical.
  
 To me, MQA succeeds like Jimi Hendrix was born to play guitar. 
  
 Now, some listeners may listen differently - different equipment, tastes, ears
 and for some MQA may give no real benefit
 - however, I can tell you that for the careful listener (assuming well-resolving
 and performing/sounding hardware) the difference is often huuuuge
  
  
 listening to Bonnie Raitt's opening track Unavoided Consequences of Love from the album Dig In Deep 2016 
 the Tidal HIFI version (conventional non-MQA Flac) is like listening to the band in an average bar setup - listen to the opening, which seems to be coming from a drum machine
  
 With MQA the resolution sounds much higher, the opening bass and drums
 are now real instruments in their own space on the stage, sounding like real, separate 
 instruments with real body, resonance with great presence rather than a wall-of-sound spatially compressed
 and overly large ribbon-flat image, not generally not well defined in space nor in solidity
  
 MQA to my ears removes a major "veil" (more like blurriness and obstruction of the finer details
 that are crucial to reconstructing the music), similar to the way moving from an excellent budget dac
 to a really great sounding high end one (with awesome 3d soundstage and imaging)I mproves musicality.
  
 I would go so far as to say MQA engages my brain's visual sense beautifully, while 
 the HIFI version offers very little that way. Much more musical, as a company like Naim would say.
  
 Please be advised the above are just my opinions, not scientific fact. 
  
however, don't blanket-discount the world of opinions


----------



## oneway23

The impressions we've discussed thus far have largely come via Tidal, using non-MQA-certified DACs.  In this circumstance, the output is essentially identical what one would get by buying high-res PCM.
  
 Anyone out there using an MQA-certified DAC that can speak to any audible differences they've personally observed between software-decoded MQA and their own MQA-certified hardware? I know it may be difficult to find willing victims, as there aren't many DACs out in the wild right now, although, maybe someone with a Meridian Explorer2 or a Bluesound device would care to contribute?  
  
 Not merely looking for a link to Archimago's comparison here.  I've read that blog post, and it's great work, but, I'm looking for individual impressions, please.


----------



## headfry

hi oneway23....one more impression from Tidal-decoded MQA, as I don't have an MQA dac
 (I too welcome any MQA Dac/Tidal Masters listening impressions):
  
  
 Listening to Michael Buble’s album To Be Loved    2013
  
  
 The opening track - You Make Me Feel So Young - the vocal sounds good on both but listen
 to the orchestra, the Tidal HIFI version the orchestra is brash, overly large 
 and in one flat sheet - like in old mono recordings - and over-powering/too loud.
  
 ...in the Masters version, the orchestra is no longer flat, occupies believable 3d space
 and the instruments are distinct, as opposed to all being mushed together in one 2d sheet of sound.
 Everything sounds much more composed and refined instead of brash - like a real performance in a high end venue.
  
 Second track - “It’s a Beautiful Day” - same. The HiFI version is flat with very little spatial cues,
 sounds like a mono wall of sound. The Masters Version is MUCH more natural, with a realistic soundstage,
 imaging and refined detail and dynamics…….
  
 As far as soundstage, imaging, fine detail and overall refinement are concerned...
 it’s like the difference between hearing the song on an average FM car radio
 versus a really high end home setup.
  
  
 The differences are vast…to the point where I wonder about the motives of some of the MQA naysayers - perhaps they don’t appreciate much _finer _audio reproduction….(or they might not have done a fair audition), I really wonder.


----------



## oneway23

Well, I certainly can't articulate my perception as well as Headfry has.  What I can do, however, is let folks know that I've noticed that Tidal has finally begun marking their MQA-enabled albums with an "M."  I don't know if this is old news, but, I had just noticed it this morning.
  
 I'll admit, part of me is going to miss the hunt!


----------



## gregorio

headfry said:


> [1] The differences are vast… [2] to the point where I wonder about the motives of some of the MQA naysayers - [3] perhaps they don’t appreciate much _finer _audio reproduction….[4] (or they might not have done a fair audition), [5] I really wonder.


 
  
 1. The difference with the McGurk Effect (and many other perceptual biases) is also vast!
 2. Really? Even though the motives have been clearly explained to you a number of times?
 3. An entirely common response from audiophiles suckered by perceptual biases. The EXACT OPPOSITE of your statement is in fact the case, it's precisely BECAUSE we appreciate much finer audio reproduction itself, rather than only a perceptual illusion of it! In my case, it's pretty much guaranteed that I not only appreciate finer audio quality than you (because in addition to my passion for audio, my livelihood depends on it) but that I also have much better/more accurate equipment than you.
 4. The method you are using: A "sighted" test/audition, is demonstrably the LEAST accurate/fair method!
 5. And I really wonder about the motives of those unjustly ascribing vast improvements to MQA. Are they just so totally suckered and so unquestioning of their hearing biases (to the point of ignoring or even misrepresenting the actual facts), do they just not care about actual finer audio quality or is it something worse, are they shills?
  
 Despite the fact that positive biased opinions of MQA could have a long term negative impact on my (and everyone else's) listening pleasure, us "naysayers" had left you to get on with your mutual celebration of your (incorrectly ascribed) flawed hearing perception. So, why don't you just get on with it? Why bring it up again and why go out of your way to cast aspersions and insult those of us who do really care about finer audio quality and have therefore disagreed with you?
  


headfry said:


> Both versions show same release date; therefore I’m assuming that the both versions are based on the same master


 
  
 That's been the basic problem with so much of this thread: Your assumptions, your belief in your assumptions and your complete dismissal of anything, including actual facts, which challenge those assumptions. So, while I fully expect you to ignore, dismiss and/or insult, for the benefit of others, here are the actual facts:
  
 The "release date" refers to the date the album became available for purchase by the public. It does not refer to the date/s the master/s were completed. For a commercial release, a mastering engineer is not commonly contracted to create just a single master, typically there is more than one, in more than one format and therefore aimed for different uses. It's entirely possible that all the required masters are completed on the same day but it's also possible they're completed days or occasionally even months apart.
  
 G


----------



## headfry

hey gregorio- [COLOR=A52A2A]again this thread is not for the debating of the scientific or ethical validity of MQA,[/COLOR]
[COLOR=A52A2A]it's to share appreciations for its SQ and the enhanced quality of specific albums.[/COLOR]

In my opinion you go too far with _some_ of your points.
My hearing isn't flawed - thousands of others appreciate the same types of improvements that I do and
we're not all deluded and I could say that your bias is sighted as well - you see MQA and you _know_ it has
to be a money grab..

My perceptions in my own system aren't due to placebo....they've held up to months of critical listening
and my initial impressions continue even after hundreds of hours.

Having said this this the conversation could become more nuanced:

In my opinion the [COLOR=B22222]real[/COLOR] question is whether the non-MQA version is purposely mastered
to give sub-par 3D soundstage, imaging, [COLOR=A52A2A]and[/COLOR] whether the qualities heard in the 

Tidal-decoded MQA version could be achieved with standard 44.1 Flac...
so far this hasn't happened with the recordings that I like....[COLOR=000080]consensus so far[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000080]indicates that MQA sounds about as good as conventional hi-res...do you agree?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=000080]I appreciate your participation here if it is constructive and not repeating previously made points - and not[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000080]making needlessly critical comments that are ultimately based on your[/COLOR] [COLOR=A52A2A]opinion[/COLOR][COLOR=000080]. I appreciate enthusiasm but[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000080]it can go overboard into[/COLOR] [COLOR=B22222]trolling territory[/COLOR] [COLOR=000080](not necessarily from your posts so far, no offence intended).[/COLOR]

[COLOR=000000] Roughly how many hours you've spent listening to Tidal Masters or MQA files?[/COLOR]


gregorio said:


> 1. The difference with the McGurk Effect (and many other perceptual biases) is also vast!
> 2. Really? Even though the motives have been clearly explained to you a number of times?
> 3. An entirely common response from audiophiles suckered by perceptual biases. The EXACT OPPOSITE of your statement is in fact the case, it's precisely BECAUSE we appreciate much finer audio reproduction itself, rather than only a perceptual illusion of it! In my case, it's pretty much guaranteed that I not only appreciate finer audio quality than you (because in addition to my passion for audio, my livelihood depends on it) but that I also have much better/more accurate equipment than you.
> 4. The method you are using: A "sighted" test/audition, is demonstrably the LEAST accurate/fair method!
> ...


----------



## headfry

According to many seasoned listeners.Tidal Masters and MQA are capable of sounding as good as conventional hi res...it would
 appear that its process is capable of audiophile sound .....even if this was solely due to remastering
 the MQA process doesn't appear to audibly harm the result. Also, MQA is said to sound different than standard hires -  
 not necessarily better or worse but different. This would seem to refute those who claim MQA is a low fidelity format falsely portrayed as hires sound.


----------



## oneway23

I have to be honest, Headfry.  As of the past few days, I've been questioning my Tidal usage here, as, for some reason, there are a few Yes albums that are refusing to play their MQA variants.  I have uninstalled and re-installed, to no avail.
 I have 50meg DL speed at home, so bandwidth should certainly be a non-issue.  
  
 On it's face, this isn't really a big deal overall, but, for me to commit fully, I need Tidal to be capable of replacing what I already have locally, and play everything consistently.  These issues are forcing me to return to my local library.
  
 For reference, if you'd like to check a couple out for me and let me know, take a look at Yes Fragile and Yes Close to the Edge and see if you have any issues playing them.  I'd really appreciate any help.  Thanks!


----------



## headfry

hey oneway23 - I will try tonight and report back - The Yes Album and Relayer _were_ both stellar on Tidal Masters - hopefully no skips later today!
  
 ....are you a Jethro Tull fan? Two Tidal Masters that are stellar:  
  
  
 Jethro Tull Benefit (1970) is one of the best pop albums of all time IMHO
  
  
 JT's  A Passion Play (1973)   - is Ian Anderson and band at their creative peak, e.g. their Abbey Road -
  
 took me a few listens to really love this one! Both remastered by Steven Wilson, pop/rock and production genius!
  
  
========BTW, if you are a Mac user - have you tried Audirvana Plus 3 - it has MQA
playback and was really simple to setup! Fantastic SW and worth and well worth the audition - would be curious to see
 if this fixes the playback issue! I'm planning on buying this when the trial is over!


----------



## oneway23

Hi Headfry.  I'm a PC user, but, I'm glad to hear that people have yet another option out there!
  
 I own Steven Wilson's re-mixes of both Aqualung and Thick as a Brick in 24/96; both sound stellar!
  
 I have yet to listen to Benefit or A Passion Play via Tidal MQA, but, I'm sure they sound just as good.  I'll take a listen in the next few days and report back.
 Thanks again for your help on this one.


----------



## headfry

The problem appears to be with the Tidal app...on my Mac it doesn't even play Yes Close to the Edge nor Fragile anymore; but 
 Masters titles from other artists play just fine...of the Tidal Masters albums I've tried only these Yes ones don't work, Emerson Lake & Palmer's
 Brain Salad Surgery, Jethro Tull's A Passion Play, Aqualung and Benefit, and more still all play fine through the Tidal app...
  
 ...so far, it's only the Master Yes albums that aren't working through Tidal software now,
  
 ....but on Audirvana 3 Plus....these same Masters Yes albums play perfectly (so it isn't the albums themselves):
  
 ...I"m listening to the Tidal Masters Close to The Edge.....no stuttering, no glitches.....just a major slice of musical perfection. I forgot how 
 good this album is......wow. Take The Yes album, make it more progressive, keep the lyrical-ly space-rock planetarium constellation of 
 sounds but make it a whole classical work spanning an entire album........I love both albums, both are primordially essential Yes...stellar (literally,
 out of this world) 
  
 I highly recommend "Gates of Delirium" from Relayer....maybe the very best track Yes ever put out!
  
Fragile next....no problems what so-ever - again through Audirvana Plus 3 software...
  
 With the possible exception of "South Side of the Sky" however I don't find this album to be in the same league as the above three....
  
 ...also the production/recording/mastering isn't as musical....it's a good but not great Yes album in my opinion
  
  
 so far - and with very little testing - the issue appears to be with the Tidal SW; if so hopefully it will be updated
 very soon. Lately I'm also enamoured by Joni Mitchell's Hejira (Tidal-decoded Masters) - the first track Coyote is essential listening
 (as is the whole album) - does Herjira play? It plays beautifully through Tidal for me.


----------



## headfry

I just heard from another headfier that those Yes albums play fine through Tidal in Windows 10. Could it be an issue of which country you're in? At any rate, hopefully Tidal will pmay these albums soon.


----------



## oneway23

Thanks for checking back in Headfry.  I appreciate it.  I'm still seeing the same issue on Windows 10 here in NY.  
  
 I don't know what state your friend lives in, but, it must be the state of bliss, because he's able to listen to these MQA albums without interruption!
  
 I posted the same over on Computer Audiophile, and I had one person tell me they played fine, while another said they didn't.
  
 Not sure what's going on, but, I noticed a few days ago that Gates of Delirium from Relayer will no longer play for me.
  
 I can now get every song from Fragile to play consistently, with the exception of Roundabout.
  
 Still can't listen to anything from Close to the Edge.
  
 At one point, when the Tidal Masters series first launched, I had no issue with any tracks, so, I don't know what's going on.  Who knows?  Hopefully, this gets sorted soon.


----------



## headfry

hello everyone here.....I have a track which is an epiphany, as good as any pop or rock song
 ever done.....
  
 group: ZZ Top    track: "Sharp Dressed Man" from the album "Live: Greatest Hits from Across the World" Masters Version
  
  
 ...Software decoded by Tidal 
  
  
 ...this track has such fantastic artistry, musicality, you name-it and _superb_ sound!
  
  
 This track sounds so good it!!!! (sounds like excellent hires)!


----------



## oneway23

The ZZ Top box set that came out a few years ago in hi-res sounds superb.  Fine example of the benefits of hi-res music.  I checked out some of Tres Hombres via Tidal MQA and I couldn't tell the difference between the MQA and my files, which is absolutely awesome for high-resolution newcomers, since the digital hi-res "box set" cost me over $100 in 2013!


----------



## Marqzen

Never thought there would be a day that a green led on my Chord Mojo would pop up while streaming from Tidal, haha   But i must say i really dont hear that much difference compared to the "HIFI"  (lossless) quality. Maybe i just need more time whit it


----------



## waileaguy

Having a Tidal issue and looking for help. On my computer, HiFi/Master streaming shows up and MQA works fine with my Meridian Explorer 2. On my Onkyo DP-X1A, I have HiFi but Master is not part of the selection. I know the Onkyo supports MQA but cannot seem to get Tidal to recognize it.   Ideas?


----------



## Limblifter

waileaguy said:


> Having a Tidal issue and looking for help. On my computer, HiFi/Master streaming shows up and MQA works fine with my Meridian Explorer 2. On my Onkyo DP-X1A, I have HiFi but Master is not part of the selection. I know the Onkyo supports MQA but cannot seem to get Tidal to recognize it.   Ideas?


 
  
  
 Tidal streams MQA through desktop app only.


----------



## waileaguy

Thank you for this. I couldn't recall if I had read this earlier. Hope Tidal gets around to offering it on their mobile app in the near future.


----------



## headfry

marqzen said:


> Never thought there would be a day that a green led on my Chord Mojo would pop up while streaming from Tidal, haha   But i must say i really dont hear that much difference compared to the "HIFI"  (lossless) quality. Maybe i just need more time whit it


 

 I find that the differences are mostly in soundstage and imaging - nicely and realistically
 portrayed instruments and voices, nicely layered and natural sounding
 while in the HIFI version everything sounds relatively flattened
 out and smushed together, as if in a sheet. In some important ways, the difference between listening to a pretty
 good recording and an actual performance. I think Tidal decoded Masters are much nicer to listen to.


----------



## canthearyou

limblifter said:


> Tidal streams MQA through desktop app only.




Wrong! It streams MQA on Android using UAPP.


----------



## headfry

I'd like to recommend Joni Mitchell's  "Hejira" album... ideally on Tidal Masters (or hires) the first four songs will prove 
 that Joni Mitchell is an angel incarnated to convey the profundity of existence, life, meaning, 
 art....music...poetry......album done in '76...she had just turned 33 when it was released....
  
  
 Joni Mitchell is an artistic genius. If you like the music of e.g. Kate Bush, Cat Stevens, The Beatles,
Steely Dan.,...
  
 I highly recommend Joni Mitchell "Hejira" - the first four cuts will tell you. Others appreciate this album too?


----------



## headfry

Hi Res Compared with Tidal decoded MQA - any impressions?


----------



## manpowre

headfry said:


> Hi Res Compared with Tidal decoded MQA - any impressions?


 
 Yes, I own the album Three by Blue Man Group in high res 24/96, and the album was made in 2015, which means the Masters version and the MQA version on Tidal should be the same master just converted to MQA including the HDtracks version, I doubt they remastered the album for MQA release.
  
 In MQA the album is louder, some instruments are kicking a little too hard and I have to adjust volume a bit down throughout the tracks, and in the calmer areas of the music I turn up the volume again. Also I can hear a better and more precise instrument playback with the foobar 24/96 version, its not much, but just as much as its noticeable.
  
 I also recorded 3 of the songs with my Tascam UH-7000 in MQA unfolded 24/96, the master version, and my own foobar player and the MQA version is actually louder in the parts of the music where most instruments play at the same time compared to both HDtracks and hifi version on Tidal. So I got proof that MQA does something to the decoding of the music or the encoding. I have thought about cutting one of the songs into pieces, and keep the calm part of the song separate and measure that against the different versions, and cut the busy part of the song out and measure that specifically. But I havent got to this yet. 
  
 I know you want positive impressions, I read the first page, but impressions are impressions even if its slightly negative.
  
 I dont have anything against MQA, I just found myself adjusting the volume more with MQA than with the master version and my foobar version. 
  
 The album Three by Blue Man Group is very very dynamic album with alot of different drums and it challenges the system to reproduce instruments accurate, and that is why this album is great to listen to the differences between the signal chain or different ways of playback.
  
 If anyone want to give the album a go, listen to the 2 last tracks, Giacometti and Torus. With a grand slam in the track Torus halfway in. My hands are moving every time I listen to it.
  
 While writing this, I did a listen on those 2 songs, first HDtracks version, and then I switched to Tidal masters version, and immediately I could hear something was missing. just like something is clouded, some of the details in the instrument hits got hidden. Hard to describe really. And immediately I heard louder music aswell, to a level where I again turned down the volume one notch (about 3db) to the comfortable listening level I use.
  
 My first attempt of finding out what was going on with MQA on my system was one of these sound pressure units you can purchase for 20 dollars. Its not a scientific approach, but I also wanted to check the db level I play my music at, and I found that for some of the albums I play I passed 84-85db with MQA, while on tidal hifi version I was at 80-82db as max.  Now the Beyonce album really takes the cake (I dont listen to Beyonce, but it is fairly a fresh pop album and it was advertised as MQA on Tidal. This album is on hifi version 86db as max on my system with similar level of volume as other songs I play, while the MQA version is 88db.. and that just is uncomfortable.
  
 My last comment is that when people listen to different versions like tidal HIFI version vs tidal MQA version, they also have to ensure that the desibel level is identical, otherwise you can get to this feeling that the MQA version is better as its louder on many of the albms on tidal.


----------



## headfry

Thanks for your detailed reply, much appreciated. For myself, I find Tidal-decoded Masters
generally sounds much better than Tidal HIFI.... mostly in soundstaging/imaging, refinement, textures,
and greater natural-ness andd ease - even at lower volume levels - for me this has nothing to do with 
preferring the louder track - (and the Masters generally plays noticeably quieter than HIFI).

To my ears, Tidal-decoded Masters compares very well with conventional hi-res.


----------



## Sir Alamon

there are really some weird albums in the master section, nominally some punk records or some ipercompressed records that do not benefit at all from being a "master"


----------



## manpowre

sir alamon said:


> there are really some weird albums in the master section, nominally some punk records or some ipercompressed records that do not benefit at all from being a "master"


 
 What about Madonna- Like a Virgin ? that was recorded in 13 bits ! and still 13 bits on MQA.


----------



## DangerToast

Silly question, as I am confused by MQA:
  
 So, I have the Tidal Hifi service, and when listening on my desktop, I am able to access the master quality album options. However, I am listening via a schiit stack, and schiit does not support mqa, as per their website. My question is this: when I am listening to master quality tracks on tidal through my desktop and schiit stack, am I getting any improvement over normal hi-fi quality? Is the app itself doing all the heavy lifting and delivering a higher quality signal to my stack? If so, what exactly is that difference? Is it 24/96 vs 16/44?
  
 Thanks for helping me understand this.


----------



## L8MDL

dangertoast said:


> Silly question, as I am confused by MQA:
> 
> So, I have the Tidal Hifi service, and when listening on my desktop, I am able to access the master quality album options. However, I am listening via a schiit stack, and schiit does not support mqa, as per their website. My question is this: when I am listening to master quality tracks on tidal through my desktop and schiit stack, am I getting any improvement over normal hi-fi quality? Is the app itself doing all the heavy lifting and delivering a higher quality signal to my stack? If so, what exactly is that difference? Is it 24/96 vs 16/44?
> 
> Thanks for helping me understand this.




Seems to me that if MQA is everything it's cracked up to be you should not have to ask!


----------



## manpowre

dangertoast said:


> Silly question, as I am confused by MQA:
> 
> So, I have the Tidal Hifi service, and when listening on my desktop, I am able to access the master quality album options. However, I am listening via a schiit stack, and schiit does not support mqa, as per their website. My question is this: when I am listening to master quality tracks on tidal through my desktop and schiit stack, am I getting any improvement over normal hi-fi quality? Is the app itself doing all the heavy lifting and delivering a higher quality signal to my stack? If so, what exactly is that difference? Is it 24/96 vs 16/44?
> 
> Thanks for helping me understand this.


 
 Hi @DangerToast, 
  
 Take a look at this link for proper MQA explanation:
http://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-decoding-explained
  
 MQA has 3 unfolding levels, 2 of them are software decoded, while last level is hardware decoded only by MQA certified DAC's. 
 The first level is 24/48 which has better noise floor than 16/44/48.
  
 The second level is 24/96 which is software decoded in Tidal only when you see the "MASTER" lower right in Tidal. BUT, you have to change your driver to support this, so if you are on windows, right click your sound icon in notifications, and change the properties for your playback device. Also disable any enhancements, AND set volume in driver to 100%, and the windows volume to 100%. Once you change your driver, depending on your setup, you should see 24/96 show up on your DAC.
  
 The third level is 24/192 which is only for hardware MQA enabled DAC's. This is where the big fuzz is right now as MQA want each DAC provider to pay MQA group for the DACs that are going to be MQA certified. There is a MQA light (blue?) that is enabled when the third level is unfolded on the DAC. Also MQA doesnt provide an MQA encoder for people around and DAC providers to actually test and review the MQA encoding/decoding process.
  
 Personally I set my driver to 24/96 as I usually play those files from Foobar2000, and I also listen to some MQA on Tidal, and those times I listen to new content I end up with normal HIFI, but I dont bother to change to the 16bit version which the HIFI is.
  
 @L8MDL, completely unnessasary comment as people need to ask if they dont fully understand things which is the sole purpose of forums right?


----------



## DelsFan

dangertoast said:


> ...I am listening via a schiit stack, and schiit does not support mqa... When I am listening to master quality tracks on tidal through my desktop and schiit stack, am I getting any improvement over normal hi-fi quality?


 
  


l8mdl said:


> Seems to me that if MQA is everything it's cracked up to be you should not have to ask!


 
  
 But that's the whole point.  It seems everyone is comparing Tidal MQA to Tidal hi-fi to Spotify to CDs to... whatever, without incorporating an MQA compatible DAC.  (Sometimes saying they've compared several times and can't hear any difference... listening with only their i-Phone and earbuds - but not in this forum).
  
 Isn't that like saying (20 years ago), "I don't get all this 5.1 surround crap, I play DVDs that are supposed to have great sound through my integrated NAD 3020 (I just use the "B" speaker output for the two rear speakers) and, truthfully, selecting 2.1 stereo sounds a lot better than when I select 5.1."
 If you don't have a surround processor (now, built into your receiver), why would you expect 5.1 or 7.1 or 9.1 to wow you?
  
 Or (back in the even older days), if you had a Dolby encoded VHS tape but your VCR didn't encode Dolby, that wasn't a reason to say Dolby didn't enhance the quality and was a crap format/encoding/whatever.  It just meant your hardware wasn't equipped to take advantage of their "technology".
  
 How is it different with MQA?  Isn't 2% of the improvement due to (maybe) careful selection of master recordings and 98% of the improvement due to the decoding done by one's MQA compatible DAC?  
  
 It seems Danger Toast has asked exactly the right question; it's not like your laptop/macbook/desktop is doing the decoding, correct?
  
 Shouldn't we hear from people who've compared MQA vs any other medium, including CDs, using their MQA capable Mytek, Meredian, Bel Canto, Aurender, Cary Audio, etc DAC?  Isn't that what the guys from "The Absolute Sound" and "Stereophile" did, and that's why they rave about its potential?  Or am I missing the point somewhere?
  
 (So, I'm looking to start my high end headphone system with a MQA capable DAC with an I2S input - good luck, right?)
  
  
 Edit: 
 Woops, was typing (and warming lunch) as the previous poster explained much of how MQA really works.


----------



## L8MDL

My position is that any improvement heard with MQA is expectation bias. I know of no certified test, using identical masters, to dispute that.


----------



## DelsFan

l8mdl said:


> My position is that any improvement heard with MQA is expectation bias. I know of no certified test, using identical masters, to dispute that.


 
 But they don't claim to offer anything better than the Master Tapes, that would be dumb.
  
 They do claim that streaming from Tidal Hi-Fi MQA and going through an MQA enabled DAC sounds better than any other streaming method, and that it also sounds better than many/most CDs.  This may or may not be true, but respected people who for several decades have made their living writing about high end audio suggest it is - and on the face of it, is not impossible at all.
  
 There are plenty of CDs that don't sound as good as the Masters, and even several releases of the same CD (not including remastered or newly released SACD pressings) where one release by one company sounds better than the original release, or some of the subsequent releases.  Some of the early Bob Ezrin produced Alice Cooper albums are one case in point (and if you're into that kind of thing, they were masterfully done - by, at the beginning, a snot-nosed teenager (Ezrin)).  Again, if an SACD sounds better than a "regular" one (RedBook?) it seems not impossible that MQA streamed music could sound better than regular streamed music.


----------



## martyp87

I would like to compare MQA vs DSD but I only have a couple of DSD albums, the most common one "Thriller" is only FLAC Lossless at the moment on TIDAL and I must say the DSD tracks sound so much cleaner (OPPO HA-1 > HD800S). 
  
 My other comparison is with Ed Sheeran divide album. Castle on the Hill on MQA and M4A (iTunes Purchased) I honestly can not tell the difference at all. The track still sounds heavily distorted, it sounds great in the car but on my Egg 150 monitors or headphones it sounds awful. 
  
 I won't complain though as I don't pay any extra for MQA over FLAC Lossless. If I did, I probably wouldn't bother.


----------



## manpowre

l8mdl said:


> My position is that any improvement heard with MQA is expectation bias. I know of no certified test, using identical masters, to dispute that.


 
 Improvement over what are you referring to ?
 If its improvement over 16/44/48, MQA is definetely better variant as it has lower noise floor with 24 bits and thereby higher dynamic range. About 44/48 and 96/192 khz discussion, it extends the audible hertz from way above audible area of humans that can pick it up at 20-22khz, where most of us are at 18-19khz. Some claim we can "feel" the higher tones above audible range.
  
 Personally I find the FLAC 24/96 files more accurate in sound reproduction, but I only own 1x 2015 album that is currently MQA. I have found another album now that I might purchase once I get my laptop back from guarantee issue.
  
 I think the issue with MQA is definetely that we dont have encoders available for the mass to test and review content. Why its not available is a damn good question!


----------



## DangerToast

manpowre said:


> Hi @DangerToast,
> 
> Take a look at this link for proper MQA explanation:
> http://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-decoding-explained
> ...



 


Thanks for actually answering my question, because of you I'm actually getting some 24/96 goodness out of Tidal. I didn't know you had to change the bitrate in windows. One follow up question: when it asks me to specify a bitrate in windows, I went ahead at chose 32/192. I assume I'm just establishing a "ceiling" here and when I listen to masters on Tidal it's actually feeding dac/amp 24/96, correct?

Also, I didn't mean to wade into an MQA civil war that seems to be happening on this thread, but here's my two cents: If MQA gets me some 24/96 goodness on Tidal (as opposed to regular CD quality), that's a good thing. I guess it sucks that you cant get the full 24/192 without the proper dac, but it's still an improvement.


----------



## tjw321

manpowre said:


> Improvement over what are you referring to ?
> If its improvement over 16/44/48, MQA is definetely better variant as it has lower noise floor with 24 bits...


 
 I believe that the lower 8 bits are used to encode the MQA information so, if anything, it'll have a higher noise floor than 16/*.


----------



## castleofargh

indeed, the MQA file is presented in a 24bit container, but part of the data isn't bit depth information. @manpowre is wrong about that. again I can only suggest to go look at the patent as it's the only place where they never play on words to pretend like the format is more than it is. it's not the best read of the year, but it's factual information for a change.
 each amplitude is a 24bit value, but only from 13 to 17bit(depending on various decisions/requirements) contain the actual music in the audible range, the rest if left undecoded is noise. and if decoded, then it's replaced by dither(nicer, harder to notice kind of noise). of course it can still be played and seen by the DAC as 24bit, just like we can take a 16bit file, output it to 24bit in our player by adding extra zeroes and the DAC will say it's a 24bit file. but the song's resolution is not 24bit. on MQA it absolutely never is!


----------



## manpowre

castleofargh said:


> indeed, the MQA file is presented in a 24bit container, but part of the data isn't bit depth information. @manpowre is wrong about that. again I can only suggest to go look at the patent as it's the only place where they never play on words to pretend like the format is more than it is. it's not the best read of the year, but it's factual information for a change.
> each amplitude is a 24bit value, but only from 13 to 17bit(depending on various decisions/requirements) contain the actual music in the audible range, the rest if left undecoded is noise. and if decoded, then it's replaced by dither(nicer, harder to notice kind of noise). of course it can still be played and seen by the DAC as 24bit, just like we can take a 16bit file, output it to 24bit in our player by adding extra zeroes and the DAC will say it's a 24bit file. but the song's resolution is not 24bit. on MQA it absolutely never is!


 
 I knew about this already, and considered to include it in my post, but I didnt want to dig too deep into the technical aspects of what actually happens on decoding level, but for the average user setting the driver to 24 bit / 96khz is the closest we can get to increased quality compared to 16/44/48 through streaming. The fact that MQA has a noise floor of 13-17bits is why we can hear a difference between real 24/96 and MQA 24/96, and also why we are discussing this heavily. Also dont forget that MQA advertises this as 24/48, 24/96 and 24/192. and this is what the average users will see as numbers.
  
@DangerToast, just set the driver to the closest you expect to play back. setting it to 32 bits doesnt mean you get better quality, in fact it might reduce quality as your DAC thinks it has to create sound based on 32 bits instead of 24 bits. Most modern DACs perform very very well in 24 bits mode, and extremely well in 16 bit mode.
  
@castleofargh, what you mentioned here is exactly why I dont like MQA, as the MQA group doesnt provide encoders for people to use and play with to test and review the output of the encoding/decoding process. I can only guess, but I think this is the sole main reason to why MQA group dont provide encoders for people!


----------



## gregorio

delsfan said:


> [1] There are plenty of CDs that don't sound as good as the Masters, and even several releases of the same CD (not including remastered or newly released SACD pressings) where one release by one company sounds better than the original release, or some of the subsequent releases.
> [2] Again, if an SACD sounds better than a "regular" one (RedBook?) it seems not impossible that MQA streamed music could sound better than regular streamed music.


 
  
 1. That's not possible. If we're talking about commercial CDs (rather than bootlegged copies burnt to CD-R), they can only be manufactured from a master. If a release sounds different to another release, then it cannot be the same CD, it has to be a different master!
  
 2. If an SACD sounds better than a redbook version, it's because it's a different master. It's not at all impossible that MQA could really sound better than a CD but it would have to be a different master. In which case we are comparing different masters rather than different distribution formats.
  


manpowre said:


> [1] If its improvement over 16/44/48, MQA is definetely better variant as it has lower noise floor with 24 bits and thereby higher dynamic range.
> [2] About 44/48 and 96/192 khz discussion, it extends the audible hertz from way above audible area of humans that can pick it up at 20-22khz, where most of us are at 18-19khz. Some claim we can "feel" the higher tones above audible range.


 
  
 1. The noise floor of the container format is irrelevant when talking about 16bit or higher because no commercial recording I know of has a noise floor lower than about -60dBFS, which is 10bits. The noise floor we are going to hear is the noise floor of the recording, not the noise floor of the format which is 6 bits lower in the case of a 16bit container, 16bits lower in the case of 24bit container or 22bits lower in the case of a 32bit container. It's the same as: If you put 20ml of whisky in a 50ml glass you don't get more whisky if instead you put that 20ml of whisky in a 200ml glass.
  
 2. More typically, with good young adult ears it would be 16-18kHz. I don't know of any reliable evidence to support the claim of being able to "feel" or sense the ultrasonic sound present in music.
  


manpowre said:


> [1] ... but for the average user setting the driver to 24 bit / 96khz is the closest we can get to increased quality compared to 16/44/48 through streaming.
> [2] The fact that MQA has a noise floor of 13-17bits is why we can hear a difference between real 24/96 and MQA 24/96, and also why we are discussing this heavily.


 
  
 1. Setting to 24bit would not increase quality as there is nothing below about 10bit to increase, as mentioned above.
 2. Even if MQA were only 13bit, that is still in excess of about the 10bit max of any commercial recording and as that 13bit noise floor is "shaped", unless they've made a huge foul-up with their algorithm, that noise floor should be completely inaudible beneath the recording noise floor. As with the whisky analogy, 20ml of whisky will not taste any different if drunk from a 50ml glass than from a 100ml glass, unless it's actually a different whisky!
  
 G


----------



## jwbrent

For an appreciation thread, there is a lot of dissent here. Is it even possible to create a thread about MQA without the cynics, skeptics, and objectivists piling on? 

I, for one, am happy with my TIDAL HiFi account. I do hear improvements when I listen to most Master files, especially in the upper frequencies. My only disappointment is the slowness of Master releases.

I use a MacBook and a Mojo for my TIDAL Masters listening. I feel most of the benefit of hi res files comes at 24/96, so having an MQA supported DAC is not meaningful to me.

I do wonder whether Audirvana users feel MQA files sound better than when using TIDAL's MQA software.


----------



## headfry (Apr 29, 2017)

jwbrent said:


> For an appreciation thread, there is a lot of dissent here. Is it even possible to create a thread about MQA without the cynics, skeptics, and objectivists piling on?
> 
> I, for one, am happy with my TIDAL HiFi account. I do hear improvements when I listen to most Master files, especially in the upper frequencies. My only disappointment is the slowness of Master releases.
> 
> ...



thanks for your reply - I also enjoy the sonic/musical improvement of Tidal Masters. I'm not sure that there's much of an improvement in sq using Audirvana 3+ over Tidal desktop, but recommend trying the free trial; I do appreciate the following benefits:

1) allows use of AU (AudioUnits) plugins - so I can eq my Grado's to sound the way they should! I always felt the
    desire to eq and now I have it! Using Marvel Voxengo geq - free and excellent equalizer!

2) eliminates the endless buffering issue of certain Masters albums - such as Yes Close To the Edge, 
    Fragile and    Relayer

3) frequent updating of the software - excellent support!

For me, the two players sounded fairly similar but the above points, especially the ability to eq won me over!


----------



## jwbrent

headfry said:


> thanks for your reply - I also enjoy the sonic/musical improvement of Tidal Masters. I'm not sure that there's much of an improvement in sq using Audirvana 3+ over Tidal desktop, but recommend trying the free trial; I do appreciate the following benefits:
> 
> 1) allows use of AU (AudioUnits) plugins - so I can eq my Grado's to sound the way they should! I always felt the
> desire to eq and now I have it! Using Marvel Voxengo geq - free and excellent equalizer!
> ...



Thank you for your feedback. Yes, having an EQ would be a nice addition.

With the recent cash infusion by Sprint, I'm hoping the desktop app will be further improved ... a directory for Master titles and artists are at the top of my list. Maybe they'll add an EQ, too.


----------



## headfry (May 6, 2017)

I've been enjoying James Taylor's Gorilla (1975), Tidal Masters/software decoded
and comparing it to the HIFI version.

No contest, the Masters is obviously much, much better - and in the ways many/most Masters
tend to be better

Masters: coherent & consistent
               open window on the performance
              natural 3D soundstage and specific imaging
               much more refined

comparing the HIFI version to Masters is like comparing a demo version of the song with the final

the HIFI version is flattened, brasher, blurrier, lacking in bass definition&weight and flattened soundstage
with large,mostly undefined imagery

anyone who says they can't hear a significant improvement through Tidal-decoded MQA
makes we wonder why!!!!~!


----------



## Left Channel

@headfry at 1x decoding 24/96 I still can't hear a difference. But thanks for your reply last time:

https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/c...masters-and-more.831291/page-45#post-13393711


----------



## winders

headfry thinks all MQA stuff is better than anything else on the planet. His opinion is kind of useless as he has no credibility judging this stuff.


----------



## headfry (May 6, 2017)

winders said:


> headfry thinks all MQA stuff is better than anything else on the planet. His opinion is kind of useless as he has no credibility judging this stuff.





Just because you don't get the difference doesn't mean that everybody hears the same.


*I could say the same of your opinion, but I don't - why would I?

....and why do you?*


----------



## pinnahertz

headfry said:


> Just because you don't get the difference doesn't mean that everybody hears the same.


Except...
If there really was a noticeable difference, everyone would hear it. It would be universally obvious.  And apparently, there is no clear, obvious, and universally audible improvement or we wouldn't be having these discussions. 

And...
Current research is pointing to the fact that we actually do all hear the same.  That's why the folks at Harmon developed target curves for headphones and speakers, they found the majority of listeners like it smooth and flat. 

And...
After two months you're still dealing with the same misconceptions and biases.  It is, after all, "garbage in, garbage out". You can't make a 1970s analog tape sound better than it is with magic pixie dust...or MQA.


----------



## gregorio

headfry said:


> Just because you don't get the difference doesn't mean that everybody hears the same.



And just because you DO hear a difference doesn't mean:
A. The difference is actually an improvement, rather than a degradation or
B. That the difference is caused by what you are stating or
C. That there is necessarily any actual difference in the first place.

@winders post is harsh but valid and is further validated by your stubborn refusal to even acknowledge the above possibilities exist, let alone to consider or make any attempt to address them!

G


----------



## headfry (May 9, 2017)

- let the naysayers say what they want...there are other threads to express their MQA views and/or displeasure

in the meantime, many of you know that I've appreciated some of the songs off of the Master's version
off of  James Taylor's *Gorilla*...Tidal decoded....really really good folk singer/songwriter album, *classic*
and an obvious improvement over the HIFI version - soundstage, soundstage and soundstage....


.....try it!

well......wait 'till you hear the 1968 remastering of James Taylor's album "James Taylor"
not MQA but vital, excellent music for all of you fans of sensitive but suprbly-excellent singer/songwriter music
(e.g. Joni, Cat Stevens, Sufjan Stevens, Ian Anderson, Stevie, John L, Paul M., etc.)

classic music. If no MQA version, no biggie, still a fantastic listen.

..magic. James Taylor 1968 (no Masters version yet, but wonderful!)


...any other Masters recommendations out there, fans?


----------



## Mifanning

John Darko's website reported this today: "Now we’re well into May and that DragonFly-related MQA update is at last scheduled to arrive next week, Wednesday 17th, just in time for Munich High-End 2017. As before, this announcement comes from MQA’s press department and not AudioQuest’s."


----------



## DelsFan

gregorio said:


> 1. That's not possible. If we're talking about commercial CDs (rather than bootlegged copies burnt to CD-R), they can only be manufactured from a master. If a release sounds different to another release, then it cannot be the same CD, it has to be a different master!
> 
> 2. If an SACD sounds better than a redbook version, it's because it's a different master. It's not at all impossible that MQA could really sound better than a CD but it would have to be a different master. In which case we are comparing different masters rather than different distribution formats.


 

It is not difficult for two or three different companies to take the "original" masters and "manufacture" great CDs from them, or crap CDs.  Or, use a different process (like SACD) which, when played back on the compatible equipment, sounds better.  Now, there are "re-masters"; and yes, they are different from the original masters.  But it is my understanding that if a CD is not remastered, it was "made" from the original masters. By one or more companies, using good or great or cheap methods.  Maybe we're discussing semantics here, but there are several different sounding "pressings" of the same CD available for purchase for the more popular records/recordings/CDs.

There is no free lunch in audio, there is always some way to get better sound - or some way to reproduce it cheaply, and poorly.

Below is something I copied from "somewhere", for when I finally get my system purchased (including an MQA compatible DAC) and want to buy some CDs. 
OK, I looked it up; link provided.  And yes, maybe these guys are all full of crap too - but it doesn't strain credulity to think a CD released by WB in 1998 couldn't sound better (or worse) than a Japanese pressing from the mid 2000s - or that (in the discussion below) an Audio Fidelity CD couldn't sound better than either.  If nearly everyone didn't think the more expensive Audio Fidelity CDs didn't sound better, they wouldn't be in business.


http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/alice-cooper-cds-definitive-versions.529154/

_"The Audio Fidelity CD's have much greater detail than any other releases, including the original WB's.
Stay away from the Japanese reissues of a few years ago, they are the most brickwalled CD's I own."

"Just as a for instance, Glen Buxton's guitar in Blue Turk from School's out seems better placed in the mix and 'rings' better on the Audio Fidelity disc than any other versions of the disc that I have. Same with the guitar in Generation Landslide from Billion Dollar Babies.  I find that the AF versions 'breathe' better than the WB discs."_




pinnahertz said:


> Except...
> If there really was a noticeable difference, everyone would hear it. It would be universally obvious.  And apparently, there is no clear, obvious, and universally audible improvement or we wouldn't be having these discussions.



Thirteen pages and counting, and has a single opinion been given from someone who has actually heard a "Masters" recording streamed from Tidal Hi-Fi, through their (rare, but available) MQA compatible DAC?

What's the argument, that some people think they hear the very small improvement MQA claims when comparing "Masters" recordings from Tidal to a regular CD - on normal low- or mid-fi equipment (and who knows what quality of CD player)?  Who cares?  The "real" claim is that there are two further envelopes to be unfolded, from whence the vast majority of the sonic improvement comes.

My argument remains the same: Two guys who have been reviewing audio equipment for 30+ years, for two of the most respected audio magazines, say MQA "could be" a game changer, and that they can hear a significant difference when listening through MQA compatible DACs.  They have heard the product "through" the requisite equipment - and so far I've not read any comments here from anyone else who has.

Maybe I should get on the ball and finish procurement of my headphone system components and give my impressions.  Although I really need to be on the ball concerning what the wife thinks I'm doing. 
 For sure: I'm not even supposed to be here...


----------



## gregorio

DelsFan said:


> [1] It is not difficult for two or three different companies to take the "original" masters and "manufacture" great CDs from them, or crap CDs.  Or, use a different process (like SACD) which, when played back on the compatible equipment, sounds better.
> [1a] Now, there are "re-masters"; and yes, they are different from the original masters.  But it is my understanding that if a CD is not remastered, it was "made" from the original masters. By one or more companies, using good or great or cheap methods.
> 
> [2] The "real" claim is that there are two further envelopes to be unfolded, from whence the vast majority of the sonic improvement comes.
> ...



1. You are correct that "it's not difficult" because in fact it's IMPOSSIBLE! CD manufacture is a duplication process, the process of duplicating a master, you therefore cannot manufacture a CD without a master. The question then becomes; which master? The original master or a re-master? There's only one legal source of a master or re-master, the recording copyright owners (WB in your example). Therefore, a re-master has either been made by the copyright holders, authorised by the copyright holders or is an illegal/bootleg master. Assuming no serious error/fault at the duplication plant, there can be no difference between pressings without a different master, as the duplication process is bit perfect. For example, assuming the same basic master (just different quantisation depth/sample rate) an SACD will sound identical to the CD. 

1a. Yes, if the CD is made from the original master then it will be identical, regardless of the distribution company or whether great or cheap methods were used. If it sounds different from another pressing/company/method there are only 3 possible explanation: 1. It's a different master, 2. The person listening is mistaken or 3. A duplication plant error/fault. AFAIK, explanation #3 is a very rare occurrence.

2. I don't know what you mean by "two further envelopes to be unfolded"? If MQA is as good as claimed, then when fully decoded a MQA release should sound identical to the same master in wav or FLAC format. In practise, the title of this thread should be "Tidal masters appreciation thread" because that is what everyone appears to be comparing, not a single post I've seen in this thread actually compares/evaluates the MQA component in the thread's title!

3. "Most respected" by whom? For nigh on 3 decades, the main audiophile magazines (Stereophile for example) are not only NOT the most respected, they're just about the least respected! Scientists, equipment engineers and the pro audio community certainly have no respect whatsoever for publications such as Stereophile, which is only ever mentioned as part of a joke! Even manufacturers of audiophile equipment don't respect them, although they'll rarely publicly acknowledge that fact because of the influence they have on marketing and they have that influence because about the only people who have any respect for them is audiophiles/consumers. Your "argument which remains the same" is therefore just about the weakest argument imaginable (except to those so ignorant of how sound/audio really works that they still respect those publications). It's like saying; the Earth is flat because the Flat Earth Society says so and they are the most respected flat earth organisation!

G


----------



## headfry (May 14, 2017)

headfry said:


> I'll take this guy's professional opinion on Tidal software-decoded MQA, (which happens to align well with mine and with many others; BTW and in my opinion, using terms like "Flat Earth Society" does _nothing_ to advance your arguments here; quite the opposite):
> 
> http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/05/mqa-bowie-headphones/


----------



## headfry (May 14, 2017)

.....


----------



## gregorio

headfry said:


> [1] I'll take this guy's professional opinion on Tidal software-decoded MQA,
> [2] (which happens to align well with mine and with many others; BTW
> [3] and in my opinion, using terms like "Flat Earth Society" does _nothing_ to advance your arguments here; quite the opposite):



1. Exactly my point!
2. Also exactly my point!
3. I think you misread, I wasn't using it to advance my arguments, I was using it as an analogy for YOUR arguments. And I agree, it absolutely should not advance your arguments and absolutely should do the opposite But for some unfathomable reason it's not???!

G


----------



## headfry (May 15, 2017)

G[/QUOTE]
I'll take Darko's professional opinion over an unprofessional one; that it agrees with what I hear
makes sense,


gregorio said:


> 1. Exactly my point!
> 2. Also exactly my point!
> 3. I think you misread, I wasn't using it to advance my arguments, I was using it as an analogy for YOUR arguments. And I agree, it absolutely should not advance your arguments and absolutely should do the opposite But for some unfathomable reason it's not???!
> 
> G



==============================

Gregorio, Is it your view is that SACD, 24 bit hires, DSD are money-grabs, false marketing in that whatever sq improvement they provide can be done with well-mastered Redbook?

Agreed?


----------



## JKDJedi

I appreciate some of the MQA recordings in Tidal, wish that wasn't just for PC though, HiFi is great though just the same. Streaming CD quality files on my Android. Tuff living in the first world.


----------



## gregorio

headfry said:


> [1] I'll take Darko's professional opinion over an unprofessional one; that it agrees with what I hear makes sense.
> [2] Gregorio, Is it your view is that SACD, 24 bit hires, DSD are money-grabs, false marketing in that whatever sq improvement they provide can be done with well-mastered Redbook?



1. And again (!), you seem to be confused and have it backwards! From what I can tell Darko is NOT an audio professional, he's a professional writer. So apparently you'll take an unprofessional opinion over a professional one, the exact opposite of what you stated, presumably because it agrees with what you hear.

2. A couple of points you seem unaware of: 1. SACD is DSD, they're not different things. 2. 24bit has exactly the same resolution as 16bit, so while it's fair to say 24bit is "hires", it's no more "hires" than 16bit.

To answer your question: SACD provides the obvious advantage over redbook of being multi-channel rather than just 2 channel stereo but as far as sound quality is concerned, SACD is technically slightly inferior. I say "technically" because despite SACD's relatively serious flaws, controlled listening tests have demonstrated no human ability to discriminate SACD from CD (or it's flaws). Next, 24bit does have some practical advantages over 16bit for audio recording and production (due to it's increased headroom) but provides zero benefit for playback/reproduction! So, as far as the consumer is concerned, 24bit being more "hires" than 16bit is just marketing. BTW, none of this relies on a "well-mastered redbook", just the same basic master. And lastly, this is NOT just my view, it's a view informed by how digital audio actually works, the scientific evidence and proofs, and is the view of other audio pros/those who also understand how digital audio works!

G


----------



## L8MDL

I gave up on Darko when he dismissed a comment I made regarding balanced headphones. He basically implied that nobody needed or wanted balanced equipment. He has since changed his tune.


----------



## headfry

gregorio said:


> 1. And again (!), you seem to be confused and have it backwards! From what I can tell Darko is NOT an audio professional, he's a professional writer. So apparently you'll take an unprofessional opinion over a professional one, the exact opposite of what you stated, presumably because it agrees with what you hear.
> 
> 2. A couple of points you seem unaware of: 1. SACD is DSD, they're not different things. 2. 24bit has exactly the same resolution as 16bit, so while it's fair to say 24bit is "hires", it's no more "hires" than 16bit.
> 
> ...



Thanks for re-stating your views.

My main point is this: better mastering can sound MUCH better, and if what pays for it is a proprietary format, so be it, as otherwise the better releases may never happen. Many of my 24 bit releases sound great, I don't argue that the 24 bit format is unnecessary; it's the album's quality that matters and that they are made available!

Audio reviewing is an art; some reviewer's opinions tend to be on the nose - Darko is one of the finest out there IMHO.


----------



## headfry (May 16, 2017)

I re-discovered the music of Todd Rundgren, in particular
his album Todd 1974 - he was all of 26 at the time

if you skip the first track - the rest is mainly classic experimental pop music -
and stellar - Tidal Masters makes me not need to seek out and buy the 24 bit master -
this sounds amazingly good, as do most of my other Masters albums - so I don't need to.buy it -

as original as Frank Zappa in his prime....*Todd is cosmic*.......!!!!


http://www.allmusic.com/album/todd-mw0000191699


if you love good pop/experimental music....pls check this out (skip 1st track!)


----------



## gregorio

headfry said:


> [1] My main point is this: better mastering can sound MUCH better,
> [2] and if what pays for it is a proprietary format, so be it, as otherwise the better releases may never happen.
> [3] Many of my 24 bit releases sound great, I don't argue that the 24 bit format is unnecessary; it's the album's quality that matters and that they are made available!
> [4] Audio reviewing is an art; some reviewer's opinions tend to be on the nose - Darko is one of the finest out there IMHO.



1. In practice, it's rarely a simple case of just "better mastering" sounding better. For example, a master with less audio compression will sound better than a more highly compressed master on a decent system in a reasonably quiet listening environment but the exact opposite is true if the environment is noisy; say if listening while walking, jogging, sitting in a car, train, plane, bus or while doing the chores, etc.

2. You have this backwards. MQA does not put money into the industry (pays) for better masters, it takes money out of/charges the industry. If MQA is successful, the end result will be worse releases! You seem to just keep repeating your marketing driven mantra of better releases, while not giving a damn about the fact you're ultimately promoting/contributing to poorer quality releases. Either you're lying when you state "_it's the album's quality that matters_" or you're shockingly illogical?! And BTW, as far as I'm aware, all the MQA releases so far are of already existing masters, just batch encoded into MQA.

3. Commonly, hires releases are made from less compressed masters than the CD version. These hires releases therefore sound better than the CD versions when listened to critically (with a decent system/quiet environment), which justifies the higher price of the hires version and maintains/promotes the illusion that hires is better. In reality, the less compressed version could be released in CD format (and sound identical to the hires) but then they couldn't charge the large mark-up for this less compressed version. As long as the manufacturers/industry think they can keep duping audiophiles into falling for/buying into this marketing idea of more bits and higher sampling rates being higher res and sounding better, they'll keep promoting it and making "audiophile" products and content to fulfil that demand. While an audible difference can always be maintained, by deliberately degrading the sound quality of the lower bit/sample rate version, the inevitable consequence is that the un-degraded "higher res" version will be of lesser SQ than it could have been. The consequence of you (and other audiophiles) buying into higher and higher resolutions and products like MQA is the exact opposite of your stated desire ("_it's the album's quality that matters_")!

4. I agree that audio reviewing is an art and as with all art, it can be based on fact, fiction or some combination, in audio reviewing terms; fact or audiophile myth. The problem for a professional reviewer is that the vast majority of audiophile products rely partially or entirely on audiophile myths and therefore, there's little/no advertising revenue to be gained from basing their "art" on facts. Maybe Darko knows the difference between fact and fiction and chooses fiction because he knows what butters his bread or maybe he's just as duped as the audiophiles he's writing for? If you like fiction or don't know and don't care that it is fiction, then I agree, Darko is very good. Personally though I'm interested in fact, rather than fiction presented as fact, so to me Darko is little more than just another (ignorant or not) worthless parasite.

G


----------



## headfry (May 17, 2017)

gregorio said:


> 1. In practice, it's rarely a simple case of just "better mastering" sounding better. For example, a master with less audio compression will sound better than a more highly compressed master on a decent system in a reasonably quiet listening environment but the exact opposite is true if the environment is noisy; say if listening while walking, jogging, sitting in a car, train, plane, bus or while doing the chores, etc.
> 
> 2. You have this backwards. MQA does not put money into the industry (pays) for better masters, it takes money out of/charges the industry. If MQA is successful, the end result will be worse releases! You seem to just keep repeating your marketing driven mantra of better releases, while not giving a damn about the fact you're ultimately promoting/contributing to poorer quality releases. Either you're lying when you state "_it's the album's quality that matters_" or you're shockingly illogical?! And BTW, as far as I'm aware, all the MQA releases so far are of already existing masters, just batch encoded into MQA.
> 
> ...



===============================================================================

If you don't see the value in articles by great professional audio reviewers such as Darko and believe that
he is either on the take and and/or perpetuates myths knowingly or unknowingly then I think I know where you're
coming from and respectfully and strongly disagree with your view on this. Also, while I think you enjoy
expressing yourself I wonder what you're doing on this thread, which is
an _appreciation_ thread.

here is where your comments would be a better fit:

MQA: Revolutionary British streaming technology

which I'm pretty sure you are aware.

BTW, do you or have you used your analytical and writing skills in an occupation or avocation?  <<<.  ========



...if anyone would like to chime in on Tidal Masters _Appreciation_, I'm ready to hear from you!


----------



## gregorio

headfry said:


> [1] If you don't see the value in articles by great professional audio reviewers such as Darko
> [2] and believe that he is either on the take and and/or perpetuates myths knowingly or unknowingly then I think I know where you're
> coming from and respectfully and strongly disagree with your view on this.



1. I do see the value in articles by great professional audio reviewers but to be a great (or even just a competent) reviewer requires that the stated facts are accurate and marketing myths/BS are exposed. For this reason, Darko is not a great or even a competent reviewer!

2. Huh, in contrast I've no idea where you're coming from! You say Darko is a professional reviewer, which means he earns a living from reviewing. As DAR is not a subscription service, where do you think the money that pays him to be a "professional" comes from? Either Darko is "on the take" (in the form of advertising revenue from audiophile manufacturers/retailers) or he's not a "professional", which is it? You are of course free to "respectfully and strongly disagree" but you're doing so against the glaringly obvious, basic economic facts! Which brings us back to my previous analogy; flat earthers are also free to "respectfully and strongly disagree" in spite of the obvious fact that the earth is a sphere!

G


----------



## pinnahertz

headfry said:


> ===============================================================================
> 
> If you don't see the value in articles by great professional audio reviewers such as Darko and believe that
> he is either on the take and and/or perpetuates myths knowingly or unknowingly then I think I know where you're
> coming from and respectfully and strongly disagree with your view on this.


I have to admit that until he was mentioned here I knew nothing of Darko.  So I went, and I read. 

Darko is, in fact, a professional.  He's a decent writer, he rights a lot, it's readable, and decently structured, and he gets paid for it (which is what makes him a "professional").  

And, he is doing the job of an audio reviewer: setting up and listening to audio stuff then writing his opinion.  He's paid to do it.  The site is thoroughly monetized in every which way.   Great?  Yeah, I don't thing so.  Greatness, for someone in that profession, would require substantially more real, pertinent, and accurate content that is being delivered, something like real investigative research without regard for marketing hype.

Unfortunately, though reasonably well crafted, his review of MQA lacks any semblance of a real, honest review of the technology.   It's riddled with parroted MQA marketing hype.  Comparisons are classic: he compares a CD version and the shiny new MQA version, with no knowledge whatsoever of the heritage of either.   In fact, he's writing about one of the most highly biased, non-controlled forms of auditioning there is: fully sighted (he writes about the MQA lights too) and without any concern for the total signal path. 

Yes, he's a professional writer.  But if you want accuracy of evaluation of products, look elsewhere.   And sure, he's on the "take".  The site is loaded with paid ads and links to manufacture's sites (where the original marketing hype is found), thus perpetuation their fantasy world.  And, by the look of things, he's very, very well funded.



headfry said:


> ...if anyone would like to chime in on Tidal Masters _Appreciation_, I'm ready to hear from you!


Sure, Happy to. 

So far, I appreciate knowing that Tidal Masters have provided yet another layer of audio marketing confusion.  I appreciate the fact that some here will recognize that there has been no real qualitative evaluation of MQA. 

I would appreciate it if many more here would adopt a little understanding of what is actually being heard in a Tidal Master/MQA recording,  and referenced here, like early 1970s analog tape recordings that have followed an undisclosed and ambiguous remastering path which would sound every bit as good on a CD as on a Tidal Master.

I do not appreciate blindly swallowing the MQA marketing Cool-aid, or frankly, blind faith in anything.  I also don't appreciate that in a public forum those with dissenting opinions are asked to depart in an artificial tone of respect.

So here's something:  I've developed a new and highly advanced MQA compatible speaker cable.  It doesn't degrade CD audio, but when used specifically with an MQA recording, it compliments the anti-time-smearing properties of the MQA "process".  In fact, the cable has been pre-processed in our lab high in the Himalayas by celibate monks who are vowed to lives of silence.   To audition this cable requires a standard audio system and an MQA audio system, set up side by side.  The standard system plays a standard CD, uses standard electronics, standard speakers and standard speaker cables.  The MQA system plays MQA recordings, uses MQA speaker cables and the same type of speakers, but sitting right next to the standard ones.  Compare the two and hear how amazing our MQA wire is!  

Now it shouldn't take a lot to see what's wrong with that, right?  Comparing too many variables.  Different recordings, different speaker positions, different wire, and possibly others like a difference in system gain.  This is precisely what's going on when someone compares a CD to an MQA release!  There is a list of variables, differences between the two "versions", only we don't know exactly what they are.  We are, however, comparing the result of all of them.  And MQA is only one.  

Some don't care how we get better quality music, if MQA does it, that's just fine.  And I would agree if (and this is a big one) there wasn't someone pushing MQA with vague yet glowing marketing, license fees, and non-disclosure of the technology.


----------



## headfry (May 18, 2017)

The hardware companies onboard with MQA are among the best in the industry, some of them are:

Aurender
Berkely Audio Design
Bluesound
bel canto
brinkmann
Krell
Audioquest
Mark Levinson
Mytek
Moon by SimAudio
Pro-Ject


Make of this list what you may, I can bet that by and
large the above companies see MQA as a real advancement in audio streaming formats!

....I don't need marketing psuedo-claims
to influence my appreciation of MQA - I've
been enjoying the improvement for over three months now thanks to Tidal and its software decoding (and as I've said a few times) if it continues to bring better sounding releases then I'm all for it -
the improvement is similar in magnitude to the better hires masters out there - more solid, effortless,
musically  expressive with better imaging, with MQA's better soundstage and 3D palpability - more natural and overall nicer.

I'm not the only one to think this either.


----------



## winders

A real advancement? Please. Better soundstage and 3D palpability - more natural and overall nicer? That's not what I hear, but whatever your expectation bias needs you to think....

Look, those companies are supporting MQA because they think they need to. They don't want a potential customer to see they don't support something and strike them from their list because of it. Just like some people won't buy a DAC that doesn't support DSD.


----------



## wormcycle

headfry said:


> The hardware companies onboard with MQA are among the best in the industry:
> 
> Aurender
> Berkely Audio Design
> ...


Generalizing a bit I guess. What does it mean exactly  "onboard with MQA"?
I am on Tidal, did a lot of A/Bing between the 16/44 and MQA and, with two different setups, and HD800S I hear no difference. Maybe it is a Tidal decoder but I am not in a hurry to buy MQA DAC.


----------



## headfry (May 18, 2017)

wormcycle said:


> Generalizing a bit I guess. What does it mean exactly  "onboard with MQA"?
> I am on Tidal, did a lot of A/Bing between the 16/44 and MQA and, with two different setups, and HD800S I hear no difference. Maybe it is a Tidal decoder but I am not in a hurry to buy MQA DAC.



Your experience - which is perfectly valid, altho not that of many others such as myself.


If I heard no difference I wouldn't have started this thread; my enjoyment
spurred it.


They are MQA official partners on the MQA web site.


----------



## headfry

winders said:


> A real advancement? Please. Better soundstage and 3D palpability - more natural and overall nicer? That's not what I hear, but whatever your expectation bias needs you to think....
> 
> Look, those companies are supporting MQA because they think they need to. They don't want a potential customer to see they don't support something and strike them from their list because of it. Just like some people won't buy a DAC that doesn't support DSD.




expectation bias? just because you don't hear it? don't be so sure my preference is due to expectation bias.


----------



## pinnahertz

headfry said:


> expectation bias? just because you don't hear it? don't be so sure my preference is due to expectation bias.


Oh, but it definitely is!  You've done absolutely nothing to eliminate expectation bias, so it's there in full force, and your expectation is that MQA is better.  You've quoted MQA marketing hype repeatedly, reinforcing your own expectation bias and sadly, that of others as well. 


headfry said:


> Your experience - which is perfectly valid, altho not that of many others such as myself.


Don't try to spin this by referencing yourself and "many others" unless you plan to include the other "many others" who have not shared your experience.   You don't have any statistics of who hears what, do you?  Diminishing someone's personal observation and elevating your own does a disservice to everyone, and your own credibility takes a hit along the way.


headfry said:


> If I heard no difference I wouldn't have started this thread; my enjoyment
> spurred it.


Nobody doubts that you believe you heard a difference.  The doubt is completely contained in *why* you heard a difference.


----------



## gregorio

headfry said:


> [1] I can bet that by and large the above companies see MQA as a real advancement in audio streaming formats!
> [2] .... I don't need marketing psuedo-claims to influence my appreciation of MQA
> [3] if it continues to bring better sounding releases then I'm all for it -
> [4] the improvement is similar in magnitude to the better hires masters out there ...



1. I'd take that bet! Do you really think the engineers at those companies have as little understanding of the science, technology and lossy codecs as you? I'd bet, that the above companies see MQA as an advancement/opportunity in audiophile marketing.

2. And yet, since you started posting on MQA (in other threads), you've quoted it's marketing psuedo-claims repeatedly and virtually verbatim. Are you saying that's just pure coincidence? 

3. You're actually against it then? Obviously, as they're taking money out of production budgets (by charging the content creators) that HAS TO result in poorer sounding releases. I've got no idea how you're going to able to tell though, how are you going to compare the recording that's available with a better recording which was never made?

4. That's a zero magnitude then! As the better hires masters are audibly indistinguishable from those same masters in low/standard res (16/44.1). In practice, at very best, the improvement is of zero magnitude (no audible difference) or negative magnitude (slightly audibly poorer) because it's a lossy codec! However, whether it's audibly identical or slightly worse is irrelevant, the only thing which really matters in the audiophile world is if audiophiles think/believe it's better and that of course is dependant on the effectiveness of the marketing. This has been demonstrated/proven so many times over the last few decades that it's now an axiom of the audiophile industry and incidentally, this is why you virtually never find audiophile equipment in commercial music/audio studios.

G


----------



## headfry (May 19, 2017)

gregorio said:


> 1. I'd take that bet! Do you really think the engineers at those companies have as little understanding of the science, technology and lossy codecs as you? I'd bet, that the above companies see MQA as an advancement/opportunity in audiophile marketing.
> 
> 2. And yet, since you started posting on MQA (in other threads), you've quoted it's marketing psuedo-claims repeatedly and virtually verbatim. Are you saying that's just pure coincidence?
> 
> ...



================================================
...and as long as your technical understanding tells you that MQA
 can't possibly be any better than Redbook
(and that it is therefore and obviously a shameless money-grabbing scam - why can't everyone see that?????),
it may be coloring your perception of same. For example,scientific theory tells us that specialty USB cables, if properly constructed and
shielded, can't possibly give any audible/musical improvements....yet in revealing systems they certainly can.

Just saying that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not (almost) everyone else.


It seems to me that you and P revel in criticizing hires formats, in particular MQA as it is trying to get established now.

Just wondering why the two of you feel the need to persist in repeating your positions,
when this purpose of this thread has to do with sharing Masters tracks and albums that sound great and that
are particularly musically rewarding....compared to the available releases of same.


----------



## bfreedma

headfry said:


> ================================================
> ...and as long as your technical understanding tells you that MQA
> can't possibly be any better than Redbook
> (and that it is therefore and obviously only obviously a shameless money-grabbing scam - why can't everyone see that?????),
> ...



What evidence (aside from your opinion) can you provide to support the claim in bold?

I ask because none of the manufacturers of "audiophile" USB cables have been able to provide validated data supporting your claim.


----------



## Galm

bfreedma said:


> What evidence (aside from your opinion) can you provide to support the claim in bold?
> 
> I ask because none of the manufacturers of "audiophile" USB cables have been able to provide validated data supporting your claim.


From what I understand the cables shouldn't matter all that much (unless it's like literally constantly losing stuff).  The interpretation of the signal can be quite important though.  That's why stuff like the Schiit Wyrd can improve sound quality.  

I was somewhat surprised when I originally found out audio digital signals are clock dependent.  I feel like there should be a way to not have to really on a clock.


----------



## headfry (May 20, 2017)

What HiFi's summation of MQA:

https://www.whathifi.com/promoted/mqa-how-origami-delivers-true-sound-studio

Bob Ludwig, who is a recording mastering engineer and a legend in the industry, is amazed at the audible benefits of MQA
(and is not the only one, there are many others):




:


----------



## pinnahertz

headfry said:


> ================================================
> ...and as long as your technical understanding tells you that MQA
> can't possibly be any better than Redbook
> (and that it is therefore and obviously a shameless money-grabbing scam - why can't everyone see that?????),
> it may be coloring your perception of same.


Scientific, controlled testing _*eliminates bias*_.  I don't quite know why you can't seem to get that.


headfry said:


> For example,scientific theory tells us that specialty USB cables, if properly constructed and
> shielded, can't possibly give any audible/musical improvements....yet in revealing systems they certainly can.


No, no, no!  You don't get away with that one.  There is not a single shred of evidence to support that.  Just a lot of fully biased opinion.


headfry said:


> It seems to me that you and P revel in criticizing hires formats, in particular MQA as it is trying to get established now.


I am only critical of hi-res formats in that they offer nothing by way of audible improvement. 

MQA isn't a hi-res format, it's a compressed, bit-rate reduced container.


headfry said:


> Just wondering why the two of you feel the need to persist in repeating your positions,
> when this purpose of this thread has to do with sharing Masters tracks and albums that sound great and that
> are particularly musically rewarding....compared to the available releases of same.


Two reasons.  1. Repetition is valid form of emphasis leading to learning, something clearly needed here.  2. The comparisons are completely bogus in that the results, if positive, are always attributed to MQA rather than re-mastering.  Many comparisons involve analog tape masters which don't qualify even for red-book level res. 

You can have musically rewarding recordings that are neither hi-res, nor even technically good quality at all.  It's a completely isolated and unrelated subjective thing.


----------



## pinnahertz

headfry said:


> What HiFi's summation of MQA:


...and you accuse us of repetition????
The article is a mash-up of MQA marketing propaganda, that's all.


headfry said:


> Bob Ludwig, who is a recording mastering engineer and a legend in the industry, is amazed at the audible benefits of MQA
> (and is not the only one, there are many others)


Anybody actually know what they played him? Where'd they get it, how was it produced?  No, of course you don't.

Did you catch that he's mostly impressed by his spectrum analyzer showing spectrum up to 96kHz?  That statement alone is enough to erode credibility! 

"...turned the Nyquist-Shanon Theorem on it's head.." (no, it doesn't, and no, you can't do that)
He claims to have a spectrum analyzer in his studio he checks from time to time to "make sure everything is fine with the spectrum I'm dealing with".  Friends, there's absolutely no getting anything quantitative out of a spectrum analyzer running real time with audio displayed!  Nothing other than noting something radically wrong (like spectrum where there shouldn't be any).  It's a constantly moving display, and you don't have any idea what it is supposed to look like, so you can't tell if something is subtly wrong.  It's nonsense.  

"...we're playing back a 48kHz 24 bit file, and there's bandwidth on the spectrum analyzer up to 96kHz."  _And he doesn't recognize that is wrong?_  So, MQA creates distortion products and ultrasonic noise.   Yes, that IS a mind-blower.  

"...then you realize that 44.1 and 48K files are streamable, then that obviously makes it possible to stream the highest resolution digital in 44.1 and 48kHz streams..." 
Excuse me, but 44.1 and 48k files have been streamable without MQA for a while.  Adding ultrasonic noise to them via MQA doesn't improve resolution.   More to the point, there is no improving resolution of a digital file.  Up-sampling and adding 8 more bits worth of noise doesn't improve resolution (resolution: the ability of a digital system to replicate the original signal).

There's no point in going any further.  Ludwig has drunk the cool-aid. 

Oh, and of course, the video is produced by...wait for it...MQA!

Again, more marketing hype repetition.


----------



## headfry

...anyone else enjoying the Masters of Jethro Tull's  "A Passion Play". (1973)?


so underappreciated....if you love Tull.....this is perhaps his overall best album...
(along with Benefit IMHO).


....classic


----------



## pinnahertz

headfry said:


> ...anyone else enjoying the Masters of Jethro Tull's  "A Passion Play". (1973)?
> 
> 
> so underappreciated....if you love Tull.....this is perhaps his overall best album...
> ...


Tull... not a "him/his", they were a band.  "Their" would be appropriate.

Benefit was fairly rudimentary, frankly, interesting, but not their best IMHO, but a definite forward move from the two previous .  You've ignored their best selling and first concept album, "Aqualung", and the following cutting-edge "Thick As A Brick", which was their first to top US charts...a huge, long, virtually classical piece.  I have the 2014 release with several mixes, including a 5.1 surround.  Now that one is a clearly audible improvement, and would blow the doors of any stereo version, including MQA.

I personally never warmed up to "Passion..".


----------



## headfry (Jun 5, 2017)

While Aqualung and Thick as A Brick are definitely more accessible than Benefit or A Passion Play,
and while they are among Anderson's best works...

in my opinion:

Benefit - while somewhat uneven most songs are excellent - has a depth of expression and emotion
deeper than Benefit or Aqualung - a few lesser songs but the rest is fantastic including the song Inside
which may be my overall favourite recorded pop/rock song

A Passion Play - while the second half doesn't keep up with the first, the inventiveness, sophistication
and accomplishment blows the doors off of Aqualung and TAAB, which are excellent but not on the same level.
This album may require a few listenings before it makes sense, so it is less accessible musically, but once
appreciated is on a higher level IMHO.

To me Aqualung and TAAB are similar in music style, the song Aqualung for example would fit right in with
the songs on TAAB. But (the first half of) APP takes Tull to their greatest heights artistically and I think musically.

Good to see the posts being about music!


----------



## jagwap

headfry said:


> ================================================
> For example,scientific theory tells us that specialty USB cables, if properly constructed and
> shielded, can't possibly give any audible/musical improvements....yet in revealing systems they certainly can.
> 
> Just saying that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not (almost) everyone else.



Sorry but I have to agree with the others here.  USB cables cannot make a difference if they are not broken, unless...

They are causing electical interference between the products.  This is possible as usually computers are only built to pass CE and FCC regulations, and their power supplies are often quite capacitive to the primary causing circulating AC currents.  While DACs can be sensitive to the sort of crap a PC gives out.  Now forget posh USB cables, as they are random if they help this if at all. Get a fully galvanically isolated high speed USB adaptor and stop worrying. Also you may start getting taken more seriously by the grumpy old scrotes around here.


----------



## headfry

Steve Earle's new album So You Wannabe An Outlaw is excellent, check out the
first track - with Willie N!


Sounds great on Tidal Masters! Yes, the gritty distortion that appears at times
is intentional and part of the experience!

Superb!


----------



## JML (Jul 1, 2017)

Try Van Morrison, "Moondance."  I was very surprised at the differences between the MQA and other versions, including ripped cuts. With the Meridian Explorer2, it was even more noticeable.


----------



## headfry

- Dream Theater's "The Astonishing" sounds just that on Tidal decoded Masters - check out the first four tracks! I also have hires
24/96 downloads of same and the Tidal-decoded Masters may be even better! Really shows the benefit of MQA and great mastering and playing!


----------



## NobbyChad

L8MDL said:


> My position is that any improvement heard with MQA is expectation bias. I know of no certified test, using identical masters, to dispute that.


I have full MQA via Meridian dac, in my opinion there is a difference


----------



## NobbyChad

pinnahertz said:


> Oh, but it definitely is!  You've done absolutely nothing to eliminate expectation bias, so it's there in full force, and your expectation is that MQA is better.  You've quoted MQA marketing hype repeatedly, reinforcing your own expectation bias and sadly, that of others as well.
> 
> Don't try to spin this by referencing yourself and "many others" unless you plan to include the other "many others" who have not shared your experience.   You don't have any statistics of who hears what, do you?  Diminishing someone's personal observation and elevating your own does a disservice to everyone, and your own credibility takes a hit along the way.
> Nobody doubts that you believe you heard a difference.  The doubt is completely contained in *why* you heard a difference.


Expectation bias works both ways, you won't hear it if you don't want to.


----------



## pinnahertz

NobbyChad said:


> Expectation bias works both ways, you won't hear it if you don't want to.


Yes, of course, another reason it must be controlled if not eliminated.  You can't get real results with expectation bias at work.


----------



## goodvibes (Aug 15, 2017)

headfry said:


> the clean, natural sounding smoothness is something I heard right away - along with the blacker
> background and seeming removal of "haze" or "grain" - which allows the music to come through
> with greater density, textural detail and overall enjoyment. On well done MQA albums, which in my case often although not
> always seems to be the older albums e.g. from the 70's. David Crosby's "Croz' is a recent album
> ...


I think the problem is with overstating more than anything else. MQA is a lossy conversion of, usually, HiDef files. It can't be better than those and will, IMO, always be a little worse. Besides the lossy aspect, there is more precessing and buffers required for playback and there are no free lunches. It's not just lossy but VBR by design. I have always preferred CBR fo lossy but that would limit bit rate a bit too much for the purpose. It's probably unfair to draw that parallel because of the difference in application. Its best purpose is for streaming services like Tidal or portable players that don't have enough storage capability and may be great for that but I haven't tried. Problem is that for home systems that would be more able to appreciate any possible 16/44 flac vs HiDef MQA difference, storage is unlimited and cheap. You'd always be better off with the original HIDef wav file beause...

 With locally stored files of the exact same HiDef recordings, it's clearly not as good as the original file. I haven't tried it on Tidal because I prefer better than Tidal. May be perfect for that format if it sounds better than the 16/44 FLAC alternative but really, is it that big of a deal on the go? Those that may hear it better than the original wav file suffer from the Austrian Emperor syndrome of 'too many notes".


----------



## Basshead Paul (Aug 23, 2017)

I'm listening to Tidal's Master tracks with a Dragonfly Red, which now has MQA support after the firmware update, and I definitely hear an improvement in audio quality over the regular HiFi tracks on Tidal.

Here's how I know it's real: I wasn't aware that I was listening to MQA on my desktop PC only. It's just regular HiFi on my Android phone, because Tidal only offers the master tab on the desktop software. I heard a big difference in quality between my desktop and Android phone and it's been driving me crazy because I couldn't figure out why the quality is so much better on my desktop . I have been using the same Dragonfly Red for both.

To me, the difference is huge. This is the best sound quality I have ever heard in my life.


----------



## castleofargh

Basshead Paul said:


> I'm listening to Tidal's Master tracks with a Dragonfly Red, which now has MQA support after the firmware update, and I definitely hear an improvement in audio quality over the regular HiFi tracks on Tidal.
> 
> Here's how I know it's real: I wasn't aware that I was listening to MQA on my desktop PC only. It's just regular HiFi on my Android phone, because Tidal only offers the master tab on the desktop software. I heard a big difference in quality between my desktop and Android phone and it's been driving me crazy because I couldn't figure out why the quality is so much better on my desktop . I have been using the same Dragonfly Red for both.
> 
> To me, the difference is huge. This is the best sound quality I have ever heard in my life.


so 2 different sources feeding a usb powered DAC/amp. can I just suggest that one being a battery powered cellphone might be a tiny bit significant?


----------



## goodvibes

Bits are bits, LOL. Joking. 

I hope it dies and it probably will. All it does is confuse people with false promises. It's the new HDCD except it's lossy.


----------



## swspiers

I thought this was an appreciation thread, but the Group Think is derailing it.  Tempted to try MQA just to go against the grain...


----------



## DSNORD

I have spent the last 3 hours on Tidal A/B playing Master versions of various albums with and without MQA using Audirvana in exclusive/hog mode for the first unfold to my Schiit Yggy/Rag/KEF LS50 setup fed via AOIP from Dante/Mac Mini. These were also compared to my personal versions of each album stored as FLAC 16/44.1 on my NAS drive feeding the same set up.

I can detect ZERO significant differences among the three options with just a very slight edge leaning towards my personal storage approach.

So unless I'm major league missing something here, MQA is a bust to me and I can quit worrying about it at least in its present concoction. The MQA sonic ejaculation being rammed by the likes of the major mags just isn't there for me anymore than their DSD version wasn't there either. 16/44.1 through Yggy still hasn't been beat to these ears. I've got no bone in the fight. Audirvana can decode it or not for the same cost to me. In my set up there is no perceptible difference. I'm hard pressed to believe that an MQA approved DAC would magically add something with the next unfold if I perceive no benefit from the first.

Thoughts?


----------



## Left Channel

DSNORD said:


> I have spent the last 3 hours on Tidal A/B playing Master versions of various albums with and without MQA using Audirvana in exclusive/hog mode for the first unfold to my Schiit Yggy/Rag/KEF LS50 setup fed via AOIP from Dante/Mac Mini. These were also compared to my personal versions of each album stored as FLAC 16/44.1 on my NAS drive feeding the same set up.
> 
> I can detect ZERO significant differences among the three options with just a very slight edge leaning towards my personal storage approach.
> 
> ...


I have had a similar experience but am keeping an open mind until I've had a chance to hear 4x unfolding. The only time I can hear a difference in 1x software decoding is if the non-MQA file I'm comparing is of low quality. I've learned of a forthcoming reasonably priced MQA-capable DAC that would make a nice drop-in replacement for my modest Schiit stack, and will report back if and when I manage to purchase one.


----------



## captblaze

DSNORD said:


> I have spent the last 3 hours on Tidal A/B playing Master versions of various albums with and without MQA using Audirvana in exclusive/hog mode for the first unfold to my Schiit Yggy/Rag/KEF LS50 setup fed via AOIP from Dante/Mac Mini. These were also compared to my personal versions of each album stored as FLAC 16/44.1 on my NAS drive feeding the same set up.
> 
> I can detect ZERO significant differences among the three options with just a very slight edge leaning towards my personal storage approach.
> 
> Thoughts?



most seem to be focusing on absolute sound quality and my thought is what savings does MQA provide in terms of bandwidth while streaming? MQA is supposed to stuff 10 lbs. of music into a 5 lbs. sack and then unfold it and playback in hi res. does anyone have any facts pertaining to that? what percent is the decrease in bandwidth usage compared to the original file that was given the MQA treatment? Is it significant enough, or is it a marginal reduction that doesn't justify the additional cost?

Just wondering...


----------



## goodvibes

He answered that for you. Tidal MQA streams compressed higher def files at about the 16/44 FLAC bitrate he was comparing it to.


----------



## captblaze

goodvibes said:


> He answered that for you. Tidal MQA streams compressed higher def files at about the 16/44 FLAC bitrate he was comparing it to.



I'm interested in the savings in terms of network load, not what a 16 bit 44.1k file sounds like compared to a 24 bit 96k file. MQA is supposed to reduce bandwidth usage to allow higher resolution files to move in a smaller package than the original. then it is "unfolded" to reveal the higher resolution file.

So in reality, my interest is in something other than what it sounds like


----------



## castleofargh

look at MQA as a change in resolution instead of a compression format. the compression level is actually nothing special(mostly because about 2/3 of the signal is uncompressed PCM). what makes it hard to estimate is that container and music signal aren't at the same resolution. a 16/48 MQA isn't 16bit and isn't 48khz, 16/48 is only the container and tells you about the bandwidth. but the actual resolution of the music might be something like 12/96 which makes it hard to readily compare with flac or mp3 in terms of music resolution per kbit. we end up trying to compare apples and oranges. if you take the original PCM, then MQA simply discarded several bits. of course it's lighter that way because it's not the same.


----------



## captblaze

castleofargh said:


> look at MQA as a change in resolution instead of a compression format. the compression level is actually nothing special(mostly because about 2/3 of the signal is uncompressed PCM). what makes it hard to estimate is that container and music signal aren't at the same resolution. a 16/48 MQA isn't 16bit and isn't 48khz, 16/48 is only the container and tells you about the bandwidth. but the actual resolution of the music might be something like 12/96 which makes it hard to readily compare with flac or mp3 in terms of music resolution per kbit. we end up trying to compare apples and oranges. if you take the original PCM, then MQA simply discarded several bits. of course it's lighter that way because it's not the same.



thank you... I was thinking since FLAC has a variable it isn't easy to measure the actual change in bandwidth when comparing an MQA FLAC to a non MQA one


----------



## castleofargh (Aug 29, 2017)

I don't think we can make any global estimate, a comparison would need to be about a specific song, and would be somehow biased one way or the other. you won't have the option for something like 18/192 flac, and if you go for 24/192 flac, then you won't have 24/192 MQA (no matter the container because the lower bits of information are discarded by MQA). there is no way to do a fair 1 to 1 comparison.
IMO, if you think higher sample rate is the secret to better sound, then MQA seems like an OK compromise.
if you're about saving bandwidth, 16/44 PCM will be a little smaller than 16/48 mqa files. they don't contain the same signal but in terms of pure data rate, smaller container takes less space. so 16/44 is smaller and flac even more and aac even more.
 last, if you really are into getting the highest fidelity, then MQA isn't it as there is a systematical loss compared to the original PCM master. maybe sometimes the low pass filter sounds different, maybe as they claim it subjectively feels better, but the fact is, from a PCM file to a mqa file, some data is discarded. getting the original master in PCM is the way to get the highest fidelity. but that of course will never be bandwidth savvy.

in the end just like with any other format or codec, the user has to make some choices. we can't get the best of all worlds.


----------



## Sanlitun

I had found that MQA tracks on Tidal were pretty much indistinguishable from their HD Tracks counterparts when listening through the NAD M51 and the unfolding done by the Tidal player.

Listening through the Brooklyn is a bit of a different story, and I would say the tracks sound "nice" and how I would have expected DSD to sound before I actually heard it and was disappointed by it.

Some MQA tracks are certainly much better than others, and when MQA is good there certainly seems to be a subjective effect.

For me it's all been great, as I had Tidal anyways and their enabling of MQA has been a bonus. I don't think I would go out and buy expensive equipment just for MQA, that money may be better spent elsewhere in your audio chain.


----------



## peterinvan (Aug 29, 2017)

STUTTERING ON MASTER

Over the past few months I have been experiencing an intermittent stuttering problem streaming Tidal MASTERs (and occasionally HIFI).  Tidal support suggested changing my DNS settings to the Google global DNS.  This made no difference.

So I was pleased to find that today, most of the stuttering issue seems to have died down.

No changes to my setup:  15Mb/s Ethernet/IP connection > Windows Tidal App on PC > iPurifier > iUSB > Kef LS50W
Windows Tidal Version: 2.1.10.314 (W: 2.3.6--8) (NP: 2.4.2)

Tested the following MASTER albums with no stuttering problem:

Mark Knofler _Shangri-La_
Grateful Dead _American Beauty_
Joni Mitchell _Blue  (one short skip)_
Patricia Barber_ A Distortion of Love (hung on second and eighth tracks)_
Ben Webster_ (...Meets Oscar Peterson)_

Rats...

Madeleine Peyroux_ (Hello Babe) STUTTERING AGAIN _
When it stutters or hangs, I have to click fast-forward.  Apart from these issues, I am enjoying sweet sound!

Note: no stuttering problems at all using the MacOS Tidal app.


----------



## Basshead Paul (Aug 29, 2017)

For those saying MQA is lossy:

You are technically correct, but the only difference is an improvement in sound quality. Let me explain. For every MQA album released, information about the original recording equipment is stored in the file. They do this so they can correct known problems with the equipment when it's processed through an MQA enabled dac. That means the resulting file will technically not be the same as the originally recorded and released song. That technically means it's lossy, by definition, but it's not lossy in the way most people understand the term.

It's wonderful how much it improves the sound quality, especially for older albums. But, you've got to have an MQA enabled dac to really hear an improvement. Otherwise, it'll sound the same as the hd counterpart file with a smaller file size (which is a good thing)


----------



## pinnahertz

Basshead Paul said:


> For those saying MQA is lossy:
> 
> You are technically correct, but the only difference is an improvement in sound quality. Let me explain. For every MQA album released, information about the original recording equipment is stored in the file. They do this so they can correct known problems with the equipment when it's processed through an MQA enabled dac. That means the resulting file will technically not be the same as the originally recorded and released song. That technically means it's lossy, by definition, but it's not lossy in the way most people understand the term.
> 
> It's wonderful how much it improves the sound quality, especially for older albums. But, you've got to have an MQA enabled dac to really hear an improvement. Otherwise, it'll sound the same as the hd counterpart file with a smaller file size (which is a good thing)


Actually no, that's the MQA coolaid again. There is no information about the recording equipment stored in am MAQ file because that information is not available or even fully known.  There is no way to characterize the temporal response of a composite system from a bit of audio recorded with it.

You've also blended two different MQA "features", the "temporal blurring correction" and the lossy codec. They are not the same thing.  The "temporal blurring correction" is nonsense because it's not possible to know what to correct for in the entire chain.  Their lossy codec is good, but no better than many others. 

Any audible improvements in an MQA file are likely the result of remastering, and would be audible equally with any DAC, lossless or mildly lossy codec.


----------



## Basshead Paul (Aug 29, 2017)

pinnahertz said:


> Actually no, that's the MQA coolaid again. There is no information about the recording equipment stored in am MAQ file because that information is not available or even fully known.  There is no way to characterize the temporal response of a composite system from a bit of audio recorded with it.
> 
> You've also blended two different MQA "features", the "temporal blurring correction" and the lossy codec. They are not the same thing.  The "temporal blurring correction" is nonsense because it's not possible to know what to correct for in the entire chain.  Their lossy codec is good, but no better than many others.
> 
> Any audible improvements in an MQA file are likely the result of remastering, and would be audible equally with any DAC, lossless or mildly lossy codec.



Quick question: have you ever tried listening to MQA files through an MQA enabled dac? I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'm just wondering.

The equipment used for almost all recordings is archived and accessible by contacting the producer. MQA gets the artist, producer, etc to sign off on the MQA album before releasing it, so the information could be obtained at that point.

In any case, I notice that most naysayers have never tried actually listening to MQA files *through an mqa enabled dac. *The temporal deblurring isn't present unless you listen that way. The audio quality is noticeably better when I listen that way. It's not subtle.


----------



## pinnahertz

Basshead Paul said:


> Quick question: have you ever tried listening to MQA files through an MQA enabled dac? I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'm just wondering.



Before I answer that quick question, I would ask this two-part question to you:

Part 1: In your comparisons between MQA and non-MQA, were those comparisons done double-blind with all biases accounted for?
Part 2: When making those comparisons, did you confirm that the MQA versions originated from the same masters as the non-MQA versions with no re-mastering or any other differences?

I already know the answer to part 2, because there have been no MQA releases with provenance verified by a third party that confirm this condition.   And I strongly suspect I know the answer to Part 1 too.

Now, given the situation that there has been no proof that MQA does anything at all to improve the sound of any recording (and marketing is not proof), then I don't really see why I would invest in any MQA equipment.  Proof is easy, and if it's that big an "improvement", it should be really, really easy.  Yet, there remains none.


Basshead Paul said:


> The equipment used for almost all recordings is archived and accessible by contacting the producer. MQA gets the artist, producer, etc to sign off on the MQA album before releasing it, so the information could be obtained at that point.


This issue has been addressed before.  It's simply not true that there is equipment info for anything but a very tiny group of recordings.  But there's a problem there too.  You might generate an equipment list for a recording that might even be complete.  Heck, I can do that for any recording I've ever engineered or produced.  But what I can't tell you, and what nobody can tell you is how that gear was used or adjusted.  Every equalizer has a temporal response, and every adjustable control of every equalizer changes it. The number of passes the signal went through A/D then D/A conversion, including a filter at each step, is unknown, especially with earlier recordings where even though digital recorders were used, mixing, mastering and effects required D/A  then A/D who knows how many times and through what filters. Every A/D and D/A has a filter, and they are not all the same.  Passing through multiple conversions compounds temporal responses of each. And, speaking as someone in the industry, I can tell you there are no records for this other than distant and fading memories.  And we aren't even including the response, both amplitude and temporal, of the monitoring systems used on which the mixes were built in the first place.  Why would you want to correct for something that was already considered in the final mix?

The entire scheme is bollox.  And, as with every aspect of MQA, there has been no verified third party proof.  Why?  We can't get our mitts on the encoding process!  So we can't test the whole MQA chain for audibility. 


Basshead Paul said:


> In any case, I notice that most naysayers have never tried actually listening to MQA files *through an mqa enabled dac. *The temporal deblurring isn't present unless you listen that way.


Sorry to inform, but temporal deblurring isn't present that way either because the degree required is unknown.  In fact, "de-blurring" is a term made up by MQA that exists nowhere else in the audio industry.  And it's well coined for the purpose, incorporating a strong negative connotation without any actual substantiation like a well constructed technical paper, for instance. 


Basshead Paul said:


> The audio quality is noticeably better when I listen that way. It's not subtle.


I recognize you think you hear a difference.  I recognized there may actually be a difference.  There's no way I, you, or anyone so far can prove it has anything to do with any specific MQA process.   But until someone can pull of a controlled ABX/DBT and show a reliable audible difference (we can discuss later if it's an improvement or not), there's no reason to attribute any audible differences to any part of MQA.

Now to answer your question, I don't own any MQA enabled gear.  The MQA enabled auditions I've heard have been inconclusive.


----------



## castleofargh

Basshead Paul said:


> For those saying MQA is lossy:
> 
> You are technically correct, but the only difference is an improvement in sound quality. Let me explain. For every MQA album released, information about the original recording equipment is stored in the file. They do this so they can correct known problems with the equipment when it's processed through an MQA enabled dac. That means the resulting file will technically not be the same as the originally recorded and released song. That technically means it's lossy, by definition, but it's not lossy in the way most people understand the term.
> 
> It's wonderful how much it improves the sound quality, especially for older albums. But, you've got to have an MQA enabled dac to really hear an improvement. Otherwise, it'll sound the same as the hd counterpart file with a smaller file size (which is a good thing)


you're talking about an album made almost from scratch processed for that issue before it was mixed or anything, as that's the only moment where such treatment could be done effectively. so first you're wrong about where this is applied if applied at all. the original tracks(tracks, not songs) would need to be processed one by one, then mixed, mastered and released as MQA. everything done long before it reaches the DAC. but do you see the amount of technical and artistic work required? if that's how all MQA file was born, the actual catalog would hardly be reaching even a hundred songs right now. not the 30000 or more claimed by Warner alone. they went from discussing the thing to having that many files in almost no time. which makes it obvious how they batch processed the all thing. 
 I'm far from being the all seeing eye, but I have seen no evidence that this was done, only that it's one of the multitude of stuff they said they could at some point decide to do if their dreams of imposing MQA into every part of the music industry was to come true(plz no!). I've seen them announcing like 2 such albums so far, recorded for MQA from scratch, but that's also different as they might just encode the way they like instead of trying to correct another DAC using a usual band limiting they call wrong. so don't expect your MQA library to be made that way. it's not. 


as for lossy format, it has to do strictly with the encoding/decoding fo the format. if you take a signal, convert it to MQA and then extract it back, you will not get the original signal. => it's a lossy format.  
and that lossy effect has nothing to do with anti ringing filters or correcting self proclaimed flaws in the production process, it's purely due to the method to store part of the information for the ultrasonic content. 
it's a definition, in no way does it quantify fidelity of a playback system or even the amount of loss within the format conversion. you can take a 24/192 file, turn it into 8bit/22khz PCM if you like, then encode it into FLAC and send that after extraction to the DAC using asio or wasapi, run a nonsense low pass filter in the DAC and gazillion factors of oversampling, cripple it with noise in the amp, drown anything below -50dB with THD and alter the signature by up to 20dB with the headphone, and still say that you're using a bit perfect system and a lossless format. ^_^ that would technically be right. 
people decide to associate a heavy load of psychological ideas to certain terms, but those terms define very specific areas in a very specific way. they're not "feel good" words. I personally dislike or disagree with much of what MQA stands for, but that lossy format thing isn't one of them.


----------



## gregorio

Basshead Paul said:


> [1] For every MQA album released, information about the original recording equipment is stored in the file. [2] They do this so they can correct known problems with the equipment when it's processed through an MQA enabled dac. [3] That means the resulting file will technically not be the same as the originally recorded and released song. That technically means it's lossy, by definition, but it's not lossy in the way most people understand the term.
> [4] The equipment used for almost all recordings is archived and accessible by contacting the producer. [5] MQA gets the artist, producer, etc to sign off on the MQA album before releasing it, so the information could be obtained at that point.



1. No it's not!
2. Which is completely irrelevant because the known problems of the equipment is completely insignificant compared to how that equipment was actually used. Take for example microphones, which MQA states it can correct for: The timing imperfections or "temporal blurring" of the mic itself is irrelevant, how the mics are positioned relative to the source and the other mics makes hundreds of times more difference than the timing imperfection of the mics themselves and more than a hundred times more difference than anything the ADC or DAC do to the timing! When it comes to mixing, if I hear a timing imperfection I will choose to correct it manually or deliberately leave it as it is because I find it artistically more pleasing, the very last thing I want is for a codec to come along and apply a correction to something that I've already corrected or specifically do not want corrected!!!
3. No! *By definition* and taking the previous point into consideration, what that technically means is low/poor fidelity, it has nothing to do with being lossy. MQA is lossy for an entirely different reason, because it looses data during encoding which cannot be perfectly recovered upon decoding.
4. Now you're just making stuff up! The equipment used is hardly ever archived and on those rare occasions when it is, the producer wouldn't have that information, the various studios involved would. However, as mentioned, the equipment is irrelevant, how it was used is what's important and that is NOT archived, MQA couldn't do anything with that data even if it were and even if MQA did have that data and were able to use it for correction, that's just about the very last thing I as an engineer would want! This also highlights another MQA lie, that MQA allows you to hear it how the studio/artists heard/intended it. What I and the artists heard in the studio was the mix which included all these supposed timing errors (temporal blurring), if MQA comes along and supposedly corrects all those supposed timing errors then by definition it is deliberately is not reproducing what I and the artists heard in the studio. These two claims are mutually exclusive, at least one of them MUST be a lie!
5. No, that's just something else you've made up (or been mislead to believe). MQA just gets the recording right's holder to sign off on the album, which in the vast majority of cases would be the record label. The artists, producer and engineers are not even consulted, let alone have any say in the matter and they wouldn't have the relevant information anyway.

You are falling for the typical audiophile marketing ploy; focus on an irrelevant detail, make it seem important while ignoring the elephant in the room and then promise to fix that irrelevant detail. It's like promising to fix a paint imperfection on the trunk of a car which is only visible under laboratory lighting and ignoring the fact that the front of the car is completely wrecked from a head on collision with a truck!

G


----------



## old tech

pinnahertz said:


> And we aren't even including the response, both amplitude and temporal, of the monitoring systems used on which the mixes were built in the first place.  Why would you want to correct for something that was already considered in the final mix.


Ahh, temporal blurring.  A marketing concept that has no basis in audio engineering. A term designed for the gullible section of the audiophile world who have no understanding of music recording, distribution or playback.  Not the first time a science sounding marketing idea has been used for this purpose and it wont be the last either.


----------



## old tech

Basshead Paul said:


> Quick question: have you ever tried listening to MQA files through an MQA enabled dac? I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'm just wondering.
> 
> The equipment used for almost all recordings is archived and accessible by contacting the producer. MQA gets the artist, producer, etc to sign off on the MQA album before releasing it, so the information could be obtained at that point.
> 
> In any case, I notice that most naysayers have never tried actually listening to MQA files *through an mqa enabled dac. *The temporal deblurring isn't present unless you listen that way. The audio quality is noticeably better when I listen that way. It's not subtle.


Perhaps you should consider participating in this blind test.
https://archimago.blogspot.com.au/2017/07/internet-blind-test-mqa-core-decoding.html


----------



## goodvibes (Aug 30, 2017)

Well, you can objectively see the MQA file isn't bit perfect. You are arguing perception is not valid then offering a perception test. The test is fine at face value but why FLAC and not the wav file that the MQA was made from? Even the lossless compression from the download sites could be questioned. The reason some companies don't offer MQA is because they have gone to Meridian with their own master files, tested and noticed loss. 

To me it's not about whether MQA is as good or better than the uncompressed formats. It isn't. It's whether it's good enough to benefit services like Tidal which is bit rate limited. Problem is that it's much ado for something like that and raising the price of any dedicated kit that uses it. That and Meridian is demanding a look at proprietary aspects of competitor's equipment that would use it. Completely unnecessary. 

I have never gotten the best result for evaluating anything via a PC and USB DAC. Fine if that's what you got and want to listen to music which is what it's all about but it's a weak link in any subjective comparison. That's subjective, LOL.


----------



## audiobill

Peter from Lumin recently compiled this list of Tidal MQA albums, currently showing over 3300 titles.


----------



## old tech (Aug 30, 2017)

^Just on the issue of the marketing term "temporal smears", my broad understanding of this is that MQA claims to reduce or eliminate timing errors in AD/DA conversions in the production chain.

As these timing errors are so small, even with early 80s convertors and beyond the capability of our ears to hear it what is the big deal?  But a bigger issue is that most of the MQA offerings as listed in the link from the member in the post above this, are recordings made on analog tape recorders.  With the article below as an example (see under "The Reel Thing"), it is well understood that timing errors from the tape recorder, the tape and the tape to tape head contact is by orders of magnitude far greater than from any ADC or DAC.  So how does MQA deal with those far more significant temporal smears?

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/analogue-warmth


----------



## pinnahertz

goodvibes said:


> The reason some companies don't offer MQA is because they have gone to Meridian with their own master files, tested and noticed loss.


Do you have proof of this statement, a quote, or a link to a "story" somewhere?


----------



## pinnahertz

audiobill said:


> Peter from Lumin recently compiled this list of Tidal MQA albums, currently showing over 3300 titles.


Ah, so they're closing in on something like <.5% then.

Noise in the stats.


----------



## audiobill

pinnahertz said:


> Ah, so they're closing in on something like <.5% then.
> 
> Noise in the stats.


My reason for sharing that list was simply to show that there are significantly more MQA albums on Tidal than the several hundred currently shown in their Masters tab. Sorry the conversion isn't happening faster but at least there's some progress being made and I thought it would be of interest to readers of this thread. Happy listening to all in whatever format you prefer, it's all about the music!


----------



## Basshead Paul (Aug 30, 2017)

old tech said:


> Perhaps you should consider participating in this blind test.
> https://archimago.blogspot.com.au/2017/07/internet-blind-test-mqa-core-decoding.html



It isn't possible to do a blind test of MQA that way. Core decoding is only possible if you're listening through an MQA dac.

As a result, that test is only comparing MQA files which have been unfolded once, through the software decoding part. The files won't sound much different than normal hi res files at that point. They'll just be smaller in file size, which can still be useful.


----------



## castleofargh

pinnahertz said:


> Do you have proof of this statement, a quote, or a link to a "story" somewhere?


I guess he's refering to the Highresaudio website who played turncoat a few times. they supported MQA, then said they would stop because after some personal tests they noticed variations and said they wouldn't support something that isn't lossless. and now I believe they're supporting MQA again. 
so maybe not the most convincing voice in the crowd. 





to my mischievous crew of Sound Science: it's an appreciation thread! try to limit your answers to correcting technical mistakes, and leave the anti MQA arguments outside of it. it's annoying when people turn a sound science post into an appreciation thread, let's not do the opposite here.


----------



## Basshead Paul (Aug 30, 2017)

I discovered a reason why MQA might be sounding so much better to me. It might not be due to the temporal deblurring, so you guys could be right.

Basically, it sounds better to me because I'm using a Dragonfly Red. Normally, a DFR maxes out at 24/96.  But that limit is placed artificially on incoming files to make the DFR more compatible... No need to install drivers, etc. The Dragonfly Red can output much higher resolutions if it's playing MQA files, because the incoming MQA is under the 96/24 limit, but can be unfolded inside the dac to higher resolutions.

So, basically, I'm listening to much higher resolutions than before when I'm listening to MQA files on Tidal.

That's useful in its own right, but I am starting to believe you guys about temporal blurring. Maybe that's not why it sounds better after all.

I suppose temporal blurring could be helping the sound quality too, along with the increased resolution. It can't hurt to fix timing issues.


----------



## pinnahertz

Basshead Paul said:


> I discovered a reason why MQA might be sounding so much better to me. It might not be due to the temporal deblurring, so you guys could be right.
> 
> Basically, it sounds better to me because I'm using a Dragonfly Red. Normally, a DFR maxes out at 24/96.  But that limit is placed artificially on incoming files to make the DFR more compatible... No need to install drivers, etc. The Dragonfly Red can output much higher resolutions if it's playing MQA files, because the incoming MQA is under the 96/24 limit, but can be unfolded inside the dac to higher resolutions.
> 
> ...


But you're still listening to different masters. There's no evidence that higher "resolution" is audible, but remastering absolutely is.  There's still no valid testing going on here because of the lack of verification that identical masters were used.


----------



## NobbyChad

pinnahertz said:


> But you're still listening to different masters. There's no evidence that higher "resolution" is audible, but remastering absolutely is.  There's still no valid testing going on here because of the lack of verification that identical masters were used.


Does it matter if it sounds better?


----------



## old tech (Aug 30, 2017)

Basshead Paul said:


> It isn't possible to do a blind test of MQA that way. Core decoding is only possible if you're listening through an MQA dac.
> 
> As a result, that test is only comparing MQA files which have been unfolded once, through the software decoding part. The files won't sound much different than normal hi res files at that point. They'll just be smaller in file size, which can still be useful.


As Gregorio replied to a similar comment in another thread  "He is using the MQA core to decode the MQA file, the same as an "actual MQA enabled DAC" would! He's then used a filter to render the file along the lines specified by MQA. All the "de-blurring" marketing MQA have touted about should be just as audible in this test as it would be using an MQA DAC or the TIDAL (MQA core) software. And lastly, MQA states that even un-decoded the MQA file will sound better!"

I'd be interested in seeing the results from Archimago's tests.  If you look at some of his earlier blogs on that site, he has also done some individual tests using MQA enabled DACs.

Are any of these tests perfect?  No, but given that Meridian do not make perfect testing easy, they are miles ahead of the alternative sighted impressions we are getting in this thread.


----------



## pinnahertz

NobbyChad said:


> Does it matter if it sounds better?


Yes.  If it sounds better just because of remastering, and MQA has no impact, then we don't need MQA at all, and it has no real value to anyone other than it's creators.  No licensing fees, no special hardware/software, etc., etc.


----------



## NobbyChad

pinnahertz said:


> Yes.  If it sounds better just because of remastering, and MQA has no impact, then we don't need MQA at all, and it has no real value to anyone other than it's creators.  No licensing fees, no special hardware/software, etc., etc.


At the moment the experiment re using tidal masters streaming is working well for me, its main use appears to be to reduce bandwidth needs of the provider and the user (me), seems to work well IMO.


----------



## tjw321

NobbyChad said:


> At the moment the experiment re using tidal masters streaming is working well for me, its main use appears to be to reduce bandwidth needs of the provider and the user (me), seems to work well IMO.


If I understand it correctly, it uses 50% more bandwidth than 16/44 FLAC (or 16/48) because it uses an extra 8-bits per sample to encode the unfolding data. If you don't unfold at all, it uses 50% more data and adds a little noise to what would have been red-book(ish), if you unfold once, it saves about 30%. So, if you are content with red-book, it actually wastes bandwidth. But please correct me if I've got it wrong.


----------



## NobbyChad

tjw321 said:


> If I understand it correctly, it uses 50% more bandwidth than 16/44 FLAC (or 16/48) because it uses an extra 8-bits per sample to encode the unfolding data. If you don't unfold at all, it uses 50% more data and adds a little noise to what would have been red-book(ish), if you unfold once, it saves about 30%. So, if you are content with red-book, it actually wastes bandwidth. But please correct me if I've got it wrong.


I have no idea, i get better sound with less drop outs.


----------



## Consequential (Oct 10, 2017)

Hi all,

Please excuse this question if it's considered a bad question...


Can you please tell me if this means my receiver is outputting correct/full/proper masters quality?

Configuration:

1. PC with Tidal desktop app
2. Tidal is set to Masters
3. PC is connected to Denon 6200w receiver using optical cable
4. PC's optical out is set to use 24bit - 96000hz (Studio Quality) within PC's "Sound" settings
5. When playing a masters track from within tidal I see the following information output on screen from receiver

"Sound mode = Stereo"
"Input Signal = PCM"
"Sample Rate = 96khz"


NOTES:

1. The 6200w does not have MQA decoding built in.
2. Before I setup the PC's optical output as above, by default it was set to 16-bit 44100 hz (CD Quality) and when playing a masters track the receiver showed 44,1 khz via pcm
3. Tidal reported within the desktop app that in both cases the track being played was output as Masters (regardless of optical sound quality selected)

Thanks very much!


----------



## Left Channel

Consequential said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Please excuse this question if it's considered a bad question...
> 
> ...



Your setup looks fine. The Tidal app is doing software decoding: 1x unfolding and 24/96. Adding an MQA DAC would get you hardware decoding up to 4x and 24/192. Personally I'm not certain I hear a difference between the two levels on my current setup, but will continue to compare.


----------



## Ray Schoepfer

I've read this thread, from the beginning, because I was looking for more suggestions of Tidal Masters to try out.  There were very few and an awful lot of talk about why MQA does or does not work.  At first I thought I'd take the high road and add info on Masters that I like and why but I find myself having to put my two cents worth on the MQA debate.



pinnahertz said:


> Yes. If it sounds better just because of remastering, and MQA has no impact, then we don't need MQA at all, and it has no real value to anyone other than it's creators. No licensing fees, no special hardware/software, etc., etc.


.

From the start, the fellow above has asserted that all MQtA Tidal releases are remastered.  Not sure if the "temporal deblurring" that the MQA company says is part of the MQA process, qualifies as remastering?  If so, then absolutely, all MQA files are remastered, on purpose.

If, on the other hand, the "deblurring" does not constitute remastering, then I find it very hard to believe that all the Masters that I have been listening to were remastered.  

First off, what I'm listening with:
Quad 57 ESLs on 24" stands, properly located in a dedicated listening room (can't listen to headphones)
Mark Levinsons ML2 mono blocks (originally built for the Quads)
Homebrew passive gain control
Meridian Explorer2 (MQA DAC)
Old windows laptop
Custom built power conditioning
Proper (but not stupid expensive) cabling throughout
I have significant analogue equipment and other DACs but not worth mentioning for this discussion

Also, I have a little over 50 years experience in hifi with a few years in high end retailing (many years ago).  My music interests lie mostly in classical, jazz and classic rock but I appreciate any music where the artist is in it for the joy of creating outstanding music.

Back to my theory as to why it seems impossible that I'm listening to all remastered files.

I tired the Maria Calls Tosca (opera).  This is the one with her on the cover, not the older one.  It is an MQA and I've listened to it a number of times on my system as well as three other systems that did not have MQA DACS.  It sounds stunning on all DACs but particularly good over the Meridian Explorer2.  

When I look at the MQA records currently available for Maria Callas in count 62 !!!!!!   Is someone trying to tell me that the record company spent the money to remaster  62 opera recordings, from one artist. Only I, along with a handful of others, in the whole world, listen to opera. (Curious how many reading these posts listen to much opera?).

The idea that these are all remastered makes NO SENSE.


----------



## pinnahertz

Ray Schoepfer said:


> I've read this thread, from the beginning, because I was looking for more suggestions of Tidal Masters to try out.  There were very few and an awful lot of talk about why MQA does or does not work.  At first I thought I'd take the high road and add info on Masters that I like and why but I find myself having to put my two cents worth on the MQA debate.
> 
> .
> 
> ...


All MQA releases must be remastered just for their "de-blurring" process.  The concept of remastering involves going back to some final master from the record company and creating a new release version.  There's simply no other way to insert that process.  What we don't know is what else may be done besides deblurring, and those opportunities abound, from a simple level change to EQ to...well, the possibilities are limitless.  The obvious motive is to create a better version, or there's simply no point.  We don't know at all what is done, but MQA would have us assume it's their magic process.  However, it's the complete lack of provenance that casts doubt over the value of the deblurring process vs every other common, usual and normal process involved in remastering.  

Add to that the typical fully sighted (biased) comparisons, and you've got the problem in a nutshell:  No proof of the efficacy of MQA.  That, then, is reinforced by the complete lack of effort on the part of MQA to supply real scientific backing (including proper testing), the unavailability of the encoding process for independent evaluation, and the preponderance of marketing propaganda. 

If the MQA process were, in fact, all that fantastic, it would be very, very easy to prove.  Yet, there remains no proof, only opinion and hype.


----------



## Ray Schoepfer

Ok, GREAT.

We've established that all MQA is remastered.

How long do think it would take to remaster 61, 2hr long albums.  I always thought that remastering was something that a talented person spent lot of time on.

Anyway, how long to remaster 61, 2hr long albums (122 hrs of music - the equivalent of about 160 pop albums).  Anyone out there that knows the answer, please chime in here.


----------



## castleofargh

the all "mastered for itune" was often just a level adjustment to limit the risks of inter sample clipping on lossy format. so yeah even batch processing could count as remastered. but of course it could also be so much more.


----------



## pinnahertz

Ray Schoepfer said:


> Ok, GREAT.
> 
> We've established that all MQA is remastered.
> 
> ...


It all depends on how much is done in mastering.  I could be anything from a batch process to listening and adjusting each individual track.  Adjusting each track is typical for the original mastering process, as the goal of mastering is to enhance or bring out the creative goal of the track while helping it to stay in context with the rest of the tracks, and finally, to make the whole thing "competitive" in the market place.  

The point is, nobody knows specifically what is done, and since there are many opportunities for subjective "improvement" in mastering (it's kind of the whole point), there is a strong possibility that some of those were taken, since the goal is a different sounding product.  

One thing we know for sure about remastering is, the details of what was done are hardly ever published, and what is published is usually incomplete.


----------



## NobbyChad

pinnahertz said:


> Before I answer that quick question, I would ask this two-part question to you:
> 
> Part 1: In your comparisons between MQA and non-MQA, were those comparisons done double-blind with all biases accounted for?
> Part 2: When making those comparisons, did you confirm that the MQA versions originated from the same masters as the non-MQA versions with no re-mastering or any other differences?
> ...


----------



## NobbyChad

I am reading lots of threads from people who seem to be debunking MQA, some who have never actually tried it.  I have an MQA Explorer2 and the sound is, to my ears much better. Some my ask why as there is no scientific proof. There is no scientific proof that a $100 bottle of wine tastes better than a $10 bottle, it just does, some things are like that, recorded music is one of them.


----------



## pinnahertz

NobbyChad said:


> There is no scientific proof that a $100 bottle of wine tastes better than a $10 bottle,  it just does...


But it doesn't...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_wine_tasting

See the Price section. 



NobbyChad said:


> ...some things are like that, recorded music is one of them.


Again, nope. Not recorded music, nor the method of storage and retrieval, nor the equipment it's played on.  Once you remove the expectation bias, most of the "differences" vanish completely.


----------



## Ray Schoepfer

pinnahertz said:


> Once you remove the expectation bias, most of the "differences" vanish completely.



I have just gone through an episode that involves "expectation bias".

I visited a friend of mine, that is also interested in high end.  The purpose of the visit was to test out the idea that MQA makes various digital hardware sound similar.  During some emails prior to my visit, he stated a number of times that, while digital is interesting, ultimately, non of the digital sounds as good as vinyl.  He absolutely know this to be true.

When I arrived with my Explorer2 in tow to compare to his Bluesound with MQA, he had a selection of same music ready in CD, SACD, Tidal (for the MQA) and Vinyl.  He was going to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that vinyl still offers the best sound.

None of the tests were scientific in any way.  As is usually the case, there was no way of confirming that the same masters were being used and level matching was done at an ad hoc level.

After a lot of listening to various mediums, it became clear to me that while, on the material that we used, MQA, often sounded better, although not always the case.  Sometimes, some aspects of the music seemed better on vinyl, CD, or SACD.  I think that, ultimately, the MQA sounded the best, most of the time but not always (this could have been due to masters but that is not what I'm trying to uncover here).

The interesting thing about this session was that my friend, that had repeatedly pronounced that vinyl is absolutely superior, said, without any prompting, that vinyl was not superior in most situations.  BTW, I also used to think that nothing could beat vinyl until I put a proper digital system together.

So much for "expectation bias"!!!!!

Sure, there is expectation bias, but only when, in the case of audio, poor music is used with sloppy systems.  But when you use truly. well recorded music, with natural instruments (assuming the listener knows the sound of natural instruments, of course) on a system that was carefully assembled and set up, the true sound becomes very apparent.

Oh yes, my goal of uncovering that MQA hardware sounded similar.  No, there were lots of significant differences between the Explorer and the Bluesound.  Guess this means I have to look really good MQA DAC


----------



## pinnahertz

The following are examples of expectation bias, numbered:


Ray Schoepfer said:


> 1.Sure, there is expectation bias, but only when, in the case of audio, poor music is used with sloppy systems.
> 
> 2. But when you use truly. well recorded music, with natural instruments (assuming the listener knows the sound of natural instruments, of course) on a system that was carefully assembled and set up, the true sound becomes very apparent.
> 
> ...



Each could stand alone.


----------



## rgs9200m (Nov 15, 2017)

MQA on Tidal sounds like it has bloated bass and some shout. The HiFi setting is the best for me [as it has been since I've had Tidal (for about 2 years now)]. It's more coherent and even-handed to my ears.
Just my impression (using a Chord Hugo TT and various headphones from ZMF/Audeze/Grado).


----------



## Dacat

Why can’t software or a music server decode the entire MQA file? It would seem that each DAC needs ‘certification’, but what really does that mean? There are so many variables in DAC design, I’d say there isn’t anything really clever being done by the DAC itself, or am I wrong here? Seems like a huge investment for a small green ‘authenticated’ light to illuminate. The entire thing reeks, IMO.


----------



## castleofargh

Dacat said:


> Why can’t software or a music server decode the entire MQA file? It would seem that each DAC needs ‘certification’, but what really does that mean? There are so many variables in DAC design, I’d say there isn’t anything really clever being done by the DAC itself, or am I wrong here? Seems like a huge investment for a small green ‘authenticated’ light to illuminate. The entire thing reeks, IMO.


MQA is clearly trying to get money from all possible positions in the playback chain. clever or bad, to each his opinion. now technically, one of MQA's arguments about temporal blur blablah involves a specif reconstruction filter(I don't remember the patent exactly but something like oversampling X2 and apodizing Meridian stuff, and maybe even doing some of the origami stuff in the DAC instead of the computer). if they don't have some control over the DAC, then they cannot get all the allegedly better stuff up exactly the way they want it.
 there is plenty of arguable stuff elsewhere, but the DAC was an element of the MQA process from the start.


----------



## saddleup

The fact that this thread doesn't get much action gives me hope.


----------



## RiseFall123

Considering Roon as source and a non-mqa dac, its better to play the non-mqa version of the song or the mqa converted for a non-mqa dac?


----------



## Left Channel

RiseFall123 said:


> Considering Roon as source and a non-mqa dac, its better to play the non-mqa version of the song or the mqa converted for a non-mqa dac?



You'll have to listen and decide for yourself. You may find that you like some tracks in MQA and some in non-MQA. 

The 1x software decoding in Tidal should be enough to help you decide. No need for an MQA DAC yet, if ever.


----------



## DarwinOSX

rgs9200m said:


> MQA on Tidal sounds like it has bloated bass and some shout. The HiFi setting is the best for me [as it has been since I've had Tidal (for about 2 years now)]. It's more coherent and even-handed to my ears.
> Just my impression (using a Chord Hugo TT and various headphones from ZMF/Audeze/Grado).




The Chord Hugo is not an MQA Dac so I assume you were using the first unfold in software by Tidal and did not get the 2nd and 3rd unfold.


----------



## DarwinOSX

Left Channel said:


> You'll have to listen and decide for yourself. You may find that you like some tracks in MQA and some in non-MQA.
> 
> The 1x software decoding in Tidal should be enough to help you decide. No need for an MQA DAC yet, if ever.



Have you tried a full MQA Dac.  It matters if you want the full MQA experience.  I have listened to alot of Tidal MQA doing the full unfold on several MQA Dac's with Tidal doing none of it.


----------



## Left Channel

DarwinOSX said:


> Have you tried a full MQA Dac.  It matters if you want the full MQA experience.  I have listened to alot of Tidal MQA doing the full unfold on several MQA Dac's with Tidal doing none of it.



Are you asking me? Of course I have a full MQA DAC. I would not be posting opinions on this topic if I did not (unlike perhaps some fraudiophiles here  ). My DACs are listed in my profile.

I've found that if I have a strong opinion about an MQA track, pro or con, the difference originates in the choices made at the first stage of encoding into MQA. For example, when one instrument that was mostly in the background from the first vinyl pressing on now sounds more prominent in the MQA release. 

That may be good or bad. Depends on the listener, and the intent of the original artists and recording engineers.  But it is audible to me even in the basic undecoded 24/48 MQA file, and I believe it is certainly clear for all to hear in the software-decoded 24/96 MQA signal.


----------



## captblaze

Left Channel said:


> I've found that if I have a strong opinion about an MQA track, pro or con, the difference originates in the choices made at the first stage of encoding into MQA. For example, when one instrument that was mostly in the background from the first vinyl pressing on now sounds more prominent in the MQA release.



My DAC has a light that is supposed to indicate whether or not the file has approval of the studio or artist. Blue is approved and Green not approved


----------



## Left Channel

captblaze said:


> My DAC has a light that is supposed to indicate whether or not the file has approval of the studio or artist. Blue is approved and Green not approved



I think approval can also mean someone at the current label signed off on the release, without input from the artists or original recording engineers. In the example I was thinking of above, I can't imagine the original team would ever have agreed to make the bassist louder than the star musicians on sax and guitar. But In that case most of those involved have already passed away, and the remaining headline artist is 86 years old. Listening to the MQA version, I can't believe anyone thought carefully about this issue.


----------



## stoneglad

I am definitely constantly defending MQA! Most people seem to be of the opinion that MQA is awful based al ost solely off of either what they have read on various threads and blogs or based upon an opinion they’ve come to after listening to one or two MQA / Tidal Masters albums via a non MQA DAC and only hearing the SW partially unfolded version. 
First, the SW partially unfolded version is not going to compare to the fully unfolded version of a good MQA DAC such as mine (Brooklyn DAC). Second Tidal Masters, just as all other recordings will vary greatly based upon the master / recording quality of the “Tidal Master” album you are listening to. So, for example you select a few MQA albums that are new 2017 releases created from albums with DR6 (as seems to be the norm DR level for most garbage the record labels are pumping out these days), and it’s going to sound like crap! Especially when only being half unfolded, but any version of that album is going to sound equally as bad anyhow. Same thing goes for any album that was recorded in the ‘70’s whereas the original release had DR 15 and then the 2017 “Deluxe Edition , newly remastered” has DR 7, so the MQA version that was created from of that new piece of crap remaster is going to sound just as awful as any other version. 
Now take some MQA albums from the 2L Label, our a John Coltrane or Otis Redding, or Aretha Franklin, etc where the MQA version was created from a well recorded album that has still retained its original master recording’s high DR, and that MQA album on Tidal, played back from an MQA FAC (and not the Explorer 2 or the Dragonfly Red, but a “Audiophile quality DAC”). 
Most of the Tidal Masters albums sound amazing to me played via my Brooklyn DAC and many sound better to me than the original CD Rios and / or HDTracks 24bit versions of the same albums I own. (As stated, I would never choose to listen to a 2017 new release hip hop album in MQA and think to myself “this is going to sound great”, I already know that it will sound like crap!


----------



## captblaze

Left Channel said:


> I think approval can also mean someone at the current label signed off on the release, without input from the artists or original recording engineers. In the example I was thinking of above, I can't imagine the original team would ever have agreed to make the bassist louder than the star musicians on sax and guitar. But In that case most of those involved have already passed away, and the remaining headline artist is 86 years old. Listening to the MQA version, I can't believe anyone thought carefully about this issue.



I was hoping that at least a review of the master and engineering notes was part of the certification. If not it is a bit disingenuous and makes it seem a bit more shady (like there wasn't that cloud already).


----------



## Left Channel

@stoneglad & @captblaze some "liner notes" about the source and process would go a long way towards reassuring consumers and help us avoid drawing broad conclusions, don't you think? This is not a problem unique to MQA, of course: provenance and other transparency issues have been long part of the discussion around high-resolution music in general. 

I have a full MQA DAC, and have listened to hundreds of MQA tracks. Not thousands, because really I could live with or without it, but I do feel I've been open and fair in my listening. Sometimes I don't like the sound, but I have no way of knowing if Meridian made changes or if that sound originates from a specific version of the master. Sometimes I find the sound pleasant, at least initially, and other times I can't at tell the difference at all between the MQA release and a recent remastered CD release. 

I do appreciate that Tidal Master streams do not have the audible watermarks that sometimes mar even CD-quality and high-res streams from other services. But transparency would help me understand why I should spend more money on this, especially downloads.


----------



## captblaze

I think some of the issue is the industry. There is no continuity from studio to studio or engineer to engineer, and in reality you cant standardize something as subjective as how sound should sound. In the case with MQA particularly it becomes more and more apparent that a single technology cant blanket the entire industry and as the digital age progresses I doubt the industry will ever embrace a single technology as a solution for everything (especially if they have to pay to license it from a competitor)


----------



## Luke Thomas

I'm on the fence myself. I'm thinking good with planar headphones. So so with no planar dynamic cans.  I'm using 400i and Focal Clear


----------



## DarwinOSX

True for sure but I lost interest in defending MQA to people who have never heard it or have pre-suppositions about it or make incorrect statements about it.  I've read all the pro and con arguments.  All I know is it sounds better to me in most cases.  I see it is coming to iOS Android and mobile shortly as well as Roon supporting it.
Also agree the full unfold is better and about the Brooklyn vs Meridian Explorer 2.  The Meridian is a good deal though at $200 plus it does the full unfold and the Dragonfly are renderers.



stoneglad said:


> I am definitely constantly defending MQA! Most people seem to be of the opinion that MQA is awful based al ost solely off of either what they have read on various threads and blogs or based upon an opinion they’ve come to after listening to one or two MQA / Tidal Masters albums via a non MQA DAC and only hearing the SW partially unfolded version.
> First, the SW partially unfolded version is not going to compare to the fully unfolded version of a good MQA DAC such as mine (Brooklyn DAC). Second Tidal Masters, just as all other recordings will vary greatly based upon the master / recording quality of the “Tidal Master” album you are listening to. So, for example you select a few MQA albums that are new 2017 releases created from albums with DR6 (as seems to be the norm DR level for most garbage the record labels are pumping out these days), and it’s going to sound like crap! Especially when only being half unfolded, but any version of that album is going to sound equally as bad anyhow. Same thing goes for any album that was recorded in the ‘70’s whereas the original release had DR 15 and then the 2017 “Deluxe Edition , newly remastered” has DR 7, so the MQA version that was created from of that new piece of crap remaster is going to sound just as awful as any other version.
> Now take some MQA albums from the 2L Label, our a John Coltrane or Otis Redding, or Aretha Franklin, etc where the MQA version was created from a well recorded album that has still retained its original master recording’s high DR, and that MQA album on Tidal, played back from an MQA FAC (and not the Explorer 2 or the Dragonfly Red, but a “Audiophile quality DAC”).
> Most of the Tidal Masters albums sound amazing to me played via my Brooklyn DAC and many sound better to me than the original CD Rios and / or HDTracks 24bit versions of the same albums I own. (As stated, I would never choose to listen to a 2017 new release hip hop album in MQA and think to myself “this is going to sound great”, I already know that it will sound like crap!


----------



## stoneglad

No question that the Merridian Explorer 2 and the Audioquest Dragonfly are incredible bargains and an inexpensive way to get MQA fully unfolded files on a budget! 
My only point was that people were using them as the sole point of reference in regards to the sound quality of MQA, and my point was just to state the obvious, which is that no $99 or $199 DAC is going to show any format at its absolute best, it’s just not possible. For example, I know some folks who have top of the line Audiophile DACs that have bought a Dragonfly or Explorer 2 as w way to sample MQA, and then they tell me MQA does not sound good, and I’m like “Yeah”, your Benchmark DAC 2 playing FLAC 16/44 is going to sound better then a Dragonfly playing MQA!!  
I personally own a Dragonfly Red as my headphone / desktop DAC (Mytek Brooklyn in my main stereo), so I am a fan and not negating them.


----------



## captblaze

stoneglad said:


> I personally own a Dragonfly Red as my headphone / desktop DAC (Mytek Brooklyn in my main stereo), so I am a fan and not negating them.



I just pre ordered a Mytek Clef as the MQA portable to my Brooklyn +. I am hoping Tidal gets around to MQA on mobile apps (before they go bust)


----------



## stoneglad

Left Channel said:


> @stoneglad & @captblaze some "liner notes" about the source and process would go a long way towards reassuring consumers and help us avoid drawing broad conclusions, don't you think? This is not a problem unique to MQA, of course: provenance and other transparency issues have been long part of the discussion around high-resolution music in general.
> 
> I have a full MQA DAC, and have listened to hundreds of MQA tracks. Not thousands, because really I could live with or without it, but I do feel I've been open and fair in my listening. Sometimes I don't like the sound, but I have no way of knowing if Meridian made changes or if that sound originates from a specific version of the master. Sometimes I find the sound pleasant, at least initially, and other times I can't at tell the difference at all between the MQA release and a recent remastered CD release.
> 
> I do appreciate that Tidal Master streams do not have the audible watermarks that sometimes mar even CD-quality and high-res streams from other services. But transparency would help me understand why I should spend more money on this, especially downloads.


I agree! I would like to see the same from HDTracks as well! I’ve been burned too many times by them there too! 
I’ve come to learn that everything comes down to the version of the master being used to create either the MQA or HDTracks 24-192, etc. Also that DR # matters significantly in regards to sound quality! (Of course, the better the original recording and the Better the master of that recording that is used to produce a particular version / release/ format, the higher the DR it will have as a result anyhow. ) I refer to the Dr.Loudness-war.info database before I make any purchases or downloads now. If I don’t see DR 12 or above, I don’t bother wasting my time, I already know it won’t sound good! I also stay far away from any new releases, any “remastered”, any deluxe edition”, etc they all are code words for “This will sound like total crap because we squashed the DR on this remaster” ! 
Best to find cd Rips from late ‘80’s and early ‘90’s CD’s, Vinyl Rips made from original first press vinyl and ripped by someone with good equipment and knowledge of how to remove clicks and hiss, etc, or my personal preference, DSD (ripped from
SACD’s). Also sticking to Jazz, Classical, and classic Rock, etc from the late 50’s to late 70’s is also going to be
More likely to have a better original recording and a master with higher dynamic range! The above all applies equally to which MQA albums will sound the best!


----------



## DarwinOSX

captblaze said:


> I just pre ordered a Mytek Clef as the MQA portable to my Brooklyn +. I am hoping Tidal gets around to MQA on mobile apps (before they go bust)



MQA is supposed to be on Mobile in a week or so.  See DarKo on this.
Also Roon is supposed to be close to working with MQA.  If I can play MQA via Roon using their direct connect to my Kef LS50W speakers that would be amazing.
I do think the Meridian Explorer 2 and Dragonfly Red are bargains but I wanted a full decoder not a renderer which is why I chose the Meridian over the Dragonfly at the same price.  I was interested in the iFi Nano iDSD BL until I found out it too is only a renderer.  I'm very interested in the Mytek Clef which was just released I believe and is a full decoder.


----------



## Luke Thomas

So are we still thinking tidal might go under? Is there a good alternative


----------



## captblaze (Jan 8, 2018)

It was in enough financial publications to lend it some credence. Unfortunately most people don't care much about Hi Res audio, so the market is niche. I find it amusing though because whenever I have friends over I get asked how I can make the music sound "live". when I explain it, I generally get the same look Homer Simpson would get when he talked to his dog. So unless there is a change in the pricing model I doubt any Hi Res audio streaming service can survive long term.

Although I myself find the $30 / month I pay for Tidal Hi Fi Family is a decent deal (main account plus 5 subs)


----------



## Luke Thomas

The tidal \ Roon setup is convenient. I hope a good alternative can be acquired.


----------



## captblaze

I will ride their horse to the bitter end, as for an alternative... I didn't much care for Deezer and I can't access Quobuz due to regional restrictions (although there is always the VPN trick)


----------



## Left Channel

captblaze said:


> I will ride their horse to the bitter end, as for an alternative... I didn't much care for Deezer and I can't access Quobuz due to regional restrictions (although there is always the VPN trick)



Qobuz may be announcing a US service at CES this week. Announcements at CES usually target a fall launch. Meanwhile, as you probably know, from the US we only need VPN to sign up and after that can stream direct. 

Qobuz treats high-res as a niche market, and for that tier charges accordingly. But that approach appears to be helping the company recover from past mistakes and move steadily towards profitability.


----------



## captblaze

Left Channel said:


> Qobuz may be announcing a US service at CES this week. Announcements at CES usually target a fall launch. Meanwhile, as you probably know, from the US we only need VPN to sign up and after that can stream direct.
> 
> Qobuz treats high-res as a niche market, and for that tier charges accordingly. But that approach appears to be helping the company recover from past mistakes and move steadily towards profitability.



I just checked and their sublime level costs $475 US for a year... I pay $360 US a year for a Tidal family sub. I am definitely gonna ride Tidal to the bitter end


----------



## DarwinOSX

As a veteran I get Tidal for $11 a month but would pay the $20 for it.  But I agree it is niche.  I pay for Tidal, Apple Music, and Pandora.
I'll take it a step further and say any standalone streaming service is unlikely to be profitable long term.  Spotify is bragging about 140 million users when 90 million of those are on the free tier they make practically nothing from and Spotify has never been profitable and shows no signs of it any time in the near future.  Yet they are doing an IPO.  I'm still surprised Pandora is still around but glad because I like their radio service better than anyone else.  They are on life support though.
There is too much of a disconnect for what the service pay for rights to music and what people will pay per month.
I like MQA but doubt it will help Tidal in the long term.
Streaming may belong to companies like Apple, Amazon, and Google who can sell it as a value added service to their other products and afford to break even.


----------



## Left Channel

Yes Qobuz is not cheap for our niche, but that's a big reason why the CEO is able to say they will be profitable in a few years while Tidal is regularly in the news because of cashflow issues. Qobuz went broke once already, and came up with this new strategy since then.

The US service has been announced! I had to go searching for this, but as CES gets underway this week I hope to see more news. → *CES: Qobuz High-Res Music Service to Launch in U.S. in 2018* http://www.etcentric.org/ces-qobuz-high-res-music-service-to-launch-in-u-s-in-2018/

There is a Qobuz thread here on Head-Fi. There you'll find as many complaints about the download service as you will compliments on the streaming, interface, and content. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/qobuz-lossless-streaming-service-thread.856101/


----------



## captblaze

DarwinOSX said:


> Streaming may belong to companies like Apple, Amazon, and Google who can sell it as a value added service to their other products and afford to break even.



I doubt any of those 3 would offer a Hi Res option... In the mean time I would like to see MQA downloadable files expand in availability... I have a server at home and enough bandwidth to serve up some home grown streaming if need be


----------



## DarwinOSX

Probably not.  
Spotify did a test of it but who knows if they will do it.  I dumped Spotify when Apple Music came out because I never liked its interface, the many junk tribute band files, and with Apple Music I can combine streaming and all my many years of iTunes music from various sources.  
If one of the big three did support MQA of course it would be a huge boost for the format and perhaps a differentiator as long as it is folded into the mobile app for at least the first decode. Then again most people listen to music with cheap earbuds so they might not even notice.


----------



## DarwinOSX

Left Channel said:


> Yes Qobuz is not cheap for our niche, but that's a big reason why the CEO is able to say they will be profitable in a few years while Tidal is regularly in the news because of cashflow issues. Qobuz went broke once already, and came up with this new strategy since then.



Why would Qobuz be profitable when Tidal isn't?
Or when Spotify and Pandora aren't?


----------



## Left Channel

DarwinOSX said:


> Why would Qobuz be profitable when Tidal isn't?
> Or when Spotify and Pandora aren't?



Well they're not profitable now, and anything can happen between now and 2020-21, but that is when the new lead investor and CEO says they'll be in the black. (See the last line of this French article; I ran it through Google Translate.) Charging a very premium price for the audiophile tier is a key part of the road map for getting there.


----------



## Left Channel

DarwinOSX said:


> MQA is supposed to be on Mobile in a week or so.  See DarKo on this.
> Also Roon is supposed to be close to working with MQA.  If I can play MQA via Roon using their direct connect to my Kef LS50W speakers that would be amazing.
> I do think the Meridian Explorer 2 and Dragonfly Red are bargains but I wanted a full decoder not a renderer which is why I chose the Meridian over the Dragonfly at the same price.  I was interested in the iFi Nano iDSD BL until I found out it too is only a renderer.  I'm very interested in the Mytek Clef which was just released I believe and is a full decoder.



Unfortunately Tidal does not appear to be announcing MQA for mobile apps this week. According to Darko, they're using CES to meet and firm up their partnerships. But Groovers has announced a mobile MQA service, and nugs.net is announcing MQA streaming as well. Meridian has also announced MQA for Roon, Amrarra, and Audirvana (including an Audirvana for Windows), and even a possible MQA upgrade on Sonore products among others. More here: http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/news/...ships-drive-master-quality-audio-availability


----------



## DarwinOSX

Left Channel said:


> Well they're not profitable now, and anything can happen between now and 2020-21, but that is when the new lead investor and CEO says they'll be in the black. (See the last line of this French article; I ran it through Google Translate.) Charging a very premium price for the audiophile tier is a key part of the road map for getting there.



I'd say that is very unlikely to work for them.


----------



## DarwinOSX

Left Channel said:


> Unfortunately Tidal does not appear to be announcing MQA for mobile apps this week. According to Darko, they're using CES to meet and firm up their partnerships. But Groovers has announced a mobile MQA service, and nugs.net is announcing MQA streaming as well. Meridian has also announced MQA for Roon, Amrarra, and Audirvana (including an Audirvana for Windows), and even a possible MQA upgrade on Sonore products among others. More here: http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/news/...ships-drive-master-quality-audio-availability



I've seen a number of articles and tweets saying different things so I guess we will see how it shakes out.
Audirvana has had MQA since August.
I haven't seen anything official from Roon and they usually don't comment on new things until it is actually released but various sources say soon.
Sonore would be interesting...


----------



## Left Channel

DarwinOSX said:


> I'd say that is very unlikely to work for them.



I sure hope it does. In business, sometimes staying small and focused has its advantages while growing too fast will kill you. During the dot-com boom all the new web companies were chasing "eyeballs" on borrowed money. Eventually there was a shakeout. The same thing has been happening as Tidal and others chase ears. My fingers are crossed for Tidal, Qobuz, Spotify, and others. Whether I'm their customer or not, long-term we'll all benefit.



DarwinOSX said:


> I've seen a number of articles and tweets saying different things so I guess we will see how it shakes out.
> Audirvana has had MQA since August.
> I haven't seen anything official from Roon and they usually don't comment on new things until it is actually released but various sources say soon.
> Sonore would be interesting...



The announcement is about Audirvana for Windows, sorry.  Sonore and some of the others are staying quiet so far. Meridian went ahead and announced all this just because of CES. Some of the companies in their previous CES announcements have quietly disappeared from subsequent press releases.


----------



## DarwinOSX

I'm guessing those companies would have preferred to announce it themselves 
People are already asking about it on the Roon forum.


----------



## captblaze

Left Channel said:


> The announcement is about Audirvana for Windows



I wonder if they will do Windows better than Sonic Studio with Amarra for Windows. I am still disgusted with how poorly that software runs on my pc and dropped it for HQ Player and haven't looked back.


----------



## Left Channel

captblaze said:


> I wonder if they will do Windows better than Sonic Studio with Amarra for Windows. I am still disgusted with how poorly that software runs on my pc and dropped it for HQ Player and haven't looked back.



I considered Amarra for Tidal on Windows, but fled when I saw all the bug reports. And Amarra 4 Luxe apparently has library limitations and problems galore. But Sonic Studio has announced plans for a release that would rely on iTunes for library management while using Amarra primarily for sound quality.


----------



## captblaze

Left Channel said:


> I considered Amarra for Tidal on Windows, but fled when I saw all the bug reports. And Amarra 4 Luxe apparently has library limitations and problems galore. But Sonic Studio has announced plans for a release that would rely on iTunes for library management while using Amarra primarily for sound quality.



I would rather get my money back (fat chance of that). the software is over a year old and is still unacceptable


----------



## Left Channel

Not yet sure how this will work with Tidal, but here is the Sonore MQA news. 

I'll test my ultraRendu with the LMS plug-in for Tidal soon. 

*Darko: MQA support comes to Sonore streamers*
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2018/01/mqa-support-comes-to-sonore-streamers/

*Sonore announcement*
https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...trarendu/?page=38&tab=comments#comment-764706


----------



## audiomonkey777

Lots of arguments for and against MQA as ever. I might be a simple soul but some of it still comes down to taste. Some tracks I like better in MQA (using Tidal Masters) via Mac book, some not. I am sure there is a lot I don't know and the version I am comparing to might not be the greatest but it gives us all something else to explore and talk about at least.


----------



## DarwinOSX

I like MQA quite a lot but the mastering matters just as much as any other format. 
I’ve read all the arguments for and against and lost interest in debating it. 
I do find a lot of the anti-MQA people appear to have never listened to it....


----------



## DarwinOSX

Left Channel said:


> Not yet sure how this will work with Tidal, but here is the Sonore MQA news.
> 
> I'll test my ultraRendu with the LMS plug-in for Tidal soon.
> 
> ...




First unfold only which is odd since Tidal already does that. I prefer full MQA and turn off first unfold in Tidal.


----------



## audiomonkey777

DarwinOSX said:


> I like MQA quite a lot but the mastering matters just as much as any other format.
> I’ve read all the arguments for and against and lost interest in debating it.
> I do find a lot of the anti-MQA people appear to have never listened to it....



Agree. Some folks need to give it a try and then come back and argue their points. Anyway, some listening awaits...


----------



## Left Channel

Left Channel said:


> Not yet sure how this will work with Tidal, but here is the Sonore MQA news.
> 
> I'll test my ultraRendu with the LMS plug-in for Tidal soon.
> 
> ...





DarwinOSX said:


> First unfold only which is odd since Tidal already does that. I prefer full MQA and turn off first unfold in Tidal.



Yes I've since figured out what they're talking about is downloaded MQA files only. No MQA streaming unless your player software does its own decoding or can supply a bit perfect MQA stream to your DAC. The LMS plug-in for Tidal does neither at this time. The Roon folks are working on MQA decoding and as far as I know can already deliver the pass-through bit perfect signal to your DAC.


----------



## DarwinOSX

Left Channel said:


> Yes I've since figured out what they're talking about is downloaded MQA files only. No MQA streaming unless your player software does its own decoding or can supply a bit perfect MQA stream to your DAC. The LMS plug-in for Tidal does neither at this time. The Roon folks are working on MQA decoding and as far as I know can already deliver the pass-through bit perfect signal to your DAC.



Oh that makes sense. Scratch another one off the list. 
Roon will currently pass through bit perfect so you can do MQA via Roon using an MQA DAC.


----------



## NobbyChad

captblaze said:


> I was hoping that at least a review of the master and engineering notes was part of the certification. If not it is a bit disingenuous and makes it seem a bit more shady (like there wasn't that cloud already).


I doubt very


captblaze said:


> I was hoping that at least a review of the master and engineering notes was part of the certification. If not it is a bit disingenuous and makes it seem a bit more shady (like there wasn't that cloud already).


I doubt very much that the artist ever has a sign off of the master even without MQA, they may be asked an opinion or input, but approval of engineering by the artist?


----------



## nugget2013

what albums are in 192khz? i just want to listen to see how it sounds. i've only found 96khz stuff so far.


----------



## chris6878

DarwinOSX said:


> MQA is supposed to be on Mobile in a week or so.  See DarKo on this.
> Also Roon is supposed to be close to working with MQA.  If I can play MQA via Roon using their direct connect to my Kef LS50W speakers that would be amazing.
> I do think the Meridian Explorer 2 and Dragonfly Red are bargains but I wanted a full decoder not a renderer which is why I chose the Meridian over the Dragonfly at the same price.  I was interested in the iFi Nano iDSD BL until I found out it too is only a renderer.  I'm very interested in the Mytek Clef which was just released I believe and is a full decoder.



Well any info on MQA being portable via tidal yet?


----------



## canthearyou

nugget2013 said:


> what albums are in 192khz? i just want to listen to see how it sounds. i've only found 96khz stuff so far.



Supertramp - Crime of the Century. It's says it in the title but I don't have a MQA DAC to check.


----------



## d3vi0uz (Feb 19, 2018)

DarwinOSX said:


> I like MQA quite a lot but the mastering matters just as much as any other format.
> I’ve read all the arguments for and against and lost interest in debating it.
> I do find a lot of the anti-MQA people appear to have never listened to it....



+1

I've listened to a few Masters 24/192 tracks (according to my Meridian Explorer 2 notification lights)  and they sound discernibly better (more detail, fuller range, etc) than their HiFi version, and significantly better than their Tidal Premium version.

And I've listened to other Masters 24/192 tracks on Tidal that sounded no different than HiFi or Premium...

Furthermore, I've listened to a few tracks at 16/44 or 24/96 that sounded discernibly better than the 24/192 Masters version...

*Conclusion:
*
The Recording-Mixing-Mastering and source of the track matter *first*, then the resolution and file format.  Even a 32/384 file can't capture/reproduce what wasn't there to begin with nor transform into greatness what was poorly recorded (or re-recorded) in the first place.


----------



## SubSTI

chris6878 said:


> Well any info on MQA being portable via tidal yet?


*Kevin* (TIDAL)

Feb 12, 9:13 AM EST

Hello, 

Thank you for contacting TIDAL Member Support.

The MQA version is only available in the latest desktop client version. It can be downloaded at tidal.com/download. Masters will be available on mobile and web applications at a later date.

Best Regards,

Kevin - Technical Support Specialist
TIDAL Member Support


----------



## AudioThief

Just want to chime in and say my thoughts on this:

I've used Spotify or almost 10 years and been a paying premium member for 8. And that won't change. However, I gave Tidal a try since it was supposedly higher res. I immediately felt that the Tidal premium sound quality was better than spotify but a small margin. Enough to make me shell out for the HiFi membership. 

To my ears, when I compare Spotify "high quality" vs Tidal  Masters quality, it is obvious to my ears that the Masters tracks are deeper sounding, less digital glare and more space around instruments. A tad bit more detail may be present. But most importantly and most notably is the lack of digital glare in the recordings. I think Tidal Masters sound absolutely magnificent.


----------



## DarwinOSX (Feb 22, 2018)

Paid Spotify uses 320k Ogg which is not a great codec. 256k AAC is at least as good.
I do like Tidal a lot. It has a fuller richer sound than anything else I have heard.
I used to use Spotify but now pay for Tidal, Apple Music, and Pandora.
Tidal via Roon to my Kef LS50W speakers is really great. On demand cd quality streaming 
Some people are using Bluesound Nodes to the Kefs to get MQA and I am probably going to try this.


----------



## d3vi0uz (Feb 22, 2018)

AudioThief said:


> Just want to chime in and say my thoughts on this:
> 
> I've used Spotify or almost 10 years and been a paying premium member for 8. And that won't change. However, I gave Tidal a try since it was supposedly higher res. I immediately felt that the Tidal premium sound quality was better than spotify but a small margin. Enough to make me shell out for the HiFi membership.
> 
> To my ears, when I compare Spotify "high quality" vs Tidal  Masters quality, it is obvious to my ears that the Masters tracks are deeper sounding, less digital glare and more space around instruments. A tad bit more detail may be present. But most importantly and most notably is the lack of digital glare in the recordings. I think Tidal Masters sound absolutely magnificent.



+1

I've been using Spotify for 7 years and have dozens upon dozens of playlists set up.  I continue to pay the $10 for Premium because of their wide selection (every now and then Spotify has a track that Tidal doesn't) and my playlists (they got me locked in!) but as far as quality, I notice the difference between Spotify Preimum and Tidal HiFi / Masters in at least one third of the tracks in my playlists.  This becomes even more apparent when I listen through my speaker and sub set up; the higher resolution HiFi / Masters tracks really shine in the low end.  I can literally *feel* the difference.



Fortunately, I can afford to shell out $30 a month for both services to enjoy music but if I really had to cut back and choose one over the other, I would choose Tidal.  Reason being is that it would put the rest of my audio gear to waste if I didn't have Hi-Res tracks to listen to.


----------



## AudioThief

d3vi0uz said:


> +1
> 
> I've been using Spotify for 7 years and have dozens upon dozens of playlists set up.  I continue to pay the $10 for Premium because of their wide selection and my playlists (they got me!) but as far as quality, I notice the difference between Spotify Preimum and Tidal HiFi / Masters in at least one third of the tracks in my playlists.
> 
> I can afford to shell out $30 a month for both services to enjoy music but if I really had to cut back and choose one over the other, I would choose Tidal.  Reason being is that it would put the rest of my audio gear to waste if I didn't have Hi-Res tracks to listen to.



Yep. I am of the exact same camp. 

I will keep paying for both - hopefully the rumoured Spotify HiFi membership will be a good addition and I might stop my Tidal subscription then. But until then I will pay for both. Spotify is clearly superior in every way for me except sound quality. Normally I would never ever recommend Tidal to anyone, but for people who have expensive gear or at least gear where they can appreciate the differences, I think its worth it. Listening to Tidal masters quality of some great albums like Diana Kralls "From This Moment On" is an event - whereas before I usually just listentened to music while doing other stuff - Now I just have to close my eyes and enjoy. 

Tidal has many many issues for me. Obviously I have a lot of playlists in Spotify, my phone is synced with it, and I know it in and out. But Tidal has way worse selection, and the "discover" and "browse" features are laughable compared to Spotify. Also it seems Tidal has a bias towards more known artists and popular genres... While classical and more unknown artists gets the boot. And the desktop client is extremely slow and laggy for me. I will not be getting the mobile app, ever. 

But again, to me it makes it worth it with the HiFi and especially Masters quality. When I got back to listening to Spotify it sounds almost shrill in comparison. Obviously Spotify sound great in its own right, but when directly compared with Tidal its not even close.


----------



## d3vi0uz

AudioThief said:


> Yep. I am of the exact same camp.
> 
> I will keep paying for both - hopefully the rumoured Spotify HiFi membership will be a good addition and I might stop my Tidal subscription then. But until then I will pay for both. Spotify is clearly superior in every way for me except sound quality. Normally I would never ever recommend Tidal to anyone, but for people who have expensive gear or at least gear where they can appreciate the differences, I think its worth it. Listening to Tidal masters quality of some great albums like Diana Kralls "From This Moment On" is an event - whereas before I usually just listentened to music while doing other stuff - Now I just have to close my eyes and enjoy.
> 
> ...




Now if Tidal or some other service ever streams studio master *.wav* files and I can get vinyl quality sound, I'd pay up to $50/month for that! Listening to records on my speaker+sub set up is unreal when it comes to low end.  If I can instantly stream and create playlists of all my favorite tracks and get vinyl quality, *that* would be a game changer!


----------



## AudioThief

d3vi0uz said:


> Now if Tidal or some other service ever streams studio master *.wav* files and I can get vinyl quality sound, I'd pay up to $50/month for that! Listening to records on my speaker+sub set up is unreal when it comes to low end.  If I can instantly stream and create playlists of all my favorite tracks and get vinyl quality, *that* would be a game changer!



Indeed! Did you edit your post by the way? I didn't see the .wav part before after I posted my reply 

I think streaming .wav would be problematic and extremely costly, but it should be possible as long as there is demand for it. It would seem a lot of the audiophile community do not "believe" in the sonic differences, and the masses obviously does not care. So I hope Tidal are doing well with their HiFi membership so they could try out truly lossless audio.


----------



## d3vi0uz

AudioThief said:


> Indeed! Did you edit your post by the way? I didn't see the .wav part before after I posted my reply
> 
> I think streaming .wav would be problematic and extremely costly, but it should be possible as long as there is demand for it. It would seem a lot of the audiophile community do not "believe" in the sonic differences, and the masses obviously does not care. So I hope Tidal are doing well with their HiFi membership so they could try out truly lossless audio.



Yes I edited my post, then I re-edited and removed the part about .wav files, and then posted that as it's own reply.  LOL

I think there may be more demand than we realize.  I mean, who would've thought there was room for Spotify when iTunes dominated?  And who would've thought there was room for Tidal when Spotify who pioneered music streaming already took on most of the market share...

I think there's enough room for .wav music streaming, especially at $50/month.  Also, very high speed internet is becoming more common place (100+ mbps) and can easily handle .wav streaming; and high speed (50+ mbps) is becoming the norm.


----------



## DarwinOSX

d3vi0uz said:


> +1
> 
> I've been using Spotify for 7 years and have dozens upon dozens of playlists set up.  I continue to pay the $10 for Premium because of their wide selection (every now and then Spotify has a track that Tidal doesn't) and my playlists (they got me locked in!) but as far as quality, I notice the difference between Spotify Preimum and Tidal HiFi / Masters in at least one third of the tracks in my playlists.  This becomes even more apparent when I listen through my speaker and sub set up; the higher resolution HiFi / Masters tracks really shine in the low end.  I can literally *feel* the difference.
> Fortunately, I can afford to shell out $30 a month for both services to enjoy music but if I really had to cut back and choose one over the other, I would choose Tidal.  Reason being is that it would put the rest of my audio gear to waste if I didn't have Hi-Res tracks to listen to.



If you are active duty or a veteran Tidal is $11 a month...in case that fits anyone here...deal of the century.  I pay a year at a time for Apple Music in which case it's $100 a year and Pandora is $4 and something month.  That is an amazing amount of music for the money.


----------



## DarwinOSX (Feb 22, 2018)

d3vi0uz said:


> Yes I edited my post, then I re-edited and removed the part about .wav files, and then posted that as it's own reply.  LOL
> I think there may be more demand than we realize.  I mean, who would've thought there was room for Spotify when iTunes dominated?  And who would've thought there was room for Tidal when Spotify who pioneered music streaming already took on most of the market share...
> I think there's enough room for .wav music streaming, especially at $50/month.  Also, very high speed internet is becoming more common place (100+ mbps) and can easily handle .wav streaming; and high speed (50+ mbps) is becoming the norm.



Spotify did streaming years before Apple Music existed especially in Europe but even in the U.S.  iTunes was only sales of music not streaming.  I don't care for Spotify myself and Apple Music is better for me in multiple ways but different strokes...
If Spotify starts doing 16/44 and MQA it's game over for Tidal.  Neither Tidal or Spotify has ever made a profit or shows any signs of doing so any time in the future but Tidal is worse off.  I wouldn't be surprised if streaming will belong only to companies who can offer it as a side feature like Apple, Amazon, Google...


----------



## chris6878

SubSTI said:


> *Kevin* (TIDAL)
> 
> Feb 12, 9:13 AM EST
> 
> ...



So that means sometime in 2030


----------



## cmir2426

Tidal masters streaming is now available on lg v30!!


----------



## d3vi0uz

cmir2426 said:


> Tidal masters streaming is now available on lg v30!!



I hope, but I doubt, the next Pixel phone will have this.  The removal of the headphone jack on the Pixel 2/Pixel 2 XL was almost a deal breaker for me.


----------



## chris6878

cmir2426 said:


> Tidal masters streaming is now available on lg v30!!


Its official 
https://forum.xda-developers.com/lg-v30/help/tidal-android-app-update-t3756422

Damn, now im tempted to sale my Pio...pretty much rendered useless now


----------



## alkalama

cmir2426 said:


> Tidal masters streaming is now available on lg v30!!



Perfect! Time to sell my V20!

btw is MQA integrated directly to Tidal playlists (mixed with not-MQA music) or you can listen only through Tidal Masters tab (by Album, no possible playlists)?


----------



## 329161

Does anyone know if there is any way to listen to Tidal offline via USB dac ? UAPP doesn't support Tidal offline.


----------



## styler (Mar 18, 2018)

archimago's assessment of MQA, good read. its also on computer audiophile where theres some heated discussion.
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/03/mqa-review-of-controversies-concerns.html

also, heres a pending study with blinded testing for MQA:
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/ebriefs/?ID=685


----------



## DarwinOSX

Archimago is a joke on this subject and many others. He clearly gets off on reaching different conclusions from everyone else then comes up with numbers to “prove” what he has already decided. His so called blind testing was laughable and wouldn’t meet the most basic standards of a high school experiment.


----------



## styler

Can you post any data or testing to show archimago has reached false conclusions?


----------



## DarwinOSX (Mar 18, 2018)

That’s not required because it’s quite easy to show how his testing and data make no sense.
Have you read it? 
Try the so called blind study first. 
I lost interest some time ago arguing about MQA. Most of the naysayers haven’t even heard it.


----------



## styler

I’ve heard MQA... 

I’d be most interested to hear how his data is incorrect. Set aside a subjective blind test and have a go at how the objective measurements are either inaccurate or reach false conclusions.


----------



## Steve Wilcox

Just listening to the MQA of Joss Stone's latest release, Mama Earth, which sounds very nice indeed.


----------



## Capt Yossarian

I trust my ears. Old and abused as they may be, they have never let me down. I'm not an audio engineer and frankly, scientific testings of 
"frequency response" and graphs of sine curves have always made my eyes glaze over in both incomprehension and disinterest.  Having
a good deal of free time, I've listened to more than 150 Tidal MQA Master albums, and in every SINGLE case, they have sounded "better".
Is this subjective? You bet it is. But....it's a subjectivity based on hundreds of thousands of hours of music listening, and, yes, appreciation. 

I agree with headfry, digitaldodd and oneway23. To me, the improvement in the sound quality of the MQA files is sonically obvious. I began
by listening to Masters of albums I was very familiar with. In terms of genre, these included Rock, Reggae, Folk, Jazz and Classical. I A/B'd
them with the CD equivalents. The MQAs sounded 10-30% "better" than the (standard) CDs. They sounded "as good as" Hi-Res/DSD Cds. 
I played them for family and friends. Most heard a substantial improvement. I listened to new releases I was previously unfamiliar with . The
sound quality was impressive and I could hear the difference when I played the non-MQA version. I noticed that, in general, I heard the most
significant differences on albums from the 1960s and early 1970s. Examples would include Blind Faith, Buffalo Springfield "Again", Cream's
catalog, but also applied to such recent releases as Richard Thompson's "Still" and the Staves.  

What exactly do I mean by "better"? SUBJECTIVE ADJECTIVE WARNING!!!!! The words that pop into my mind include, presence, clarity,
dynamism, precision, impact and detail. The stereo separation was more distinct, instrumental location more defined, the bass tighter, the 
drums clearer. Add it all together and it was just more enjoyable, more musical, easier to listen for longer periods of time. More like what 
music sounds like LIVE in a good venue. 

Quite a few posters have thrown around the terms "remaster" and "remix" in regard to differences of sound quality. My understanding is that 
MQAs are neither remasters NOR remixes. In fact, I think they should be thought of as "de-masters".  An artist produces an "original" tape/file.
That original recording must then be "mastered" or  "shaped" and often "sonically limited" and musically shoehorned to fit within the technical 
limitations and specifications of a particular music format, be it CD, LP, etc.  With MQA, the label provides some form of the "original master" 
(remastered or not) which is then translated to 24 bit. So, in theory, the listener should be able to hear the music just ans the artist and the 
producer/engineer heard it in the recording studio. For the time being, I'll buy that theory. 

For an interesting article on MP3, CD, Hi-Res comparison, see https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/21/mp3-cd-24-bit-audio-music-hi-res
Their conclusion is that 1) it really is VERY subjective and that 2) it's more complicated than simply measurements of music and human hearing. 
It has to do with levels of concentration, expectations and human preferences. You might be able to prove, scientifically, that people who think that
vinyl sounds "warmer" or "better" simply LIKE the tonal changes brought on by the sound of distortion, but...SO WHAT. If they like it, they like it. 
I LIKE my 1991 Toyota MR2 with roll up windows, no power steering, no cup-holder and and one dubious airbag. Who am I to criticize "lo-tech"?

I've also been listening to Neil Young's Archive site where you can, for NOTHING, listen to everything that man has ever recorded in 24 bit - 96/192Hz. 
You might want to give it a try.....while it's still free.


----------



## DarwinOSX

Well said and a good example of the difference from those of who have actually listened to MQA extensively and this who are some sort of uninformed diatribe.


----------



## Ragnar-BY

Capt Yossarian said:


> I trust my ears. Old and abused as they may be, they have never let me down. I'm not an audio engineer and frankly, scientific testings of
> "frequency response" and graphs of sine curves have always made my eyes glaze over in both incomprehension and disinterest.  Having
> a good deal of free time, I've listened to more than 150 Tidal MQA Master albums, and in every SINGLE case, they have sounded "better".
> Is this subjective? You bet it is. But....it's a subjectivity based on hundreds of thousands of hours of music listening, and, yes, appreciation.


I`ll second that. All graphs and other "proofs" make me boring. If it sounds better - it`s better.

P.S. I`ll also second good words about MR2 - real pleasure for skilled driver )))


----------



## Left Channel (Apr 19, 2018)

@Capt Yossarian you may want to add this to your toolkit: a recent study (which was a bit more more scientifically designed than asking four journalists what they think) has shown that many listeners cannot hear the difference between 320kbps MP3 and 16/44.1 CD tracks, however more of them were able to hear a difference between those two types and 24/192 Hi-Res tracks. Without being told which type they were listening to, some heard the Hi-Res difference rationally and scientifically, while others reported an emotional response they could not explain.

I've seen no experiments of the same caliber comparing MQA to regular Hi-Res tracks, but all things being equal they both sound equally good to me. I therefore wonder whether MQA provides a benefit over Hi-Res now that Qobuz is streaming ten times the number of Hi-Res tracks that Tidal offers in MQA (and Qobuz is launching a US service soon). Certainly it provides a benefit to streaming services, but only one of those trickles down to listeners: watermarking is not used on Tidal MQA streams, though it's used on many other tracks broadcast on radio and the internet.

My largest frustration with Hi-Res and now MQA has been the lack of clear provenance. MQA and Tidal are making this problem worse by proceeding so quickly without posting any documentation. I've lost patience trying to figure out why the same albums seem available in multiple Masters versions. The copyright holder may have signed off on a blue light for all of them, but for example it may be that one was digitized from a master of the original release, while another was made from a remix mastered decades later. In one case I found the remix emphasizes bass frequencies to appeal to the loudness wars generation, and I hated it. But the only way I could figure out which album was which was by listening carefully and researching releases on allmusic.com ...but I'd rather just listen.


----------



## castleofargh

Capt Yossarian said:


> I trust my ears. Old and abused as they may be, they have never let me down. I'm not an audio engineer and frankly, scientific testings of
> "frequency response" and graphs of sine curves have always made my eyes glaze over in both incomprehension and disinterest.  Having
> a good deal of free time, I've listened to more than 150 Tidal MQA Master albums, and in every SINGLE case, they have sounded "better".
> Is this subjective? You bet it is. But....it's a subjectivity based on hundreds of thousands of hours of music listening, and, yes, appreciation.
> ...


if there is remastering sometimes, it's a different take on a song. in no way is it "de-mastered" like you hypothesized. a remastering is simply doing the same job with a different artist(the sound engineer) setting up stuff and deciding what he prefers or what will come closer to whatever he was asked to do. you like it better, or you don't, but that comes down to the same personal preference as saying you like one song better than another different song. if the result always feels better to you, I'd be tempted to assume that you're really incredibly lucky, or the reason why you always prefer MQA is different in nature.
otherwise, I want to applaud your vinyl and car analogies, and how if you like something that's your reason to want it. it should be super obvious, but I've seen a great deal of people about MQA, vinyls, or anything else really, who get nasty and frustrated because not everybody recognizes some sort of objective greatness in the stuff they prefer. as if all of a sudden personal taste was how you measured objective fidelity.
you enjoy MQA, keep using and enjoying it, that's how it should always be. pleasure is it's own reward.




Ragnar-BY said:


> I`ll second that. All graphs and other "proofs" make me boring. If it sounds better - it`s better.
> 
> P.S. I`ll also second good words about MR2 - real pleasure for skilled driver )))


if you specify that you mean better "to you", then I'll always agree.
if you specify nothing, I'm a little annoyed because it might imply some false statement to some of the readers.
if you mean it's objectively of higher fidelity when you feel that it is or when you like it better,  then I'd have a bunch of counter examples in audio, and paradoxes coming anytime 2 people disagree on what sounds better. and it happens alllll the time. ^_^ 



Left Channel said:


> @Capt Yossarian you may want to add this to your toolkit: a recent study (which was a bit more more scientifically designed than asking four journalists what they think) has shown that many listeners cannot hear the difference between 320kbps MP3 and 16/44.1 CD tracks, however more of them were able to hear a difference between those two types and 24/192 Hi-Res tracks. Without being told which type they were listening to, some heard the Hi-Res difference rationally and scientifically, while others reported an emotional response they could not explain.
> 
> I've seen no experiments of the same caliber comparing MQA to regular Hi-Res tracks, but all things being equal they both sound equally good to me. I therefore wonder whether MQA provides a benefit over Hi-Res now that Qobuz is streaming ten times the number of Hi-Res tracks that Tidal offers in MQA (and Qobuz is launching a US service soon). Certainly it provides a benefit to streaming services, but only one of those trickles down to listeners: watermarking is not used on Tidal streams, though it's used on many other tracks broadcast on radio and the internet.
> 
> My largest frustration with Hi-Res and now MQA has been the lack of clear provenance. MQA and Tidal are making this problem worse by proceeding so quickly without posting any documentation. I've lost patience trying to figure out why the same albums seem available in multiple Masters versions. The copyright holder may have signed off on a blue light for all of them, but for example it may be that one was digitized from a master of the original release, while another was made from a remixed mastered decades later. In one case I found the remix emphasizes bass frequencies to appeal to the loudness wars generation, and I hated it. But the only way I could figure out which album was which was by listening carefully and researching releases on allmusic.com ...but I'd rather just listen.


+1  the very concept of high fidelity means to get something very close from the reference, yet they sell use formats and fat numbers but don't even bother to disclose what was the damn reference. this has been a frustration of mine for a long time and indeed MQA makes things even worst because for most tracks we don't know the origin of the master, or which type of operations were performed within the somehow diverse and dynamic MQA toolkit.


----------



## BobSmith8901 (Apr 18, 2018)

Left Channel said:


> @Capt Yossarian you may want to add this to your toolkit: a recent study (which was a bit more more scientifically designed than asking four journalists what they think) has shown that many listeners cannot hear the difference between 320kbps MP3 and 16/44.1 CD tracks, however more of them were able to hear a difference between those two types and 24/192 Hi-Res tracks. Without being told which type they were listening to, some heard the Hi-Res difference rationally and scientifically, while others reported an emotional response they could not explain.
> 
> I've seen no experiments of the same caliber comparing MQA to regular Hi-Res tracks, but all things being equal they both sound equally good to me. I therefore wonder whether MQA provides a benefit over Hi-Res now that Qobuz is streaming ten times the number of Hi-Res tracks that Tidal offers in MQA (and Qobuz is launching a US service soon). Certainly it provides a benefit to streaming services, but only one of those trickles down to listeners: watermarking is not used on Tidal streams, though it's used on many other tracks broadcast on radio and the internet.
> 
> My largest frustration with Hi-Res and now MQA has been the lack of clear provenance. MQA and Tidal are making this problem worse by proceeding so quickly without posting any documentation. I've lost patience trying to figure out why the same albums seem available in multiple Masters versions. The copyright holder may have signed off on a blue light for all of them, but for example it may be that one was digitized from a master of the original release, while another was made from a remixed mastered decades later. In one case I found the remix emphasizes bass frequencies to appeal to the loudness wars generation, and I hated it. But the only way I could figure out which album was which was by listening carefully and researching releases on allmusic.com ...but I'd rather just listen.




You commented that "watermarking is not used on Tidal streams, though it's used on many other tracks broadcast on radio and the internet."

I was under the impression that any Universal Music Group digital content (which includes a lot of the digital content out there) for download (presumably including a Tidal or Spotify stream) has the watermark embedded. Were you saying a Tidal _*MQA *_album wouldn't have the watermark ? It makes sense that Tidal wouldn't add any Tidal proprietary watermark to their streams (other than a token/encryption of some kind but not a watermark, per se) but I have assumed, so far, that a UMG MQA track streamed by Tidal would still have the UMG watermark embedded in it.

Maybe I'm wrong? I'd like to be wrong and Tidal MQA is as pure as the driven snow but it would seem that to license a UMG track to Tidal, the watermark is going to be in the product UMG sends Tidal, MQA or not. Would it possibly be less detectable in the MQA version? That would be a nice selling point. I don't know much about this subject as is probably in evidence!


----------



## Left Channel (Apr 19, 2018)

BobSmith8901 said:


> Were you saying a Tidal _*MQA *_album wouldn't have the watermark ? It makes sense that Tidal wouldn't add any Tidal proprietary watermark to their streams (other than a token/encryption of some kind but not a watermark, per se) but I have assumed, so far, that a UMG MQA track streamed by Tidal would still have the UMG watermark embedded in it.



Yes, sorry, I meant to type "Tidal MQA". I've gone back and changed that for posterity. I love the editing feature on this forum.

I believe if it's MQA there is no watermark, even on a UMG track. For other formats, based on a Microsoft patent I've seen watermarking does not have to be audible. But apparently the labels don't care.


----------



## BobSmith8901

Left Channel said:


> Yes, sorry, I meant to type "Tidal MQA". I've gone back and changed that for posterity. I love the editing feature on this forum.
> 
> I believe if it's MQA there is no watermark, even on a UMG track. For other formats, based on a Microsoft patent I've seen watermarking does not have to be audible. But apparently the labels don't care.



I did some further searching on the subject and it does seem that the watermark on Tidal MQA tracks (if it's there at all) is inaudible compared to regular Tidal HiFi. Pretty cool. I'll have to do some one-on-one comparisons on some ECM (UMG distro'd) piano stuff, as it seems the decay of piano notes is one place where you can hear the difference.


----------



## Left Channel

BobSmith8901 said:


> I did some further searching on the subject and it does seem that the watermark on Tidal MQA tracks (if it's there at all) is inaudible compared to regular Tidal HiFi. Pretty cool. I'll have to do some one-on-one comparisons on some ECM (UMG distro'd) piano stuff, as it seems the decay of piano notes is one place where you can hear the difference.



Whatever criticism anyone wants to lay on MQA as a company, I do not believe they will ever allow watermarking on any MQA track.


----------



## BobSmith8901 (Apr 19, 2018)

Left Channel said:


> Whatever criticism anyone wants to lay on MQA as a company, I do not believe they will ever allow watermarking on any MQA track.




This is slightly off-topic but if anyone wants to hear what Tidal MQA can do check out Bill Frisell/Thomas Morgan "Small Town" (the masters version). It's one of the most gorgeously-recorded live albums I've ever heard. Get into a quiet space and put this on. I have a pair of humble, quarter-modded Sennheiser PX-100's and the ambience of this recording is at times startling. At one point I thought I was hearing people talking in low voices outside my window and I took off the headphones only to realize it was coming from the recording. Musically, even at lower bitrates, this is a great record in its own right. They do an amazing version of Goldfinger.


----------



## Capt Yossarian

BobSmith8901 said:


> This is slightly off-topic but if anyone wants to hear what Tidal MQA can do check out Bill Frisell/Thomas Morgan "Small Town" (the masters version). It's one of the most gorgeously-recorded live albums I've ever heard. Get into a quiet space and put this on. I have a pair of humble, quarter-modded Sennheiser PX-100's and the ambience of this recording is at times startling. At one point I thought I was hearing people talking in low voices outside my window and I took off the headphones only to realize it was coming from the recording. Musically, even at lower bitrates, this is a great record in its own right. They do an amazing version of Goldfinger.


GOOD CALL! Thanks, Bob, I hadn't stumbled onto that one yet. Someone should start a thread of "MQA Album Recommendations" that, like yours, would hopefully go beyond the
standard "warhorses".


----------



## Capt Yossarian

Food (and wine and....music) for thought. We BELIEVE that we perceive the world rationally and scientifically, but we DO NOT. Expectations often get in the way. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...t-why-we-cant-tell-good-wine-from-bad/247240/


----------



## BobSmith8901

Capt Yossarian said:


> GOOD CALL! Thanks, Bob, I hadn't stumbled onto that one yet. Someone should start a thread of "MQA Album Recommendations" that, like yours, would hopefully go beyond the
> standard "warhorses".



Great idea!


----------



## Ragnar-BY

castleofargh said:


> if you specify nothing, I'm a little annoyed because it might imply some false statement to some of the readers.
> if you mean it's objectively of higher fidelity when you feel that it is or when you like it better,  then I'd have a bunch of counter examples in audio, and paradoxes coming anytime 2 people disagree on what sounds better. and it happens alllll the time. ^_^


Well, I can`t get into other person`s head and see what (s)he likes or not, so nobody can be 100% positive on sound quality perception. But.. I believe MQA in Tidal sounds better. Not "better to my taste", just better. I have compared sound of few familiar albums and each time I could hear very certain differences, each time those differences were in favor of the MQA.

And another thing. MQA-haters mostly talk about graphs, data loss, filters and all other technical things. MQA-lovers usually say "I`ve heard it and I like it". I think the second approach is much more reasonable for our hobby (listening music for pleasure) then the first one.


----------



## castleofargh

Ragnar-BY said:


> Well, I can`t get into other person`s head and see what (s)he likes or not, so nobody can be 100% positive on sound quality perception. But.. I believe MQA in Tidal sounds better. Not "better to my taste", just better. I have compared sound of few familiar albums and each time I could hear very certain differences, each time those differences were in favor of the MQA.
> 
> And another thing. MQA-haters mostly talk about graphs, data loss, filters and all other technical things. MQA-lovers usually say "I`ve heard it and I like it". I think the second approach is much more reasonable for our hobby (listening music for pleasure) then the first one.


there is no wrong approach. we like what we like, taste like love doesn't always follow math and doesn't have to. 
but looking at the patents and measurements is how you determine what is going on(or try to), and how you can assess objective fidelity. different questions are simply answered differently. the all rage on MQA IMO, aside from all the lies and misdirection from marketing for years, is that some people like it a lot(good for them), but instead of sticking to that subjective appreciation, they try to push ideas of objective superiority, of increased fidelity. you can read such amalgams and self justifications on many MQA topics, and that's wrong:
- first, because we don't measure a degree of fidelity by ear. for that you need the reference track, the resulting sound, and to to measure how much variation went on. never will someone demonstrate that the final MQA file has higher overall fidelity, because that isn't factual. the original master is the closest thing there is from what the artist and his engineers created.

now can MQA make something subjectively more pleasing? apparently if we trust you guys, they can. I'm not doubting your feelings, I see no reason to. but there is a reason why objective reality and subjective impressions are defined differently. nobody should use subjective impressions to make claims of objective fidelity. be it MQA or anything else(vinyls, SACD, tube amps...), it's always cause for conflicts because it's fundamentally wrong and somebody like myself will always come to oppose the erroneous amalgam.


----------



## Ragnar-BY

castleofargh said:


> - first, because we don't measure a degree of fidelity by ear. for that you need the reference track, the resulting sound, and to to measure how much variation went on


If I can not hear something by ear, why should I care about it?


----------



## gregorio

Ragnar-BY said:


> MQA-haters mostly talk about graphs, data loss, filters and all other technical things.



Why would the people who invented MQA be "MQA-haters"?



Ragnar-BY said:


> If I can not hear something by ear, why should I care about it?



No one, including castleofargh, is saying you should care about fidelity. If you can't hear fidelity and therefore don't care about it, that's perfectly reasonable and entirely your choice but then why are you making assertions and arguing about fidelity if you can not hear it and don't care about it?

G


----------



## castleofargh

rhetorical:  it's a public forum, people discuss anything they're interested in, not just what you're interested in. 

more serious:  you're the one who mentioned how you think MQA sounds better. and you specifiy


Ragnar-BY said:


> Not "better to my taste", just better.


 I simply replied to that. if it's not taste and it's better, what is it? the obvious suggestion being fidelity. so I explained how fidelity is checked and needs a proper reference.


----------



## Ragnar-BY

gregorio said:


> Why would the people who invented MQA be "MQA-haters"?


That`s not what I was saying. Not all people, who talk about tech side are MQA-haters. But all MQA-haters are talking only about tech, forgetting the purpose of listening to music.



gregorio said:


> No one, including castleofargh, is saying you should care about fidelity. If you can't hear fidelity and therefore don't care about it, that's perfectly reasonable and entirely your choice but then why are you making assertions and arguing about fidelity if you can not hear it and don't care about it?
> G


Please, show me where I have said anything about "fidelity". I don`t think "better fidelity" means "better sound". After all, why we are listening to music after mastering, not to initially recorded material?


----------



## Ragnar-BY

castleofargh said:


> if it's not taste and it's better, what is it? the obvious suggestion being fidelity. so I explained how fidelity is checked and needs a proper reference.


Well, long story short - according to my ears MQA tracks usually sounds better. What does it mean: high frequencies are smoother, small details like breath and quiet sounds are more distinguishable. I don`t know if it should be called "fidelity" or not. I call this "sounds better". And I don`t need any equipment to verify that in MQA-track I hear this things better than in regular CD-quality track.


----------



## gregorio

Ragnar-BY said:


> [1] That`s not what I was saying. Not all people, who talk about tech side are MQA-haters. [1a] But all MQA-haters are talking only about tech, forgetting the purpose of listening to music.
> 
> [2] I don`t think "better fidelity" means "better sound".



1. But those who invented MQA do talk about the tech side, so it's not therefore unreasonable that those who doubt the claims should question that tech side.
1a. This is obviously a false statement because I would be one of those "all MQA-Haters" and I am not forgetting the purpose of listening to music. However, MQA is a lossy data compression codec, so that's what it needs to be judged as.

2. If you think that "worse fidelity" means "better sound" or that "better sound" is unrelated to fidelity, that's fine but then you need to make that clear because the vast majority of audiophiles and members here would assume the opposite.

G


----------



## Ragnar-BY

gregorio said:


> However, MQA is a lossy data compression codec, so that's what it needs to be judged as.


Lossy MQA-file is playing as 24/192 with my DAC, while "lossless"  CD-quality file is only 16/44.1. What resolution is closer to initial master record? I assume pure 24/192 uncompressed PCM would be even better, but there are no such streaming options. For now, MQA with it`s lossy compression is the best quality I can get from streaming service.



gregorio said:


> If you think that "worse fidelity" means "better sound" or that "better sound" is unrelated to fidelity, that's fine but then you need to make that clear because the vast majority of audiophiles and members here would assume the opposite.


I`ve never said that. Actually, I was not saying anything about "fidelity". I think somebody can make claims about playback fidelity only if he heard original performance. Most of my favorite music is recorded in studio, not live, so I`ll leave this fidelity discussions for others.


----------



## castleofargh

Ragnar-BY said:


> Lossy MQA-file is playing as 24/192 with my DAC, while "lossless"  CD-quality file is only 16/44.1. What resolution is closer to initial master record? I assume pure 24/192 uncompressed PCM would be even better, but there are no such streaming options. For now, MQA with it`s lossy compression is the best quality I can get from streaming service.


yes.  I'm guessing such file is streamed as 24/48, so even if it was non MQA 24/48, that would be higher resolution than CD. that part is pretty straightforward.
beyond that, it's hard to tell anything(and that's what annoys me, a file format isn't supposed to be a mystery box). 13bit? 15bit? 18bit? in any case the more bits remain from the original audible range, the less ultrasonic content there can be, because data has to be stored somewhere. and vice versa. to this day I still don't know if they attenuate the ultrasonic content until a fixed allocated storage can hold it, or if there is a track by track adaptation of the lower bits discarded to make room for more or less ultrasonic content as the need arises, or if it's a systematic mix of both? I think I've read pretty much all I could find on MQA and I'm still not sure what goes on. 
but yes, it's safe to assume that the final signal of 24/48 MQA files gets higher fidelity than redbook PCM or lossy equivalent. no reason to doubt that much.


----------



## gregorio

Ragnar-BY said:


> [1] Lossy MQA-file is playing as 24/192 with my DAC, while "lossless"  CD-quality file is only 16/44.1. What resolution is closer to initial master record? [1a] I assume pure 24/192 uncompressed PCM would be even better, but there are no such streaming options. For now, MQA with it`s lossy compression is the best quality I can get from streaming service.
> 
> [2]  Actually, I was not saying anything about "fidelity".



1. Within the audible range then probably 16/44.1, although as castleofargh stated it's difficult to know because MQA is adaptive. Presuming MQA is well designed, and there's no reason to doubt that it isn't, then there shouldn't be any audible difference between MQA or any other of the better, high bit-rate lossy codecs, AAC 256 for example.
1a. Again, within the audible range there shouldn't be any difference between uncompressed 24/192 and 16/44.1.

2. Actually, yes you were! You stated "_high frequencies are smoother, small details like breath and quiet sounds are more distinguishable._" - If this statement is true then the fidelity MUST have changed. If the fidelity has not changed, then these observations are NOT observations of the audio and quality (fidelity) of MQA, they're observations of purely what your own perception has created. In which case, MQA is in fact NOT "just better",  it is only better for your personal perception/taste, which is the exact opposite of what you've stated (!) and brings us back to castleofargh's earlier post which you disagreed with!

G


----------



## D3soLaT3

I'm not sure if this has already been suggested, but James Taylor's Fire and Rain off the Sweet Baby James album has been stuck in my head since I heard the mastered version.


----------



## Left Channel

Ragnar-BY said:


> I assume pure 24/192 uncompressed PCM would be even better, but there are no such streaming options. For now, MQA with it`s lossy compression is the best quality I can get from streaming service.



I stream 24/192 tracks from Qobuz every day. They have over 1,000,000 Hi-Res PCM tracks vs. Tidal's 100,000 MQA tracks. (Here's how I arrived at that figure.)  I subscribe to the UK service from the US, but they are officially launching in the US this year.


----------



## BobSmith8901

D3soLaT3 said:


> I'm not sure if this has already been suggested, but James Taylor's Fire and Rain off the Sweet Baby James album has been stuck in my head since I heard the mastered version.


Concur. The MQA is superb! The bandwidth and low end from this recording are remarkable for its era. The bowed double bass that drones throughout the song is hair raising and I don't think I've ever heard it so vividly in the mix. Aside from JT being a great writer and guitarist and this is simply one of the greatest songs of all time.


----------



## alphanumerix1

is all the mqa content on tidal 24.44.1?


----------



## Left Channel

alphanumerix1 said:


> is all the mqa content on tidal 24/44.1?



Last time I checked, about 40% of their MQA tracks were 24/44.1. 

See my estimate here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/qobuz-lossless-streaming-service-thread.856101/page-3#post-14115257


----------



## jwbrent

Left Channel said:


> I stream 24/192 tracks from Qobuz every day. They have over 1,000,000 Hi-Res PCM tracks vs. Tidal's 100,000 MQA tracks. (Here's how I arrived at that figure.)  I subscribe to the UK service from the US, but they are officially launching in the US this year.



Glad to hear Qobuz is coming to the US with hi res streaming. I tried Tidal for several months, but there seems to be an emphasis on hip-hop and there is no overall artist directory so the search field has to be used which is not a good solution.


----------



## iamoneagain

jwbrent said:


> Glad to hear Qobuz is coming to the US with hi res streaming. I tried Tidal for several months, but there seems to be an emphasis on hip-hop and there is no overall artist directory so the search field has to be used which is not a good solution.



Roon software has just been updated to unfold MQA. It will also easily shows which albums on Tidal are MQA and what version they are. So I can see an R.E.M. album that is 96k vs 192k version.

I have an ifi idsd micro, so it needs software to do first unfold and it completes the rendering. Roon automatically detected this setting. If you don’t have a MQA dac, you can have roon first unfold and then use roon’s upsampling or even send unfolded file to HqPlayer to upsample.

When playing a non-MQA track roon goes back to my settings and upsamples to 128dsd.

Even though Tidal app itself caters to hip-hop, they actually have a full library and can find new albums within their genre section. Roon links to this too but avoids Tidal front end. It also shows you all the artists similar, influenced by, followed by, and so forth to find related artists.

Believe roon has a 2 week free trial. Software is a little pricey but I enjoy the benefits more than I would have buying a new piece of equipment.


----------



## iamoneagain

I know this is supposed to be a discussion about MQA and not the software that plays it. I’m firmly in the camp that prefers it over the regular file. I don’t have access to other hi-res content so I can’t do a comparison. All I can compare to is my own cd rips and the cd quality tracks on Tidal and the MQA versions always sound better. 

The best part is I didn’t have pay anything extra to get MQA.  Tidal added it for free, ifi upgraded my dac to a MQA renderer for free last month, and roon just upgraded their software the other day to play and easily show MQA tracks.


----------



## Left Channel

jwbrent said:


> Glad to hear Qobuz is coming to the US with hi res streaming. I tried Tidal for several months, but there seems to be an emphasis on hip-hop and there is no overall artist directory so the search field has to be used which is not a good solution.



Tidal's target market is 18-34 Jay-Z fans who listen on their phones and don't read much. Qobuz offers more detail, indexing, and overall respect for artists and their audience, intentionally serving a broader range of tastes and demographics with multiple tiers and more in-depth content.


----------



## Left Channel

iamoneagain said:


> Roon software has just been updated to unfold MQA. It will also easily shows which albums on Tidal are MQA and what version they are. So I can see an R.E.M. album that is 96k vs 192k version.



Have the Roon researchers drilled down to help us choose between the 96k and 192k versions? Those MQA albums were likely produced from different sources, as "master" can be a very loose term. This provenance issue has long been a problem with certain Hi-Res music in general, but the MQA folks have taken this to a new level in their rush to convert everything. 

I don't know about that R.E.M album, but I was recently very frustrated trying to understand why the multiple MQA versions of one of my favorite jazz albums sound very different. One of them is clearly a remix with pronounced bass, and sounds quite unpleasant to me. As usual there is no documentation from Tidal or MQA, so no way to easily avoid it except to suffer listening, and no way to know the provenance of that album without researching AllMusic.com or asking the experts. 

Turns out one version was made from the original master, while the other was based on a remix made by others decades later during the "loudness wars". So why do both trigger the MQA blue light? Because that light only indicates that the copyright holder approved it. So much for MQA reflecting the sound the original artists and recording engineers intended. Again: not a problem unique to MQA, but they are taking this to a new level, and not in a good way.


----------



## Left Channel (May 5, 2018)

iamoneagain said:


> I don’t have access to other hi-res content so I can’t do a comparison.



You can download free samples in MQA, DSD, and multiple Hi-Res rates from the 2L Test Bench: http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html

A recent study has shown that many listeners cannot hear the difference between 320kbps MP3 and 16/44.1 CD tracks, but many more were able to hear a difference between those two types and 24/192 Hi-Res tracks. Without being told which they were listening to, some heard the Hi-Res difference rationally and scientifically, while others reported an emotional response they could not explain.

I can certainly hear and feel that difference, but all else being equal I cannot tell MQA and uncompressed Hi-Res apart. Perhaps if I continue upgrading my audio components, at some point I'll be able to discern the time domain component MQA is supposed to include. But for most listeners, MQA serves only to save money on their mobile data plans. At home where many of us routinely stream 4K movies via Netflix, uncompressed Hi-Res music is just a minor rounding up of our monthly broadband usage.


----------



## iamoneagain (May 5, 2018)

In roon it has a versions tab to show all the available versions on Tidal and your pc including the file format. You can then select your primary version.

And even though Tidal is marketed toward hip-hop I think there still is a part that markets to audiophile consumers and makes deals with roon, Audirvana, Amarra, and others. Qobuz is not in the US yet, so I can’t compare. And even when they arrive if they don’t integrate with roon I won’t bother since I have roon setup throughout the house.

And yes, could go thru the trouble of finding a few free hires file and do comparisons but I’m just saying without going thru the trouble, Tidal MQA offers me the best quality.

One thing I could try is whether MQA rendering filters sound better. I could send the unfolded file thru HQPlayer and use 256dsd and see how it compares to 192k MQA render. 

I’ve seen in other discussions that people feel the unfolded MQA is on par with 96k hires files but 192k and above sound better in original format since MQA is only using upsampling above 96k.

I didn’t really come here to argue about the quality of MQA, just wanted to let others know there’s another option to play MQA.  Figured in an appreciation thread it would just be for people who liked MQA. Plenty of other threads about why it’s the worst thing to happen to audio.


----------



## iamoneagain

I found MQA sounds better when upsampled thru HQPlayer than having my dac do the rendering after the first unfold. 

I’ve seen posts where it says all the rendering is doing it choosing 1 of 32 filters and what level to upsample to. There is no additional unfolding or extra info.


----------



## Left Channel (May 12, 2018)

iamoneagain said:


> In roon it has a versions tab to show all the available versions on Tidal and your pc including the file format. You can then select your primary version.



No criticizing, I really want to know. For example, there are seven versions of the album Getz/Gilberto on Tidal. Four of them are Masters. Two of the Masters are "Expanded" versions, and two are not. Why two of each?

Does Roon help you tell these apart, other than that they are in different resolutions?
Standard https://tidal.com/album/77612115
Standard https://tidal.com/album/77820841

And what is the difference between these?
Expanded https://tidal.com/album/77821590
Expanded https://tidal.com/album/77556381



iamoneagain said:


> I didn’t really come here to argue about the quality of MQA



Me neither; I was just answering questions. When I find the right MQA version, it sounds equivalent to a good Hi-Res download. Right now the hard part is finding the right version. Maybe later with the right room and equipment I will be able to hear the "time domain" sampling difference.


----------



## iamoneagain (May 12, 2018)

Left Channel said:


> No criticizing, I really want to know. For example, there are seven versions of the album Getz/Gilberto on Tidal. Four of them are Masters. Two of the Masters are "Expanded" versions, and two are not. Why two of each?
> 
> Does Roon help you tell these apart, other than that they are in different resolutions?
> Standard https://tidal.com/album/77612115
> ...



One I didn’t take pic of was the 18 track 44k/16bit one.


----------



## Left Channel

Thanks @iamoneagain but is there anything in the Album Info or Credits tabs explaining the difference between the otherwise identical 96 kHz and 192 kHz versions? I know now that one of each is a remix produced decades later, with pronounced bass and "loudness". It's very frustrating to have to wade through MQA releases without any indication of provenance, and I am hoping Roon can help.


----------



## iamoneagain

Left Channel said:


> Thanks @iamoneagain but is there anything in the Album Info or Credits tabs explaining the difference between the otherwise identical 96 kHz and 192 kHz versions? I know now that one of each is a remix produced decades later, with pronounced bass and "loudness". It's very frustrating to have to wade through MQA releases without any indication of provenance, and I am hoping Roon can help.



Think MQA versions are just 192k and 96k versions of regular and expanded of this:

http://www.hdtracks.com/getz-gilberto-expanded-edition

In Album Info in Roon each version has a different product # but nothing else about it.


----------



## Left Channel

iamoneagain said:


> In Album Info in Roon each version has a different product # but nothing else about it.



Ah-ha! A product number? Do any match up with what is in the Label/Catalog column here? https://www.allmusic.com/album/getz-gilberto-mw0000649528/releases

That information is something Tidal does not provide, and it's been very frustrating avoiding the non-master remixed Masters without that assistance.


----------



## iamoneagain

Left Channel said:


> Ah-ha! A product number? Do any match up with what is in the Label/Catalog column here? https://www.allmusic.com/album/getz-gilberto-mw0000649528/releases
> 
> That information is something Tidal does not provide, and it's been very frustrating avoiding the non-master remixed Masters without that assistance.



Can’t be sure but the 192k MQA 18 track matches the last 4 digits of the 2018 release shown on allmusic.


----------



## Left Channel

iamoneagain said:


> Can’t be sure but the 192k MQA 18 track matches the last 4 digits of the 2018 release shown on allmusic.



Interesting, thanks. Too bad there isn't more of a clue there, and in the other three albums. It's easy enough to tell the standard from the "expanded" release because of the ten bonus tracks (which are all in mono), and in _Corcovado_ Gilberto's voice appears in the right channel instead of the left (as someone pointed out to me on another forum). There's also the bass emphasis and other issues.

But it's not at all clear why MQA has produced 96k and 192k versions of the standard album, and 96k and 192k versions of the expanded edition. There is already some confusion about the available Hi-Res versions in general, and this compounds the problem.

This album is just an example. I have the CD and a 192k download of the standard 1964 release, and the Hi-Res version sounds better of course. After being annoyed by at least one of the MQA versions, and having Tidal freeze up on me way too many times while trying to decide which to favorite, I began listening only to my download or streaming the 192k version from Qobuz. But I keep returning to Tidal, hoping for the best.


----------



## Signal2Noise

I'll just leave this here as a "head's up":

http://variety.com/2018/digital/new...-subscriber-and-streaming-numbers-1202815447/


----------



## discape

I've done tests where I was played the HIFI version vs the 320kpbs version and was not able to tell the difference when I didn't know which one was playing (get someone else to play it for you). The interesting thing is I was POSITIVE I was hearing a difference before I didn't know which one I was listening to, and I failed the test.


----------



## Left Channel

discape said:


> I've done tests where I was played the HIFI version vs the 320kpbs version and was not able to tell the difference when I didn't know which one was playing (get someone else to play it for you). The interesting thing is I was POSITIVE I was hearing a difference before I didn't know which one I was listening to, and I failed the test.



Apparently you're normal. What are you doing on Head-Fi?  

Can you hear a difference between those formats and Hi-Res/MQA?  Many cannot hear that either, but apparently more pass that test than the 320/CD comparison. From one of my recent posts:



Left Channel said:


> A recent study has shown that many listeners cannot hear the difference between 320kbps MP3 and 16/44.1 CD tracks, but many more were able to hear a difference between those two types and 24/192 Hi-Res tracks. Without being told which they were listening to, some heard the Hi-Res difference rationally and scientifically, while others reported an emotional response they could not explain.


----------



## discape

Left Channel said:


> Apparently you're normal. What are you doing on Head-Fi?
> 
> Can you hear a difference between those formats and Hi-Res/MQA?  Many cannot hear that either, but apparently more pass that test than the 320/CD comparison. From one of my recent posts:



I cannot test that because I do not have the appropriate hardware for the MQA test. However I have always been suspicious of MQA, as it streams at a much lower bitrate than HIFI I believe, which made me think they just wanted to save bandwidth costs by making you think you were getting better quality. 

Although I use Tidal, there is something about how the music sounds on it compared to Spotify - I prefer the sound on Spotify, it's a bit livelier. I find Tidal a bit sharp and too loud. So even if the MQA is better there is something about how Tidal decodes that leaves me unsure - but maybe I am imagining that aswell, I would probably fail the test!


----------



## Left Channel

discape said:


> I cannot test that because I do not have the appropriate hardware for the MQA test. However I have always been suspicious of MQA, as it streams at a much lower bitrate than HIFI I believe, which made me think they just wanted to save bandwidth costs by making you think you were getting better quality.
> 
> Although I use Tidal, there is something about how the music sounds on it compared to Spotify - I prefer the sound on Spotify, it's a bit livelier. I find Tidal a bit sharp and too loud. So even if the MQA is better there is something about how Tidal decodes that leaves me unsure - but maybe I am imagining that aswell, I would probably fail the test!



MQA streams at HiFi bit rates. That's one of their selling points, as Hi-Res normally requires much higher bit rates.

MQA then "unfolds" to a form of Hi-Res on your end, using the Tidal app software decoder and/or your hardware.

But anyway if you don't like it that's fine. The only true test is what sounds good to you.


----------



## castleofargh

discape said:


> I cannot test that because I do not have the appropriate hardware for the MQA test. However I have always been suspicious of MQA, as it streams at a much lower bitrate than HIFI I believe, which made me think they just wanted to save bandwidth costs by making you think you were getting better quality.
> 
> Although I use Tidal, there is something about how the music sounds on it compared to Spotify - I prefer the sound on Spotify, it's a bit livelier. I find Tidal a bit sharp and too loud. So even if the MQA is better there is something about how Tidal decodes that leaves me unsure - but maybe I am imagining that aswell, I would probably fail the test!


MQA sacrifices bit depth and uses that to store more samples. it's really simple, 2 axis variables, use one to partially store the other. also the ultrasounds can end up attenuated compared to the original highres track, and have(can have?) some small lossy parts. so it's for people who believe both that losing bits is fine and that having more samples than 48khz is necessary. and apparently it's also for all the people who misunderstood what this format is doing thanks to marketing always talking about the "more" and trying hard to forget about the "less". marketing will be marketing.
but yes the main idea for MQA is indeed to have relatively high sample rate at slightly lower bitrate(and bit depth), without using the psycho acoustic tricks of lossy formats.


----------



## NobbyChad

discape said:


> I've done tests where I was played the HIFI version vs the 320kpbs version and was not able to tell the difference when I didn't know which one was playing (get someone else to play it for you). The interesting thing is I was POSITIVE I was hearing a difference before I didn't know which one I was listening to, and I failed the test.


Too many factors to say you failed, on poor equipment the f


castleofargh said:


> MQA sacrifices bit depth and uses that to store more samples. it's really simple, 2 axis variables, use one to partially store the other. also the ultrasounds can end up attenuated compared to the original highres track, and have(can have?) some small lossy parts. so it's for people who believe both that losing bits is fine and that having more samples than 48khz is necessary. and apparently it's also for all the people who misunderstood what this format is doing thanks to marketing always talking about the "more" and trying hard to forget about the "less". marketing will be marketing.
> but yes the main idea for MQA is indeed to have relatively high sample rate at slightly lower bitrate(and bit depth), without using the psycho acoustic tricks of lossy formats.


I switched on my stereo today and listened to Sade, she wasn't in the room and neither was the band but it sounded like it. All stereo systems use psycho acoustics tricks


----------



## castleofargh

NobbyChad said:


> Too many factors to say you failed, on poor equipment the f
> 
> I switched on my stereo today and listened to Sade, she wasn't in the room and neither was the band but it sounded like it. All stereo systems use psycho acoustics tricks


I believe I was specific enough. "without using the psycho acoustic tricks of lossy formats". I was talking about the way all those formats take advantage of acoustic masking to discard the data that we are unlikely to perceive, and save a lot of space in the process.
MQA doesn't behave like that despite having the lossy term associated to it.

because I love Sade so much, you still get half a cookie.


----------



## discape

NobbyChad said:


> Too many factors to say you failed, on poor equipment the f



Indeed but that is the equip that I have, so you have to scale worth to your context. At the time I had expensive cans and DAC but I'm not actually sure that I used the cans in the test, I think I just used my fairly cheap speakers.


----------



## abirdie4me

DarwinOSX said:


> Also agree the full unfold is better and about the Brooklyn vs Meridian Explorer 2. The Meridian is a good deal though at $200 plus it does the full unfold and the Dragonfly are renderers.



Is it possible to just use the meridian explorer 2 to do the full MQA unfold and then feed that into another (higher-end) DAC?


----------



## Left Channel

abirdie4me said:


> Is it possible to just use the meridian explorer 2 to do the full MQA unfold and then feed that into another (higher-end) DAC?



No, because it doesn't have digital outputs. I can't think of any MQA-capable DAC that would do that for you; certainly not one in this price range.


----------



## Lemieux66

Is there any clarity on when Tidal Masters (MQA) will be available from the Android phone app? I only downloaded the app a week ago and am very impressed with the Hi-fi sound. I'm using a Chromecast into my old Arcam airDAC and Leben CS300XS before I make a more high-end purchasing choice in the next few weeks/months pending some research on NAS audio and streamers etc.

I've seen people on YouTube using an app called UAPP on their phones to play Tidal Masters on the Meridian Explorer 2. Is this app fooling Tidal into thinking it's the desktop app? I don't get it...


----------



## BobSmith8901 (Jun 18, 2018)

Lemieux66 said:


> Is there any clarity on when Tidal Masters (MQA) will be available from the Android phone app? I only downloaded the app a week ago and am very impressed with the Hi-fi sound. I'm using a Chromecast into my old Arcam airDAC and Leben CS300XS before I make a more high-end purchasing choice in the next few weeks/months pending some research on NAS audio and streamers etc.
> 
> I've seen people on YouTube using an app called UAPP on their phones to play Tidal Masters on the Meridian Explorer 2. Is this app fooling Tidal into thinking it's the desktop app? I don't get it...



I believe UAPP has a licensing agreement with Tidal for their Tidal integration in the app. I am using UAPP to stream Tidal MQA and HiFi using my Meridian Explorer2 DAC via USB OTG cable with either my Tegra Note 7 (Android 4.3) and more recently with My FiiO X5III. Runs smooth on the Tegra and OK with some hiccups on the X5, since FiiO added official USB Audio with latest firmware.


----------



## Lemieux66

@BobSmith8901

Right, I see...so just an anomalie then. It really does seem clunky using a laptop for music, and quite old-fashioned. I don't know why Tidal are insisting on this - are there technical reasons why they haven't done an Android/iOS app with Masters yet?


----------



## BobSmith8901 (Jun 18, 2018)

Lemieux66 said:


> @BobSmith8901
> 
> Right, I see...so just an anomalie then. It really does seem clunky using a laptop for music, and quite old-fashioned. I don't know why Tidal are insisting on this - are there technical reasons why they haven't done an Android/iOS app with Masters yet?


I've often wondered the same thing. Like the desktop app, they could do a software unfold and give the option to bypass so a DAP, phone or DAC could do a full hardware rendering. Maybe it _is _pretty difficult within the constraints of Android or iOS or they just can't be bothered at this point.

I must say though, depending on your hardware (I'm aware that the LG V30 does a full MQA hardware rendering by itself), UAPP does a generally good job if you want MQA off a phone/tablet or DAP. It has a setting where you check "bit perfect" and it sends the raw MQA stream to your renderer of choice--in my case the ME2. The only problem is that it can get bit awkward with the cabling to an MQA DAC especially if you also have a portable amp in the mix.


----------



## abirdie4me

Lemieux66 said:


> @BobSmith8901
> 
> Right, I see...so just an anomalie then. It really does seem clunky using a laptop for music, and quite old-fashioned. I don't know why Tidal are insisting on this - are there technical reasons why they haven't done an Android/iOS app with Masters yet?



Just a hunch on my part...Tidal probably sees the majority of Masters streamers as sitting at home in a quiet environment and prioritized the desktop app to cater to that crowd first. People listening out of the phone directly (in general) are probably mobile, and with the noise of the world around you while mobile, the quality difference between Masters and HiFi is probably quite small. Or, maybe they have developers that are more adept at desktop development vs. mobile development.


----------



## Lemieux66

I've only used Tidal at home since I got it and I've only used it on my phone, because it's a good remote control for my Chromecast. I don't see why being at home would make me more likely to use a PC for my Tidal listening.

Tjabks for the replies. I guess we'll just have to wait for them to make the necessary software updates.


----------



## Left Channel

Lemieux66 said:


> @BobSmith8901
> 
> Right, I see...so just an anomalie then. It really does seem clunky using a laptop for music, and quite old-fashioned. I don't know why Tidal are insisting on this - are there technical reasons why they haven't done an Android/iOS app with Masters yet?



The main technical reason is simple, and leads to business reasons as well. your phone needs "MQA Inside", or an external MQA DAC attached via USB. But Apple, Google, and others are removing DACs from their phones, and pushing an ecosystem for their own music services focused on wireless earbuds containing DACs that don't support MQA in any way. The very expensive LG V30 has an internal MQA-capable DAC, but the number of Tidal subscribers who will own a phone like that, or who would buy a portable external MQA DAC — or have even heard of such a thing — is really a very small percentage of the overall user base. And Tidal is still losing money. A lot of money. More than we could ever make up for ...even if every member of head-fi somehow suddenly decided today we just can't live without full unfolding of all 100,000 or so Tidal Masters tracks on our phones.


----------



## BobSmith8901 (Jun 19, 2018)

Left Channel said:


> The main technical reason is simple, and leads to business reasons as well. your phone needs "MQA Inside", or an external MQA DAC attached via USB. But Apple, Google, and others are removing DACs from their phones, and pushing an ecosystem for their own music services focused on wireless earbuds containing DACs that don't support MQA in any way. The very expensive LG V30 has an internal MQA-capable DAC, but the number of Tidal subscribers who will own a phone like that, or who would buy a portable external MQA DAC — or have even heard of such a thing — is really a very small percentage of the overall user base. And Tidal is still losing money. A lot of money. More than we could ever make up for ...even if every member of head-fi somehow suddenly decided today we just can't live without full unfolding of all 100,000 or so Tidal Masters tracks on our phones.



Yeah, I haven't heard much at all lately regarding Tidal's current monetary situation. In December Dagens Naeringsliv was reporting they had enough working capital to last til June, which is now. I wonder if we'll get some reporting on this subject any time soon. Would be a drag for me if they folded but I'm sure some wouldn't mind. I can actually conceive of them creating a new pricing structure and maybe charging more of a premium for the Hi Fi tier if you also want masters streams. I wonder how many would drop if they decided to increase the sub for masters?


----------



## Left Channel

BobSmith8901 said:


> Yeah, I haven't heard much at all lately regarding Tidal's current monetary situation. In December Dagens Naeringsliv was reporting they had enough working capital to last til June, which is now. I wonder if we'll get some reporting on this subject any time soon. Would be a drag for me if they folded but I'm sure some wouldn't mind. I can actually conceive of them creating a new pricing structure and maybe charging more of a premium for the Hi Fi tier if you also want masters streams. I wonder how many would drop if they decided to increase the sub for masters?



Given that the OP began this thread as a positive music appreciation thing, I'll avoid getting into details here...but...go ahead and Google "Tidal fraud" for the latest news.


----------



## Lemieux66

BobSmith8901 said:


> Yeah, I haven't heard much at all lately regarding Tidal's current monetary situation. In December Dagens Naeringsliv was reporting they had enough working capital to last til June, which is now. I wonder if we'll get some reporting on this subject any time soon. Would be a drag for me if they folded but I'm sure some wouldn't mind. I can actually conceive of them creating a new pricing structure and maybe charging more of a premium for the Hi Fi tier if you also want masters streams. I wonder how many would drop if they decided to increase the sub for masters?



Yes, and last June the same sources said Tidal only had enough cash to last until December...and here we are a year on. How many businesses have 6 months operating capital just sitting in their account? Sounds healthy to me.

Also, we hear talk of Tidal making big losses - $44 million last year - yet no-one mentions that Spotify lost $581 million in the same year. Isn't Quboz in trouble too?

Tidal is here to stay, whether with the current owners or others.

Meanwhile, I'm enjoying the 'Today is cancelled' Playlist at home. Such good sound


----------



## Left Channel

Lemieux66 said:


> Isn't Quboz in trouble too?



Qobuz went into receivership a few years ago, but came out of it with new ownership and a new price structure that they claim will lead to profitability in a few years. 

A big part of that is charging a lot of money to the small number of us who stream Hi-Res tracks. That tier is quite pricey, but probably the only level that pays for itself. 

They're launching in the USA this year, and they offer 1,000,000 of those Hi-Res tracks, compared to a bit over 100,000 MQA tracks on Tidal. (I came up with those track numbers here).


----------



## Lemieux66

How do you listen to Tidal Masters? I've been trying to get it to work today for the first time without much luck. So far, the only way that works is to use the Tidal desktop app and then listen directly through the laptop eg. in-built laptop speakers (do not have a USB DAC to try, but I assume that would work too). Is it not possible to use a Chromecast Audio? Do I have to buy a USB DAC now? Can I send Tidal Masters over a network? If so, would I need a laptop always running or would a streamer separate do the job?


----------



## tmarshl

I have refrained from commenting on MQA, preferring to listen instead.  My opinion has been formed from listening to Tidal Masters over the last year.  I currently have four DACs (Chord Dave, Ps Audio DirectStream DAC, Exasound PlayPoint/e32, and Meridian Explorer II).   

This is a complicated issue for me, as each element of the recording, mastering, distribution and playback process will affect the final presentation to my ears.  Does every MQA Tidal Master recording sound better than every non-MQA Tidal Master recording?  Absolutely not, but often there is a noticeable improvement in clarity, space, and positioning of instruments.    I have relied upon my personal pleasure from listening to music to guide my judgement. 

Two decisions I have made:
I will not be purchasing hi-res (DSD) files for downloading any more, as I am satisfied with the SQ and the rapidly expanding selection that Tidal Masters provides.
Any future DACs that I purchase will have MQA decoding capability. ​I am reporting my own conclusions, and have no interest in debating either the scientific, economic or political ramifications of MQA.   I am only interested in the joy that I receive from listening to great music.


----------



## NobbyChad

tmarshl said:


> I have refrained from commenting on MQA, preferring to listen instead.  My opinion has been formed from listening to Tidal Masters over the last year.  I currently have four DACs (Chord Dave, Ps Audio DirectStream DAC, Exasound PlayPoint/e32, and Meridian Explorer II).
> 
> This is a complicated issue for me, as each element of the recording, mastering, distribution and playback process will affect the final presentation to my ears.  Does every MQA Tidal Master recording sound better than every non-MQA Tidal Master recording?  Absolutely not, but often there is a noticeable improvement in clarity, space, and positioning of instruments.    I have relied upon my personal pleasure from listening to music to guide my judgement.
> 
> ...



I have reached a similar conclusion. I also have several dacs/ network players including Marantz NA 7004, Naim Uniti, Audio Alchemy and a Meridian Explorer2. For me Tidal Masters offers very good SQ via all the days but especially the Explorer2. I would love to try a more expensive MQA equipped streamer but the choice is limited. I read many reviews and comments regarding MQA most seem to pit the Explorer2 or Bluesound Node 2 against esoteric CD and Network players and concluded MQA is 'not better'. Looking at SQ/$ equation MQA appears, to me, to offer great SQ at relatively low price. I could buy a CORDS or similar dac for mega bucks but I paid $250 for the Meridian and $25 a month for Tidal. That means about 40 years payback for a non MQA set up I would see as "not worse'.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

tmarshl said:


> I have refrained from commenting on MQA, preferring to listen instead.  My opinion has been formed from listening to Tidal Masters over the last year.  I currently have four DACs (Chord Dave, Ps Audio DirectStream DAC, Exasound PlayPoint/e32, and Meridian Explorer II).
> 
> This is a complicated issue for me, as each element of the recording, mastering, distribution and playback process will affect the final presentation to my ears.  Does every MQA Tidal Master recording sound better than every non-MQA Tidal Master recording?  Absolutely not, but often there is a noticeable improvement in clarity, space, and positioning of instruments.    I have relied upon my personal pleasure from listening to music to guide my judgement.
> 
> ...



I haven't done any critical comparisons but I'm happy with the quality of Tidal masters I've heard. I guess I would make a distinction between MQA for streaming as opposed to downloads. I can see why MQA would be preferable for streaming. Even if you have a fast connection, reducing bandwidth is good if you can do it without loss of content. MQA seems to solve this.

Yet for normal listening (buying downloads, ripping CDs, SACDs etc.) I prefer the relative simplicity of FLAC or DSD without having to depend on hardware (or worse, software) hoop-jumping to decode MQA.


----------



## AudioThief

How big is the difference between MQA through a DAC like the modi multibit vs a DAC that can decode and repack or whatever it is ? To my ears MQA are superior to normal FLAC through my current rig (Roon > Mimby > 727II > 007 mk1). Wonder if I should look to upgrade DAC if I should get one that supports MQA.


----------



## Left Channel

AudioThief said:


> How big is the difference between MQA through a DAC like the modi multibit vs a DAC that can decode and repack or whatever it is ? To my ears MQA are superior to normal FLAC through my current rig (Roon > Mimby > 727II > 007 mk1). Wonder if I should look to upgrade DAC if I should get one that supports MQA.



One of the difficulties in answering your question is that you may find all or most MQA DACs have very different sound signatures from your current DAC. My Modi 2 Uber (AKM chip) and your Modi Multibit (AD chip) already sound different, and all or most MQA DACs are even farther afield.

The MQA-capable DACs I've heard, from Mytek and Pro-Ject, were designed around ESS chips, and people who like those often say you'll get a much more "crisp", "neutral", "resolving" sound from those products. I would use more negative words, as I prefer a warmer sound. I know of only one brand that has designed MQA-compatible systems around AKM chips: Aurender. I haven't heard those.

It's not just the chip, it's the design, but the brand of chip will give you a clue. I prefer 1x software decoding of MQA through my warmer Modi/Magni 2U combo over full decoding through my Pro-Ject S2 Digital. And anyway these days I am listening more to Hi-Res streaming from Qobuz than I am to Tidal streams of any kind. Qobuz offers over 2,000,000 Hi-Res albums vs. Tidal's ~100,000 "Masters", and Qobuz is launching in the US next month.


----------



## MichaelXX2

I can't tell the slightest difference between MQA and non-MQA files.


----------



## arnobartels (Sep 17, 2018)

iamoneagain said:


> One I didn’t take pic of was the 18 track 44k/16bit one.


Here are the spectrograms of the various Getz Master albums on Tidal.
So much for "Master Quality" or "Authenticated".
They are just oversampled CD quality files.
There's many more albums like this...


----------



## arnobartels (Sep 17, 2018)

Here is the Tidal master of the Preservation Hall Jazz Band "So it is" Album.
Looks like it is played back without reconstruction filter and recorded at a higher sampling rate because the high frequency content is an alias image of the 22kHz baseband.
You could play the CD on an Audio Note DAC, which has neither a digital nor an analog filter, and this is more or less what would come out. (Great sounding DAC's by the way)
Looks like you get a "Non Oversampling" experience with this file. I would rather buy the AN DAC, and have all my CD's sound great, than pay for a MQA DAC or MQA files.


----------



## Left Channel

arnobartels said:


> Here are the spectrograms of the various Getz Master albums on Tidal.
> So much for "Master Quality" or "Authenticated".
> They are just oversampled CD quality files.
> There's many more albums like this...
> <images>



Which albums? I was particularly annoyed with the Getz/Gilberto Expanded Edition, which should have never been "MQA'ed" in the first place. That one is a loudness-enhanced remix for a 2014 "50th anniversary" release, but it's hard or impossible to figure that out from the information on Tidal. Way too much bass in that one.


----------



## arnobartels

They are the five master quality Gets/Gilberto albums. So both the expanded and normal versions.


----------



## Armando Cruz

I have a chord mojo and audioquest butterfly black ( the inferior one, 80 pounds device ). These days I put the chord Mojo on the side ("happily"), and listen more the Audioquest black . I must be crazy...because for me the  audioquest black playing MQA files it's massively superior than chord mojo! My beyerdynamic 1990 pro it has been given me such a quality! Divine! If any of you didn't try mqa , I HIGHLY recommend it !


----------



## Dragonmilenario

Hey, guys.

I have a question. I'm testing Tidal and I find it a bit complicated to configure my DAC correctly. It has no MQA certificate and allows up to 32 bit and 384000 hz resolution. The best option is to put in Windows the maximum numbers and tick the box in Tidal that allows MQA by software?

I get lost with these things.


----------



## Left Channel

Dragonmilenario said:


> Hey, guys.
> 
> I have a question. I'm testing Tidal and I find it a bit complicated to configure my DAC correctly. It has no MQA certificate and allows up to 32 bit and 384000 hz resolution. The best option is to put in Windows the maximum numbers and tick the box in Tidal that allows MQA by software?
> 
> I get lost with these things.



Yes, that's all you need to do. Oh, and also: enjoy the music!


----------



## chris6878

ANyone tried playing MQA in a car yet? I was wondering, does MQA via tidal pass over Bluetooth? I have the LG v30 with the built in MQA decoder. Can it pass over btooth or should I connect via usb to my Head unit. My head unit can play Hi res audio files. 

Thanks


----------



## Left Channel

chris6878 said:


> ANyone tried playing MQA in a car yet? I was wondering, does MQA via tidal pass over Bluetooth? I have the LG v30 with the built in MQA decoder. Can it pass over btooth or should I connect via usb to my Head unit. My head unit can play Hi res audio files.
> 
> Thanks



Bluetooth generally makes any audio sound worse. Even when optimized for music, it's usually AAC or something other than Hi-Res. If as you say the DAC in your car can play Hi-Res files, I would connect via USB.  

My car actually has an analog Aux input that I can connect my V30 headphone jack to; then I'm using the quad DAC in my V30. That jack alone is making me hesitate to buy a new car.


----------



## chris6878

Left Channel said:


> Bluetooth generally makes any audio sound worse. Even when optimized for music, it's usually AAC or something other than Hi-Res. If as you say the DAC in your car can play Hi-Res files, I would connect via USB.
> 
> My car actually has an analog Aux input that I can connect my V30 headphone jack to; then I'm using the quad DAC in my V30. That jack alone is making me hesitate to buy a new car.



I figured bluetooth was a downgrade, i was just hoping. Most new cars have the aux input so you should be ok. Or you can always buy a new head unit. 
ANother question, is there a sound difference between the analog aux and a usb input?


----------



## Left Channel

chris6878 said:


> I figured bluetooth was a downgrade, i was just hoping. Most new cars have the aux input so you should be ok. Or you can always buy a new head unit.
> ANother question, is there a sound difference between the analog aux and a usb input?



Re: is there a sound difference between the analog aux and a usb input?  
Aux will pass the sound directly to the car's amplifier, bypassing the car's DAC. Sounds better to me! 
USB results will depend entirely on the car's DAC. Few if any are as good as the DAC in your LG V30.


----------



## chris6878

Left Channel said:


> Re: is there a sound difference between the analog aux and a usb input?
> Aux will pass the sound directly to the car's amplifier, bypassing the car's DAC. Sounds better to me!
> USB results will depend entirely on the car's DAC. Few if any are as good as the DAC in your LG V30.



THanks. Well my Dac in my kenwood should be as good as my phone. http://www.kenwood.com/usa/car/excelon/dmx905s/


----------



## Left Channel

chris6878 said:


> THanks. Well my Dac in my kenwood should be as good as my phone. http://www.kenwood.com/usa/car/excelon/dmx905s/



Nice! From the specs: 

*Frequency response
192k Sampling* 20 - 88,000 Hz
*96k Sampling* 20 - 44,000 Hz
*48k Sampling* 20 - 22,000 Hz
*44.1k Sampling* 20 - 20,000 Hz


----------



## IrishAudio

Can folks point me to what DAPs support direct Tidal Masters MQA streaming?  Portable players that stream via wifi as I am not interested in the V30 or Essential.

Would prefer a DAP which has a 2.5mm balanced output and can drive 300 ohms cans, the HD650s.

Thanks.


----------



## nugget2013

anyone know if its possible to see if you are getting any 192khz playback on mqa albums? i have ifi audio nano idsd black label, and only get max 96khz on the app that shows current sample rate, i have exclusive mode on, and i have the passthrough MQA option off. should it be enabled or disabled for my dac?


----------



## Left Channel (Dec 25, 2018)

nugget2013 said:


> anyone know if its possible to see if you are getting any 192khz playback on mqa albums? i have ifi audio nano idsd black label, and only get max 96khz on the app that shows current sample rate, i have exclusive mode on, and i have the passthrough MQA option off. should it be enabled or disabled for my dac?



*Edit:* the nano iDSD BL is an MQA renderer, so MQA Passthrough should indeed be off (slider to the left) so that the first "unfold" is done in the Tidal app, after which your nano would take it to the final level. *

Edit edit: *Also, for MQA you need the 5.3 or 5.3C firmware.

There are more 96 kHz tracks than 192 kHz tracks out there, so even if everything is setup correctly it's not surprising you haven't encountered any of the latter yet.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

nugget2013 said:


> anyone know if its possible to see if you are getting any 192khz playback on mqa albums? i have ifi audio nano idsd black label, and only get max 96khz on the app that shows current sample rate, i have exclusive mode on, and i have the passthrough MQA option off. should it be enabled or disabled for my dac?



Yes. I have seen a few 192s. Many are 96 though and not all the MQAs are the same bit rate.


----------



## NobbyChad

jwbrent said:


> For an appreciation thread, there is a lot of dissent here. Is it even possible to create a thread about MQA without the cynics, skeptics, and objectivists piling on?
> 
> I, for one, am happy with my TIDAL HiFi account. I do hear improvements when I listen to most Master files, especially in the upper frequencies. My only disappointment is the slowness of Master releases.
> 
> ...



I use audit and and it makes a significant difference both on my main system, Vincent pre / power tube amps, audio physic speakers, if I bl (MQA) DAC , Mac book. And on my second system  Naim Unitilite and Rega speakers via pnp. Also use meridian explorer2 when needing portability. Love your comment re appreciation, seems some people misunderstood the heading of the group. If you don't like MQA that's great I don't like BMWs but I don't go on the BMW owners page to tell them they are idiots with crap cars.


----------



## Cooljazz669

I am using ifi nano idsd silver.It can only render mqa max 96khz.


----------



## Cooljazz669

nugget2013 said:


> anyone know if its possible to see if you are getting any 192khz playback on mqa albums? i have ifi audio nano idsd black label, and only get max 96khz on the app that shows current sample rate, i have exclusive mode on, and i have the passthrough MQA option off. should it be enabled or disabled for my dac?



Many old classice rock or jazz album are 192khz.


----------



## ShakyJake (Dec 20, 2018)

I got an early Chrismas present this morning. USB Audio Player Pro (UAPP, Android) just upgraded to version 5.0 and now has the capability to play Tidal MQA music after paying a $4 license to MQA. All I can say is *WOW*. The KZ ZSN all of a sudden jumped a level when playing some of the Masters tracks (these are the ones that MQA enabled). UAPP already takes advantage of the dedicated AKM DAC/AMP in my Axon 7.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

ShakyJake said:


> I got an early Chrismas present this morning. USB Audio Player Pro (UAPP, Android) just upgraded to version 5.0 and now has the capability to play Tidal MQA music after paying a $4 license to MQA. All I can say is *WOW*. The KZ ZSN all of a sudden jumped a level when playing some of the Masters tracks (these are the ones that MQA enabled). UAPP already takes advantage of the dedicated AKM DAC/AMP in my Axon 7.



We're already paying for Tidal Hifi including MQA... why should we pay for MQA twice?


----------



## Left Channel (Dec 20, 2018)

gimmeheadroom said:


> We're already paying for Tidal Hifi including MQA... why should we pay for MQA twice?



We're already paying extra for it on mobile, one way or another. The extra cost is baked into the LG V30 internal DAC and firmware, the Essential Phone add-on DAC and firmware (both of which play MQA from the official Tidal app and UAPP without this new option) and also into any other MQA-capable product. The developer of UAPP spent time and money working with MQA on this. For  Android devices other than the V30 and the Essential, if you want a way around the problems the system throws in the way of sending a bit perfect MQA signal via USB, then adding this to UAPP is the ticket.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Left Channel said:


> We're already paying extra for it on mobile, one way or another. The extra cost is baked into the LG V30 internal DAC and firmware, the Essential Phone add-on DAC and firmware (both of which play MQA from the official Tidal app and UAPP without this new option) and also into any other MQA-capable product. The developer of UAPP spent time and money working with MQA on this. For  Android devices other than the V30 and the Essential, if you want a way around the problems the system throws in the way of sending a bit perfect MQA signal via USB, then adding this to UAPP is the ticket.



I have no idea what you are trying to say. @*ShakyJake *said he had to pay $4 license to MQA. That seems totally different than "The developer of UAPP spent time and money working with MQA on this"


----------



## Left Channel

gimmeheadroom said:


> I have no idea what you are trying to say. @*ShakyJake *said he had to pay $4 license to MQA. That seems totally different than "The developer of UAPP spent time and money working with MQA on this"



OK, I understand. That $4 (or actually, $3.99 I think) is the cost to enable the MQA decoder option in UAPP, payable to UAPP.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Left Channel said:


> OK, I understand. That $4 (or actually, $3.99 I think) is the cost to enable the MQA decoder option in UAPP, payable to UAPP.



That would sure be a lot more reasonable than paying the MQA-tax multiple times


----------



## nixternal

Left Channel said:


> MQA passthrough should be on, allowing the iDSD BL to do the decoding. Right now the decoding is being done in the Tidal app, which is a 1x unfold to no higher than 96 kHz.


Thanks for that tip! I am currently trying out Tidal & trying to get them to get my military discount issue figured out. If they do that, then I think I would gladly pay $12/mo for the top tier. Originally I didn't have that option set & thought every master album sounded like crap and it was at that point that I highly doubted every person who has said MQA was good  OK, no longer processing it through the processor, going straight to DAC & it sounds so much better. Testing Steely Dan, Gaucho, Babylon Sisters against my SACD rip. It isn't to shabby, but at the same time not even close in quality. I will say this, when you don't enable this & have the app do the MQA decoding, every master sounded muddy as all heck. So much clearer now. Thanks again for that tip!


----------



## BobSmith8901 (Dec 24, 2018)

nixternal said:


> Thanks for that tip! I am currently trying out Tidal & trying to get them to get my military discount issue figured out. If they do that, then I think I would gladly pay $12/mo for the top tier. Originally I didn't have that option set & thought every master album sounded like crap and it was at that point that I highly doubted every person who has said MQA was good  OK, no longer processing it through the processor, going straight to DAC & it sounds so much better. Testing Steely Dan, Gaucho, Babylon Sisters against my SACD rip. It isn't to shabby, but at the same time not even close in quality. I will say this, when you don't enable this & have the app do the MQA decoding, every master sounded muddy as all heck. So much clearer now. Thanks again for that tip!



Hi nixternal-I have the iDSD Nano BL. If you also have the Nano (wasn't sure if you had that one or one of the other BL's) and you want the full MQA rendering, you should have Passthrough MQA set to *OFF *in the Tidal desktop app.

The Nano BL needs the software in the Tidal desktop app to do the first unfold of the MQA stream and the Nano will do the second unfold and render the full MQA stream. Assuming you have the 5.3 or 5.3C firmware installed on your Nano BL, you'll get the magenta light when it's fully rendering the MQA stream. That's not to say that you may not be getting better sound quality just giving the Nano the full undecoded MQA stream without the first unfold, as everyone's systems and ears are different!


----------



## Left Channel (Dec 24, 2018)

BobSmith8901 said:


> Hi nixternal-I have the iDSD Nano BL. If you also have the Nano (wasn't sure if you had that one or one of the other BL's) and you want the full MQA rendering, you should have Passthrough MQA set to *OFF *in the Tidal desktop app.
> 
> The Nano BL needs the software in the Tidal desktop app to do the first unfold of the MQA stream and the Nano will do the second unfold and render the full MQA stream. Assuming you have the 5.3 or 5.3C firmware installed on your Nano BL, you'll get the magenta light when it's fully rendering the MQA stream. That's not to say that you may not be getting better sound quality just giving the Nano the full undecoded MQA stream without the first unfold, as everyone's systems and ears are different!



Wait, are you saying the nano BL is a renderer not a full decoder? The iFi folks sure hide that information on their website and user manual. They make it look like a full decoder. I just did further research (Google took me to the CA and Roon forums) and found it may well be a renderer only.

You have a nano iDSD BL and I don't, so you should know of course. In that case @nixternal and @nugget2013 should leave Passthrough off. But after turning it on they should be hearing unpleasant digital noise in the signal, yet nixternal says it sounds better. So now I have no idea what to say.


----------



## nixternal (Dec 24, 2018)

I do not have an iFi, using a Schiit Modi 2 Uber. Definitely isn't MQA, but when the passthrough was off, everything sounded muddy, awful sounding. I enabled it & everything was much clearer sounding.

OK, I just disabled it while Babylon Sisters was playing, and didn't hear a difference. Restarted & it still sounds the same. Wondering if I just came across a bug with the initial configuration. It was seriously awful sounding. Like wearing Beats listening to a low res MP3 on an iPoop Nano, bad. Yeah, it is playing fine now with it disabled. Diana Krall sounds like Diana Krall now & not like...oh hell I don't know, she doesn't sound like a bass in an A Capella group. I wouldn't doubt it was a bug, have a friend who is dev at Tidal & told me it is some of the worst coding he has seen in a long time, though that was a year or 2 ago.

EDIT: OK, so on Tidal, if it is a Master recording, it is MQA for sure? When I toggle MQA passthrough while a song is playing, I don't hear a change at all. And having it enabled does not mess with the sound. When I disable it while a song is playing, I hear nothing. When I enable while a song is playing, I can hear a brief pause & the song continues playing just fine.


----------



## Left Channel (Dec 24, 2018)

OK @nixternal I have a Modi 2U too, and for that one you should have Use Exclusive Mode on, Force Volume on, but Passthrough MQA off. You were replying to advice for another DAC that has some MQA features built-in, but Schiit Audio has publicly announced they will not support MQA at this time.

To answer your question, if Tidal calls it a Master then it is MQA. Their definition of "master", small "m", may or may not match yours, and I find the quality of MQA albums to be quite varied. Everyone's ears are different, of course. But I can't understand why you're hearing an improvement when you toggle Passthrough MQA on.

The Tidal devs appear to have improved Passthrough MQA, so that if your DAC is not compatible you will no longer hear nasty digital noise in the signal when that option is on. That's nice. But maybe you can ask your dev friend if at that point it disables MQA completely and if so what exactly is it doing. I suspect you are now getting an undecoded stream in a 24/48 envelope instead of it "unfolding" to a higher resolution (if a higher res is available, as some MQA and other Hi-Res tracks are natively 24/44.1 or 24/48).


----------



## gimmeheadroom

nixternal said:


> I do not have an iFi, using a Schiit Modi 2 Uber. Definitely isn't MQA, but when the passthrough was off, everything sounded muddy, awful sounding. I enabled it & everything was much clearer sounding.
> 
> OK, I just disabled it while Babylon Sisters was playing, and didn't hear a difference. Restarted & it still sounds the same. Wondering if I just came across a bug with the initial configuration. It was seriously awful sounding. Like wearing Beats listening to a low res MP3 on an iPoop Nano, bad. Yeah, it is playing fine now with it disabled. Diana Krall sounds like Diana Krall now & not like...oh hell I don't know, she doesn't sound like a bass in an A Capella group. I wouldn't doubt it was a bug, have a friend who is dev at Tidal & told me it is some of the worst coding he has seen in a long time, though that was a year or 2 ago.
> 
> EDIT: OK, so on Tidal, if it is a Master recording, it is MQA for sure? When I toggle MQA passthrough while a song is playing, I don't hear a change at all. And having it enabled does not mess with the sound. When I disable it while a song is playing, I hear nothing. When I enable while a song is playing, I can hear a brief pause & the song continues playing just fine.



I believe the audio settings are not applied until the next song plays. I don't think there is a way to test this in the middle of a song, based on the messages I get when I change certain playback settings.


----------



## Left Channel

gimmeheadroom said:


> I believe the audio settings are not applied until the next song plays. I don't think there is a way to test this in the middle of a song, based on the messages I get when I change certain playback settings.



I have skipped to the next track, switched albums, and even restarted the app, and am not hearing the digital noise I used to get on a non-MQA DAC when Passthrough was enabled. I also am not hearing much difference when I have it off, though that will require some critical listening. When I first toggle it on I do hear the music drop out for a moment, but that's about it. I could further test this with an MQA-compatible DAC, but I suspect the software will behave differently that one


----------



## BobSmith8901 (Dec 24, 2018)

Left Channel said:


> Wait, are you saying the nano BL is a renderer not a full decoder? The iFi folks sure hide that information on their website and user manual. They make it look like a full decoder. I just did further research (Google took me to the CA and Roon forums) and found it may well be a renderer only.
> 
> You have a nano iDSD BL and I don't, so you should know of course. In that case @nixternal and @nugget2013 should leave Passthrough off. But after turning it on they should be hearing unpleasant digital noise in the signal, yet nixternal says it sounds better. So now I have no idea what to say.



Yes it is a renderer not a full decoder like the Meridian Explorer2. I have both DACs. The tell is that the magenta light will be lit on the Nano if one has the 5.3 or 5.3C firmware installed and you're streaming a masters track on Tidal. Yeah, sound-wise, that is anyone's call I guess.

iFi posted a youtube video showing how to set up the Tidal app for the Nano w/ the 5.3 firmware to get MQA to play properly and I have read the same in various places but there is some confusion (and confusion as to the Nano's status of renderer or full decoder, but a deeper dig, as you did, you find out that it's renderer only) as, semantically, it starts getting muddled. The concept of "disabling passthrough" regarding the the little toggle on the Passthrough MQA button can be perceived as turning the toggle on (to the right), which actually enables passthrough. When iFi says it regarding the Tidal app, it means leave the little toggle switch off (over to the left) and do not engage as you do not want to passthrough, or let, the raw (unmodified by the software decoder of the Tidal app) MQA stream through to a DAC, unless it has full hardware decoding capabilities (like the ME2).

Not telling you anything you don't already know! Just in case someone is new to the Nano and setting up the Tidal desktop app, this might clear things up a bit.


----------



## IrishAudio

BobSmith8901 said:


> Yes it is a renderer not a full decoder like the Meridian Explorer2. I have both DACs. The tell is that the magenta light will be lit on the Nano if one has the 5.3 or 5.3C firmware installed and you're streaming a masters track on Tidal. Yeah, sound-wise, that is anyone's call I guess.
> 
> iFi posted a youtube video showing how to set up the Tidal app for the Nano w/ the 5.3 firmware to get MQA to play properly and I have read the same in various places but there is some confusion (and confusion as to the Nano's status of renderer or full decoder, but a deeper dig, as you did, you find out that it's renderer only) as, semantically, it starts getting muddled. The concept of "disabling passthrough" regarding the the little toggle on the Passthrough MQA button can be perceived as turning the toggle on (to the right). When iFi says it regarding the Tidal app, it means leave the little toggle switch off (over to the left) and do not engage as you do not want to passthrough, or let, the signal through to a DAC, unless it has full decoding capabilities (like the ME2).



Boy, DRM sure can get confusing. Well, at least MQA is solving a problem that FLAC couldn’t.


----------



## Left Channel (Dec 24, 2018)

IrishAudio said:


> Boy, DRM sure can get confusing. Well, at least MQA is solving a problem that FLAC couldn’t.



Per an article by Cory Doctorow recently posted to the EFF website, "MQA does not (at the moment) contain DRM": https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/closed-proprietary-felonious-toxic-rainbow-locked-technology  But MQA is at minimum confusing; I resemble that remark.

This thread is supposed to be about appreciating the sound of Tidal Masters, so maybe we shouldn't dive into discussion of what problem MQA is actually solving. I think the OP has given up on us at this point though.


----------



## nixternal

Left Channel said:


> OK @nixternal I have a Modi 2U too, and for that one you should have Use Exclusive Mode on, Force Volume on, but Passthrough MQA off. You were replying to advice for another DAC that has some MQA features built-in, but Schiit Audio has publicly announced they will not support MQA at this time.
> 
> To answer your question, if Tidal calls it a Master then it is MQA. Their definition of "master", small "m", may or may not match yours, and I find the quality of MQA albums to be quite varied. Everyone's ears are different, of course. But I can't understand why you're hearing an improvement when you toggle Passthrough MQA on.
> 
> The Tidal devs appear to have improved Passthrough MQA, so that if your DAC is not compatible you will no longer hear nasty digital noise in the signal when that option is on. That's nice. But maybe you can ask your dev friend if at that point it disables MQA completely and if so what exactly is it doing. I suspect you are now getting an undecoded stream in a 24/48 envelope instead of it "unfolding" to a higher resolution (if a higher res is available, as some MQA and other Hi-Res tracks are natively 24/44.1 or 24/48).


Oh, I know it wasn't meant for my DAC, but I hadn't even seen that little bitty link to the area where that stuff was, and just messing in that area fixed the crappiness I was hearing. Right now messing with a Brooklyn trying to see how much of a difference it is. 2 things I have noticed: 1) Not so much of a difference that I would even care honestly, and 2) I think I might buy this Brooklyn  Man does this thing sound lovely compared to a Modi 2U


----------



## Left Channel

nixternal said:


> Oh, I know it wasn't meant for my DAC, but I hadn't even seen that little bitty link to the area where that stuff was, and just messing in that area fixed the crappiness I was hearing. Right now messing with a Brooklyn trying to see how much of a difference it is. 2 things I have noticed: 1) Not so much of a difference that I would even care honestly, and 2) I think I might buy this Brooklyn  Man does this thing sound lovely compared to a Modi 2U



Go for it! Brooklyn is definitely a step up from the Modi, as long as you prefer that type of sound signature. Brooklyn is a more resolving, neutral design based on an ESS DAC chip, while the Modi is designed around the "velvet sound" of an AKM chip. Whether you can hear a difference between 44.1 and MQA or regular Hi-Res doesn't matter as long as the results sound good to you overall!


----------



## revand (Dec 25, 2018)

What a nice Christmas present!

UAPP version 5 now able to make MQA core decoding!
"Only" $3.99 in app purchase...


My Xiaomi MI8 medium SQ phone is now able to deliver fantastic SQ with an AQ DRF Red connected with a Nonda USB adapter with OTG function!
UAPP makes the first unfold to core level, and AQ DRF makes the second unfold.
A new milestone in digital music revolution!


----------



## iFi audio

Folks, this might be interesting for you. This MQA + Pro iDSD setup guide in Tidal is actually valid for all MQA decoding DACs. Enjoy!


----------



## civciv

Today I've got an update to the Android app. Now it supports master quality.


----------



## Left Channel (Jan 7, 2019)

civciv said:


> Today I've got an update to the Android app. Now it supports master quality.



Thanks for the heads-up! I just got that too, and it does indeed seem to be doing 1x MQA software decoding. There seems to be no way to select raw bit perfect passthrough for full 4x MQA decoding via USB however, and I doubt  MQA renderer DACs would work either. For the USB path we still need to use a third-party app like UAPP.

*The Verge: Tidal will make ‘Master’ quality recordings available to Android users*


----------



## BobSmith8901 (Jan 7, 2019)

Left Channel said:


> Thanks for the heads-up! I just got that too, and it does indeed seem to be doing 1x MQA software decoding. There seems to be no way to select raw bit perfect passthrough for full 4x MQA decoding via USB however, and I doubt  MQA renderer DACs would work either. For the USB path we still need to use a third-party app like UAPP.
> 
> *The Verge: Tidal will make ‘Master’ quality recordings available to Android users*



Uh Oh...FiiO X5III 1.21 firmware...new 2.11 Tidal Android Masters-capable app=distorted Hendrixian digital hash for Masters albums and non-masters too.

Maybe it's being on the bleeding edge of eligibility (Android 5.1 on the FiiO). All other indicators fine, getting the Masters logo on the albums, chose Masters in streaming/playback mode. Hmm..does it on all types of files. Houston we have a problem! Oh well, I'll shoot a msg out to Tidal and let em know after I try a few other things.

*EDIT*: tried all the obvious stuff, reboot, logout, clear cache--same problem. Shot a msg to support, we'll see what happens. Glad I've got UAPP!


----------



## cobrabucket

BobSmith8901 said:


> Uh Oh...FiiO X5III 1.21 firmware...new 2.11 Tidal Android Masters-capable app=distorted Hendrixian digital hash for Masters albums and non-masters too.
> 
> Maybe it's being on the bleeding edge of eligibility (Android 5.1 on the FiiO). All other indicators fine, getting the Masters logo on the albums, chose Masters in streaming/playback mode. Hmm..does it on all types of files. Houston we have a problem! Oh well, I'll shoot a msg out to Tidal and let em know after I try a few other things.
> 
> *EDIT*: tried all the obvious stuff, reboot, logout, clear cache--same problem. Shot a msg to support, we'll see what happens. Glad I've got UAPP!


Damn. Sorry to hear this. I have an Onkyo DP-X1 on the way that uses an older version of Android [5.1?]. I am worried this might happen to me as well. And other folks were having issues w/ The DP-X1 and UAPP. Starting to wonder if I made a mistake getting this Onkyo. Guess I should actually use it to see how it sounds, but signs aren't exactly making me optimistic.


----------



## h-man

Have just upgraded to latest tidal software on my pixel 3.  Definitely streams in 1xMQA software decoding
Also, UAPP now streams the MQA from linked tidal account and outputs (in bitperfect mode) to my mojo
However, adding MQA streaming functionality to UAPP did cost an extra £3.79 - well worth it IMHO - sounds loads better than listening via the tidal app


----------



## IrishAudio

h-man said:


> Have just upgraded to latest tidal software on my pixel 3.  Definitely streams in 1xMQA software decoding
> Also, UAPP now streams the MQA from linked tidal account and outputs (in bitperfect mode) to my mojo
> However, adding MQA streaming functionality to UAPP did cost an extra £3.79 - well worth it IMHO - sounds loads better than listening via the tidal app




Why would steaming still sound loads better via UAPP when the Tidal app now allows the same x1 unfolding?  They are both unfolding x1 MQA from the same source.


----------



## h-man

Because with UAPP it outputs it to my mojo, which sounds way better than listening to it from the dongle on the pixel 3


----------



## IrishAudio

h-man said:


> Because with UAPP it outputs it to my mojo, which sounds way better than listening to it from the dongle on the pixel 3



Since I’m getting a Pixel 2 this week, have Tidal HiFi and an ES100 but looking at a mojo or xDSD,  why couldn’t the Tidal app that now allows MQA unfolding also output it to the mojo?


----------



## h-man

Doesn't work at all for me direct from tidal app - will play around with it and update you if any luck.  Not sure if tidal app can bypass the android DAC and output bitperfect to an external DAC


----------



## BobSmith8901 (Jan 8, 2019)

cobrabucket said:


> Damn. Sorry to hear this. I have an Onkyo DP-X1 on the way that uses an older version of Android [5.1?]. I am worried this might happen to me as well. And other folks were having issues w/ The DP-X1 and UAPP. Starting to wonder if I made a mistake getting this Onkyo. Guess I should actually use it to see how it sounds, but signs aren't exactly making me optimistic.



I sent an e-mail to support at Tidal and they've opened a ticket on my situation. I ended up uninstalling 2.11 and found the older 2.10 version online and reinstalled it. Everything working normally again in the Tidal app on the X5III.

My feeling is that there is some incompatibility, although as to where exactly I can't be sure. The FiiO being near the cutoff for Android eligibility may be a clue.

Again, glad that my unit plays well, most of the time, with UAPP and Masters files with and without a DAC. Would have been nice to get the new Tidal to play properly, as the app sits a bit more lightly on the X5III software and hardware than UAPP. We'll see if there's a solution.

EDIT: Another person over on the X7II thread having same problem w/his X7II after upgrading to new Tidal app.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/fii...al-msd-dual-band-wifi-opt-out.854353/page-344


----------



## h-man

UAPP and tidal masters on the LG V30 .Wow I did not realise that the V30 does the full MQA unfold. It is reporting 176.4kHz frequency of the file when played via the headphone port .


----------



## revand (Jan 8, 2019)

h-man said:


> Doesn't work at all for me direct from tidal app - will play around with it and update you if any luck.  Not sure if tidal app can bypass the android DAC and output bitperfect to an external DAC



It cannot do, because of Android. Only UAPP can do it.

I tried the new TIDAL Android app with MQA core decoding and I am so disappointed.
I am a big fan of TIDAL and for me the release of such an unreliable service causing heartache. I tried it on my XIAOMI MI8 phone and found:

1. I am unable to use my AQ DRF Red, because the TIDAL app is not able to send music to an external DAC,
2. This means that SQ is very much depending on the DAC can be found in the phone (this is not an issue with UAPP),
3.Playing music from MQA albums sections mostly works, but some albums (e.g. Jeff Goldblum's) played showing HIFI, not Masters,
4. I made several MQA playlists and every song has an M letter on the playlist showing that it is a Masters file, however most of the songs on my playlists can only be played with HIFI sign, not Masters. I went back later and the TIDAL app is consequently playing a Masters song either Masters or HIFI.
5. The sound quality was not bad at all, bur clearly worst than the same song played using UAPP. UAPP gives an opportunity to send music to an external DAC bit-perfectly! OK the SQ difference can be attributable to the DAC in my phone, which is not as good as the AQ DRF Red.

So all in all TIDAL Masters MQA unfolding at present form is similar to a half baked bread, absolutely not reliable!
There are good news as well:
1. We do not have to pay for the new services ,
2. The playback of the songs start insanely fast....BUT

I prefer to wait several seconds in UAPP for buffering in order to enjoy a very high quality playback instead of starting a song with a speed of the light, but having a less quality result.
The developer of UAPP explained in another topic that in TIDAL Android app there is no MQA logo and blue or green dot near the logo, most probably, because MQA company did not allow TIDAL to use these, since quality is not "guaranteed".


----------



## jeffri

If you are getting Hi-Fi instead of Master, it possibly that it plays file on your cache or if you have downloaded it before. Just reset the cache and remove previous download I think.

Nothing against UAPP developer, but I don't think Tidal is showing the MQA logo or blue/green dot indicator no matter which platform it is. That doesn't mean MQA company don't allow this, possibly just Tidal UX choice for their app.

Unfortunately I don't have any MQA DAC to test, or that I could confirm the bit/sample rate on my MQA-capable Onkyo Granbeat.


----------



## Left Channel

@revand & @jeffri this is from an article by Darko on the new 1x software decoding feature:

"According to MQA, the majority will decode sample rates up to 96kHz but readers are advised to check in with their smartphone manufacturer for confirmation.

"And because not all Android smartphones use the same internal DAC, there are presumably too many different DACs for MQA to know to tailor a ‘Rendering’ filter to each.

"Those wanting to nerd out on the full Android Tidal Masters experience – MQA decoding _and_ rendering – will still need an LG V30/V40/G7 or an Essential."


----------



## Mark Dirac (Jan 8, 2019)

I'm getting some good results playing Tidal from the Tidal app on my Android LG G6 via USB C into my Pro-Ject "Pre Box S2 Digital" DAC:

Playing Coldplay's "Politik", the S2D reports 192k and displays "MQB" with a purple dot (not blue or green)
Same when playing "Wasted Time (2013 Eagles Remaster)" - 192k, MQB, purple dot.

If I reduce volume slightly, then the MQA flags go out, which is as expected, since reducing volume slightly destroys bit-perfect. So this suggests that the Android Tidal app _is _managing to get bit-perfect out of an Android phone, despite the nastiness of Android's handling of digital audio. Until now, I thought it was only UAPP that could circumvent Android's trashing of bit-perfect audio.

BUT Natalie Merchant's "I May Know the Word", doesn't light any MQA lamps on the S2D, via the LGG6. And yet when I play the same track from the Tidal Windows program, it lights "MQA" and blue dot. Some of my playlisted MQA tracks illuminate the MQA flags (ie MQB and purple dot), and some do not. Even though they _all _show MQA correctly via Windows. Some of my tracks show purple dot and 48k (on the S2D DAC), then one second into the track switch to 192k.

I believe that "MQB" and purple dot on the Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 Digital refers to the source doing 1x unfolding. But I wonder how the S2D knows that there's some-but-not-all MQA unfolding going on?

(As expected, the S2D _never _shows green or blue dot and "MQA" on any tracks from the Tidal app on my LGG6.)


----------



## BobSmith8901 (Jan 8, 2019)

Mark Dirac said:


> I'm getting some good results playing Tidal from the Tidal app on my Android LG G6 via USB C into my Pro-Ject "Pre Box S2 Digital" DAC:
> 
> Playing Coldplay's "Politik", the S2D reports 192k and displays "MQB" with a purple dot (not blue or green)
> Same when playing "Wasted Time (2013 Eagles Remaster)" - 192k, MQB, purple dot.
> ...



Interesting. Now I'm tempted to reinstall the 2.11 Tidal app on my X5III and run it thru both my Meridian Explorer2 and iDSD Nano BL and see what happens with each. I guess I never seriously considered that the updated Tidal Android app might work (maybe sorta normally or in some weird unpredictable way) with USB out.


----------



## revand

jeffri said:


> If you are getting Hi-Fi instead of Master, it possibly that it plays file on your cache or if you have downloaded it before. Just reset the cache and remove previous download I think.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BobSmith8901

It appears that Tidal have updated their Android app again today ---2.11_.1_.


----------



## Left Channel

BobSmith8901 said:


> It appears that Tidal have updated their Android app again today ---2.11_.1_.



Got it, thanks. Most likely a minor bug fix but you never know.


----------



## BobSmith8901

Left Channel said:


> Got it, thanks. Most likely a minor bug fix but you never know.



Looks like they fixed the problem with the FiiO X5III w/the latest update. No more digital hash/distortion. All songs are playing fine, masters and hifi. 

They must have found the issue that was causing the distorted playback. 

Imagine those w/the X7's (I and II) should also be up and running normally. Good job Tidal.

New version is 2.11.1.883.1 (8 Jan 2019)


----------



## chris6878

h-man said:


> UAPP and tidal masters on the LG V30 .Wow I did not realise that the V30 does the full MQA unfold. It is reporting 176.4kHz frequency of the file when played via the headphone port .



I have the v30 also, so since the v30 does the full unfold, do I need to purchase the UAPP MQA streaming function? Or can I just play straight from the tidal app? 
I will be also using my phone in the car which lacks wifi, so its best for me to play my downloaded tidal files with the tidal app so I dont suck up gigs of data.


----------



## Left Channel (Jan 10, 2019)

chris6878 said:


> I have the v30 also, so since the v30 does the full unfold, do I need to purchase the UAPP MQA streaming function? Or can I just play straight from the tidal app?
> I will be also using my phone in the car which lacks wifi, so its best for me to play my downloaded tidal files with the tidal app so I dont suck up gigs of data.



You don't need to purchase the UAPP add-on 1x MQA decoder. UAPP can already send the music through the V30's built-in DAC for 4x unfolding.

In your car you can use the Tidal app to take advantage of the offline feature. The Tidal app has been able to do 4x unfolding with the V30 series for a while now. As of the January 4th update, it also does 1x unfolding with any phone too. However it may not do either of those things as well as UAPP, as it doesn't completely bypass issues in the Android OS the way UAPP does, and because every phone seems to be different. Reports say it also munges 16/44.1 playback by sending it through the Android system where it gets resampled. 

Overall results with the Tidal app are unclear, and I'm looking forward to reading listening comparisons of the two apps.


----------



## Dannemand (Jan 10, 2019)

Left Channel said:


> Overall results with the Tidal app are unclear, and I'm looking forward to reading listening comparisons of the two apps.



I really don't think it is true that results with the Tidal app are unclear as far as the V30 goes: (A) It plays Master/MQA tracks correctly, with full 1st and 2nd level unfolding and rendering handled by the ESS Sabre DAC, exactly like UAPP. (B) It screws up redbook 16/44 tracks by playing them through the Android Mixer.

So 16/44 (non-Master/MQA tracks) should be played through UAPP (which converts them to 24/44 to allow them to be sent directly to the ESS DAC) whereas Master/MQA tracks can be played either through UAPP or the Tidal app (the latter supporting download/offline mode).

I base this on comparing audio_flinger dumps between UAPP and the Tidal App, as well as listening comparisons: Master/MQA tracks sound identical between the two, while redbook 16/44 tracks exhibit that subtle noise (audible on sensitive IEMs) when played through the Tidal app.

I've posted about this several times in recent months, including yesterday in the UAPP thread (here and here) where I included the relevant sections of the flinger Output threads from UAPP and the Tidal app, which clearly are identical when playing Tidal Master/MQA tracks.

Keep in mind, this is true *only* for V30 (and its V35/V40/G7 siblings, I presume) and *only* when playing through its Quad DAC on the 3.5mm port. Others have posted how the Tidal app messes up MQA playback on other phones and/or when using an external USB DAC, including @jt25741's test posted here based on V20 (which doesn't have hardware MQA support).

Edit: I realize I am kind of harping on about this, but I keep seeing posts in various threads that say the Tidal app doesn't play MQA correctly, when I know that it does. I am a huge UAPP fan myself, and we all need it, both for Tidal 16/44 tracks and for local files. But I appreciate the Tidal app's download mode, and with MQA tracks I know it plays them correctly.


----------



## h-man

Dannemand said:


> I really don't think it is true that results with the Tidal app are unclear as far as the V30 goes: (A) It plays Master/MQA tracks correctly, with full 1st and 2nd level unfolding and rendering handled by the ESS Sabre DAC, exactly like UAPP. (B) It screws up redbook 16/44 tracks by playing them through the Android Mixer.
> 
> I base this on comparing audio_flinger dumps between UAPP and the Tidal App, as well as listening comparisons: Master/MQA tracks sound identical between the two, while redbook 16/44 tracks exhibit that subtle noise (audible on sensitive IEMs) when played through the Tidal app.



Totally agree with this. MQA tracks sound great in tidal, exactly the same as UAPP, but redbook tracks do exhibit the subtle telltale noise of being upsampled, whereas they sound fine in uapp. 

A good test track to hear the difference between tidal and uapp is the intro from "delirium" by Ellie Goulding in which Ellie's vocals slowly fade in. In the mqa version of the track in both tidal and uapp, there is no digital noise around the vocal even with sensitive iems. However the redbook version in tidal has the horrible digital crackling during the initial 30s or so whereas the same version streaming in uapp sounds clean. So I have both apps installed, use tidal only for downloading mqa albums for offline listening.


----------



## baronasm (Jan 12, 2019)

Hi, folks! I am looking for Android based DAP mainly for Tidal offline listening in my car. I would like to use digital coaxial out to my cars DSP. Great news that now MQA can be 1x encoded in Android devices! My question is - do all new DAP's with Tidal preinstalled bypass Android SRC? Or it is just HiBy that does that? I would like to have bit perfect MQA 24bit 96khz signal from Tidal app via coaxial out. Thank you.


----------



## Left Channel (Jan 12, 2019)

baronasm said:


> Hi, folks! I am looking for Android based DAP mainly for Tidal offline listening in my car. I would like to use digital coaxial out to my cars DSP. Great news that now MQA can be 1x encoded in Android devices! My question is - do all new DAP's with Tidal preinstalled bypass Android SRC? Or it is just HiBy that does that? I would like to have bit perfect MQA 24bit 96khz signal from Tidal app via coaxial out. Thank you.



I don't know much about the HyBy or any other such DAP but I suspect the Tidal app won't do that well, and you'll need the UAPP app with the MQA add-on instead. Just my guess. I'll be interested to read your reports if you try this with either app.


----------



## BobSmith8901

cobrabucket said:


> Damn. Sorry to hear this. I have an Onkyo DP-X1 on the way that uses an older version of Android [5.1?]. I am worried this might happen to me as well. And other folks were having issues w/ The DP-X1 and UAPP. Starting to wonder if I made a mistake getting this Onkyo. Guess I should actually use it to see how it sounds, but signs aren't exactly making me optimistic.



Not sure if this applies in your case but the latest update to UAPP (5.06) addresses an issue where the MQA update couldn't be applied to DAPs that couldn't process 88.2Khz. 

From the UAPP/Google Play webpage:

"* MQA tracks can now be played on devices/DACs that lack the 88200Hz sample rate (Pioneer XDP/Onkyo DP-X1)"

So folks with one of those DAPs are now unblocked from getting the update and can now get the 1x unfold of MQA.


----------



## chris6878

baronasm said:


> Hi, folks! I am looking for Android based DAP mainly for Tidal offline listening in my car. I would like to use digital coaxial out to my cars DSP. Great news that now MQA can be 1x encoded in Android devices! My question is - do all new DAP's with Tidal preinstalled bypass Android SRC? Or it is just HiBy that does that? I would like to have bit perfect MQA 24bit 96khz signal from Tidal app via coaxial out. Thank you.


The lg v30 or any of the others would be your best bet imo.


----------



## baronasm (Jan 13, 2019)

chris6878 said:


> The lg v30 or any of the others would be your best bet imo.


Yes, LG V30 is a great phone and does full MQA unfold, but it doesn't have coaxial out


----------



## h-man

Lights off. Listening to MQA streams from tidal on LG V30 through UAPP on Senn HD650 from headphone output on phone. 
Can honestly say one of the most blissful head fi exoeriences I've had (been into this hobby for 20 years)
Happy......


----------



## cobrabucket

h-man said:


> Lights off. Listening to MQA streams from tidal on LG V30 through UAPP on Senn HD650 from headphone output on phone.
> Can honestly say one of the most blissful head fi exoeriences I've had (been into this hobby for 20 years)
> Happy......


Just got my V30 this weekend. I am in LOVE!!! Coincidentally, I just received an Onkyo DP-X1. It sounds great, especially through the balanced jack, but the V30 runs circles around it using UAPP and Tidal to do full 4x unfolds. In this facet, I am slightly disappointed in the Onkyo. It sounds great and has full android 5.1, but it's just not in the same class as the V30, imo. I will prob end up selling the Onkyo. It comes with a nice leather case and I will sell it for what I bought it for. Anyone interested, send me a DM. Thanks! I love this community!!! Can't believe I waited this long to get the V30...


----------



## h-man

The Tidal/UAPP/V30 is an amazing combo. Don't know whether the MQA is massively better than the Redbook files - these sound crystal clear and engaging too.


----------



## redrich2000

Does anyone know whether you can transfer offline content stored on an SD card to a different device?


----------



## h-man

redrich2000 said:


> Does anyone know whether you can transfer offline content stored on an SD card to a different device?



Nope - the files dowloaded onto the SD card on one phone are locked to the phone on which tidal is installed - won't work anywhere else.  You can have 3 offline devices at any one time I believe.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Did anybody notice sometimes there are albums with songs greyed out? It's weird, I would have thought if Tidal has the album they have the whole album. But no, sometimes you see albums where all the songs are listed but some songs are greyed out and can't be played.


----------



## jumpa

gimmeheadroom said:


> Did anybody notice sometimes there are albums with songs greyed out? It's weird, I would have thought if Tidal has the album they have the whole album. But no, sometimes you see albums where all the songs are listed but some songs are greyed out and can't be played.


it seems that it depends on regional restrictions stuff


----------



## captblaze

jumpa said:


> it seems that it depends on regional restrictions stuff



I have seen this also, and sometime it is temporary almost like they pull a file and replace it (just speculation)


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Thanks guys. Incredible what the world has come to.


----------



## revand

gimmeheadroom said:


> Did anybody notice sometimes there are albums with songs greyed out? It's weird, I would have thought if Tidal has the album they have the whole album. But no, sometimes you see albums where all the songs are listed but some songs are greyed out and can't be played.



It depends on the copyright of the album in your country.
Another strange issue: I enjoyed very much Ryan Adams' Live at Carnegie Hall album which was a Master album for a while, but later it was downgraded to HIFI.
I do not think it is a copyright issue.
I am living in Hungary...


----------



## TheSnafu

^ This greying thing can be seen in soundtracks quite often. sometimes there are just a few songs that can be played...


----------



## gimmeheadroom

revand said:


> It depends on the copyright of the album in your country.
> Another strange issue: I enjoyed very much Ryan Adams' Live at Carnegie Hall album which was a Master album for a while, but later it was downgraded to HIFI.
> I do not think it is a copyright issue.
> I am living in Hungary...



Hello from Czech Republic  

I didn't see for the music I listened to yet, but I did read comments that sometimes albums come and go on Tidal. Maybe other services too. I don't know why they do this. I guess maybe their marketing licensing blah blah blah changes. For us it's annoying and unacceptable.

We have to start taping off the air so we will have the albums when they disappear


----------



## TheSnafu (Jan 26, 2019)

check "Jackie Brown"-soundtrack:

https://listen.tidal.com/album/3977762

i'm able to play three tracks....

so i made my own JB-soundtrack (not perfect but close enough) :
https://listen.tidal.com/playlist/b200ad4c-a730-4751-8e05-95df915da72c


----------



## Tooros

Tidal are citing MQA support for iOS 'soon' - I wonder how this is going to work with things like the lightning -> 3.5mm dongle and my iSine's with the cipher cable? 
Questions like this push the concept of 'soon' to 'God knows' in my book.


----------



## NobbyChad

BobSmith8901 said:


> Hi nixternal-I have the iDSD Nano BL. If you also have the Nano (wasn't sure if you had that one or one of the other BL's) and you want the full MQA rendering, you should have Passthrough MQA set to *OFF *in the Tidal desktop app.
> 
> The Nano BL needs the software in the Tidal desktop app to do the first unfold of the MQA stream and the Nano will do the second unfold and render the full MQA stream. Assuming you have the 5.3 or 5.3C firmware installed on your Nano BL, you'll get the magenta light when it's fully rendering the MQA stream. That's not to say that you may not be getting better sound quality just giving the Nano the full undecoded MQA stream without the first unfold, as everyone's systems and ears are different!


I have the iFi Micro DSD BL, the Meridian Explorer2 plus dacs in my Naim Uniti, Marantz Streamer and Cambridge Audio CD Player and use Audirvana.  Sound preference iFi Micro / Meridian Explorer2 via Audirvana / Explorer2 via Tidal / Naim Uniti via Audirvana / Cambridge SACD / Naim Uniti via Tidal / Marantz via Audirvana. The iFi Micro BL is significantly better than the others for Tidal and marginally better as outboard DAC for Cambridge SACD player. Crisper, tighter base and generally more insightful.


----------



## pjr300

Greeting all: 

Curious how many of you are using Tidal via its native interface vs Roon or some 3rd party integrator.  My interest is solely sound quality:  I'm using my laptop, which is feeding Tidal to my CD player (which can also be used as a separate DAC), over to my amp and speakers.


----------



## NobbyChad

pjr300 said:


> Greeting all:
> 
> Curious how many of you are using Tidal via its native interface vs Roon or some 3rd party integrator.  My interest is solely sound quality:  I'm using my laptop, which is feeding Tidal to my CD player (which can also be used as a separate DAC), over to my amp and speakers.



I have the iFi Micro DSD BL, the Meridian Explorer2 plus dacs in my Naim Uniti, Marantz Streamer and Cambridge Audio SACD Player and use Audirvana. Sound preference iFi Micro via Audirvana / Meridian Explorer2 via Audirvana / Explorer2 via Tidal / Naim Uniti via Audirvana / Cambridge SACD / Naim Uniti via Tidal / Marantz via Audirvana. The iFi Micro BL is significantly better than the others for Tidal and marginally better as outboard DAC for Cambridge SACD player. Crisper, tighter base and generally more insightful.


----------



## masterpfa

pjr300 said:


> Greeting all:
> 
> Curious how many of you are using Tidal via its native interface vs Roon or some 3rd party integrator.  My interest is solely sound quality:  I'm using my laptop, which is feeding Tidal to my CD player (which can also be used as a separate DAC), over to my amp and speakers.


I have a love hate relationship with ROON, enough to question all the praise heaped upon it by others. 9 months until my subscription expires, personally my worst purchase.

But these are my experiences, I therefore use Tidal and Qobuz via their native apps on Win 10/MacBook via either my iFI Nano BL or Chord Mojo.
If mobile I tend to use UAPP with the iFI Nano or mConnect via Chord Mojo/Poly. My preference is the Mojo/Poly implementation.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

I was very dissappointed in Roon, I think it is nothing more than an overpriced UI to your own music.

I use Tidal from Win desktop into my Oppo, and also from a Node 2i. I have a Chord Mojo but it doesn't support MQA, so the Oppo is what I usually use to listen to Tidal hifi


----------



## davehg (Feb 3, 2019)

pjr300 said:


> Greeting all:
> 
> Curious how many of you are using Tidal via its native interface vs Roon or some 3rd party integrator.  My interest is solely sound quality:  I'm using my laptop, which is feeding Tidal to my CD player (which can also be used as a separate DAC), over to my amp and speakers.



I just did a comparison using Roon/Tidal vs Tidal native, as part of listening to the Bel Canto e.One Stream. In all circumstances, Roon/Tidal produced better sound with both MQA and Redbook. In Roon, you can upsample Redbook files so it makes sense that Roon would have an impact on sound quality.

Unlike the two other posters, Roon has been the single best audio investment I’ve made this year. The features and music discovery enabled by Roon has increased my music listening from a few hours a week to a few hours most days.


----------



## masterpfa

davehg said:


> I just did a comparison using Roon/Tidal vs Tidal native, as part of listening to the Bel Canto e.One Stream. In all circumstances, Roon/Tidal produced better sound with both MQA and Redbook. In Roon, you can upsample Redbook files so it makes sense that Roon would have an impact on sound quality.
> 
> Unlike the two other posters, Roon has been the single best audio investment I’ve made this year. The features and music discovery enabled by Roon has increased my music listening from a few hours a week to a few hours most days.



I had great expectations for ROON and was hoping my experience would be similar, but alas just didn't want to work for me on Win 10
so recently I installed on a MacBook pro, which had a clean wipe and re-installation of iOS, still the same.


----------



## davehg

masterpfa said:


> I had great expectations for ROON and was hoping my experience would be similar, but alas just didn't want to work for me on Win 10
> so recently I installed on a MacBook pro, which had a clean wipe and re-installation of iOS, still the same.



One recommendation I received was to go into the DSP settings for Roon, in the sample rate conversion setting. Enable it, and at the bottom of the settings, in the “Sample rate conversion filter”, choose the Smooth, Mininum Phase option.


----------



## masterpfa

davehg said:


> One recommendation I received was to go into the DSP settings for Roon, in the sample rate conversion setting. Enable it, and at the bottom of the settings, in the “Sample rate conversion filter”, choose the Smooth, Mininum Phase option.


Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately no improvement, more likely an issue with the network as instead of buffeting Qobuz skips to another track each time with the warning regarding possible network issues.

Guess I will stick to playing both Tidal and Qobuz via their native apps on my MackBook connected to Chord Mojo via Optical connection or via mConnect on Chord Poly


----------



## NobbyChad

masterpfa said:


> Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately no improvement, more likely an issue with the network as instead of buffeting Qobuz skips to another track each time with the warning regarding possible network issues.
> 
> Guess I will stick to playing both Tidal and Qobuz via their native apps on my MackBook connected to Chord Mojo via Optical connection or via mConnect on Chord Poly



Try Audirvana (free trial) it is excellent via my iFi Micro BL and via my Naim Uniti.


----------



## Luke Thomas

I’m sure this has already been discussed. I love rooms interface. But it doesn’t sound as good as playing through the tidal app.


----------



## masterpfa

NobbyChad said:


> Try Audirvana (free trial) it is excellent via my iFi Micro BL and via my Naim Uniti.


That's more like it. I am getting smooth playback via Tidal and Qobuz via both direct (Mojo>Mac) and via UPnP (Mac>Poly)

Thanks for the tip (OK granted ROON is more pleasing to the eye but this at least works for me)

So far


----------



## NobbyChad

masterpfa said:


> That's more like it. I am getting smooth playback via Tidal and Qobuz via both direct (Mojo>Mac) and via UPnP (Mac>Poly)
> 
> Thanks for the tip (OK granted ROON is more pleasing to the eye but this at least works for me)
> 
> So far



Pleased to help


----------



## pjr300 (Feb 4, 2019)

Hi all:

Tonight I did a little experiment, and compared a CD to Tidal app to Tidal via Roon.   I used an old favorite jazz CD for the comparison.  My CD player also doubles as a DAC, so I used the USB Output from my Samsung laptop into the cd player for Tidal and Roon.  So, in essence, the front end remained constant from all sources. The album used on Tidal was 44.1 so, even the source was constant (no MQA).  Playback was via my Unison Research tube integrated and Wilson Audio's Sophia 2 speakers.  Volume was matched between all sources.

I listened to the CD first, followed by native Tidal.  I found the image stability better on Tidal, but the tonal balance seemed off.... everything seemed soft, I hate to say tube like, but in a soft focus, almost bland manner. It didn't sound bad but it did sound bland. High frequencies sounded quite muted as well. 

I then moved to Roon playback, and my expectation is that the sounds would be similar to native Tidal.  I was wrong. The detail and clarity was the best of all three playback options, and with the return of correct tonal balance, plus the image stability that native Tidal exhibited. 

As much as I didn't want to pull the trigger, looks like I'll be keeping Roon. ​


----------



## davehg

That's good to hear. Interestingly, most users who reported using Roon seemed to prefer the sound when Roon was used on a separate server using ethernet enabled music servers, rather than when using a USB-connected DAC. I was on the fence about connecting a USB DAC directly to my Nucleus, then after my experiment with the Bel Canto Stream, decided there was something to using a separate endpoint fed by Ethernet rather than USB straight out of the Roon server.  

I have a Lumin D2 arriving shortly which has only Ethernet inputs (it has USB inputs, but only for a NAS). Very curious to run the same experiment as I did with the Bel Canto Stream.

Judged on music discovery, indexing, and integration with music services, Roon is a compelling but expensive case for keeping it. Add the sound improvements and it nudges you over the finish line.


----------



## iFi audio

davehg said:


> I just did a comparison using Roon/Tidal vs Tidal native, as part of listening to the Bel Canto e.One Stream. In all circumstances, Roon/Tidal produced better sound with both MQA and Redbook. In Roon, you can upsample Redbook files so it makes sense that Roon would have an impact on sound quality.



That's cool feedback and another reason to investigate Roon even more.


----------



## Hab

My Cyrus Soundkey is working straight out of the Tidal app now, sure the last time I tried this it didn't work, only ever managed to get it to work with UAPP, now it seems to work with everything!

Possibly due to the latest Android update? Regardless,  Masters now sound even more amazing on my S9!


----------



## revand

Hab said:


> My Cyrus Soundkey is working straight out of the Tidal app now, sure the last time I tried this it didn't work, only ever managed to get it to work with UAPP, now it seems to work with everything!
> 
> Possibly due to the latest Android update? Regardless,  Masters now sound even more amazing on my S9!



I was very excited hearing this news, but it didn't work for me. First of all I checked the latest TIDAL app version (January 23), I checked already before, no newer version available. I connected my AQ DRF Red with a Nonda USB adapter (works as an OTG cable) to my Xiaomi MI8, but no sound is coming from the Dragonfly.
How you connected your Soundkey to your S9?
With UAPP my setup works perfectly...


----------



## Hab

Connected via the otg cable, all sound from the phone goes through the dac now, it may be the latest version of Android that supports it now? Try temporarily unistalling uapp in case that's hijacking the usb out.


----------



## baronasm

Finally, Tidal app works with usb dac! No need for uapp, because it doesn't work with my Huawei P20 Pro...


----------



## Left Channel

baronasm said:


> Finally, Tidal app works with usb dac! No need for uapp, because it doesn't work with my Huawei P20 Pro...



"Works" is a relative term. The Android OS resamples all USB output to 24/48, even if it was unfolded by the app to 24/192. This happens with both the Tidal and Qobuz apps, and as far as I know only UAPP gets around the problem. Sorry UAPP doesn't work with your Huawei, but I know Davy would welcome any information that allows him to find a workaround.


----------



## iFi audio

Left Channel said:


> "Works" is a relative term.



VERY relative


----------



## baronasm (Feb 9, 2019)

OK, what is the point for Tidal to offer MQA  audio for android users then? It is not logical if there is a resampling going on. I think a new app is made to bypass android SRC, because I can definitely hear a difference in sound quality then listening to MQA tracks in Tidal app...


----------



## IrishAudio

baronasm said:


> OK, what is the point for Tidal to offer MQA  audio for android users then? It is not logical if there is a resampling going on. I think a new app is made to bypass android SRC, because I can definitely hear a difference in sound quality then listening to MQA tracks in Tidal app...



Most definitely agree. It’s baffling Tidal and Qobuz would go to the trouble of streaming HiRes files amd allowing resampling down to 24/48 where little ‘ole UAPP knows how to bypass it. I have to assume that the folks at Tidal and Qobuz aren’t unaware or stupid. Can we prove this out?  Something doesn’t line up.


----------



## Hab

Even if that is the case it's still not perfect, I get millisecond dropouts/skips 2-3 times a song, sometimes it doesn't happen at all, don't get this problem through UAPP.

They're so close, I'd be happy with offline listening and being able to use a DAC, that's all I want!


----------



## Trunksleo (Mar 1, 2019)

Which is the less expensive way to play  tidal master (i ve a marantz 5012 and a pc, full decode) ??? Usb dac? Dap? Phone?


----------



## Left Channel

Trunksleo said:


> Which is the less expensive way to play  tidal master (i ve a marantz 5012 and a pc, full decode) ??? Usb dac? Dap? Phone?



Some say you won't be missing much if you rely on the Tidal app's 1x software decode up to 96 kHz. As far as I know the built-in Marantz music app does not yet support MQA, so a direct wireless connection is not possible. You could output from a PC to the Marantz via HDMI, S/PDIF (coaxial or optical), or analog RCA inputs, and see which one sounds best to you. Using a phone introduces its own challenges, but could be done with the UAPP app and an external MQA DAC cabled to the Marantz analog inputs. It's best to turn off all processing if the Marantz settings allow for that.

The next step up would be placing an MQA-capable DAC (renderer or full decoder) between the PC and the Marantz, and connecting to the Marantz via the analog RCA inputs. The next step up from there would be to move the source away from your sound system, by placing a remote wired or wireless streamer by the Marantz, and controling the streamer via your phone or PC. The latest Bluesound Node streamer includes an MQA-capable DAC with Tidal included.

Head spinning yet? Welcome to the rabbit hole.


----------



## Trunksleo

Left Channel said:


> Some say you won't be missing much if you rely on the Tidal app's 1x software decode up to 96 kHz. As far as I know the built-in Marantz music app does not yet support MQA, so a direct wireless connection is not possible. You could output from a PC to the Marantz via HDMI, S/PDIF (coaxial or optical), or analog RCA inputs, and see which one sounds best to you. Using a phone introduces its own challenges, but could be done with the UAPP app and an external MQA DAC cabled to the Marantz analog inputs. It's best to turn off all processing if the Marantz settings allow for that.
> 
> The next step up would be placing an MQA-capable DAC (renderer or full decoder) between the PC and the Marantz, and connecting to the Marantz via the analog RCA inputs. The next step up from there would be to move the source away from your sound system, by placing a remote wired or wireless streamer by the Marantz, and controling the streamer via your phone or PC. The latest Bluesound Node streamer includes an MQA-capable DAC with Tidal included.
> 
> Head spinning yet? Welcome to the rabbit hole.



I want a full decoder mqa capable dac, Which its the lest expesive?
I saw that there are some dap o phones that could use, those are full decoder? I want it to know because i looking for a new phone and i saw that there is some phones could use as a dac but i dont know which ones.


----------



## Left Channel

Trunksleo said:


> I want a full decoder mqa capable dac, Which its the lest expesive?
> I saw that there are some dap o phones that could use, those are full decoder? I want it to know because i looking for a new phone and i saw that there is some phones could use as a dac but i dont know which ones.



Full decoding MQA capable DAC, least expensive?  Probably the iFi iDSD Black Label. The Audioquest Dragonfly Red requires 1x software decoding by the app first.  A small step up is the Pro Ject Pre Box S2 Digital. Others here may have their own favorites.

MQA in phones and DAPs is a very large subject. There is for example an entire separate thread here on the features of the LG V30. Since you're asking about outputting to an external DAC and/or your Marantz, all I'll say now is that none of the DAP/phone's internal DAC capabilities would matter. It's a question of what comes out the USB port. I can't advise you on iOS, but for Android you'd have to use the UAPP app.


----------



## baronasm (Mar 1, 2019)

With newest Android 9 you can use Tidal app with no problem, any USB DAC should work fine. The easiest way to get digital signal from any Phone, Tablet or PC is to use USB DAC which has digital out, for example:
https://www.amazon.com/Signstek-Coaxial-Converter-Convert-Analogue/dp/B00FEDHHKE
Conect this DAC to Marantz digital input and vuolia!  It is not full MQA unfold, but 24/96 is more than enough


----------



## Dannemand (Mar 1, 2019)

Trunksleo said:


> Which is the less expensive way to play  tidal master (i ve a marantz 5012 and a pc, full decode) ??? Usb dac? Dap? Phone?



Excellent input there from @Left Channel on your different options.

I would only add that on V30 and newer (V35/G7/V40) the Tidal app plays MQA perfectly, with full 4x decoding and rendering in hardware. UAPP is needed to play Redbook 16/44 unmolested, as the Tidal app currently plays that through the Android Mixer, causing it to be upsampled to 48kHz. However for MQA tracks there is no difference between the Tidal app and UAPP on these phones. You will want UAPP anyway in order to play all kinds of sources, including local files up to PCM 352kHz and DSD256.

I personally think V30 is an easy answer to your question, unless you had a preference to avoid phones (which I understand is not the case). You can buy New or Mint condition ones on eBay for around $225, and they are excellent phones in addition to being excellent music sources. I would avoid T-Mobile models and recommend so-called Open Market models (ones that haven't been messed with by carriers: US998 in USA, H930 in Europe). Just ask the eBay seller if it is a genuine Open Market model or a converted previous carrier model. The latter is OK, it just adds a few limitations in case you want to root the phone some day.


----------



## Left Channel (Mar 1, 2019)

baronasm said:


> With newest Android 9 you can use Tidal app with no problem, any USB DAC should work fine. The easiest way to get digital signal from any Phone, Tablet or PC is to use USB DAC which has digital out, for example:
> https://www.amazon.com/Signstek-Coaxial-Converter-Convert-Analogue/dp/B00FEDHHKE
> Conect this DAC to Marantz digital input and vuolia!  It is not full MQA unfold, but 24/96 is more than enough



Does Android 9 no longer resample all USB output to 48 kHz? Last time I tested it, on an LG G7 One running Android 9, the Tidal app was not able to bypass the system's resampling of all USB signals to 48 kHz. Only the UAPP app was able to output the full resolution via USB. UAPP supports Tidal, Qobuz, local files, and more. (@Trunksleo I'm still concentrating only on USB output here. If you have more questions about the V30 and the G7 One, see my full report via the link in my second sentence above, and other posts in that thread.)


----------



## Trunksleo

Left Channel said:


> Does Android 9 no longer resample all USB output to 48 kHz? Last time I tested it, on an LG G7 One running Android 9, the Tidal app was not able to bypass the system's resampling of all USB signals to 48 kHz. Only the UAPP app was able to output the full resolution via USB. UAPP supports Tidal, Qobuz, local files, and more. (@Trunksleo I'm still concentrating only on USB output here. If you have more questions about the V30 and the G7 One, see my full report via the link in my second sentence above, and other posts in that thread.)



Yes, the v30 its too big for my hand. So im was thinking about the g7. Its a full decoder like the ifi micro black? Both are going to be connected by a rca to 3.5 cable to the auxiliar of marantz. So i was going to buy a new phone i want it to know that if i could that now that Android can play mqa of tidal.


----------



## Dannemand (Mar 1, 2019)

Trunksleo said:


> Yes, the v30 its too big for my hand. So im was thinking about the g7. Its a full decoder like the ifi micro black? Both are going to be connected by a rca to 3.5 cable to the auxiliar of marantz. So i was going to buy a new phone i want it to know that if i could that now that Android can play mqa of tidal.



I think you are confusing V30 with the V40: V30 is just about the same size as G7 (6.0 inch display vs 6.1 inch) whereas the V40 is significantly larger (6.5 inch) and more expensive. G7 is a good choice for its newer hardware and more RAM than V30, but it has LCD instead of OLED. If you think you'll ever root the phone, V30 is the better choice. If you do get G7, make sure you don't get the Android One version, as that doesn't have hardware MQA support (to my understanding, I could be wrong).

Edit: Seeing Left Channel's last post I wonder if I misunderstood: Are you looking to output through USB?

If you are looking to use the V30/G7's ESS DAC and play through its headphone jack, you will have full 4x MQA unfolding and rendering in hardware, directly from the Tidal app, no re-sampling. There is a myth that only UAPP will play MQA correctly, and it is not true. I have proven this umpteen times  now in different threads here. Similarly, all HiRes music (or anything 24 bit) will play correctly, without downsampling, from all apps (all reasonable ones anyway).

But for playing Redbook 16/44 without upsampling, you will need UAPP or Neutron. I highly recommend UAPP, best $8 you can spend on a V30/V35/V40/G7.


----------



## Left Channel

Dannemand said:


> make sure you don't get the Android One version, as that doesn't have hardware MQA support (to my understanding, I could be wrong).



That is correct. I've tested it.



Dannemand said:


> There is a myth that only UAPP will play MQA correctly, and it is not true.



True when speaking of playing through the internal DAC. But you do need UAPP for USB output.



Dannemand said:


> Edit: Seeing Left Channel's last post I wonder if I misunderstood: Are you looking to output through USB?



@Trunksleo at this point that's what we're all wondering. Connecting a phone's amplified earphone jack to the Marantz line-level inputs is not something Marantz would advise you to do. Connecting via USB would be OK. Or are you asking questions for two separate projects?


----------



## Trunksleo

Left Channel said:


> That is correct. I've tested it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Im asking if with the phone can i make the same thing with the usb dac like ifi black micro. Because im looking for buy a new phone so if i can use the quad dac from g7 to connect to the marantz and use tidal master (mqa)


----------



## Left Channel (Mar 1, 2019)

Trunksleo said:


> Im asking if with the phone can i make the same thing with the usb dac like ifi black micro. Because im looking for buy a new phone so if i can use the quad dac from g7 to connect to the marantz and use tidal master (mqa)



OK. Connecting a phone's amplified earphone jack to the Marantz line-level inputs is not something Marantz would advise you to do. Connecting via USB would be OK, but would require the UAPP app, and an external DAC (like the Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 Digital*, or one of the iFi units that has the MQA firmare and RCA or coax or optical outputs).

*Note: I was unable to drive the Pro-Ject with a V30. G6 and G7 models seem to be OK with it.

Note 2: also, the UAPP MQA add-on does 1x decode not MQA pass-through. So I still recommend a PC.


----------



## Dannemand

Trunksleo said:


> Im asking if with the phone can i make the same thing with the usb dac like ifi black micro. Because im looking for buy a new phone so if i can use the quad dac from g7 to connect to the marantz and use tidal master (mqa)



And the answer is you can. The phone would switch to Aux mode when you connect it (detecting an impedance of >600ohms) which is the best mode for feeding a pre-amp, integrated amp or powered speakers.

That said, I am tracking with @Left Channel's concern whether any phone is the best source for a receiver like the Marantz. V30/V35/V40/G7 deliver more power than probably any other phone: One of the features of their ESS 9218p DAC is that multiple parallel DAC units combine to multiply output current without increasing noise proportionately, thus requiring less amplification by the OpAmp. But still, it was designed for headphones and IEMs.

But seriously, if you are looking for a new phone anyway, then why not get the best audio source you can among phones, which happens to also have excellent MQA support. Particularly when it can be had for ~$225. Then you can test it for yourself.


----------



## Dannemand

Left Channel said:


> True when speaking of playing through the internal DAC. But you do need UAPP for USB output.



Yes, we're in sync!


----------



## baronasm

Left Channel said:


> Does Android 9 no longer resample all USB output to 48 kHz? Last time I tested it, on an LG G7 One running Android 9, the Tidal app was not able to bypass the system's resampling of all USB signals to 48 kHz. Only the UAPP app was able to output the full resolution via USB. UAPP supports Tidal, Qobuz, local files, and more. (@Trunksleo I'm still concentrating only on USB output here. If you have more questions about the V30 and the G7 One, see my full report via the link in my second sentence above, and other posts in that thread.)



Newest Tidal app can bypass android SRC and then listening MQA tracks, you have 24/96 signal through usb audio out.


----------



## Left Channel

baronasm said:


> Newest Tidal app can bypass android SRC and then listening MQA tracks, you have 24/96 signal through usb audio out.



I'm still only seeing 48 kHz undecoded output from the Tidal app via USB to an external DAC. UAPP works fine. I tried two phones, a G7 and a Pixel 3, both on Android 9.

My Tidal app was last updated Feb 22nd. Is there a newer update, and is this documented somewhere?


----------



## gimmeheadroom

I wouldn't recommend it as a long term solution, but I have satisfactory results playing MQA via the Tidal android app on a Samsung phone out the analog jack and into a Yamaha integrated amp.

The Black Label micro somebody recommended or even the PC app over USB into your integrated amp using the software unfold in the desktop app etc. is a better idea.


----------



## iFi audio

Left Channel said:


> Head spinning yet? Welcome to the rabbit hole.



You're cruel


----------



## pablohoney

The Tidal iOS app has been updated and Master quality is now available. Can the iPhone XS Max play this quality level and what headphones are needed to experience this sound quality level? I currently have Bowers and Wilkins P7 Wireless and Beoplay E8 headphones.


----------



## JM1979

pablohoney said:


> The Tidal iOS app has been updated and Master quality is now available. Can the iPhone XS Max play this quality level and what headphones are needed to experience this sound quality level? I currently have Bowers and Wilkins P7 Wireless and Beoplay E8 headphones.



No way?!  I’ll have to check this out. I’ve been complaining about the lack of MQA via IOS for a while. 

I don’t think the iPhone has the dac capable of decoding MQA. I could be wrong and I also don’t think Apple publishes the specifics on their DAC. You are most likely going to need a dac (or dac/amp) to hear MQA quality. Ifi and chord are two manufacturers I’ve used with my iPhone with success.


----------



## JM1979

I’m not seeing anything in the App or online regarding MQA on ios.


----------



## jonstatt (Mar 11, 2019)

pablohoney said:


> The Tidal iOS app has been updated and Master quality is now available. Can the iPhone XS Max play this quality level and what headphones are needed to experience this sound quality level? I currently have Bowers and Wilkins P7 Wireless and Beoplay E8 headphones.



They haven’t released any guidance that I can find. But I assume it’s just doing the first unfold only on the app so it will work with everything. But using Bluetooth or the dongle will be capped. I will try connecting an external dac later and see what it reports .



JM1979 said:


> I’m not seeing anything in the App or online regarding MQA on ios.


----------



## pablohoney

JM1979 said:


> I’m not seeing anything in the App or online regarding MQA on ios.


 
It’s there. See attached picture.


----------



## JM1979 (Mar 11, 2019)

Thank you both!  I looked under settings thinking there would be a choice from ‘Hifi’ to ‘Masters’ and didn’t see it.


*edit* - turns out my app hadn’t updated. Just did a manual update and I see the masters quality option in settings and on songs/albums.


----------



## pablohoney

JM1979 said:


> Thank you both!  I looked under settings thinking there would be a choice from ‘Hifi’ to ‘Masters’ and didn’t see it.
> 
> 
> *edit* - turns out my app hadn’t updated. Just did a manual update and I see the masters quality option in settings and on songs/albums.



There is. See pictures.


----------



## pablohoney

Just saw your edit reply.


----------



## Left Channel

Congratulations to the iOS folks. I look forward to reports of what your external DAC displays (if it has a display or indicator lights for resolution and/or MQA), and of course how it sounds. 

Android owners, you'll notice I did not receive a reply to my report above. That's because it's still the case that the official Tidal app does not bypass the OS resampling. You'll need UAPP for that.


----------



## Tooros

Currently A/B’ing Ziggy Stardust with Tidal master IOS and Apple Music. Just the standard dongle. Something is definitely happening and it’s not a placebo. My iSines are at home. This is though ibasso ito1. My 3 month trial is nearly up. Damn.


----------



## revand

Left Channel said:


> Congratulations to the iOS folks. I look forward to reports of what your external DAC displays (if it has a display or indicator lights for resolution and/or MQA), and of course how it sounds.
> 
> Android owners, you'll notice I did not receive a reply to my report above. That's because it's still the case that the official Tidal app does not bypass the OS resampling. You'll need UAPP for that.




Does an iPad work with an AQ DRF now connected with a camera adapter cable?
Anyone tried allready?
If yes can you see a purple color on AQ DRF, indicating the rendering of MQA file after the first unfold made by TIDAL IOS app?


----------



## iridium7777

i'm running my X with DFR and get purple on most tidal master tracks.

i'm curious if anyone is running iphone SE and can get masters to play through headphone jack without an external dac?


----------



## JM1979

Left Channel said:


> Congratulations to the iOS folks. I look forward to reports of what your external DAC displays (if it has a display or indicator lights for resolution and/or MQA), and of course how it sounds.
> 
> Android owners, you'll notice I did not receive a reply to my report above. That's because it's still the case that the official Tidal app does not bypass the OS resampling. You'll need UAPP for that.



My Hugo 2 is green which means 96kHz. Sounds great too.


----------



## Tooros

I'd love to know what the standard lightning dongle -> 3.5mm is doing. It does sound better than before but I suspect it's 48/24


----------



## jonstatt

Tooros said:


> I'd love to know what the standard lightning dongle -> 3.5mm is doing. It does sound better than before but I suspect it's 48/24



Could just be the different mastering and it is still 16/44.1 !


----------



## AppleheadMay

It seems to me Tidal doesn't offer any hi-res Flac anymore, only in the lossy MQA format.
If I disable Master and put it on HiFi I get CD quality maximium.
Don't they have any hi-res Flac anymore?

I just subscribed for a year to Quobuz Sublime+ where I find quite a bit of hi-res titles and I can buy them at a decent price as well, a feature I really like.
Thinking of dropping Tidal. I use both via Roon.


----------



## Left Channel

AppleheadMay said:


> It seems to me Tidal doesn't offer any hi-res Flac anymore, only in the lossy MQA format.
> If I disable Master and put it on HiFi I get CD quality maximium.
> Don't they have any hi-res Flac anymore?
> 
> ...



Most of the 40 million tracks on Tidal are CD-quality. Only about 160,000 are MQA. Most of the 40 million tracks on Qobuz are also CD-quality, but about 2,000,000 are Hi-Res.

You cannot turn off the Tidal MQA/Masters feature entirely, but you can avoid those albums because usually there is also a CD-quality version there as well. Similarly, Qobuz often offers both Hi-Res and CD-quality versions of an album.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Left Channel said:


> Most of the 40 million tracks on Tidal are CD-quality. Only about 160,000 are MQA. Most of the 40 million tracks on Qobuz are also CD-quality, but about 2,000,000 are Hi-Res.
> 
> You cannot turn off the Tidal MQA/Masters feature entirely, but you can avoid those albums because usually there is also a CD-quality version there as well. Similarly, Qobuz often offers both Hi-Res and CD-quality versions of an album.



Thanks for the figures, puts things into perspective indeed. A nice part of the music I select is high-res though but it depends on what genres I'm listening too.
Yep, I do "avoid" it by selecting hifi instead of masters in the preferences of the Tidal app in my computer although I rarely use the app.
In Roon I disable MQA in the DAC preferences so I get CD-quality FLAC as well.
Now it's finding out if I still need Tidal next to Quobuz for the music I'm listening to. Will take a few months of use to find out if I'd miss much by using Quobuz alone.


----------



## iFi audio

Left Channel said:


> You'll need UAPP for that.



On Android yes.


----------



## Left Channel

iFi audio said:


> On Android yes.



Which is why that paragraph begins with "Android owners".


----------



## iridium7777

can someone here advise a "wireless dac" that i can use with audirvana?  i essentially want to hook the dac into my receiver and stream to it accross the room/house from audirvana on my laptop.  if something like that could be under $500 that would be appreciated.

so far i found onkyo tx-8270 network receiver, but was wondering what else is out there?


----------



## iFi audio

Left Channel said:


> Which is why that paragraph begins with "Android owners".



Indeed. Now we see it.


----------



## msuroo

Oh man, I’ll lousy about updating my apps so I didnt even notice the iOS update - this is awesome!


----------



## revand

msuroo said:


> Oh man, I’ll lousy about updating my apps so I didnt even notice the iOS update - this is awesome!



My wife has an iPhone 7 with an up to date TIDAL IOS app.
On my iPad it was easy to setup Master streaming quality in the TIDAL IOS app, but my wife's phone shows only HIFI (not Master) as streaming quality, and starting a TIDAL Masters album the blue HIFI sign appears again.
Any suggestion how to change the streaming quality to Master (yellow) on an iPhone within the TIDAL app?


----------



## JM1979

revand said:


> My wife has an iPhone 7 with an up to date TIDAL IOS app.
> On my iPad it was easy to setup Master streaming quality in the TIDAL IOS app, but my wife's phone shows only HIFI (not Master) as streaming quality, and starting a TIDAL Masters album the blue HIFI sign appears again.
> Any suggestion how to change the streaming quality to Master (yellow) on an iPhone within the TIDAL app?



I’d try manually updating the app.


----------



## baronasm

Left Channel said:


> Congratulations to the iOS folks. I look forward to reports of what your external DAC displays (if it has a display or indicator lights for resolution and/or MQA), and of course how it sounds.
> 
> Android owners, you'll notice I did not receive a reply to my report above. That's because it's still the case that the official Tidal app does not bypass the OS resampling. You'll need UAPP for that.



I have Topping D10 DAC connected to my Huawei P20 Pro and it shows 96khz signal from Tidal app, so I guess it depends on the Android Phone model, for me it is working just fine


----------



## Left Channel

baronasm said:


> I have Topping D10 DAC connected to my Huawei P20 Pro and it shows 96khz signal from Tidal app, so I guess it depends on the Android Phone model, for me it is working just fine



Interesting. A quick Google search tells me the P20 Pro may resample _everything_ to 96 kHz, up or down, just as most Android devices resample to 48 kHz. Are you getting 96 kHz only with Masters tracks, or with everything from the Tidal app and other apps?


----------



## iFi audio

Folks, just a quickie with our Vic showcasing MQA via Tidal on iOS if anyone's interested:


----------



## KraftD1

Posted over in the Dragonfly thread as well.  Anyone having issues with the DFR on the 2018 iPad Pro 11 with MQA? With the official USB C -> A dongle and another I tried with MQA tracks it flashes rapidly purple/orange and cuts out on tracks (purple is MQA). The dongle otherwise works fine on hifi tracks.
When I use the DFR with my phone or iPad Air 2 via the older CCK then MQA works no problem. As it works on my phone and old iPad unlikely the Tidal app and it isn't streaming since it happens with downloaded mqa tracks too. The iPad Pro and DFR don't play well together? App bug?


----------



## CANiSLAYu (Mar 22, 2019)

KraftD1 said:


> Posted over in the Dragonfly thread as well.  Anyone having issues with the DFR on the 2018 iPad Pro 11 with MQA? With the official USB C -> A dongle and another I tried with MQA tracks it flashes rapidly purple/orange and cuts out on tracks (purple is MQA). The dongle otherwise works fine on hifi tracks.
> When I use the DFR with my phone or iPad Air 2 via the older CCK then MQA works no problem. As it works on my phone and old iPad unlikely the Tidal app and it isn't streaming since it happens with downloaded mqa tracks too. The iPad Pro and DFR don't play well together? App bug?



I don't use this combo for listening, but I do happen to have both the iPad Pro 11" and DFR, so I tested it out for you.  I don't have an Apple USB C to USB A, just a generic OTG C male to A female. I'm experiencing the same thing you are with the light flashing between magenta & orange, but the audio does not cut out; it plays, but just doesn't lock in on a color (granted I only tried for like 30 seconds so I'm not sure how long before audio cuts out in your secenario).  I tried both in the Tidal app and in Roon serving up a MQA track from Tidal and same thing on both apps.  Leads me to believe it's hardware rather than software.


----------



## KraftD1

CANiSLAYu said:


> I don't use this combo for listening, but I do happen to have both the iPad Pro 11" and DFR, so I tested it out for you.  I don't have an Apple USB C to USB A, just a generic OTG C male to A female. I'm experiencing the same thing you are with the light flashing between magenta & orange, but the audio does not cut out; it plays, but just doesn't lock in on a color (granted I only tried for like 30 seconds so I'm not sure how long before audio cuts out in your secenario).  I tried both in the Tidal app and in Roon serving up a MQA track from Tidal and same thing on both apps.  Leads me to believe it's hardware rather than software.



Thanks for giving it a shot. So, I'm not alone in that issue. 
The cutting out/audio issues were not present on all songs.  One that had issues - Feel Good Inc. by Gorillaz


----------



## Tanpid (Mar 26, 2019)

Left Channel said:


> Interesting. A quick Google search tells me the P20 Pro may resample _everything_ to 96 kHz, up or down, just as most Android's devices resample to 48 kHz. Are you getting 96 kHz only with Masters tracks, or with everything from the Tidal app and other apps?


 I guess like Android ecosystem everything is not equal in terms of the hardware and software. Not like iOS where it's easier to implement the MQA to USB DAC compatibility. I'm so sad I thought MQA would work on all Android phone through a MQA DAC. I guess I might have to get a phone which is compatible as well...


----------



## Left Channel

Tanpid said:


> I guess like Android ecosystem everything is not equal in terms of the hardware and software. Not like iOS where it's easier to implement the MQA to USB DAC compatibility. I'm so sad I thought MQA would work on all Android phone through a MQA DAC. I guess I might have to get a phone which is compatible as well...



It is indeed sad, because the Android OS could include a fix for this. But the solution is easy enough: UAPP (USB Audio Player Pro, formerly USB Audio Recorder Pro), which is a great player in general too. It creates a bit perfect connection to external USB DACs, and is great for use with internal DACs as well whatever their capabilities. I use UAPP for Tidal, Qobuz, Internet Radio, UPnP/DLNA, and local playback. Website || Play Store  || Head-Fi thread


----------



## iFi audio

Tanpid said:


> I guess like Android ecosystem everything is not equal in terms of the hardware and software.



It's not unified and that's why difficult at times to work with.


----------



## boxster233

revand said:


> My wife has an iPhone 7 with an up to date TIDAL IOS app.
> On my iPad it was easy to setup Master streaming quality in the TIDAL IOS app, but my wife's phone shows only HIFI (not Master) as streaming quality, and starting a TIDAL Masters album the blue HIFI sign appears again.
> Any suggestion how to change the streaming quality to Master (yellow) on an iPhone within the TIDAL app?



Did you fix this? Having same problem on multiple phones. Checked my settings and downloaded and streamed and all ways it’s only outputting hifi and my dac is showing 44.1.


----------



## boxster233

JM1979 said:


> Thank you both!  I looked under settings thinking there would be a choice from ‘Hifi’ to ‘Masters’ and didn’t see it.
> 
> 
> *edit* - turns out my app hadn’t updated. Just did a manual update and I see the masters quality option in settings and on songs/albums.



Do you see it when you’re actually playing songs? It shows masters instead of hifi at the bottom?


----------



## Trunksleo

So i bought the lg g7, how can connect it to the pc or receiver marantz to use tidal mqa? the lg make full decode or not?


----------



## Dannemand (Apr 3, 2019)

Trunksleo said:


> So i bought the lg g7, how can connect it to the pc or receiver marantz to use tidal mqa? the lg make full decode or not?



The G7 (assuming you didn't get the Android One version) has full hardware MQA decoding and rendering (1st and 2nd unfold) when playing music through its 3.5 headphone jack. So you can connect it straight to a line-in on the Marantz, which will put the G7 in Aux mode (it's middle gain mode). Many 3.5mm to RCA cables are pretty poor quality. I've had great results with this Monoprice cable. (Extremely heavy, 3.5mm plug won't fit through any phone cases. Don't be fooled by its low price.)

As previously discussed, I'll be curious to hear your SQ findings, as G7 was designed as a headphone amp, not for driving a full-size rig with floor speakers.

Also as previously discussed, you can play Master/MQA files directly from the Tidal app with full quality, full decoding, no molestation (assuming you avoid any EQ or other effects). For Redbook tracks (non-Master) you need UAPP to avoid upsampling to 48kHz. This precludes offline mode which cannot be supported by UAPP. You can try playing them directly in the Tidal app -- and I'll be interested if you hear the difference caused by the upsampling, since it's usually only audible with sensitive IEMs.

You connect the G7 to your PC by _first_ installing the LG Universal Mobile Driver and _then_ plugging the phone into the USB port. That will allow you to copy music files (usually FLAC) to the phone's internal memory. You cannot use the G7 as a USB DAC from your PC. I think that was pointed out during the previously discussion.

Check the following thread for more info:

Music Apps, Tips and Tricks for the LG V30


----------



## iFi audio

*MQA is now officially available for the Pro iDSD*

As some of you good people know, Beta firmware v2.1MQA has been available on our website since 27 February.

The Beta version has now been confirmed as the official current firmware for the Pro iDSD.

From MQA:

_“iFi Audio is announcing the latest firmware update for the Pro iDSD making it the first in the range to support full MQA decoding. The DAC can also be paired with any CD player to experience MQA-CD playback.”_

You can download the firmware here (if you haven’t already!)

https://ifi-audio.com/downloads/

Also don’t forget our handy Pro iDSD Tidal MQA tutorials on YouTube.

Via USB http://bit.ly/DecoderUSB
Via SPDIF http://bit.ly/DecoderSPDIF
*Come and try it out at Axpona – The iFI team are located at Ear Gear Booth 8323.*


----------



## global communication

Got to say, absolutely loving your kit.


----------



## revand

boxster233 said:


> Did you fix this? Having same problem on multiple phones. Checked my settings and downloaded and streamed and all ways it’s only outputting hifi and my dac is showing 44.1.



No, I was unable to fix this!
The iPhone 7 with the latest TIDAL app installed shows only HIFI quality, Master is not an option in the streaming settings, and playing a Master track is played as HIFI (blue colour), not Master.
It is strange since my iPad 2018 does everything right, and it is even capable of sending the digital music files after the first MQA unfold to my AQ Dragonfly Red (with using a lightning camera adapter as OTG cable), and I can enjoy the best quality from an IOS device so far.
Any suggestions?


----------



## global communication

Yes delete the Tidal app from your phone and then add it again. Check the settings.

Sometimes it needs that. also make sure your IOS operating system is up to date .


----------



## boxster233

revand said:


> No, I was unable to fix this!
> The iPhone 7 with the latest TIDAL app installed shows only HIFI quality, Master is not an option in the streaming settings, and playing a Master track is played as HIFI (blue colour), not Master.
> It is strange since my iPad 2018 does everything right, and it is even capable of sending the digital music files after the first MQA unfold to my AQ Dragonfly Red (with using a lightning camera adapter as OTG cable), and I can enjoy the best quality from an IOS device so far.
> Any suggestions?



What global said below. Make sure you have latest os and then delete tidal and reinstall. That did it for me on multiple phones.


----------



## Taz777

revand said:


> No, I was unable to fix this!
> The iPhone 7 with the latest TIDAL app installed shows only HIFI quality, Master is not an option in the streaming settings, and playing a Master track is played as HIFI (blue colour), not Master.
> It is strange since my iPad 2018 does everything right, and it is even capable of sending the digital music files after the first MQA unfold to my AQ Dragonfly Red (with using a lightning camera adapter as OTG cable), and I can enjoy the best quality from an IOS device so far.
> Any suggestions?



I have an iPhone 7 running iOS 12.2. Can you confirm the version of your Tidal app? It needs to be *2.7.x*. You can check this by going to 'My Collection' and clicking the gear icon. Then scroll down to the end. I had an issue where my Tidal app didn't update for a couple of days.


----------



## revand

global communication said:


> Yes delete the Tidal app from your phone and then add it again. Check the settings.
> 
> Sometimes it needs that. also make sure your IOS operating system is up to date .




In the meantime I solved the problem! I uninstalled TIDAL IOS app, and when I tried to reinstall it it said: "Do you want to install an earlier version of the app?"
This was the moment I realized that my wife's phone had an earlier version of IOS. I installed the latest IOS version and after that I installed TIDAL app.
Now I was able to chose Master quality streaming options in the menu, and now I can play Master albums.
Coming back to my PC to inform you I realized that you suggested the same 
Thank you anyway your kind help.


----------



## global communication

Thats great you have it solved. Glad I could help....... kinda.


----------



## JM1979

I was able to update the app on my iPhone and get MQA. 

I also have an iPad 4th Gen. iOS is up to date. For some reason I’m unable to download the most recent tidal version. It always reverts to the pre-MQA version. 

Is my iPad not compatible?


----------



## boxster233

JM1979 said:


> I was able to update the app on my iPhone and get MQA.
> 
> I also have an iPad 4th Gen. iOS is up to date. For some reason I’m unable to download the most recent tidal version. It always reverts to the pre-MQA version.
> 
> Is my iPad not compatible?



Does your iPad support os12.2? I have iPhone 5 that can’t get OS12 so can’t do mqa.


----------



## JM1979

boxster233 said:


> Does your iPad support os12.2? I have iPhone 5 that can’t get OS12 so can’t do mqa.



This appears to be the issue. The 4th Gen iPad is work issued and had security profiles set up on it and was on iOS 10.3. When I went to update the iOS, it wouldn’t recognize needing an update. So either the iPad isn’t capable of the update or the work profiles are locking it down.


----------



## Trunksleo

Dannemand said:


> The G7 (assuming you didn't get the Android One version) has full hardware MQA decoding and rendering (1st and 2nd unfold) when playing music through its 3.5 headphone jack. So you can connect it straight to a line-in on the Marantz, which will put the G7 in Aux mode (it's middle gain mode). Many 3.5mm to RCA cables are pretty poor quality. I've had great results with this Monoprice cable. (Extremely heavy, 3.5mm plug won't fit through any phone cases. Don't be fooled by its low price.)
> 
> As previously discussed, I'll be curious to hear your SQ findings, as G7 was designed as a headphone amp, not for driving a full-size rig with floor speakers.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the info, so i find this cable for a recomendation on other forum
https://www.amazon.com/VENTION-Auxi...=1555002680&s=gateway&sprefix=Rca+to+u&sr=8-4

But i dont know if with this cable tidal its using the dac of the g7 or not.


----------



## Left Channel

Trunksleo said:


> Thanks for the info, so i find this cable for a recomendation on other forum
> https://www.amazon.com/VENTION-Auxi...=1555002680&s=gateway&sprefix=Rca+to+u&sr=8-4
> 
> But i dont know if with this cable tidal its using the dac of the g7 or not.



That will not work if you want MQA. @Dannemand  is suggesting you connect the phone's analog headphone jack to the Marantz.


----------



## Dannemand (Apr 11, 2019)

Trunksleo said:


> Thanks for the info, so i find this cable for a recomendation on other forum
> https://www.amazon.com/VENTION-Auxi...=1555002680&s=gateway&sprefix=Rca+to+u&sr=8-4
> 
> But i dont know if with this cable tidal its using the dac of the g7 or not.



As @Left Channel wrote, you need an analog cable that plugs into the G7's 3.5mm headphone jack. There is no other way if you want to use its DAC to decode and render MQA -- which I understood was your goal with this purchase, in addition to getting a new phone.

If you are in USA, I highly recommend checking out that Monoprice cable I mentioned. It won't cost you much, and it's all quality, no fancy branding. I bet more money goes into its manufacture than cables that cost 10x as much. When you receive it, you will know what I mean.


----------



## FastForward

Sorry if this is off topic but is anyone using the Oppo BDP-103/105 basic or Darbee versions to stream Tidal? Specifically, does the Oppo version of the Tidal app support the first unfold of MQA tracks?


----------



## Left Channel

FastForward said:


> Sorry if this is off topic but is anyone using the Oppo BDP-103/105 basic or Darbee versions to stream Tidal? Specifically, does the Oppo version of the Tidal app support the first unfold of MQA tracks?



Not off-topic at all. Based on posts I've seen on other forums, as far as I know Oppo has no plans to support MQA on any 103/105 model. They did release MQA support in a firmware update for the 203//205. You'll find that and update history for the other models here: https://www.oppodigital.com/support.aspx


----------



## DaneNoodles

It's hard enough sourcing masters file to CDs, ensuring they are the original pressings and what not by typing in UPCs onto Discogs. Then crossreferencing the dates on loudness wars DR database... I'd need more info on what the source was, and more options to crossreference for MQA to be of max value to me.


----------



## afico

Hel


Dannemand said:


> I think you are confusing V30 with the V40: V30 is just about the same size as G7 (6.0 inch display vs 6.1 inch) whereas the V40 is significantly larger (6.5 inch) and more expensive. G7 is a good choice for its newer hardware and more RAM than V30, but it has LCD instead of OLED. If you think you'll ever root the phone, V30 is the better choice. If you do get G7, make sure you don't get the Android One version, as that doesn't have hardware MQA support (to my understanding, I could be wrong).
> 
> Edit: Seeing Left Channel's last post I wonder if I misunderstood: Are you looking to output through USB?
> 
> ...


Hello,
I have tried to play tidal via official app ong G7 using an USB dac. The sampling frequency shown by the dac is always 48...


----------



## Dannemand

afico said:


> Hel
> 
> Hello,
> I have tried to play tidal via official app ong G7 using an USB dac. The sampling frequency shown by the dac is always 48...



Yes. I think it's pretty well established that most Android phones will re-sample to 48KHz when playing through USB DACs, unless you use apps like UAPP that have their own drivers. Thank you for reconfirming that.

My post was specifically in response to a question about utilizing the LG phone's Quad DAC to play MQA, playing through its headphone jack. When doing that, Tidal *will* play Master/MQA tracks correctly, without resampling, and with full 4x MQA unfolding and rendering in hardware. In fact, most apps (even dumb ones that don't have specific support for the Quad DAC) will play HiRes music without resampling, including 24-bit tracks of any sample rate.

However Redbook 16/44 is another matter, since it will be upsampled to 48KHz, unless you use UAPP, Neutron or another app that specifically avoids it -- which they do by converting it to 24/44, a harmless conversion that doesn't affect sound quality.

For me their built-in ESS Sabre DAC is one of the main reasons to buy LG V-series or G-series phones. But if I were going to output to a USB DAC, most any Android phone would work, since I would have to use UAPP for it anyway to avoid resampling.


----------



## afico

Dannemand said:


> Yes. I think it's pretty well established that most Android phones will re-sample to 48KHz when playing through USB DACs, unless you use apps like UAPP that have their own drivers. Thank you for reconfirming that.
> 
> My post was specifically in response to a question about utilizing the LG phone's Quad DAC to play MQA, playing through its headphone jack. When doing that, Tidal *will* play Master/MQA tracks correctly, without resampling, and with full 4x MQA unfolding and rendering in hardware. In fact, most apps (even dumb ones that don't have specific support for the Quad DAC) will play HiRes music without resampling, including 24-bit tracks of any sample rate.
> 
> ...


It's clear thank you. 
Howewer I can tell you something else. 
I tried tidal with 2 different phones and the behavior with external dac is different. 
They both use Android Pie. 
With s10 plus all is upsampled to 192
With p30 pro it goes to 96
For sure I prefer both options.. 
So maybe it's a matter also of Andorid version


----------



## Dannemand (Apr 26, 2019)

afico said:


> It's clear thank you.
> Howewer I can tell you something else.
> I tried tidal with 2 different phones and the behavior with external dac is different.
> They both use Android Pie.
> ...



I heard about the Huawei phones upsampling to 96KHz, but I didn't know about the Galaxy upsampling to 192KHz. I think it is most likely a vendor choice, not about Android Pie, but I could be wrong. I am guessing that if Google ever realized that upsampling is *not* desirable (say, by adding just *one* person to their Android team who cares about audio quality) they would avoid it in Android itself, and the vendors would simply follow suit.

But it is annoying either way -- although for Redbook 16/44 upsampling to 192KHz is definitely better than upsamplign to 48KHz, as there will be fewer interpolation errors. In truth, most DACs will perform their own internal upsampling anyway as part of the process, but that's no excuse to inject an extra, and unnecessary, round of interpolation *before* it reaches the DAC.


----------



## afico

Absolutely agree with you.
Did you also test if all the offline Tidal Mqa content is played at 48? I think that mqa works only in streaming


----------



## Dannemand (Apr 26, 2019)

afico said:


> Did you also test if all the offline Tidal Mqa content is played at 48? I think that mqa works only in streaming



Again, I have *not* tested external USB DACs myself, so I cannot speak to that.

I have only _*only*_ tested using the Quad DAC of my LG V30 (the same ESS Sabre 9218p as in the G7). And when using the Quad DAC, the Tidal app plays all Master/MQA track correctly, without resampling, and with full hardware MQA unfolding and rendering. This is true for *both streaming and offline* tracks. Conversely, the Tidal app plays all non-Master track (Redbook 16/44) through the Android Mixer, which upsamples to 48KHz.

I use Tidal offline a lot, but only for Master/MQA tracks (which it plays correctly). For any non-Master/MQA tracks (Redbook 16/44) I play them through UAPP, which can only stream them, not play offline.

For external USB DACs, I assume whatever the Tidal app does when streaming, it also does for offline tracks (i.e. resamples to 48KHz). But that's just my assumption, as I have not tested it.


----------



## noobandroid

if I use SR15 as a desktop dac, will it unfold the MQA correctly, cause on the SR15 UI it will show no info so I'm highly uncertain


----------



## Left Channel (May 2, 2019)

noobandroid said:


> if I use SR15 as a desktop dac, will it unfold the MQA correctly, cause on the SR15 UI it will show no info so I'm highly uncertain



If you install the Tidal app (via the Open APP Service) you'll get the 1x unfold to a max of 24/96. 

*Edit: *see my next post below for new information.


----------



## noobandroid

Left Channel said:


> If you install the Tidal app (via the Open APP Service) you'll get the 1x unfold to a max of 24/96. The SR15 will do no unfolding by itself.


on as a dap i understand but if on pc as dac?


----------



## Left Channel

noobandroid said:


> on as a dap i understand but if on pc as dac?



I found new information. If you install the latest firmware update, the SR15 will support MQA as a DAC/amp and as a DAC: https://us.astellnkern.com/blogs/news/astell-kern-adds-mqa-support... Why they haven't updated the SR15 web page or manual, I don't know. I listened to the DAPs they had displayed at AXPONA just a few weeks ago, and did not learn of this there either. Looking forward to seeing a report of your results.


----------



## noobandroid

Left Channel said:


> I found new information. If you install the latest firmware update, the SR15 will support MQA as a DAC/amp and as a DAC: https://us.astellnkern.com/blogs/news/astell-kern-adds-mqa-support... Why they haven't updated the SR15 web page or manual, I don't know. I listened to the DAPs they had displayed at AXPONA just a few weeks ago, and did not learn of this there either. Looking forward to seeing a report of your results.


that statement only mentions things on the dap but not as a usb dac, i have asked in sr15 thread to no answers


----------



## Left Channel

noobandroid said:


> that statement only mentions things on the dap but not as a usb dac, i have asked in sr15 thread to no answers



The upgrade is to the DAC inside the SR15, so it should work. But given the prices of A&K products, I understand why you'd want some reassurance. I suggest contacting A&K directly.


----------



## Tenashus1

I can't find Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club MQA on TIDAL any longer. Same thing happened with Jazz Samba by Stan Getz. No more MQA. Anyone know why this is happening? Thanks.


----------



## Tenashus1

Sometimes I lose the MQA versions of albums on TIDAL. Sgt. Pepper's and Jazz Samba by Stan Getz are no longer available. Anyone know why? Thanks.


----------



## masterpfa

Tenashus1 said:


> Sometimes I lose the MQA versions of albums on TIDAL. Sgt. Pepper's and Jazz Samba by Stan Getz are no longer available. Anyone know why? Thanks.


Tidal for whatever reason are continually changing their library. Tracks, albums etc are not destined to remain on Tidal forever ever for the most popular artists can just disappear


----------



## iridium7777 (May 17, 2019)

i think they're perpetually going through licensing issues.  i've noticed that Neil Young and Nina Simone have disappeared for me.  i was able to find Neil Young back by going through a Turkish VPN server, i wasn't able to find all of the Nina Simone no matter what server i used.

there's a great spreadsheet available on-line if you search for "complete mqa list" that lists all of the MQA albums that people have found with a direct link.  what i found is that the albums don't really go away, they just become unavailable in certain regions.  certainly a hassle.

btw, i still see Sgt Pep "Super Delux" master but not the jazz samba.  the mqa spreadsheet does state that jazz samba was available in both 192 and 96 quality.



Tenashus1 said:


> Sometimes I lose the MQA versions of albums on TIDAL. Sgt. Pepper's and Jazz Samba by Stan Getz are no longer available. Anyone know why? Thanks.


----------



## TheSnafu

Looks like gapless playing is gone again after yesterdays "update". 

how many months this time to fix it.... again


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Tenashus1 said:


> Sometimes I lose the MQA versions of albums on TIDAL. Sgt. Pepper's and Jazz Samba by Stan Getz are no longer available. Anyone know why? Thanks.



Time to start buying new CD burners and cassette decks


----------



## Left Channel

Tenashus1 said:


> Sometimes I lose the MQA versions of albums on TIDAL. Sgt. Pepper's and Jazz Samba by Stan Getz are no longer available. Anyone know why? Thanks.



I mentioned this on another forum, and someone found the "Deluxe Edition" of _Sgt. Pepper's_ in MQA: https://tidal.com/album/95648356 

I seem to recall another version of _Sgt. Pepper's_ in MQA though. 

And _Jazz Samba_ MQA is still MIA.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

We probably ought to start a thread on new MQA appearances and disappearances to keep track of this. Annoying!


----------



## Tenashus1

Left Channel said:


> I mentioned this on another forum, and someone found the "Deluxe Edition" of _Sgt. Pepper's_ in MQA: https://tidal.com/album/95648356
> 
> I seem to recall another version of _Sgt. Pepper's_ in MQA though.
> 
> And _Jazz Samba_ MQA is still MIA.


Thanks for that! I appreciate it. Will wait for the return of Jazz Samba.


----------



## iFi audio

Bob Stuart on it.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

It really doesn't matter. MQA seems kinda dumb to me since nobody needs compression or worries about bandwidth in 2019.

But it sounds good to me so I listen to it.


----------



## Left Channel

gimmeheadroom said:


> It really doesn't matter. MQA seems kinda dumb to me since nobody needs compression or worries about bandwidth in 2019.
> 
> But it sounds good to me so I listen to it.



MQA is also supposed to add a new dimension to the reproduction: the time domain. Maybe I just don't have the right equipment or the right ears, but I've never heard a difference between MQA and a Hi-Res file of equivalent resolution.


----------



## abirdie4me

gimmeheadroom said:


> It really doesn't matter. MQA seems kinda dumb to me since nobody needs compression or worries about bandwidth in 2019



Bandwidth is still an issue here in the US. I have AT&T “unlimited” plan, but they start throttling speeds after 23 gig in a month. I usually hit that with 4 or 5 days left in my billing cycle, and then my streaming gets choppy and unreliable until the next cycle hits. MQA helps, but I’ve been using Qobuz lately and that murders my data allowance. I can’t hear a difference in MQA and Qobuz hi-res. I’ve started downloading more and trying to watch less YouTube, but I really don’t like the hassle of having to worry about how much data I used. They should change the name, it’s certainly not unlimited.


----------



## Dannemand (May 23, 2019)

That's exactly right: Bandwidth is still a big deal in USA. Unlimited plans from big carriers cost $100/month (less for additional phones on a family plan). And even those have data caps, as described by @abirdie4me.

In comparison, my wife and I paid $15/month for plans with 15GB LTE data, when we were in Denmark last year. And that country is generally *much* more expensive than USA in almost every other way.

This is what happens when a country lets big companies and industry write their own legislation and fill the seats in the regulatory bodies that are meant to oversee them: What was supposed to be fierce competition driven by a free market, becomes actual lack of competition, when a few players can comfortably divide the market between them -- as long as they *appear* to be competing, of course.

Edit: I should add that AT&T's CEO received $29 million in compensation last year, and their stock pays 6% dividend. So the model is working for some


----------



## Left Channel

abirdie4me said:


> Bandwidth is still an issue here in the US. I have AT&T “unlimited” plan, but they start throttling speeds after 23 gig in a month. I usually hit that with 4 or 5 days left in my billing cycle, and then my streaming gets choppy and unreliable until the next cycle hits. MQA helps, but I’ve been using Qobuz lately and that murders my data allowance. I can’t hear a difference in MQA and Qobuz hi-res. I’ve started downloading more and trying to watch less YouTube, but I really don’t like the hassle of having to worry about how much data I used. They should change the name, it’s certainly not unlimited.



I have my Tidal and Qobuz apps set to stream at Master/Hi-Res only on Wi-Fi, and at CD quality on mobile. As I'm sure you know, the settings can go as low as 320 kbps on Qobuz and 96 kbps on Tidal. I also stream internet radio stations at 32 kbps on cellular data, but at higher resolutions on Wi-Fi. 

Video's the real data gobbler in most comparisons. With video and music on their lowest quality settings, video consumes almost seven times more data than music. As you ratchet them up equally (music from 96 kbps to CD, and video from 240p to HD), the gap only grows. And if you leave the video at its lowest quality setting, it still consumes three times more than 320 kbps music: https://www.androidcentral.com/how-much-data-does-streaming-media-use 

CD quality at 1411 kbps uses about 500 MB an hour, which is still less than all but the lowest-quality video. MQA streams are not a lot larger than that, but it's from there to full Hi-Res where music starts catching up to video. 24-bit VBR Hi-Res streams will eat up from ~1.1 to 5 times as much as CD streams, equivalent to HD video at the highest resolutions.


----------



## Tenashus1

Dannemand said:


> That's exactly right: Bandwidth is still a big deal in USA. Unlimited plans from big carriers cost $100/month (less for additional phones on a family plan). And even those have data caps, as described by @abirdie4me.
> 
> In comparison, my wife and I paid $15/month for plans with 15GB LTE data, when we were in Denmark last year. And that country is generally *much* more expensive than USA in almost every other way.
> 
> ...



For me, MQA is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm not an acoustical engineer, but to me MQA sounds so clear and present it adds a whole new dimension to my listening. I find the sound to be superior to standard FLAC. An absolutely significant difference to my hearing.  With all due respects, I cannot understand when others don't hear the difference. I hope that very soon more albums will be presented in the MQA format. I love it.


----------



## abirdie4me (May 23, 2019)

Left Channel said:


> I have my Tidal and Qobuz apps set to stream at Master/Hi-Res only on Wi-Fi, and at CD quality on mobile.



Yep, I do the same. I'm probably an edge user in that I stream a lot on mobile since I'm often at client sites and don't want to use their wifi because they can monitor what I'm doing (nothing bad, but don't want them thinking they are paying me to listen to music all day). I do sometimes reduce settings or just not stream for a while, but I'd much rather just set it at max quality and enjoy without having to worry about it.

First world problem, i really shouldn't be complaining about it.


----------



## Left Channel

abirdie4me said:


> Yep, I do the same. I'm probably an edge user in that I stream a lot on mobile since I'm often at client sites and don't want to use their wifi because they can monitor what I'm doing (nothing bad, but don't want them thinking they are paying me to listen to music all day). I do sometimes reduce settings or just not stream for a while, but I'd much rather just set it at max quality and enjoy without having to worry about it.
> 
> First world problem, i really shouldn't be complaining about it.



VPN can help you hide the music on Wi-Fi. It would keep you safer on Starbucks' and other public Wi-Fi too.


----------



## abirdie4me

Left Channel said:


> VPN can help you hide the music on Wi-Fi. It would keep you safer on Starbucks' and other public Wi-Fi too.



Thanks. I'm an Information Security consultant, so I'm quite familiar with VPN options. Most of my clients lock down their Guest wifi so that vpns won't work (often based on my firm's recommendation).


----------



## Left Channel

abirdie4me said:


> Thanks. I'm an Information Security consultant, so I'm quite familiar with VPN options. Most of my clients lock down their Guest wifi so that vpns won't work (often based on my firm's recommendation).



Ah-hah, so you're the culprits!   OK, guess the only solution is 5G. Or not.


----------



## masterpfa

gimmeheadroom said:


> It really doesn't matter. MQA seems kinda dumb to me since nobody needs compression or worries about bandwidth in 2019.
> 
> But it sounds good to me so I listen to it.


Speak for yourself
I have Netflix, Amazon Prime, BT Vision and I work from home.

If I have any combination of 2 products in use even with my 60Mb connection, Qobuz trying to play 192Khz files stutters and splutters then skips to the next track and this continues until I stop Qobuz playback, whereas Tidal doesn't on ant file Flac or MQA


----------



## gimmeheadroom

I don't have the disappearing gapless issue only one guy seems to be complaining about all the time.

But I did notice the last 5 or six times I started the Windows desktop app my sound quality setting was set to hi instead of Master. Looks like an advantageous bug for Tidal. 

No, I set it on Master and I meant it....


----------



## saintintn

So, here's my question.  I've got an iPhone X with CCM and Dragonfly Black.  Masters are playing great and fully unfolded.  

The question is when using an iPad Air or later (with the headphone jack) is the Tidal software unwrapping the mqa if I connect my headphones to the iPad Air headphone jack? At least with my MacBook Pro that is my understanding, that the Tidal desktop software does unfold the mqa so that what you are hearing through your headphones is the true Masters quality version.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

saintintn said:


> So, here's my question.  I've got an iPhone X with CCM and Dragonfly Black.  Masters are playing great and fully unfolded.
> 
> The question is when using an iPad Air or later (with the headphone jack) is the Tidal software unwrapping the mqa if I connect my headphones to the iPad Air headphone jack? At least with my MacBook Pro that is my understanding, that the Tidal desktop software does unfold the mqa so that what you are hearing through your headphones is the true Masters quality version.



I don't have iAnything but if it's like the Windows desktop app then yeah, the default is to unfold via software. If you have an MQA-capable DAC you go to the extra streaming settings and you can choose Exclusive Mode (on Windows anyway), Fixed volume (good idea for all digital playback) and Passthru MQA.


----------



## saintintn (May 29, 2019)

This is what I’m seeing in the Roon app on my iPad mini.


----------



## Tenashus1

So I downloaded Qubuz to compare with TIDAL. Qubuz hi rez vs. TIDAL MQA. Sometimes Qubuz sounds maybe a tad better, most of the time TIDAL MQA sounds better. Qubuz is $5 more per month than TIDAL. Qubuz hi rez albums that are available are quite nearly similar to the MQA offering on TIDAL. Why should I ever choose Qubuz over TIDAL? Anyone see anything that I'm not seeing? Opinions as to which is preferable.


----------



## Dannemand (May 30, 2019)

Tenashus1 said:


> So I downloaded Qubuz to compare with TIDAL. Qubuz hi rez vs. TIDAL MQA. Sometimes Qubuz sounds maybe a tad better, most of the time TIDAL MQA sounds better. Qubuz is $5 more per month than TIDAL. Qubuz hi rez albums that are available are quite nearly similar to the MQA offering on TIDAL. Why should I ever choose Qubuz over TIDAL? Anyone see anything that I'm not seeing? Opinions as to which is preferable.



Thank you for that useful comparison. So no need for me to wonder if the grass might be greener on the Qobuz side. At least for now.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

saintintn said:


> This is what I’m seeing in the Roon app on my iPad mini.



Looks good to me except I am not familiar with that app and I would turn off sample rate conversion. I hate Roon. I realize I'm in the minority, but I hate Roon like other people hate MQA.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Tenashus1 said:


> So I downloaded Qubuz to compare with TIDAL. Qubuz hi rez vs. TIDAL MQA. Sometimes Qubuz sounds maybe a tad better, most of the time TIDAL MQA sounds better. Qubuz is $5 more per month than TIDAL. Qubuz hi rez albums that are available are quite nearly similar to the MQA offering on TIDAL. Why should I ever choose Qubuz over TIDAL? Anyone see anything that I'm not seeing? Opinions as to which is preferable.



Here Quboz is about 2X the price of Tidal hifi. Well, that's technically not true since Quboz is not offered here. But if I compare the UK price to Tidal hifi in Czech Republic it is. 

I don't think anybody has sound quality issues with either service. Tidal user interface is terrible, Windows app is crap. Haven't used Quboz so I don't know. I think it mostly comes down to the catalogs. If you find one of them has most of the music you want get the cheaper one.


----------



## global communication

and then Amazon will come along and undercut everyone with their Hi Rez service.


----------



## Dannemand

global communication said:


> and then Amazon will come along and undercut everyone with their Hi Rez service.



I would be OK with that if the quality and catalog is there. But last I checked Amazon Music was a joke. Admittedly, that's a while ago.


----------



## Tenashus1

gimmeheadroom said:


> Here Quboz is about 2X the price of Tidal hifi. Well, that's technically not true since Quboz is not offered here. But if I compare the UK price to Tidal hifi in Czech Republic it is.
> 
> I don't think anybody has sound quality issues with either service. Tidal user interface is terrible, Windows app is crap. Haven't used Quboz so I don't know. I think it mostly comes down to the catalogs. If you find one of them has most of the music you want get the cheaper one.



I use Audirvana with TIDAL. Works well for me. Sounds great - better than Roon.


----------



## global communication

Dannemand said:


> I would be OK with that if the quality and catalog is there. But last I checked Amazon Music was a joke. Admittedly, that's a while ago.



Amazon Prime Unlimited has a great catalogue now, however,  The interface needs a complete makeover and the iOS app is so clunky but being improved daily. Family plan is good value though. I use Tidal though as my streaming service at home. Amazon on the move.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

global communication said:


> and then Amazon will come along and undercut everyone with their Hi Rez service.



It wouldn't change my life. I don't use Amazon. I guess everybody who doesn't live in America is sick of Amazon's dynamic pricing and vendors taking advantage of us by charging 2-3X the American price and also unrealistic shipping.


----------



## noobandroid

saintintn said:


> This is what I’m seeing in the Roon app on my iPad mini.


keep it short and simple like this
:


----------



## Jumpwired

Anyone having random MQA drop outs with the Pro-ject Pre Box S2 Digital? 
Spent 70$ on a higher end cable, no dice. LPS on the way too.


----------



## Left Channel

Jumpwired said:


> Anyone having random MQA drop outs with the Pro-ject Pre Box S2 Digital?
> Spent 70$ on a higher end cable, no dice. LPS on the way too.



I own that DAC too, and it has done the same thing to me. It is known to be more sensitive than most to imperfections in an MQA signal, and for not falling back smoothly to an undecoded format when that happens.


----------



## Jumpwired

Left Channel said:


> I own that DAC too, and it has done the same thing to me. It is known to be more sensitive than most to imperfections in an MQA signal, and for not falling back smoothly to an undecoded format when that happens.


Really appreciate your response. Guess I will have to save my pennies for a better DAC.
Although I just listened to most of the Sgt. Pepper's Deluxe album and not a single drop out.

Why you tease me like this Pro-ject? I want to love you.

Hope we save some people from spending their money on problematic MQA decoding.


----------



## NobbyChad

Jumpwired said:


> Anyone having random MQA drop outs with the Pro-ject Pre Box S2 Digital?
> Spent 70$ on a higher end cable, no dice. LPS on the way too.



Bought the Project myself, sent it back constant problems and sounded worse than my Cambridge Audio DAC without MQA.  Bought a iFi DSD Black Label, night and day difference no drop outs great sound.


----------



## Left Channel

Jumpwired said:


> Really appreciate your response. Guess I will have to save my pennies for a better DAC.
> Although I just listened to most of the Sgt. Pepper's Deluxe album and not a single drop out.
> 
> Why you tease me like this Pro-ject? I want to love you.
> ...



Pro-Ject's testing and support of this entire product line have been disappointing. But your problem seems worse than most, and I look forward to seeing your reports if you try any of the suggestions you're getting on other forums, such as settling for MQB, or improving MQA performance by adding a USB clean-up accessory.


----------



## Jumpwired

Left Channel said:


> Pro-Ject's testing and support of this entire product line have been disappointing. But your problem seems worse than most, and I look forward to seeing your reports if you try any of the suggestions you're getting on other forums, such as settling for MQB, or improving MQA performance by adding a USB clean-up accessory.



As much as I want to throw more money to solve this issue. Most options will cost me an extra $200CAD. 
And this doesn't even guarantee me a solution. Might have to sell this thing and get a better DAC. 

Sucks, hopefully people stop buying this broken product.


----------



## NobbyChad

Left Channel said:


> Pro-Ject's testing and support of this entire product line have been disappointing. But your problem seems worse than most, and I look forward to seeing your reports if you try any of the suggestions you're getting on other forums, such as settling for MQB, or improving MQA performance by adding a USB clean-up accessory.


Already bought a Sonore Microrendu. Biggest single improvement I have ever heard from a single component change.


----------



## Left Channel

Jumpwired said:


> As much as I want to throw more money to solve this issue. Most options will cost me an extra $200CAD.
> And this doesn't even guarantee me a solution. Might have to sell this thing and get a better DAC.
> 
> Sucks, hopefully people stop buying this broken product.



I certainly wouldn't blame you if you do replace it. I no longer use mine except for testing. Then again, I also didn't like the sound signature.


----------



## Left Channel

NobbyChad said:


> Already bought a Sonore Microrendu. Biggest single improvement I have ever heard from a single component change.



I had an ultraRendu in the media room here, and it was a good way to clean up the sound but I found it to be unstable at the most inconvenient times. I replaced it with a small fanless low-power PC for about the same price, added an ISO REGEN powered by the LPS-1.2 I was using for the 'Rendu, plus a wireless keyboard, and got the same sonic results plus the ability to see apps on our TV as well as phones and tablets. Those apps include Tidal — MQA in the media room! — as well as Qobuz, Squeezelite-X, and VLC.


----------



## NobbyChad

Left Channel said:


> I had an ultraRendu in the media room here, and it was a good way to clean up the sound but I found it to be unstable at the most inconvenient times. I replaced it with a small fanless low-power PC for about the same price, added an ISO REGEN powered by the LPS-1.2 I was using for the 'Rendu, plus a wireless keyboard, and got the same sonic results plus the ability to see apps on our TV as well as phones and tablets. Those apps include Tidal — MQA in the media room! — as well as Qobuz, Squeezelite-X, and VLC.



The microrendu seems to struggle occasionally in my system with Mac/ Audirvana same signal sent to my Naim Unit is rock solid and has never dropped out?


----------



## Indrajit

Hi. I have a question on this thread. May I know if offline versions of mqa files (when played in offline mode) on phones experience any downgrade in sound quality as opposed to playing mqa in online streaming?


----------



## Dannemand

Indrajit said:


> Hi. I have a question on this thread. May I know if offline versions of mqa files (when played in offline mode) on phones experience any downgrade in sound quality as opposed to playing mqa in online streaming?



In the Tidal App settings, you choose the quality level for Downloaded tracks. If you choose Master, you'll get the full MQA quality.

I have verified on my LG V30 (using it's hardware MQA decoder and renderer) that it plays the same, regardless of whether I'm in Offline mode or streaming live.


----------



## Indrajit

Dannemand said:


> In the Tidal App settings, you choose the quality level for Downloaded tracks. If you choose Master, you'll get the full MQA quality.
> 
> I have verified on my LG V30 (using it's hardware MQA decoder and renderer) that it plays the same, regardless of whether I'm in Offline mode or streaming live.



Thanks. I have one more question. Are we allowed to play tidal offline files after losing or cancelling tidal subscription? Is it possible to play only those offline downloads after one has stopped paying for the subscription.


----------



## Left Channel

Indrajit said:


> Thanks. I have one more question. Are we allowed to play tidal offline files after losing or cancelling tidal subscription? Is it possible to play only those offline downloads after one has stopped paying for the subscription.



You won't be able to log into the app, and we can't play those offline files with other apps. Offline music is not the same as purchased downloads.


----------



## Indrajit

Left Channel said:


> You won't be able to log into the app, and we can't play those offline files with other apps. Offline music is not the same as purchased downloads.



 Thanks. Are you saying that my account gets automatically logged out if I stop paying? If I am permanently logged in and never turn on the internet on tidal or never update tidal from now, just to keep those offline files, will I still be logged out after stopping payment


----------



## abirdie4me

Indrajit said:


> Thanks. Are you saying that my account gets automatically logged out if I stop paying? If I am permanently logged in and never turn on the internet on tidal or never update tidal from now, just to keep those offline files, will I still be logged out after stopping payment



When you download a file through Tidal, you are not buying it. You simply have the right to play it back VIA THE TIDAL APP only, on the device you downloaded in on, and only as long as you have an active (meaning paid) subscription. 

If you could just download and keep it forever, everybody would just sign up for 1 month and download thousands of songs and then cancel their subscription. That wouldn't be a very good business model for Tidal.


----------



## Indrajit

abirdie4me said:


> When you download a file through Tidal, you are not buying it. You simply have the right to play it back VIA THE TIDAL APP only, on the device you downloaded in on, and only as long as you have an active (meaning paid) subscription.
> 
> If you could just download and keep it forever, everybody would just sign up for 1 month and download thousands of songs and then cancel their subscription. That wouldn't be a very good business model for Tidal.



Yeah well. Thanks. That is how it usually is.


----------



## Left Channel

Indrajit said:


> Thanks. Are you saying that my account gets automatically logged out if I stop paying? If I am permanently logged in and never turn on the internet on tidal or never update tidal from now, just to keep those offline files, will I still be logged out after stopping payment



The apps and website check in with Tidal often enough that you may find you have no grace period at all. Once you're logged out, those files are inaccessible.

Tidal does sell permanent downloads in both MP3 and FLAC, but they don't advertise it much because most Tidal users aren't interested. https://store.tidal.com/


----------



## Tenashus1

Bye bye to the Allman Brothers Eat a Peach album in MQA. Another MQA title bites the dust. Shucks, it sounded so good too. I saw myself back on the quad at UVM.


----------



## Dannemand

Indrajit said:


> Thanks. I have one more question. Are we allowed to play tidal offline files after losing or cancelling tidal subscription? Is it possible to play only those offline downloads after one has stopped paying for the subscription.



I have had my subscription expire at one point with the app still in Offline mode. And it actually let me keep playing for a few weeks before finally telling me it had expired. As others have pointed out, that doesn't mean you should count on it. And it certainly doesn't mean you own it. I am guessing the frequency between the app wanting to check in is such that there is no predicting how long the grace period will be.


----------



## Dannemand (Jun 10, 2019)

I was reminded that I probably should copy the relevant parts of this post for other classical lovers here in this thread.



Dannemand said:


> <snip>
> 
> For my part, I only have Master (MQA) albums downloaded in Tidal. So when I use Offline mode, that's what I choose from -- and I know they will all play correctly.
> 
> ...





Dannemand said:


> One thing I forgot to mention about the Everest Records albums: Each of them exist both as HiFi (44/16 Redbook) and as Master (192/24 MQA). Make sure to choose the MQA version.
> 
> BTW this also makes them excellent for comparing the two formats on high quality recordings (as opposed to on crappy recordings, which many MQA releases seem to be). I can suggest albums if anybody is interested in such comparisons.


----------



## gimmeheadroom (Jun 14, 2019)

Today for the first time I had trouble playing tidal over Windows in one room and Bluesound in another room. This never happened before as far as I can remember. Does anybody know if there is a limit when you have a tidal hifi subscription to run more than one device from the same location?

Nevermind, finally found the info on the crappy tidal website. Only one online device at a time. Weird, seems like this used to work. I don't do it that often but I did today.


----------



## Left Channel

gimmeheadroom said:


> Today for the first time I had trouble playing tidal over Windows in one room and Bluesound in another room. This never happened before as far as I can remember. Does anybody know if there is a limit when you have a tidal hifi subscription to run more than one device from the same location?
> 
> Nevermind, finally found the info on the crappy tidal website. Only one online device at a time. Weird, seems like this used to work. I don't do it that often but I did today.



Interesting that Tidal didn't notice until now. You can have multiple Bluesound devices active and Tidal should see them as one login, but am I right in assuming the BluOS control app for Windows is not also a local player? For me that would be another reason to stick with LMS/Squeezebox.


----------



## gimmeheadroom (Jun 15, 2019)

Left Channel said:


> Interesting that Tidal didn't notice until now. You can have multiple Bluesound devices active and Tidal should see them as one login, but am I right in assuming the BluOS control app for Windows is not also a local player? For me that would be another reason to stick with LMS/Squeezebox.



I am really not sure. I was running the Windows app in one room through a USB DAC and my girlfriend wanted to listen to something else in another room. She was using the Bluesound app on an Android tablet. I have the bluos controller app on the windows box also but was not using it.

Tidal support is really horrific. The guy was happy to confirm this is not allowed and suggested I look into offline content on Android or iOS. I don't think bluos supports offline Tidal but it's just stupid to have any limit on one IP address. I understand they want people to use a family plan if they are in different locations, but I don't see the issue if I play on a bunch of devices in my house.


----------



## Left Channel

gimmeheadroom said:


> I am really not sure. I was running the Windows app in one room through a USB DAC and my girlfriend wanted to listen to something else in another room. She was using the Bluesound app on an Android tablet. I have the bluos controller app on the windows box also but was not using it.
> 
> Tidal support is really horrific. The guy was happy to confirm this is not allowed and suggested I look into offline content on Android or iOS. I don't think bluos supports offline Tidal but it's just stupid to have any limit on one IP address. I understand they want people to use a family plan if they are in different locations, but I don't see the issue if I play on a bunch of devices in my house.



Oh, you were playing different music too. That makes it even more likely it will not work. But how frustrating. Given how much money Tidal is losing, I'm not surprised they are getting more difficult about this, but still... Too bad Qobuz is not available in your country: they allow three devices.


----------



## gimmeheadroom (Jun 16, 2019)

Left Channel said:


> Oh, you were playing different music too. That makes it even more likely it will not work. But how frustrating. Given how much money Tidal is losing, I'm not surprised they are getting more difficult about this, but still... Too bad Qobuz is not available in your country: they allow three devices.



Thanks, that is good info to have. When the next email from them comes telling me they won't change it I'll ask why qobuz allows it but tidal doesn't and I will make a subtle suggestion that I'm looking forward to quboz availability here so I will be allowed to use my account in a more normal way 

TBH tidal hifi is not expensive here (unless you compare to spotify free) and if you just go by the music and not by their apps or customer service it's fine for the price. But I think if I have to use their apps and spend weeks resolving minor crap with their customer service I should get a big refund each month where they actually end up paying me to use it


----------



## abirdie4me

Picked up the Fiio M11 and loving it so far. Trying to figure out if the Tidal app that I've downloaded via APKPure (M11 has no Google Play support) will play redbook cds at native 44.1 or are upsampling to 48. Is there a way I can check this? I assume the Masters files are playing correctly.


----------



## bobbooo

afico said:


> It's clear thank you.
> Howewer I can tell you something else.
> I tried tidal with 2 different phones and the behavior with external dac is different.
> They both use Android Pie.
> ...



Can I ask what version of the S10+ you tested - Exynos or Snapdragon? As I understand they have different audio chips.


----------



## Starfinder (Jul 7, 2019)

Sorry for noobie question.
I have a lg v20 just got tidal hifi, uapp and purchase the mqa upgrade but it still plays mqa in direct 48khz. any idea whats wrong? Thanks


----------



## Left Channel

Starfinder said:


> Sorry for noobie question.
> I have a lg v20 just got tidal hifi, uapp and purchase the mqa upgrade but it still plays mqa in direct 48khz. any idea whats wrong? Thanks



Sounds like a UAPP settings problem. You may find your answer here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/usb...quitous-usb-audio-support-for-android.704065/


----------



## Starfinder

thanks you're right, uapp bit perfect was not enabled in the setting


----------



## iFi audio

Left Channel said:


> Sounds like a UAPP settings problem. You may find your answer here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/usb...quitous-usb-audio-support-for-android.704065/



Useful, thanks!


----------



## windplr

Jumpwired said:


> Anyone having random MQA drop outs with the Pro-ject Pre Box S2 Digital?
> Spent 70$ on a higher end cable, no dice. LPS on the way too.



Occasionally yes, but attribute these to the network, not the S2.  So far love the S2 box, huge improvement over my previous dac, and with Tidal MQA and general hi-res I can hardly complain.


----------



## Hengweilun

I am using IFI nano black for MQA rendering and understand that i need to select 'Use exclusive mode' for MQA rendering.

However when i play music in tidal with 'Use exclusive mode' selected, all my other audio output is not working, meaning i cant play 2 audio at the same time if i am playing tidal with 'Use exclusive mode' selected. Example (no in game sound, and youtube video cant play and it is saying audio renderer error)

This problem is solved when i unticked 'Use exclusive mode' in Tidal. Now i can play tidal music and i have in game sound at the same time, or youtube video. However i will have no MQA rendering for Tidal.

Please advise anyway i can have exclusive mode tick and have other audio output (ie. in game sound, youtube etc.)

Thanks in advance.


----------



## BobSmith8901

Hengweilun said:


> I am using IFI nano black for MQA rendering and understand that i need to select 'Use exclusive mode' for MQA rendering.
> 
> However when i play music in tidal with 'Use exclusive mode' selected, all my other audio output is not working, meaning i cant play 2 audio at the same time if i am playing tidal with 'Use exclusive mode' selected. Example (no in game sound, and youtube video cant play and it is saying audio renderer error)
> 
> ...



Hi-I have the Nano too. By the very definition of Exclusive Mode, Tidal takes total control of your Nano if you select that. So if you try to listen to another music option like youtube or another music player through the Nano, the other player can't work because Tidal has taken control of the device. 

The only option you might have, and it works in my case, if you use your other sound source/program with another sound output like regular audio or optical, etc., it will work at the same time. In my case I can choose Tidal Exclusive Mode with a pair of headphones connected to the Nano and, at the same time switch to another set of headphones connected to my front panel audio and listen to another source at the same time. There may be a way that someone knows of getting concurrent output in Exclusive Mode but not that I'm aware of. Hope that made sense.


----------



## Left Channel (Jul 26, 2019)

Hengweilun said:


> I am using IFI nano black for MQA rendering and understand that i need to select 'Use exclusive mode' for MQA rendering.
> 
> However when i play music in tidal with 'Use exclusive mode' selected, all my other audio output is not working, meaning i cant play 2 audio at the same time if i am playing tidal with 'Use exclusive mode' selected. Example (no in game sound, and youtube video cant play and it is saying audio renderer error)
> 
> ...



Exclusive Mode is designed to do exactly that: prevent Tidal from being interrupted by other audio, like system sounds, website video ads, etc. Those interruptions prevent Tidal from sending the necessary bit perfect signal for MQA rendering and decoding by external DACs. Unless you have two sound outputs as described @BobSmith8901 above, the solutions are to (a) exit the Tidal app, or (b) turn off Exclusive Mode and just enjoy MQA tracks without further rendering.


----------



## rkw

Hengweilun said:


> This problem is solved when i unticked 'Use exclusive mode' in Tidal. Now i can play tidal music and i have in game sound at the same time, or youtube video. However i will have no MQA rendering for Tidal.


Enable the "Passthrough MQA" option. This will disable software decoding and stream the original MQA file to your iFi nano so that it can use its MQA decoding hardware.


----------



## BobSmith8901

rkw said:


> Enable the "Passthrough MQA" option. This will disable software decoding and stream the original MQA file to your iFi nano so that it can use its MQA decoding hardware.



The Nano BL is an MQA renderer and needs the Tidal Passthrough button in the OFF position so the Tidal app can do the first unfold, then the BL does the final. You won't get the magenta color with Passthrough clicked on. A DAC like the Meridian Explorer2 is a hardware decoder and in its case you would click Passthrough to on. Unfortunately iFi makes you hunt around a bit to find this out and it can cause some confusion.


----------



## PROblemdetected

Hi all. Recently ive bought a Topping DX3pro and ive got some questions about tidal and how it works with MQA.

1. my setup is. PC→DAC→AMP→Headphones. Dx3 is a non-mqa DAC, so I assume im not going to be capable to unfold the mqa files. Im wrong?

2. Ive got a Xiaomi Mix which is capable to unfold mqa vis UAPP+ MQA plugin. I could connect to the dac to send the mqa already unzipped to the dac?

Thanks!


----------



## Left Channel (Aug 5, 2019)

sakt1moko said:


> Hi all. Recently ive bought a Topping DX3pro and ive got some questions about tidal and how it works with MQA.
> 
> 1. my setup is. PC→DAC→AMP→Headphones. Dx3 is a non-mqa DAC, so I assume im not going to be capable to unfold the mqa files. Im wrong?
> 
> ...



In both situations, with the right settings you'll get 1x software decoding. If you don't understand what I mean by that, see https://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-decoding-explained Many people can't hear the difference between software decoding and further "unfolding" by an external MQA DAC (also known as "hardware" decoding by MQA firmware in the DAC).

On your PC, the Tidal app will do 1x MQA software decoding before sending the signal to your DAC. In the Tidal app, go to Settings > Streaming > Quality and select "Master". Under Sound > Sound Output, do _not_ turn on "Passthrough MQA", but "Exclusive Mode" and "Force Volume" are recommended for best MQA playback.

On your phone, the UAPP app with the MQA plugin will do the same 1x software decoding. You'll get the purest result with an external DAC, as most Android phones resample audio internally, but not everyone hears a difference anyway. I see you've asked the same question on the UAPP support thread, and if you have trouble with UAPP settings that is the place to ask.


----------



## PROblemdetected (Aug 5, 2019)

Left Channel said:


> In both situations, with the right settings you'll get 1x software decoding. If you don't understand what I mean by that, see https://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-decoding-explained Many people can't hear the difference between software decoding and further "unfolding" by an external MQA DAC (also known as "hardware" decoding by MQA firmware in the DAC).
> 
> On your PC, the Tidal app will do 1x MQA software decoding before sending the signal to your DAC. In the Tidal app, go to Settings > Streaming > Quality and select "Master". Under Sound > Sound Output, do _not_ turn on "Passthrough MQA", but "Exclusive Mode" and "Force Volume" are recommended for best MQA playback.
> 
> On your phone, the UAPP app with the MQA plugin will do the same 1x software decoding. You'll get the purest result with an external DAC, as most Android phones resample audio internally, but not everyone hears a difference anyway. I see you've asked the same question on the UAPP support thread, and if you have trouble with UAPP settings that is the place to ask.



Thanks so much for the explanation

NOTE:I  check the page that u recommend, and the best mqa that I get on this situation is 24/88.2, right?

Next DAC im gonna buy probably will be mqa compatible. But im so happy with the DX3pro


----------



## Left Channel

sakt1moko said:


> Thanks so much for the explanation
> 
> NOTE:I  check the page that u recommend, and the best mqa that I get on this situation is 24/88.2, right?
> 
> Next DAC im gonna buy probably will be mqa compatible. But im so happy with the DX3pro



Glad to help. They're using 24/88.2 just as an example in that article. The resolutions you'll get depend on the original master recordings.

I should also mention that the official Tidal mobile app now also does MQA 1x unfolding, however it does not bypass the Android system audio resampling. UAPP gets around that whenever possible, and always via USB.

Take some time to enjoy the DX3 Pro and get used to its sound. Not everyone can hear the difference between Hi-Fi and Hi-Res or MQA, and the DX3 Pro may be all you need. Personally I am more concerned about whether a DAC is based on ESS or AKM chips than whether or not it supports MQA, as for me that makes the largest audible difference.


----------



## PROblemdetected

Left Channel said:


> Glad to help. They're using 24/88.2 just as an example in that article. The resolutions you'll get depend on the original master recordings.
> 
> I should also mention that the official Tidal mobile app now also does MQA 1x unfolding, however it does not bypass the Android system audio resampling. UAPP gets around that whenever possible, and always via USB.
> 
> Take some time to enjoy the DX3 Pro and get used to its sound. Not everyone can hear the difference between Hi-Fi and Hi-Res or MQA, and the DX3 Pro may be all you need. Personally I am more concerned about whether a DAC is based on ESS or AKM chips than whether or not it supports MQA, as for me that makes the largest audible difference.



The DX3pro its my first DAC, and probably will be my partner for long time. I used to play music with my onboard pc soundcard (a expensive one) paired with my sennheiser hd598se. I can say DX3pro sound much more detailed and the music sound more "complete"

About tidal, I can feel the difference between a flac and mqa file... But both sounds so much better on the dac, no doubt about it.

Im gonna look for ESS & AKM. Audiophile is something that u never stop to learn


----------



## Left Channel

sakt1moko said:


> Im gonna look for ESS & AKM. Audiophile is something that u never stop to learn



As we often say here, sorry about your wallet.


----------



## iFi audio

Folks, MQA over network via Tidal on our Pro iDSD machine. Perhaps one or two of good people here will find it useful


----------



## PROblemdetected

Left Channel said:


> As we often say here, sorry about your wallet.



Hi again mate, and sorry for quote, but I see u write about bypass on tidal android app a few pages back...

If im using a android phone (not a LGvXX) is making bypass over android, or I should get UAPP?
Another question, how it works on iOS? Its an iphone capable to samplig at 24/96?

Thanks so much for respond


----------



## Left Channel

sakt1moko said:


> Hi again mate, and sorry for quote, but I see u write about bypass on tidal android app a few pages back...
> 
> If im using a android phone (not a LGvXX) is making bypass over android, or I should get UAPP?
> Another question, how it works on iOS? Its an iphone capable to samplig at 24/96?
> ...



UAPP is best if you are going to use an external DAC, as it will bypass the Android system and send a clean good signal to that DAC without resampling. If you only use the internal DAC, aside from the LG series you mentioned UAPP does not have much to work with in there, but it also includes equalizers, local file playback, internet radio, Qobuz, and many other features, so it's still a worthwhile purchase. 

I don't know much about iOS, but as I understand it the latest iPhones are like recent Google Pixel phones: no analog audio jack, an internal DAC not really meant for music, and a reliance on external wired and wireless earphones with their own DACs built in, all or most of which limit and resample output to 24/48.


----------



## PROblemdetected

Left Channel said:


> UAPP is best if you are going to use an external DAC, as it will bypass the Android system and send a clean good signal to that DAC without resampling. If you only use the internal DAC, aside from the LG series you mentioned UAPP does not have much to work with in there, but it also includes equalizers, local file playback, internet radio, Qobuz, and many other features, so it's still a worthwhile purchase.
> 
> I don't know much about iOS, but as I understand it the latest iPhones are like recent Google Pixel phones: no analog audio jack, an internal DAC not really meant for music, and a reliance on external wired and wireless earphones with their own DACs built in, all or most of which limit and resample output to 24/48.



Well, my phone is compatible with the HiRes driver from UAPP, so I can get 24/96 with no problems at all. But my question is more concerned about tidal app ability to bypass android drivers. Its possible to get 24/96 on tidal app? Because someone says that Tidal for android andr bypass like UAPP does


----------



## Left Channel

sakt1moko said:


> Well, my phone is compatible with the HiRes driver from UAPP, so I can get 24/96 with no problems at all. But my question is more concerned about tidal app ability to bypass android drivers. Its possible to get 24/96 on tidal app? Because someone says that Tidal for android andr bypass like UAPP does




Last time I tested USB output, this is what I reported:



Left Channel said:


> The official Tidal and Qobuz apps sent USB output through the Android OS, where it got resampled to 48 kHz in all cases (MQA, Hi-Res, whatever, all 48 kHz as expected). But UAPP delivered perfect Hi-Res from Qobuz and blue dot MQA from Tidal.



That means even when the Tidal app is decoding MQA, the output is then resampled to 48 kHz on that phone. Some phones resample to 96 kHz, and maybe yours does too, but that still means you're not getting the true output from the app and in some cases that could be impacting sound quality.


----------



## jcn3

sakt1moko said:


> Hi all. Recently ive bought a Topping DX3pro and ive got some questions about tidal and how it works with MQA.
> 
> 1. my setup is. PC→DAC→AMP→Headphones. Dx3 is a non-mqa DAC, so I assume im not going to be capable to unfold the mqa files. Im wrong?
> 
> ...



you should be able to get the first unfold when using tidal on your pc and sending to your dac.  you'd need a mqa-capable dac to get the full unfold -- i don't think xiaomi is going to give you more than (1)


----------



## PROblemdetected

Hi again mates!

Anyone knows if any 5.1 AV receiver is capable to do the total unfold of MQA? I see a lot of them that are compatible, but only goes to 16/44hz...


----------



## Left Channel

sakt1moko said:


> Hi again mates!
> 
> Anyone knows if any 5.1 AV receiver is capable to do the total unfold of MQA? I see a lot of them that are compatible, but only goes to 16/44hz...



I don't think any exist. I recommend an MQA-capable streamer/DAC (or streamer + DAC pair), connected to two-channel analog inputs on a preamp or integrated receiver, with processing on that end turned off. For preamps and integrated receivers, I highly recommend recommend Anthem; they are quite transparent and will allow the flavor of the upstream DAC to come through.


----------



## miguelfcp

Hello guys.

I have a question. I have DF Black v1.5 which as far as I know the device has MQA decoding. So my question is in Tidal should I deactivate software decoding right?.

Thanks


----------



## gimmeheadroom

If your device has MQA support then yeah, select Passthrough MQA


----------



## miguelfcp

gimmeheadroom said:


> If your device has MQA support then yeah, select Passthrough MQA



But when I use that option the light is blue while before was magenta.... Anything wrong ???


----------



## gimmeheadroom

miguelfcp said:


> But when I use that option the light is blue while before was magenta.... Anything wrong ???



I'm not sure, post a screenshot and we'll have a look


----------



## miguelfcp

These are my configurations at the moment


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Looks good. I recommend turning Force Volume on and controlling the volume with your playback device


----------



## miguelfcp

gimmeheadroom said:


> Looks good. I recommend turning Force Volume on and controlling the volume with your playback device



DragonFly has no volume controller. I tried once that option and almost blew my ears.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Ok, YMMV


----------



## Left Channel (Oct 7, 2019)

miguelfcp said:


> Hello guys.
> 
> I have a question. I have DF Black v1.5 which as far as I know the device has MQA decoding. So my question is in Tidal should I deactivate software decoding right?.
> 
> Thanks





gimmeheadroom said:


> If your device has MQA support then yeah, select Passthrough MQA



The original DragonFly Black did not support MQA, but if there's a firmware update or if you get a DragonFly Red or Cobalt, all those products are "renderers" not full decoders, and require upstream software decoding by the Tidal app. See the printed instructions that come with your DragonFly, or go to the AudioQuest website for more information.

[Edit: possible firmware update for the Black]


----------



## miguelfcp

Left Channel said:


> No, sorry, that answer is wrong. Number one, the DragonFly Black does _not _support MQA. Two, if you get a DragonFly Red or Cobalt, those products are "renderers", not full decoders, and require upstream software decoding by the Tidal app. See the printed instructions that come with your DragonFly, or go to the AudioQuest website for more information.



I always thought that DF did MQA decoding...

Then I've reverted the options. I unchecked the pass-through MQA option.


----------



## Left Channel

miguelfcp said:


> I always thought that DF did MQA decoding...
> 
> Then I've reverted the options. I unchecked the pass-through MQA option.



No worries, most people can't hear a difference between 1x software "unfolding" and higher unfolds anyway. Enjoy what you have, I'm sure it's far better than sound directly out of your computer or phone, but if you do upgrade let us know if you perceive any difference at all.


----------



## BobSmith8901 (Oct 7, 2019)

miguelfcp--I had a look at Audioquest's comparison page for the black, red and cobalt and the black is indeed a renderer of MQA. (I had no idea until I looked at their site). It is NOT a full hardware decoder, like, say, the Meridian Explorer2.

So you should set Tidal up to NOT allow passthrough MQA. So, do NOT click that passthrough button to the right as you do NOT want to disable the Tidal software doing the first unfold. The DragonFly Black should then do the rendering (or second unfold) of the masters file and you should see the purple/magenta color light up.

I have the nano iDSD Black Label that I have to set up this same way.

https://www.audioquest.com/resource/1105/dragonfly-spec-sheet.pdf


----------



## miguelfcp

BobSmith8901 said:


> miguelfcp--I had a look at Audioquest's comparison page for the black, red and cobalt and the black is indeed a renderer of MQA. (I had no idea until I looked at their site). It is NOT a full hardware decoder, like, say, the Meridian Explorer2.
> 
> So you should set Tidal up to NOT allow passthrough MQA. So, do NOT click that passthrough button to the right as you do NOT want to disable the Tidal software doing the first unfold. The DragonFly Black should then do the rendering (or second unfold) of the masters file and you should see the purple/magenta color light up.
> 
> ...



Got it! 

But to be honest I can't hear difference between the option turned on and off. Even between master and hi-fi can't detect any difference... I don't know which differences should be noted...


----------



## BobSmith8901 (Oct 7, 2019)

miguelfcp said:


> Got it!
> 
> But to be honest I can't hear difference between the option turned on and off. Even between master and hi-fi can't detect any difference... I don't know which differences should be noted...



I can't really either. To my ears, once a track is at the 24/96 level, or even 24/44.1 or 24/48, MQA or not, I can't really hear any difference either, although I guess it's there. If I had better equipment maybe I could tell.

I think I bought into the whole MQA thing as it seemed to be a way of at least attempting to insure that, at the relatively low cost level that I can afford, that I could take a stab at the highest streaming quality possible. I certainly have been fairly happy with Tidal and I hope they stick around. I can't get Qobuz here so it's all I've got.


----------



## Left Channel (Oct 7, 2019)

BobSmith8901 said:


> miguelfcp--I had a look at Audioquest's comparison page for the black, red and cobalt and the black is indeed a renderer of MQA. (I had no idea until I looked at their site). It is NOT a full hardware decoder, like, say, the Meridian Explorer2.
> 
> So you should set Tidal up to NOT allow passthrough MQA. So, do NOT click that passthrough button to the right as you do NOT want to disable the Tidal software doing the first unfold. The DragonFly Black should then do the rendering (or second unfold) of the masters file and you should see the purple/magenta color light up.
> 
> ...



I have a Black and it never worked in MQA. I stopped using it. If a new firmware update adds MQA, as you say he should still rely on the Tidal app to do the first unfold because these are renderers not full decoders. And I think we can all agree there's usually no audible difference between software decoding and full unfolds, especially with these little devices.


----------



## BobSmith8901 (Oct 7, 2019)

Left Channel said:


> I have a Black and it never worked in MQA. I stopped using it. If a new firmware update adds MQA, as you say he should still rely on the Tidal app to do the first unfold because these are renderers not full decoders. And I think we can all agree there's usually no audible difference between software decoding and full unfolds, especially with these little devices.



Totally agree! Now that you mention it I do seem to recall that Audioquest did have a firmware update that gave the black and red MQA capability.

edit: just googled it, yes they did provide a firmware update.

https://www.audioquest.com/page/aq-digitalupdates.html


----------



## squishware

I changed the settings on Tidal to disable MQA. It was just a source of additional noise on my non-MQA DAC (Schiit Universal Multibit Card). Lossless/FLAC 16/44.1 just rings like a bell (in a good way) on my system running ASIO>Audirvana.


----------



## PROblemdetected

Anyone knows if any usb dac adapter (like the ibasso dc02) make the total mqa unfold?


----------



## Left Channel

sakt1moko said:


> Anyone knows if any usb dac adapter (like the ibasso dc02) make the total mqa unfold?



Only if the specs say the DAC supports MQA.The DC02 does not. But the software 1x unfold may be all you need anyway.


----------



## narnos

TokenGesture said:


> I've yet to be blown away by any MQA track I've heard in Tidal. Can you recommend me something where you consider there to be noticeable improvement as against the standard version?



I agree, albeit very late to the forum.  I have been using Tidal MQA directly to my NT505 and also using my Fiio M11, I honestly cannot notice any improvement.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

I know for my on my gear MQA sounds terrific. Compare Elton John's Captain Fantastic with the hifi and MQA versions. The MQA version sounds amazingly alive. It reminds me of the record album I play hundreds of times.


----------



## rkw

TokenGesture said:


> I've yet to be blown away by any MQA track I've heard in Tidal. Can you recommend me something where you consider there to be noticeable improvement as against the standard version?





narnos said:


> I agree, albeit very late to the forum.  I have been using Tidal MQA directly to my NT505 and also using my Fiio M11, I honestly cannot notice any improvement.


The most obvious difference I hear is in recordings that have the UMG audible watermark (https://www.mattmontag.com/music/universals-audible-watermark). The watermark encoding adds distortion to the sound. A standard recording from Universal Music Group may be watermarked, but in my experience I have not heard watermark distortion on MQA releases.

Here's an example. The watermark distortion is especially bad for solo piano. In Tidal, search for "martha argerich debut recital". You should see Masters and HiFi versions of the same album.


If you compare the two, you can hear distortion throughout the HiFi album which is not in the MQA album. A particularly obvious example is in the sustained chords after 0:45 in track 8.

I suggest you do the comparison by setting your player to HiFi (not Masters) resolution, leaving hi-res out of the picture. This demonstrates that the two albums come from different masters (the HiFi version is encoded with watermark and the MQA version is not). I believe that when people have found MQA albums to sound better, it doesn't have anything to do with MQA technology. It sounds better because the MQA version is using a master not crippled by watermarking.



gimmeheadroom said:


> I know for my on my gear MQA sounds terrific. Compare Elton John's Captain Fantastic with the hifi and MQA versions. The MQA version sounds amazingly alive. It reminds me of the record album I play hundreds of times.


I haven't compared the two, but I notice that _Captain Fantastic_ is on the Mercury Records label, which is owned by UMG. The difference you hear could definitely be coming from watermarking in the HiFi version.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

rkw said:


> The most obvious difference I hear is in recordings that have the UMG audible watermark (https://www.mattmontag.com/music/universals-audible-watermark). The watermark encoding adds distortion to the sound. A standard recording from Universal Music Group may be watermarked, but in my experience I have not heard watermark distortion on MQA releases.
> 
> Here's an example. The watermark distortion is especially bad for solo piano. In Tidal, search for "martha argerich debut recital". You should see Masters and HiFi versions of the same album.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the reminder. Indeed, I hear distortion on Monty Alexander's Love and Sunshine (one of my favorite all-time albums btw) and I couldn't explain it. It is not on the vinyl pressing. There is no MQA of this so I can't compare but when I first read about this issue in the last year or so I wondered if that could be the reason the digital versions I have heard sound so terrible.

As far as Captain Fantastic goes, I haven't heard anything objectionable in the "hifi" version, just that knowing this album very well after having played it a lot, the MQA has that lively sound of the record album and doesn't sound digital at all. It sounds as good as an SACD.


----------



## Zildon

Dannemand said:


> I think you are confusing V30 with the V40: V30 is just about the same size as G7 (6.0 inch display vs 6.1 inch) whereas the V40 is significantly larger (6.5 inch) and more expensive. G7 is a good choice for its newer hardware and more RAM than V30, but it has LCD instead of OLED. If you think you'll ever root the phone, V30 is the better choice. If you do get G7, make sure you don't get the Android One version, as that doesn't have hardware MQA support (to my understanding, I could be wrong).
> 
> Edit: Seeing Left Channel's last post I wonder if I misunderstood: Are you looking to output through USB?
> 
> ...


Is this


----------



## Zildon

Would this avoidance of the Android sampling for digital music encoded above redbook  be also applicable to the LG V20?


----------



## Dannemand (Nov 9, 2019)

Zildon said:


> Would this avoidance of the Android sampling for digital music encoded above redbook  be also applicable to the LG V20?



I cannot speak to V20, as I only have experience with V30. Pretty sure it also applies to V35/V40/G7 as well, based on reports.

Note that the re-sampling does NOT affect anything HiRes (24-bit or higher than 44.1Khz). Thus it doesn't affect MQA files, which are mostly 24-bit. It ONLY affects Redbook 16/44 files.

Edit: I guess that's what you were saying "avoidance of resampling above Redbook". In other words, you don't have to do anything to avoid resampling above Redbook.


----------



## justhavingfun

I have tried Spotify premium as well as Pandora for several years but usually my listening session rarely goes over 30 minutes or even less. And I switch to LP or CD listening which last few hours sometimes afterward. So I have been using Spotify or YouTube music for casual listening or finding new music and never serious listening. However, my attitude toward streaming music service changed significantly when I tried Tidal hifi subscription. To my ears Tidal FLAC files sound wonderful as well as their MQA files and my entire listening session with Tidal. At this moment I am not sure whether MQA is superior to FLAC but both sound great to me. I like Tidal so much I decided to purchase Bluesound Node 2i for streaming only device and I am loving it. I will still not abandon my LP collection but this Tidal streaming is extremely satisfying.


----------



## justhavingfun

Okay, I compared several of Tidal MQA files vs FLAC files and I can definitely tell differences on quality for the better but only certain songs. Not sure if that was due to strictly MQA characteristics or some other aspects that I don't know about. Right after today's church service, I came straight home and been listening to Tidal comparing my curiosity about MQA. Based on my initial crude evaluation and for my ears and equipments that I have, FLAC and MQA files are basically equivalent in sound quality. I will be completely happy to listen to entirely either FLAC or MQA if they are available. One of the reason that I like to listen to LP is that I enjoy album arts and its background information about the singer/band. Using Bluesound BluOs app in my Samsung Galaxy Tab allows me to look up all the information about the albums which I like to listen to entire albums typically. Having all those albums/songs at my finger tip is wonderful experience and more importantly I do not get listening fatigue when I hear through the Tidal hifi streaming. This wasn't the case with Spotify premium which introduced by my son few years back. One thing that I also noticed is that MQA version did not decrease the sound quality vs regular FLAC songs so having MQA version is plus for me.

I haven't tried likes of other hi-rez streaming service like Quboz, Amazon HD and Deezer but I hope Tidal stays for a long haul and improve their algorithm for their playlists recommendation based on my listening habit. Like others mentioned before, I believe Spotify is much better at the recommendation than Tidal based on your selection of music. I will probably still keep the Spotify free version.


----------



## AlanU

I tested and played with my Mytek liberty DAC with an Astron linear power supply. It has that certified MQA decoder and I fed it to my 2 channel stereo.  I dropped Tidal hifi due to the unappealing playlist they created. I just found no benefits using the MQA  files. 

I've found little joy with MQA as it provides a tremendous amount of detail but sonically it feels overloaded in hyper detail. As you are a vinyl guy you will probably now analyze how the air surrounding the instruments is deleted in digital. To recreate such sounds you have to add pleasant harmonics with vacuum tube gear. 

If you have a moment try to listen to some zen/ relaxation music with ocean waves. MQA or high res digital from solid state dacs have never recreated realism. Using my Tube dac the imaging of water hitting my feet is unbelievable and "real" while the solid state dac, high res files have incredible detail but it sounds incredibly fake. 

This is where some may find great joy having precise pin point location of instruments due to the elimination of information...what you ask? Some folks just like that sort of sound. The air surrounding the instruments seem to be eliminated in the digital file and solid state gear. Go to a live concert and you will hear a different blend of sound compared to laser pin point location. 

But at the end of the day it's all about pleasing one's personal ears. I was speaking with a tube gear designer/builder and he also observes the big difference between solid state (which he also builds) and point to point wiring tube gear.


----------



## justhavingfun

For my experience, to combat the solid state harshness other than going full blown tube amp/preamp, I used the tube buffer (Musical Fidelity) for my two channel system for number of years with good result using solid state amps.


----------



## AlanU

justhavingfun said:


> For my experience, to combat the solid state harshness other than going full blown tube amp/preamp, I used the tube buffer (Musical Fidelity) for my two channel system for number of years with good result using solid state amps.



I purchased a Grant fidelity B-283 mk2 many years ago using black treasure tubes. It made a slight change to the sound. With my Burson Virtuoso using the coax input with my April music Stello U3 (usb to spdif converter) was a huge difference in removing digititis from a solid state dac. The stello u3 was a big impact vs the tube buffer...hard to believe!!

Using my Space tech labs super rectifier and tube dac I can change the sound. On the rectifier I can change the "air" by swapping to a mercury vapor vintage tube. Recently swapping to a Kt88 buffer tube in the dac created a "WOW" factor in rich tones and elevated the richness in mids for vocals.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

I'm getting a sense that 5000 dollar RCA cables could add some value here


----------



## AlanU

gimmeheadroom said:


> I'm getting a sense that 5000 dollar RCA cables could add some value here



No..... the small budget of 5 grand can be spent elsewhere first...then tweak 

The fact that MQA can only be decoded by a small group of DACs via USB implementation  is quite sad.  Go read some reviews on how poorly a 20,000 dollar Berkley dac sounds like a typical hyper detailed solid state dac far from what you'd experience from a live show. A good percentage of MQA dacs on the market is your average 1000 dollar + dac with a licenced decode chip. Some move up the line to a Yggy, PS audio or Bryston that all have that omission of air around the instruments due to the solid state nature with laser pin point location of instruments. Depending on my mood I'll listen to SS or holographic Tube.....

A tube amp with no feedback will provide a different sensation of musical enjoyment vs the solid state hyper detail of most SS dacs. People have their preferences.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Yes, this is what I meant.


----------



## justhavingfun

I haven't tried stereo tube amp yet. I do have tube headphone lamps and enjoy their sound very much. Hopefully I will have a chance  to purchase tube amp for my stereo in near future. Bluesound Node 2i is definitely keeper for me and I just attached USB harddrive with bunch of my FLAC music files and plays beautifully just like Tidal`s MQA streaming.


----------



## Riona

Hi, I want to run Tidal android app on my laptop using Bluestacks emulator and output to Pro-ject Pre Box S2D to get MQA in offline mode. I have tried without the UAPP and cannot get MQA quality.
Has anyone tried this with the UAPP? Unfortunately UAPP doesn't offer the trial version anymore for me to try. Thanks!


----------



## Luke Thomas

is It true that some don’t notice a difference or think the mqa is better.  I’ve had great luck with mqa. Will use it as much as possible with the dragonfly or a ibasso160 digital player


----------



## gimmeheadroom

I'm also a big fan of it. I don't know whether they are using better masters or whether MQA is really better on its own, but it sounds good to me. I think the compression part is dumb but at the end of the day it sounds good.


----------



## noobandroid

Riona said:


> Hi, I want to run Tidal android app on my laptop using Bluestacks emulator and output to Pro-ject Pre Box S2D to get MQA in offline mode. I have tried without the UAPP and cannot get MQA quality.
> Has anyone tried this with the UAPP? Unfortunately UAPP doesn't offer the trial version anymore for me to try. Thanks!


dont think it will work in emulator mode cause audio out of emulators still goes through windows mixer, then to hardware, like 2 layers of decode


----------



## Left Channel

Luke Thomas said:


> is It true that some don’t notice a difference or think the mqa is better.  I’ve had great luck with mqa. Will use it as much as possible with the dragonfly or a ibasso160 digital player



Everyone's ears are different, and not everyone can hear it. In some ways I'm jealous of people who can't hear it. Their wallets stay fatter.


----------



## Luke Thomas

Yes. I enjoy mqa. I’ve wondered if the amazon high def or any high def sounds as good


----------



## Luke Thomas

Left Channel said:


> Everyone's ears are different, and not everyone can hear it. In some ways I'm jealous of people who can't hear it. Their wallets stay fatter.


Yes, but I also think it must be your equipment. As for me it’s not even close. MQA is much cleaner and more vibrant. At times with the 800s it’s a end game, and I’ve owned a few big dollar cans.


----------



## Left Channel

Luke Thomas said:


> Yes, but I also think it must be your equipment. As for me it’s not even close. MQA is much cleaner and more vibrant. At times with the 800s it’s a end game, and I’ve owned a few big dollar cans.



There have been controlled studies of MP3 vs. CD vs. Hi-Res where everyone listens to the same equipment. This is my favorite: http://www.doc.gold.ac.uk/~mas03dm/papers/SoundQuality_WilliamsonSouthMullensiefen_ICMPC2014.pdf

If 320 kpbs MP3 sounds the same as the others to someone, they won't be able to get into a discussion with you of CD vs. MQA, or MQA vs. regular Hi-Res. But they will probably save a lot of money.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

I think most of the MQA bashing is from people without MQA hardware or based on (justified) loathing of DRM or objection to other technical aspects. That does not change the fact MQA sounds great


----------



## Luke Thomas

gimmeheadroom said:


> I think most of the MQA bashing is from people without MQA hardware or based on (justified) loathing of DRM or objection to other technical aspects. That does not change the fact MQA sounds great


Could be. I bought a $200 dragonfly red. I did have to subscribe to Tidal. Would like to know if MQA are available elsewhere.


----------



## Sterling2

A few months ago I downloaded the latest firmware update to my OPPO-205, which included MQA processing. Thing is, I still don't have any interest in MQA or Tidal, since my OPPO's DAC processes AAC from Apple Music which is indistinguishable from 24/192 AIFF I have residing in my iTunes Library.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Luke Thomas said:


> Could be. I bought a $200 dragonfly red. I did have to subscribe to Tidal. Would like to know if MQA are available elsewhere.



I think there are some MQA CDs and there are like 2 songs on Deezer hifi. MQA is mostly a Tidal thing AFAIK


----------



## Left Channel

Luke Thomas said:


> Could be. I bought a $200 dragonfly red. I did have to subscribe to Tidal. Would like to know if MQA are available elsewhere.



MQA shows up in odd places. I've seen it an option for downloads from the Bruce Springsteen website, and in Odin Records' re-release of Radka Toneff's Fairytale as well as all recent releases from 2L records. But like that MQA CD from Odin, most are also available on Tidal. 



gimmeheadroom said:


> I think most of the MQA bashing is from people without MQA hardware or based on (justified) loathing of DRM or objection to other technical aspects. That does not change the fact MQA sounds great



Not all MQA is great. That depends on the original source, and sometimes they've been too indiscriminate. For example, the Getz/Gilberto "Expanded Edition" was more remixed than remastered, with increased loudness and bass. It sounds horrible to most of us, and not at all "as the artists intended". That one never should have been released in MQA. Sometimes it's hard for a consumer to know which version is best, and seeing the MQA logo will be misleading.


----------



## Aegwyn11

I listen to a fair amount of Tidal. Some stuff j listen to is available as MQA, some not. I have a Chord Mojo. Considering a Poly to go with it so I can listen without needing to have my phone tethered to it. If I'm going to spend that kind of money, is there a different/better option that would give me portable MQA decoding without having to have a phone tethered?


----------



## AlanU

Aegwyn11 said:


> I listen to a fair amount of Tidal. Some stuff j listen to is available as MQA, some not. I have a Chord Mojo. Considering a Poly to go with it so I can listen without needing to have my phone tethered to it. If I'm going to spend that kind of money, is there a different/better option that would give me portable MQA decoding without having to have a phone tethered?



If you're going to the trouble of daisy chain the mojo and Poly I'd rather buy the Astell and Kern Kann cube. It's capable of MQA tidal stream iirc.  

It'll eliminate the mojo and potential Poly purchase.  The Kann Cube is large but I really did enjoy the Sound quality for a so called portable unit. I'm in no rush and hoping to see a smaller form factor with similar excellent sound quality.

I have no interest in MQA since Deezer hifi and Tidal hifi (non MQA) is more than enough to please my ears. Hyper detail isn't my main priority in seeking musical enjoyment.


----------



## Aegwyn11

AlanU said:


> If you're going to the trouble of daisy chain the mojo and Poly I'd rather buy the Astell and Kern Kann cube.



What do you mean by trouble to daisy chain? You plug them together and end up with effectively a single functional unit, don't you?

Clarification - two things are a concern for me. Size/portability and price. The Poly is already pretty expensive for me. Spending over double that on the A&K is out of the cards for sure.

Size-wise, Mojo+Poly is pushing it hard. One use case is while I'm at the gym...in that case, the whole thing needs to fit in my waist belt holder thing and not be too obtrusive. For that case I'm using my Sensaphonics 2-MAX IEMs.  There, MQA is less important, but I want one solution for both use cases since I don't want to break the bank.

The other use case is when I'm at my desk working or otherwise just enjoying listening...there I'm using Shure KSE-1200's, so size is a little less important but I'd like full MQA unfolding capability.


----------



## AlanU

Aegwyn11 said:


> What do you mean by trouble to daisy chain? You plug them together and end up with effectively a single functional unit, don't you?
> 
> Clarification - two things are a concern for me. Size/portability and price. The Poly is already pretty expensive for me. Spending over double that on the A&K is out of the cards for sure.
> 
> ...



Perhaps "daisychain" was the wrong choice of words. Putting two units together creating additional bulk is increasing size yet lacks a screen to view. If you're at the gym you'd require your Chord combo in addition to also lugging your phone. At the gym I'd suggest simplicity and buy wireless IEM's and use your phone for the duration of the workout. The Mojo/Poly combo can be used more for critical listening or when you're less distracted by cardio/weight training and dealing with perspiration. 

My Tiny Astell & Kern Norma SR15 is MQA supported. I do prefer the refined smooth sound signature of the A&K DAP to other DAP's out there. This is based on super tiny form factor with sufficient 5.5+ battery life. This is good enough for my application for my use. If I need to charge my SR15 I have a 12,000 mah Pocket juice battery pack in my back pack (or use smaller alternatives) The SR15 has an excellent balanced output for producing incredible SQ. My ears have preference to A&K SQ vs Chord's but mainly due to convenience for portability.


----------



## musickid (Jan 20, 2020)

Edit


----------



## audiomonkey777

gimmeheadroom said:


> I think there are some MQA CDs and there are like 2 songs on Deezer hifi. MQA is mostly a Tidal thing AFAIK



Mostly on TIDAL. YOu can play MQA through Roon, but that's a whole other can of worms. Todal is the most straightforward.


----------



## Aegwyn11

AlanU said:


> My Tiny Astell & Kern Norma SR15 is MQA supported. I do prefer the refined smooth sound signature of the A&K DAP to other DAP's out there.



Thanks for the super thoughtful reply. You've successfully sent me down a new rabbit hole....now I'm looking for an A&K player to give a try and it's pretty much a foregone conclusion I'm going to spend a lot more money than I originally planned


----------



## AlanU

Aegwyn11 said:


> Thanks for the super thoughtful reply. You've successfully sent me down a new rabbit hole....now I'm looking for an A&K player to give a try and it's pretty much a foregone conclusion I'm going to spend a lot more money than I originally planned



You should audition as many portable units as possible. My A&K Norma isn't end game whatsoever. I look at audio gear as temporary satisfaction to fill your current demands and needs. There is always a "settle" point but there is always some form of improvement in any hardware/gear.

The SR15 Norma is tiny, lightweight and provides plenty of power to damage your hearing!! The thing about DAP's is "cheaper" or more "expensive" gear will typically please most. We just get accustomed to a sound and enjoy it. I've auditioned the A&K Kann Cube many times and it's like carrying a red building brick in size LOL!!! However the sound quality just sound incredible to my ears compared to my SR15 little brother or many other brands out there. Why do I own the SR15???? It produces really incredible SQ while I run around on transit or when "NOT" doing any really critical listening. Refined sound with no shear highs, plenty of detail and without the equalizer..... sounds fantastic!! 

The Kann Cube  drives many over ear headphones and I'd prrefer the cube by a far margin over a Mytek Brooklyn +++ for running around I compromise.  I'm more of a 2 channel Hifi listener anyways.....


----------



## vanhalen26 (Feb 4, 2020)

I’m looking at getting an LG G7/V30/V40 phone just to use with Tidal and I’ll use it as a music player.

Are these phones full decoders or renderers?  Is there much of a perceptible difference?  

Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## vanhalen26

Got the G7 today and running it into a headphone amp, and wearing my HD800s.  I’m blown away - so much better than music on the iPhone, playing Tidal.  Not sure I hear a difference between MQA and lossless, but certainly better than MP3 quality to my ears.  I think I hear an improvement on MQA, but not 100% sure.  Just messing around tonight and having fun.  Quite the learning curve, but I think I have all the key settings right. I also bought UAPP and am playing all my testing through that.


----------



## Dannemand (Feb 4, 2020)

vanhalen26 said:


> Got the G7 today and running it into a headphone amp, and wearing my HD800s.  I’m blown away - so much better than music on the iPhone, playing Tidal.  Not sure I hear a difference between MQA and lossless, but certainly better than MP3 quality to my ears.  I think I hear an improvement on MQA, but not 100% sure.  Just messing around tonight and having fun.  Quite the learning curve, but I think I have all the key settings right. I also bought UAPP and am playing all my testing through that.



Congrats on the G7!

Did you try and drive the HD800s directly from the phone? Its OpAmp is fairly powerful, up to 2Vrms in so-called High Impedance Mode (HIM) -- which will trigger when plugging in headphones >50 Ohms. You may still prefer to run it through your headphone amp, but definitely do try it if you haven't already.

In UAPP settings, make sure all HiRes Driver flags are disabled, except MQA enabled. That flag is what triggers the 4x MQA hardware unfolding. (I personally disable the MQA flag when NOT playing MQA, since it locks in the MQA Digital Filter when playing any PCM, even non-MQA; I prefer the Sharp filter.) 

Also, note that for MQA, the Tidal app works just as well as UAPP and supports offline mode. However, for Redbook 16/44, you want to use UAPP.


----------



## vanhalen26

Dannemand said:


> Congrats on the G7!
> 
> Did you try and drive the HD800s directly from the phone? Its OpAmp is fairly powerful, up to 2Vrms in so-called High Impedance Mode (HIM) -- which will trigger when plugging in headphones >50 Ohms. You may still prefer to run it through your headphone amp, but definitely do try it if you haven't already.
> 
> ...




Thanks.  I did try the HD800 from the phone.  It was OK, but AMP had more body / sounded fuller.  Thanks for the flags advice, it looks like I've setup correctly.  Its incredibly enjoyable.  Eventually Apple and Google will likely jump on board, at least up to lossless I think.


----------



## noobandroid

Dannemand said:


> Congrats on the G7!
> 
> Did you try and drive the HD800s directly from the phone? Its OpAmp is fairly powerful, up to 2Vrms in so-called High Impedance Mode (HIM) -- which will trigger when plugging in headphones >50 Ohms. You may still prefer to run it through your headphone amp, but definitely do try it if you haven't already.
> 
> ...


the tidal app is still interfered by the android native SRC, unless a dedicated SRC bypass DAP, so UAPP is still the "de facto" but it consumes a whole lot of streaming data thats insane and easy to hit like 70-80 GB per month

give and take, i just use the tidal native and offline them tracks and albums, the SQ difference isnt THAT significant, it is but not heaven and earth level


----------



## Dannemand (Feb 8, 2020)

noobandroid said:


> the tidal app is still interfered by the android native SRC, unless a dedicated SRC bypass DAP, so UAPP is still the "de facto" but it consumes a whole lot of streaming data thats insane and easy to hit like 70-80 GB per month
> 
> give and take, i just use the tidal native and offline them tracks and albums, the SQ difference isnt THAT significant, it is but not heaven and earth level



Yes, the Tidal app sends 16/44 through the Android Mixer (SRC). But for MQA it plays exactly the same as UAPP: Direct route, 24/44 or 24/48 (depending on the track), with Offloadable flag and the MQA effect flag. I have had to prove this several times around here (such as this post) since the myth that Tidal app plays everything wrong persists. So let me repeat myself from that post you quoted, since it is a fact:

*For MQA, the Tidal app works just as well as UAPP and supports offline mode. However, for Redbook 16/44, you want to use UAPP. *

This takes nothing away from our devotion to UAPP: It is still our de facto player because we all need to play 16/44 as well. But there is no reason to forgo the offline feature of the Tidal app as long as one is playing MQA.

Edit: Oh, I am specifically referring to LG Quad DAC phones, like the G7 used by @vanhalen26, to whom I was replying. Tidal included special support for MQA on the LG phones. I am sure it would be different on other devices, including external USB DACs.


----------



## noobandroid

Dannemand said:


> Yes, the Tidal app sends 16/44 through the Android Mixer (SRC). But for MQA it plays exactly the same as UAPP: Direct route, 24/44 or 24/48 (depending on the track), with Offloadable flag and the MQA effect flag. I have had to prove this several times around here (such as this post) since the myth that Tidal app plays everything wrong persists. So let me repeat myself from that post you quoted, since it is a fact:
> 
> *For MQA, the Tidal app works just as well as UAPP and supports offline mode. However, for Redbook 16/44, you want to use UAPP. *
> 
> ...


it is different on the type-c dac ztella cause mqa has its own color marker while tidal app has another indicator, but if you say is almost the same, i might have to try again to spot the difference


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Anybody have some suggestions for good albums? I'm kinda burning out and almost everything in the new MQA album list is so horrible (not the quality, the material itself) that I can't stand to listen more than a minute.


----------



## vanhalen26

gimmeheadroom said:


> Anybody have some suggestions for good albums? I'm kinda burning out and almost everything in the new MQA album list is so horrible (not the quality, the material itself) that I can't stand to listen more than a minute.



There’s a ton of great Rush albums.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

vanhalen26 said:


> There’s a ton of great Rush albums.



Thanks, that's a good suggestion  I haven't listened to Rush for a while.


----------



## TheSnafu (Feb 15, 2020)

i don't start guessing what you like... 
Storm Corrosion
Steven Wilsons latest
Perfect Circle's latest
Sturgill Simpsons latest


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Well I like jazz and 70s mostly. I can't stand most of what was made after the mid 1970s  I don't know any of the ones you mentioned, thanks, I'll try some eventually.


----------



## jcn3 (Feb 22, 2020)

gimmeheadroom said:


> Well I like jazz and 70s mostly. I can't stand most of what was made after the mid 1970s  I don't know any of the ones you mentioned, thanks, I'll try some eventually.



Stones, Beggars Banquet (50th anniv.) is very well done.

Both of these are awesome and on Tidal (one isn't MQA):

https://i.imgur.com/qO4UzOh.png

https://i.imgur.com/vOsz6y8.png


----------



## gimmeheadroom

jcn3 said:


> Stones, Beggars Banquet (50th anniv.) is very well done.
> 
> Both of these are awesome and on Tidal (one isn't MQA):
> 
> ...



Thanks, I listened to that a few times when it first hit their list of new MQA albums. I enjoyed it.


----------



## alekc

jcn3 said:


> Stones, Beggars Banquet (50th anniv.) is very well done.
> 
> Both of these are awesome and on Tidal (one isn't MQA):
> 
> ...



Thank you - both are very nice indeed - brought me some joy this evening


----------



## noobandroid

Dannemand said:


> Yes, the Tidal app sends 16/44 through the Android Mixer (SRC). But for MQA it plays exactly the same as UAPP: Direct route, 24/44 or 24/48 (depending on the track), with Offloadable flag and the MQA effect flag. I have had to prove this several times around here (such as this post) since the myth that Tidal app plays everything wrong persists. So let me repeat myself from that post you quoted, since it is a fact:
> 
> *For MQA, the Tidal app works just as well as UAPP and supports offline mode. However, for Redbook 16/44, you want to use UAPP. *
> 
> ...


what if its in the hiby r5? they bypass android sampling so i assume the tidal native will do everything correctly?


----------



## Dannemand (Feb 23, 2020)

noobandroid said:


> what if its in the hiby r5? they bypass android sampling so i assume the tidal native will do everything correctly?



I really don't know. My knowledge about Tidal is limited to LG phones with ESS DAC, such as my own V30, or the G7 about which I was responding in that post.

I don't think the Tidal app was designed with much thought on bypassing the Audio Mixer. But they've banked on MQA, so had to find ways to play it. On most devices, that means using their software decoder which performs 1x unfold inside the app. What happens after that is up to the device and its audio stack. When LG began offering hardware MQA in flagship phones (starting with V30) I am sure Tidal asked LG about it, and was told to use the Direct, Offloadable and Mqa flags to have the MQA stream sent straight to the DAC. On LG phones that works on 24-bit music streams -- which most MQA tracks happen to be. But 16-bit streams must be converted to 24-bit (as UAPP does) otherwise they'll be sent through the Mixer, which is where the re-sampling happens.

As you'll see in the post I linked before, even Google Music "bypasses" the Android Mixer when playing 24-bit files on LG phones. But I am sure it isn't thanks to any deep thought on Google's part, they're just querying the properties of the audio device and sending data accordingly. In the case of 24-bit, it just happens to allow Direct path on LG phones.


----------



## Vitaly2017

Hi does any one know if android or iphone can do bit perfect output of tidal via usb? Or its still the same story the src get involved. From what I understand from above post is that hifi flac cd quality get into the src conversion process while the mqa 24bit doesnt?

I also own zx507 sony dap and not sure if it by pass the android src, does any one have concrete answers to those questions?
How can we get tidal bit perfect on the go with the offline feature.


----------



## Left Channel

Vitaly2017 said:


> Hi does any one know if android or iphone can do bit perfect output of tidal via usb? Or its still the same story the src get involved. From what I understand from above post is that hifi flac cd quality get into the src conversion process while the mqa 24bit doesnt?
> 
> I also own zx507 sony dap and not sure if it by pass the android src, does any one have concrete answers to those questions?
> How can we get tidal bit perfect on the go with the offline feature.



The solution is to purchase the UAPP app via Google Play on your ZX507 or other Android device. If you have an external MQA DAC then you don't even need to purchase the MQA add-on for UAPP, just the main app itself. UAPP is the primary solution for bitperfect output via USB from most Android devices. Even on the LG phones discussed above, USB output is still resampled by the Android system unless you use UAPP.


----------



## Vitaly2017

Left Channel said:


> The solution is to purchase the UAPP app via Google Play on your ZX507 or other Android device. If you have an external MQA DAC then you don't even need to purchase the MQA add-on for UAPP, just the main app itself. UAPP is the primary solution for bitperfect output via USB from most Android devices. Even on the LG phones discussed above, USB output is still resampled by the Android system unless you use UAPP.




How about playing on the device it self? As dont seem to feel much difference but I do in my pc. Master quality sounds really good


----------



## Left Channel (Apr 13, 2020)

Vitaly2017 said:


> How about playing on the device it self? As dont seem to feel much difference but I do in my pc. Master quality sounds really good



On most Android devices, the Tidal app does not know how to bypass the operating system's resampling. On MQA-capable LG phones, the Tidal app will play MQA tracks correctly but will still resample other tracks. As far as I can recall only UAPP does everything correctly, locally or via USB. UAPP is worth a try to see how it works on your DAP, and for internal play on that Sony you'll want the MQA add-on. For more reassurance about how your DAP works with UAPP, it's worth asking over on the UAPP thread I linked to above.


----------



## Vitaly2017

Left Channel said:


> On most Android devices, the Tidal app does not know how to bypass the operating system's resampling. On MQA-capable LG phones, the Tidal app will play MQA tracks correctly but will still resample other tracks. As far as I can recall only UAPP does everything correctly, locally or via USB. UAPP is worth a try to see how it works on your DAP, and for internal play on that Sony you'll want the MQA add-on. For more reassurance about how your DAP works with UAPP, it's worth asking over on the UAPP thread I linked to above.




This still seems to be not so straightforward sucks that it has to be this way...

Is it the same story on iphones or ipad?


----------



## Left Channel

Vitaly2017 said:


> This still seems to be not so straightforward sucks that it has to be this way...
> 
> Is it the same story on iphones or ipad?



I don't know much about i-devices, but I think for audiophiles this aspect may actually be worse.


----------



## Dannemand

Left Channel said:


> On most Android devices, the Tidal app does not know how to bypass the operating system's resampling. On MQA-capable LG phones, the Tidal app will play MQA tracks correctly but will still resample other tracks. As far as I can recall only UAPP does everything correctly, locally or via USB. UAPP is worth a try to see how it works on your DAP, and for internal play on that Sony you'll want the MQA add-on. For more reassurance about how your DAP works with UAPP, it's worth asking over on the UAPP thread I linked to above.



You got it all right regarding the LG phones - which is what I can speak to!


----------



## AlexRv

Vitaly2017 said:


> This still seems to be not so straightforward sucks that it has to be this way...
> 
> Is it the same story on iphones or ipad?


If you stream Tidal master via iDevice: through USB it will be 24/96, through Airplay 16/44 (I don't know specs of Airplay2, maybe there’s better situation).


----------



## Luke Thomas

With senn 800s   MQA is better


----------



## gordec

Let's see if Sony Xperia 1 MKII can get pass the dreaded Android resampling.


----------



## noobandroid

Left Channel said:


> On most Android devices, the Tidal app does not know how to bypass the operating system's resampling. On MQA-capable LG phones, the Tidal app will play MQA tracks correctly but will still resample other tracks. As far as I can recall only UAPP does everything correctly, locally or via USB. UAPP is worth a try to see how it works on your DAP, and for internal play on that Sony you'll want the MQA add-on. For more reassurance about how your DAP works with UAPP, it's worth asking over on the UAPP thread I linked to above.


and also dap with src bypass


----------



## Left Channel

noobandroid said:


> and also dap with src bypass



Thank you! DAPs with SRC bypass and their own driver can also avoid the Android system resampling problem. FiiO DAPs have been able to bypass SRC at least since the X5 3rd gen, which I own, but even on that device I use UAPP so I forgot all about it. Mostly I use the FiiO Q1 Mark II external DAC/amp connected via USB to an Android phone running UAPP.


----------



## revolutionz

So if I'm looking to improve my portable/work desk solution (currently using my Android phone OTG > CEntrance Hifi M8) then the best solution would probably be to purchase an Android based DAP?  Which are the best solutions that support offline playback as I don't always have connectivity when I'm various places for work?  Have been looking at A&K SE100, Fiio M15, iBasso DX200/220 etc...or is a portable DAC from my phone a better choice such as a Mojo?


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Mojo does not support MQA.


----------



## revolutionz

gimmeheadroom said:


> Mojo does not support MQA.



I guess I'm not overly concerned about MQA, just good, quality redbook is enough for me.  I'll listen to higher res stuff at times, but I struggle to hear much of a difference.  

So, MQA support would be a plus, but not necessarily a requirement.


----------



## TubeStack

Tidal MQA sounds great on my M11P through UAPP.  Very noticeable difference from 44/16.  But not all of it is amazing, for example Stevie Wonder's Innervision is disappointing.

In general, older R&B, classic rock, jazz, and acoustic stuff still sounds way better on vinyl, to me.  Rush is a great example: my old 80s pressing of Moving Pictures sounds incredible and is crazily better than Tidal MQA.

But for stuff like Lorde, Daft Punk, the MQA can actually sound better than vinyl, to my ears.

But that’s probably a different conversation.  As to Tidal MQA I’m really enjoying, I've been loving VM - Moondance, Peter Gabriel - Up, Lorde - Pure Heroine, NIN - Downward Spiral.  The ZZ Top 1970-1990 set sounds really good, though my vinyl still tops that one, too.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

revolutionz said:


> I guess I'm not overly concerned about MQA, just good, quality redbook is enough for me.  I'll listen to higher res stuff at times, but I struggle to hear much of a difference.
> 
> So, MQA support would be a plus, but not necessarily a requirement.



Fair enough. I was confused by the fact this is a thread about tidal masters mqa and you asked about the Chord Mojo. I do have the Mojo and I think it's a great DAC, but it is not very portable and since it doesn't have analog input I feel kinda meh about recommending it.

Along the lines of what @TubeStack said above, on a system that is resolving enough I feel the MQA albums can be much better than the non-MQA ones. I have no way to know if it is because of MQA or because the MQA albums use better masters. For instance the MQA version of Captain Fantastic by Elton John sounds like the record album. Incredibly rich and not digital-sounding at all. I don't listen to tidal on a phone at all, I am sure the components end-to-end make a big difference. Most of the Van Morrison MQAs are superb.


----------



## revolutionz

TubeStack said:


> Tidal MQA sounds great on my M11P through UAPP.  Very noticeable difference from 44/16.  But not all of it is amazing, for example Stevie Wonder's Innervision is disappointing.
> 
> In general, older R&B, classic rock, jazz, and acoustic stuff still sounds way better on vinyl, to me.  Rush is a great example: my old 80s pressing of Moving Pictures sounds incredible and is crazily better than Tidal MQA.
> 
> ...





gimmeheadroom said:


> Fair enough. I was confused by the fact this is a thread about tidal masters mqa and you asked about the Chord Mojo. I do have the Mojo and I think it's a great DAC, but it is not very portable and since it doesn't have analog input I feel kinda meh about recommending it.
> 
> Along the lines of what @TubeStack said above, on a system that is resolving enough I feel the MQA albums can be much better than the non-MQA ones. I have no way to know if it is because of MQA or because the MQA albums use better masters. For instance the MQA version of Captain Fantastic by Elton John sounds like the record album. Incredibly rich and not digital-sounding at all. I don't listen to tidal on a phone at all, I am sure the components end-to-end make a big difference. Most of the Van Morrison MQAs are superb.



Thank you both for the input!

My mistake, I guess I read the title as "Tidal, Masters & MQA". I see now that this thread is specific to masters & mqa.

The m11p is on my list currently, but looking through all my options before I make a decision.


----------



## noobandroid

revolutionz said:


> Thank you both for the input!
> 
> My mistake, I guess I read the title as "Tidal, Masters & MQA". I see now that this thread is specific to masters & mqa.
> 
> The m11p is on my list currently, but looking through all my options before I make a decision.


consider hiby r5, native mqa available, and has 4.4 output


----------



## Dyl2525

What is everyones opinion on mqa how much of a difference does it really make? I dont own a mqa dac but am really curious on if its worth spending the money on to try it


----------



## D3soLaT3

Dyl2525 said:


> What is everyones opinion on mqa how much of a difference does it really make?



I look at MQA more as a feature than a necessity. If a dac was a car, MQA would be the sunroof. Not essential but it is nice to have. I own three MQA capable devices. The LG G8, Activo CT10, and I recently purchased the Earmen Donald Dac to pair with my Schiit Heresy for desktop use.

Being a Tidal subscriber I can listen to the non-MQA song and compare it directly with it's MQA counterpart (and if I own the flac or dsd I can make further comparisons). *To my ears* MQA does sound better than non-MQA tracks _when streaming_ across all my devices*. However, none of that would mean much if I didn't already enjoy the sound already coming out of my devices.

My LG G8 is the best sounding mobile device I've ever heard. I've owned iPhones, iPads, and Android phones and tablets since Android 2.2.3 Froyo. The LG quad dac (ESS) is amazing. Is that because of MQA? No, it's because it sounds great. The same can be said about the Schiit Heresy and Earmen both of which measure well according to AudioScienceReview. TBH it is more important that the artist, producer, and sound engineer do their jobs well to ensure the music sound great. Then it doesn't really matter which codec you use. 

The conclusion I have came to is get something that suits your needs. Do you need a dac that is balanced, coaxial, or just single ended? Then make sure it measures well, it doesn't have to be perfect just nothing that is glaringly obviously wrong, and that it falls within your budget. It also helps to purchase something that is sought after and has a good reputation. That way if it isn't for you--you can sell it-- or just purchase from a reputable seller that has a good return policy.

As you can see there are many other factors that you should prioritize when purchasing a dac. 



*To be clear my preferences are local files over streaming and my prefered codecs are DSD>MQA>Flac. These are not scientific facts just my preferences.


----------



## Dyl2525

D3soLaT3 said:


> I look at MQA more as a feature than a necessity. If a dac was a car, MQA would be the sunroof. Not essential but it is nice to have. I own three MQA capable devices. The LG G8, Activo CT10, and I recently purchased the Earmen Donald Dac to pair with my Schiit Heresy for desktop use.
> 
> Being a Tidal subscriber I can listen to the non-MQA song and compare it directly with it's MQA counterpart (and if I own the flac or dsd I can make further comparisons). *To my ears* MQA does sound better than non-MQA tracks _when streaming_ across all my devices*. However, none of that would mean much if I didn't already enjoy the sound already coming out of my devices.
> 
> ...


Yeah ive never purchased a dac because of mqa infact i just bought a schiit jotunheim with the multibit dac addin card so im super excited to try that and it will be in tomorrow


----------



## D3soLaT3

Dyl2525 said:


> Yeah ive never purchased a dac because of mqa infact i just bought a schiit jotunheim with the multibit dac addin card so im super excited to try that and it will be in tomorrow


Sounds like you are off to a great start. I'm sure you will enjoy the Jotunheim regardless of mqa capability. If you get an opportunity to "test drive" an mqa dac I would. If you plan on getting Tidal or another MQA service to build up your library it may be worth it for you.


----------



## Taz777

Dyl2525 said:


> What is everyones opinion on mqa how much of a difference does it really make? I dont own a mqa dac but am really curious on if its worth spending the money on to try it



MQA is totally irrelevant to me. I like Tidal for its catalogue that aligns nicely with my music preferences. I do have an MQA DAC that I never use. One of my phones also supports MQA. However, fewer than 10 tracks in my Tidal playlists are Masters tracks. I prefer to use non-MQA DACs.

CD-quality FLAC is good enough for me. However, I do have Qobuz too and often find some of my favourite tracks available in Hi-Res format.


----------



## Luke Thomas

Might just be my set up. Mqa much better. i have a drafonfly red dac.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Dyl2525 said:


> Yeah ive never purchased a dac because of mqa infact i just bought a schiit jotunheim with the multibit dac addin card so im super excited to try that and it will be in tomorrow



I purchased several DACs because of MQA and I don't buy schiit because of the company and because they don't support DSD or MQA


----------



## iFi audio

D3soLaT3 said:


> I look at MQA more as a feature than a necessity. If a dac was a car, MQA would be the sunroof. Not essential but it is nice to have.



That's the perfect analogy if someone asks me. MQA provides yet another way to listen to music and enjoyable at that. Well, at least to my ears


----------



## Luke Thomas (Jun 29, 2020)

iFi audio said:


> That's the perfect analogy if someone asks me. MQA provides yet another way to listen to music and enjoyable at that. Well, at least to my ears


a sunroof doesn’t add any performance to a vehicle.  MQA is more like a turbo charger .  Which adds performance to the car. MQA for me adds performance to my system.


----------



## iFi audio

Luke Thomas said:


> a sunroof doesn’t add any performance to a vehicle. MQA is more like a turbo charger . Which adds performance to the car. MQA for me adds performance to my system.



A turbo or sunroof, it's good to have


----------



## airwhale

Taz777 said:


> MQA is totally irrelevant to me. I like Tidal for its catalogue that aligns nicely with my music preferences. I do have an MQA DAC that I never use. One of my phones also supports MQA. However, fewer than 10 tracks in my Tidal playlists are Masters tracks. I prefer to use non-MQA DACs.
> 
> CD-quality FLAC is good enough for me.



I'm on the same page here - RedBook audio sounds really nice through my Shiit MultiBit DAC. My issue is with albums that are ONLY available in MQA / Master quality. These sound clearly worse to me, unless I switch to the Dragonfly Red. For albums available in both formats, I will always choose the non-MQA version of any given album.


----------



## goodvibes (Sep 9, 2020)

MQA uses compression and throws away 'uneeded' bits. I'll take a non MQA 24 bit file any day. There's a reason some of the top equipment manufacturers never adopted it. 

Try Qobuz now that it's available in the USA. Whatever they're doing to unpack their signal blows Tidal away, often at lower resolutions. I've compared both to a dig master. It's the 1st streaming service that I find nearly as musically engaging as local files.

Ducks.

Oh, and their downloads are fantastic. Yes, I know it shouldn't matter.


----------



## iFi audio

goodvibes said:


> I'll take a non MQA 24 bit file any day. There's a reason some of the top equipment manufacturers never adopted it.



MQA is yet another way of listening to music. The more options, the better


----------



## goodvibes (Sep 14, 2020)

as long as Meridian makes more money. It's marketing as far as I'm concerned. I think the 15 ways we had before MQA had it covered and compatibility doesn't get better.


----------



## linknet (Sep 16, 2020)

I like Tidal because i can use it with my smartphone and a Dragonfly Cobalt, with my KEF Lsx and also with Android Auto. One streaming service for all my need. For me MQA is a super bonus. It's great to be able to compare the same song with MQA and without.


----------



## yolosauce

I'm using tidal with audirvana and I have a question. In audirvana I have the option to choose between lossless and master in my tidal streaming settings. If I play a song that has the mqa indicator while in lossless mode the song will play at 16 44.1

Is audirvana downsampling the mqa file to 16 44.1 or are they playing a different version of the song that's not mqa from the tidal database?


----------



## Dannemand (Sep 15, 2020)

Something I just don't understand: Regardless of whether one thinks MQA is great or horrible, I fail to understand what compels a person to join a thread like this just to say that nobody should ever use MQA.

The OP states in the very first paragraph:


headfry said:


> I thought I would start a thread for those who appreciate the SQ of MQA - both files and Tidal Masters -.(as opposed to those debating the merits from a scientific standpoint).



So it should be easy for anybody to decide whether to join this discussion or not.

I personally agree about the licensing and marketing horrors of MQA, but I have heard some great sounding MQA tracks. I don't currently have a Tidal subscription, though.

I'm not a moderator, and I'm not saying MQA haters shouldn't be allowed to post here. I'm merely wondering why they would.

I'm a terribly cook, and I hate cooking. So I stay out of discussions about cooking, where I obviously have nothing valuable to contribute


----------



## iFi audio

goodvibes said:


> as long as Meridian makes more money.



I wouldn't put all my money on that alone


----------



## domiji

Hello Tidal Lovers,

I subscribes for Tidal HiFi and compared it to Amazon Music HD. On my Sony zx507 it sounds really flat and lacks of dynamic compared with Amazon Music.

Does anyone noticed maybe the same issue?


----------



## iFi audio

domiji said:


> Hello Tidal Lovers,
> 
> I subscribes for Tidal HiFi and compared it to Amazon Music HD. On my Sony zx507 it sounds really flat and lacks of dynamic compared with Amazon Music.
> 
> Does anyone noticed maybe the same issue?



I've seen some similar comments about Tidal vs Amazon here on HF, but can't tell where it was exactly.


----------



## Thefastestdead

I'm curious would there be any difference in switching to an MQA DAC over my Hugo2. I currently run the Hugo2 though an ApexAudio Teton amp and listen with my Empire Ears Odins.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Thefastestdead said:


> I'm curious would there be any difference in switching to an MQA DAC over my Hugo2. I currently run the Hugo2 though an ApexAudio Teton amp and listen with my Empire Ears Odins.


Depends who you ask. Chord thinks MQA is a scam which is why they don't support it. Schiit thinks MQA and DSD are a scam. I think schiit is a scam. So there are several viewpoints 

I have several MQA DACs and while I didn't compare to the Hugo 2 (which I think is great btw) I like the sound of MQA albums. To me they sound like vinyl or good SACDs. I have read several posts that suggest one of the reasons the MQA albums sound better (for those of us who think they do sound great and maybe better than non-MQA) is that the masters chosen for MQA are better than the alternative(s). So it is not easy to understand exactly what's going on or why.

From my point of view if you like Tidal and want to get the best sound it's worth spending some money on an MQA DAC. I don't do direct comparisons even with my own gear but that's not to say I don't notice differences. I'm more into enjoying the music than splitting hairs over specs. You have some pretty expensive gear so I would hope the guys who sold it to you would be willing to help out get you a couple of loaner DACs to see how it sounds over your chain.


----------



## Thefastestdead

gimmeheadroom said:


> Depends who you ask. Chord thinks MQA is a scam which is why they don't support it. Schiit thinks MQA and DSD are a scam. I think schiit is a scam. So there are several viewpoints
> 
> I have several MQA DACs and while I didn't compare to the Hugo 2 (which I think is great btw) I like the sound of MQA albums. To me they sound like vinyl or good SACDs. I have read several posts that suggest one of the reasons the MQA albums sound better (for those of us who think they do sound great and maybe better than non-MQA) is that the masters chosen for MQA are better than the alternative(s). So it is not easy to understand exactly what's going on or why.
> 
> From my point of view if you like Tidal and want to get the best sound it's worth spending some money on an MQA DAC. I don't do direct comparisons even with my own gear but that's not to say I don't notice differences. I'm more into enjoying the music than splitting hairs over specs. You have some pretty expensive gear so I would hope the guys who sold it to you would be willing to help out get you a couple of loaner DACs to see how it sounds over your chain.



I'm literally dying at your Schitt is a scam comment. I have to agree with you there.  Yeah I solely use tidal if I let the software unfold I see no difference in the output. I was curious if I was missing out on something. I have spent too much time and money to get the sound the way I like it just to have the weak link be the source.


----------



## Thefastestdead

iFi audio said:


> I've seen some similar comments about Tidal vs Amazon here on HF, but can't tell where it was exactly.


I hear the same thing. Not sure why. I am with you on this.


----------



## HiFiHawaii808

gimmeheadroom said:


> Anybody have some suggestions for good albums? I'm kinda burning out and almost everything in the new MQA album list is so horrible (not the quality, the material itself) that I can't stand to listen more than a minute.



Late response, but here's an idea.  Take any great MQA track you like in Tidal.   Then, select "Track Radio" for that song.   It will pull up a list of songs similar to the one you are listening to.  You can scroll down and see all of the MQA tracks.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Thefastestdead said:


> I'm literally dying at your Schitt is a scam comment. I have to agree with you there.  Yeah I solely use tidal if I let the software unfold I see no difference in the output. I was curious if I was missing out on something. I have spent too much time and money to get the sound the way I like it just to have the weak link be the source.



I don't remember if the software unfolds all the way or not. And, not that there are many, but there are MQA CDs and also MQA downloads. So the desktop app wouldn't help for that. If you have an MQA DAC you should be able to play it whatever the source. I haven't bought any MQA CDs but I will try a few by the end of the year hopefully.


----------



## Thefastestdead

I need to invest in a MQA dac to see if I hear a difference over my hugo 2


----------



## Taz777

gimmeheadroom said:


> I don't remember if the software unfolds all the way or not. And, not that there are many, but there are MQA CDs and also MQA downloads. So the desktop app wouldn't help for that. If you have an MQA DAC you should be able to play it whatever the source. I haven't bought any MQA CDs but I will try a few by the end of the year hopefully.



I don't think any software does all of the unfolds. You always need hardware to do the remaining unfolds. Software will generally only do the first unfold as far as I know.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Taz777 said:


> I don't think any software does all of the unfolds. You always need hardware to do the remaining unfolds. Software will generally only do the first unfold as far as I know.


Thanks, I'll look into this when I have time.


----------



## rkw

gimmeheadroom said:


> I haven't bought any MQA CDs but I will try a few by the end of the year hopefully.


Why not buy the hi-res files instead? MQA CDs are created from hi-res files, lossy compressed down to CD resolution. For streaming, MQA makes some sense to reduce bandwidth, but I see no reason to purchase MQA files or CDs instead of the original hi-res.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

rkw said:


> Why not buy the hi-res files instead? MQA CDs are created from hi-res files, lossy compressed down to CD resolution. For streaming, MQA makes some sense to reduce bandwidth, but I see no reason to purchase MQA files or CDs instead of the original hi-res.


You're right, compression is kinda strange in 2020. So mostly just for the curiosity of how they will sound on my equipment, whether they play directly on the Oppo as claimed, etc. and for albums where there is probably no real hires available (some classic rock, jazz etc.)


----------



## DenverW

Question on windows 10 settings with the tidal app.  I apologize if this has been asked 100 times, I wasn't able to locate an answer after skimming the pages.  I've got the app set properly with tidal getting exclusive mode.  Do I need to change the sample rate and bit depth in the device's settings in windows 10, or will tidal adjust when given control.  I have a schiit gungnir MB, so my max is 24 bit 196.  Just curious what I should have the device's property set to.  Thanks in advance for help!


----------



## rkw

DenverW said:


> I've got the app set properly with tidal getting exclusive mode.  Do I need to change the sample rate and bit depth in the device's settings in windows 10, or will tidal adjust when given control.


In exclusive mode, Windows uses the resolution set by the app and ignores the device settings.


----------



## PortableMusic (Nov 9, 2020)

May I ask what it means to have hardware decoding of MQAs 8x versus 16x?  I tried to look this up repeatedly and can't find out the answer.

I am thinking of using my desktop PC's USB (Windows 10) to connect to a Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 Digital, or a Topping D90 DAC, or a Mytek Brooklyn DAV+ (as they all claim to have MQA hardware decoding but they don't specify if the MQA hardware decoding is 8x or 16x! Some say "full decoding MQA", some say "MQA 8x", etc.   I'll connect my Meze Empyrean headphones to one of these three DACs/headphone amps.

I would greatly appreciate any education you guys might be so kind as to direct me to to try to understand if there are any differences between the amount of decoding, or the levels of unfolding differences (if any) between these three options (Pro-Ject, Topping, Mytek), or if there are other more outstanding options that are not 10 times the price.  A bit more costly is fine, but not if it's going to be, say, $12,000, as these three options are merely a few hundred to $2,000.

I intend to exclusively use Tidal Hifi and as much as possible, when it is available, the albums that are MQA.  Of course, not all albums are MQA but more and more are.

I am also open to using Roon but i am also confused as to how best to execute using Roon.  what hardware to buy, how to connect, how much of the MQA is decoded via hardware decoding/unfolding, etc.  I read up on Roon via reviews and Roon's own site but got confused as to which devices do what, as they have Roon Ready and Roon Tested, but it's unclear what exactly the differences are.

If there are suggestions, I welcome them.  Thank you in advance.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

I don't know the technical details but writing to the customer service dept. of each of the prospects and asking that might give some idea of what kind of service you could expect in the future if you bought one.

The Brooklyn DAC+ is a beautiful piece of gear and IMHO is worth the premium over the other two you mentioned.

You don't need Roon for MQA even without an MQA DAC. The Tidal desktop app unfolds if you don't have MQA hardware.


----------



## alekc

PortableMusic said:


> I am thinking of using my desktop PC's USB (Windows 10) to connect to a Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 Digital, or a Topping D90 DAC, or a Mytek Brooklyn DAV+ (as they all claim to have MQA hardware decoding but they don't specify if the MQA hardware decoding is 8x or 16x! Some say "full decoding MQA", some say "MQA 8x", etc.   I'll connect my Meze Empyrean headphones to one of these three DACs/headphone amps.



I can answer you question partially and share my experience with Mytek Brooklyn Bridge which is basically Mytek Brooklyn DAC+ with network streaming capabilities minus few ports at the back replaced by ethernet connection.  

Brooklyn has built-in MQA filter which can be manually enabled/disable so you can use it even for non-MQA content if I understand it correctly. After some time of experimenting I've turned it off for non-MQA content and rarely turn it on for MQA. The are few reasons for it, but main is that there is still very little MQA content comparing to what I am listening on Tidal. In fact I am considering dropping my HiFi subscription as over time I don't see my preferred tracks being converted to MQA. The next reason is that I don't find MQA to be anything special (I rather find it to be an "artifical" solution to non-existing issue that adds stupid complexity), the sound difference in some cases I would suspect comes from different track mastering mostly. To be honest I prefer some MQA tracks to non-MQA ones, but due to the mastering, not the streaming format.  

Comparing Brooklyn to iFi iDAC2 which with MQA firmware requires first unfold in software, honestly speaking I do not see much difference, obviously there are differences between DACs but in MQA department I would never buy a new DAC only to get both unfolds at hardware. The difference is not night and day if there is any at all. 

Out of 3 DACs you've mentioned if you want a detailed, quite neutral sound signature coming from great looking devices I would go with Mytek. The build quality is great and so is sound. Last but not least I strongly believe that MQA should not be your main reason to select DAC unless you want to limit yourself to few favorite tracks available in MQA on Tidal.


----------



## iFi audio

alekc said:


> Comparing Brooklyn to iFi iDAC2 which with MQA firmware requires first unfold in software



Yup, that's correct. All our products aside Pro iDSD and NEO iDSD are MQA renderers.


----------



## Left Channel (Nov 12, 2020)

TIDAL adds millions of Master Quality tracks from Warner Music Group, including albums from Missy Elliott, The Notorious B.I.G. and Madonna

The quote from Bob Stuart makes it sound like many of these recordings were never mastered at resolutions higher than 16/44.1. But I hope he means that better masters exist for MQA to work with. I've encountered "Masters" releases that turned out to be based on low quality originals, in one case a remix.


----------



## gimmeheadroom (Nov 17, 2020)

I saw some new MQA versions of George Benson albums. Still waiting for In Flight though

edit: it's up now 17/11/2020


----------



## Taz777

I wish there was a way for the TIDAL app to flag up non-Masters songs in your playlists that now have Masters versions available.


----------



## iFenixxZ

Hi all. Was checking new A&K DAPs and reflected a little bit.

 What is the MQA hardware full decoder & MQA 8x? Also what is max frequency album in Tidal? thanks in advance.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Taz777 said:


> I wish there was a way for the TIDAL app to flag up non-Masters songs in your playlists that now have Masters versions available.


Yeah that would be great. I had the reverse happen. I had an MQA track in my playlist and I suddenly noticed it was playing hifi instead of Master. Turns out Tidal doesn't have that one anymore.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

iFenixxZ said:


> Hi all. Was checking new A&K DAPs and reflected a little bit.
> 
> What is the MQA hardware full decoder & MQA 8x? Also what is max frequency album in Tidal? thanks in advance.


There is a 352 KHz playlist in Tidal for some MQA classical. I had no idea it went that high but I guess that's what 8X means.


----------



## iFenixxZ

gimmeheadroom said:


> There is a 352 KHz playlist in Tidal for some MQA classical. I had no idea it went that high but I guess that's what 8X means.


Thanks for your fast reply.

By the way do you know what is it MQA hardware full decoder? And are all 2020 A&K DAPs have that feature


----------



## PortableMusic

iFenixxZ said:


> Thanks for your fast reply.
> 
> By the way *do you know what is it MQA hardware full decoder*? And are all 2020 A&K DAPs have that feature



@iFenixxZ:  thanks for your comment.  may i please request kindly that you clarify and further expand on what you wrote please?  thank you in advance.

are you saying that all 2020 A&K DAPs are FULL MQA decoding, i.e. 8x or is it 16x?  i've seen 16x in various companies' specs and got confused as well.

i am currently using the Kann Alpha which is certainly a 2020 A&K model, and all it says is MQA decoding, without specifying 8x or however many "x".

thanks.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

iFenixxZ said:


> Thanks for your fast reply.
> 
> By the way do you know what is it MQA hardware full decoder? And are all 2020 A&K DAPs have that feature


I'm sorry, I don't know. I can guess it's hardware support for MQA. But then I was told MQA is only in software. So, I don't know 

I don't know anything about A&K DAPs either. I'm not very helpful today. I'll go listen to some music now...


----------



## iFenixxZ

PortableMusic said:


> @iFenixxZ:  thanks for your comment.  may i please request kindly that you clarify and further expand on what you wrote please?  thank you in advance.
> 
> are you saying that all 2020 A&K DAPs are FULL MQA decoding, i.e. 8x or is it 16x?  i've seen 16x in various companies' specs and got confused as well.
> 
> ...


I am afraid I won't help. English is not my native language so it seems I confused you. Sorry for that.

I am as well trying to figure out Is the all Astell kern 2020 models are MQA full hardware decoders. Right now I see such advertising only for Alpha model. 

And what is it 8x MQA. Is it marketing term or exact maximum specification in Tidal. 

Still noone was able to answer that question.


----------



## PortableMusic

iFenixxZ said:


> I am afraid I won't help. English is not my native language so it seems I confused you. Sorry for that.
> 
> I am as well trying to figure out Is the all Astell kern 2020 models are MQA full hardware decoders. *Right now I see such advertising only for Alpha model.*
> 
> ...



@iFenixxZ:   you said you see "...advertising for the Kann Alpha model..."

well, what does the advertising for the Kann Alpha say EXACTLY please?  does it say "full MQA decoding", or "8x MQA" or "16x MQA" or...?

thank you in advance.

it would help if you don't mind linking us to the exact page you saw Astell and Kern's advertising discussing the Kann Alpha's MQA decoding please.  thank you.


----------



## iFenixxZ

PortableMusic said:


> @iFenixxZ:   you said you see "...advertising for the Kann Alpha model..."
> 
> well, what does the advertising for the Kann Alpha say EXACTLY please?  does it say "full MQA decoding", or "8x MQA" or "16x MQA" or...?
> 
> ...



Below what I read for Alpha. There is no the same advertising for other 2020 models. That why I am curious about what is this capabilities and are they confirmed not only for Alpha :


----------



## gimmeheadroom

iFenixxZ said:


> I am afraid I won't help. English is not my native language so it seems I confused you. Sorry for that.
> 
> I am as well trying to figure out Is the all Astell kern 2020 models are MQA full hardware decoders. Right now I see such advertising only for Alpha model.
> 
> ...


I guess right now, 8X (44.1 x 8) is the maximum spec for MQA which is available on Tidal. But you could check the MQA webpage and maybe they will have some technical specs.


----------



## PortableMusic (Nov 12, 2020)

Do we know how different the MQA from, say, the Topping D90 dac, versus the Mytek Brooklyn DAC+, versus the iFi Neo iDSD, versus the Pro-Ject PreBox S2 Digital?

i'm only using these as examples because they ALL seem to claim "full MQA decoding" or something to that effect.  it doesn't help either that they all use slightly different wording, some say "full MQA", some use slightly different wording/lingo, it seems all rather opaque!

it would be great for someone with knowledge of some of these_ so-called FULL MQA decoding baked in (into the hardware) DAC_s to chime in here to educate us further.

i know that the iFi Neo iDSD uses a much older Burr Brown dac chip (17 years old!) and an XMOS to accomplish this MQA unfolding.  it's unorthodox to say the least, as all the other companies, plenty of them out there, ALL use current dac chips, whether they be the ES9038, ES9068, or the AK4499, they are all very current dac chips!  why iFi Neo iDSD choose to use such an old dac chip is beyond my understanding, but there must be a reason.

it seems like iFi must be the outlier in all this because if no one else chooses this route of using a 17-year old chip, wouldn't it mean that this is the more circuitous route?  i.e. possibly (only possibly!) less desirable?  wouldn't more companies choose this old dac chip path IF it's really superior?  as the only outlier, i'm wondering...

thank you in advance.


----------



## oidua

seems like a lot of people don't really "listen" to the speakers. MQA or all Hi-fi audio is showing off the technical performance of the speakers and electronics. Try to listen for better imaging, separation, micro dynamics and harmonic distortion. That's (at least for me) part of the hobby. Another tactic is to listen with your body and not just your ears. we cannot hear let's say 35hz-18000khz but we can feel much more. DSD256 and 512 are insane when you allow it to take over your body. Feel the chemicals ooze out of your chemical bag that dwells inside your skull. It's hard for most humans to let an exterior influence take over, because of EGO and ID. Maybe drop some LSD while listening to a pair of LCD X's? Or try to listen more and talk less? Oh and if you aint got the gear that can perform then you're SOL. HAHAH TTYL 

FEEL THE VIBRATIONS ALL AROUND YOU, PRACTICE PATIENCE AND PAY ATTENTION 

Gear use to explore sonic cosmic consciousness: 
AMPs- HDV 820, Chord Mojo, iFi BL nano iDSD  
CANs- HD800s, LCD X, T1 gen2, Fostex TR-X00 PH, RHA CL2, Empire Ears Bravado 

***gear must be able to produce sub sonic and hyper sonic frequencies. 
******* Bring on the fire, don't be scared to attack with your 0s and 1s. or better yet, practice listening to the music with you body. 
*********** SOUND SPEED!


----------



## gimmeheadroom

You're supposed to pay MQA to get a license to decode. In theory they all use the same basic method. The quality of the parts probably varies though.


----------



## PortableMusic

gimmeheadroom said:


> You're supposed to* pay MQA to get a license* to decode. In theory they all use the same basic method. The quality of the parts probably varies though.



ah, so that means that Burson and RME chose to NOT pay MQA then.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

PortableMusic said:


> ah, so that means that Burson and RME chose to NOT pay MQA then.


RME is a pro audio company. I think they were surprised at the success of the RME DAC in the hifi market. They're not into it further than that as far as I know.


----------



## PortableMusic (Nov 12, 2020)

i'm tempted to only concentrate on units that use *modern, current *DAC chips, but a DAC unit that includes MQA, as i only stream music via Tidal Hifi, so there's no reason to not include MQA in the DAC unit that i will be buying.  

this will remove the iFi Neo from my list of consideration, despite it being MQA full decoding.  however, people do seem to like how iFi DACs seem to sound rather musical, etc.

difficult to figure out! sigh.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

The Brooklyn is a beautiful build with a great UI. It tends towards analytical though. The RME is distinctly more musical for me.


----------



## iFi audio

PortableMusic said:


> why iFi Neo iDSD choose to use such an old dac chip is beyond my understanding, but there must be a reason.



I already explained this to you in one of our threads. What one does with a DAC chip is far more important that a DAC chip itself 

Also, the D/A converter chip we use is quite special and this was discussed multiple times already during launches of our other DACs. Let me thus encourage you to either investigate our DAC threads here on HF, or to take a look at documents at our site


----------



## Hawk600us

I have a Zen DAC on the way that is MQA capable, can anybody advise if the ZEN will make a positive difference in sound quality versus my current DAC, a Topping D50S?


----------



## Taz777

Hawk600us said:


> I have a Zen DAC on the way that is MQA capable, can anybody advise if the ZEN will make a positive difference in sound quality versus my current DAC, a Topping D50S?



I’d be interested to know too. I have a Topping D50 for my desktop system and am looking around for an upgrade. If it sounds better then it would be quite an amazing achievement as the Topping is nearly double the price and is a DAC only versus a DAC and headphone amp.


----------



## Hawk600us

I hear mixed feedback on the Zen DAC, it doesn't seem to measure well if compared to other top brands however people seem to like it a lot and no complaints about sound quality so I will be trying with Tidal to see if there is ant improvement, I will keep you posted.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

ifi gear has pretty outstanding reputation here on headfi and @iFi audio is a regular participant and good guy. Not sure about anybody else but support and involvement definitely count a lot for me. I don't see @TOPPING on the forums


----------



## iFi audio

Taz777 said:


> I’d be interested to know too.



Likewise 



Hawk600us said:


> I have a Zen DAC on the way that is MQA capable, can anybody advise if the ZEN will make a positive difference in sound quality versus my current DAC, a Topping D50S?



I don't know, but now I look forward to your findings 



gimmeheadroom said:


> @iFi audio is a regular participant and good guy.



Thanks


----------



## vladtm (Nov 16, 2020)

I purchased the ifi Zen Dac , upgraded the firmware  to latest version .
I have problems with gapless audio when i play MQA in tidal.

Windows, Mac, iOS. Same thing, when i play MQA files, it does turn magenta, but there is also a noticeable gap between tracks 

Also, when starting to play a track in tidal, it takes a couple seconds to start, usualy the beginning of the song is chopped off.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

It could be tidal, tidal has been burping for me lately, a lot. Not sure if it's MQA tracks specifically.

Gapless has always worked for me but other people reported issues. Try it with and without passthrough MQA and see if it makes a difference


----------



## iFi audio

vladtm said:


> Also, when starting to play a track in tidal, it takes a couple seconds to start, usualy the beginning of the song is chopped off.



This alone might imply that the issue is on the software end. But you can ask our support team as well by opening a ticket here: https://support.ifi-audio.com

Perhaps they saw this issue already and know what to do


----------



## Bernard23

I've compared a number of tracks now that I own as hi res FLAC in my J River catalogue directly to the Masters version streamed from Tidal. I can't hear a noticeable difference, but, and big caveat; unless the track has been remastered (check out Fleetwood mac Rumours standard CD version vs the remastered 24/96) then I can't hear any difference between 16/44 and 24/96, at least nothing that is scientifically repeatable and consistent, so must be minute if it does exist. The original recording and production has far more influence on the perceived quality of a track than any playback processing.


----------



## stax fan

serious information on MQA :


have fun, Philipp


----------



## stax fan

the updated part 2 ..


----------



## stax fan

with this video most MQA questions should be answered..for example my Teac UD-503 can play Tidal MQA files, but does not correct its own time smearing..the NT-505 can be updated to MQA ( https://www.teac-audio.eu/de/artikel/teac-adds-mqa-support-to-latest-audio-components-152994.html ) to do this step..


----------



## bfreedma

I have to disagree - Hans is a terrible source for information regarding any type of digital audio reproduction.

He clearly doesn’t understand the technology and simply parrots talking points from the manufacture’s marketing materials.  Look elsewhere unless you’re looking for a Salesman masquerading as a technical expert.


----------



## stax fan

You have an example where he is wrong in a technical point ? There is more to MQA than I thought to know..
We should respect each other, please..
https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B01K7WK46A/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## bfreedma

stax fan said:


> You have an example where he is wrong in a technical point ? There is more to MQA than I thought to know..
> We should respect each other, please..
> https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B01K7WK46A/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o00?ie=UTF8&psc=1



Every video he’s made discussing digital audio shows fundamental flaws in understanding. The series he put out on “audiophile” Ethernet products was loaded with incorrect information on .802 standards, audibility, and the basic premises of digital signal transmission. For example Hans has somehow convinced himself that Ethernet gear somehow “knows” what packets contain audio data vs. other data. He than used this as evidence that an audiophile Ethernet router he was reviewing somehow made audible improvements vs. any other router. 
802.11 is a data standard - it knows not nor cares not what’s inside packets.


----------



## stax fan

o.k. the posted videos on MQA I appreciate nevertheless ..
What about sending him your critic points to give him a chance to answer ? In the videos I watched he did not give me the impression of him feeling in an ivory tower..
have fun, Philipp


----------



## PortableMusic

i'm new to Tidal and streaming, but have enjoyed it for the past 3 weeks thus far.

one thing i can't figure out is this: 

if i have a performer or artist and i'd like to search all of his/her albums/tracks that are MQA, how would i do this please?

i know that on the "Home" page, you can scroll lower and you'll get to an all MQA section. fine, i understand that.  however, that is all the MQA albums but it is NOT sorted by artist at all, and furthermore, there is NO way to sort it!

so, back to square one.   how would one find, say, all the MQA tracks and albums by, say, Dave Brubeck or anyone else?

thank you all in advance.


----------



## iFi audio

bfreedma said:


> I have to disagree - Hans is a terrible source for information regarding any type of digital audio reproduction.
> 
> He clearly doesn’t understand the technology and simply parrots talking points from the manufacture’s marketing materials. Look elsewhere unless you’re looking for a Salesman masquerading as a technical expert.



Let me ask you whether he was factually incorrect in his MQA vids?


----------



## Bernard23 (Nov 25, 2020)

iFi audio said:


> Let me ask you whether he was factually incorrect in his MQA vids?


What is the ideal protocol, MQA decoding (if that's what it does) in the app, or in the DAC? I'm presuming the only benefit to mqa is file size, but since we're on the cusp of 5G and already into unlimited data provision then it seems a bit needlessly complicated?

Edit: just watched both videos posted earlier, so I get the protocol. I'm still confused as to why we need MQA, it's adding another processing layer of complication that's arguably got a shorter lifespan than betamax.


----------



## rkw (Nov 25, 2020)

PortableMusic said:


> if i have a performer or artist and i'd like to search all of his/her albums/tracks that are MQA, how would i do this please?


You can't. All you can do is look through the search results and see which ones are marked with the M or Masters icon.


----------



## iFi audio

Bernard23 said:


> I'm still confused as to why we need MQA,



You don't. It's an option you might want to try and find appealing enough to pursue, or not 

As consumers we're not forced into anything. But the more options we have, the better


----------



## Bernard23

iFi audio said:


> You don't. It's an option you might want to try and find appealing enough to pursue, or not
> 
> As consumers we're not forced into anything. But the more options we have, the better


Well of course, I guess more of a rhetorical question. Meridian must have their rationale for investing in it, I guess I'm missing something because I can't understand why they would do it, given how file size is rapidly going to be a non issue. Ironically I'm in an online workshop discussing digitalisation of the manufacturing sector, and size, speed and accuracy of data transmission is somewhat key in this journey. The challenge of streaming hi res audio files is tiny in comparison. The next 5-10 years will be step change transformational.


----------



## iFi audio

Bernard23 said:


> The challenge of streaming hi res audio files is tiny in comparison. The next 5-10 years will be step change transformational.



Let's thus make a note to continue this conversation in 2025-2030 or so


----------



## hmscott (Nov 26, 2020)

rkw said:


> You can't. All you can do is look through the search results and see which ones are marked with the M or Masters icon.





PortableMusic said:


> i'm new to Tidal and streaming, but have enjoyed it for the past 3 weeks thus far.
> 
> one thing i can't figure out is this:
> 
> ...


It seems all at once "obvious" and silly that such a search option doesn't exist, but there are ways to work through that missing feature.

The first time I got on Tidal it was the same, how do I find all the Tidal Masters, so I searched "Tidal Masters", got a bunch of stuff, but not everything.  So I  moved on to searching for artists and songs and adding "Masters" after the tokens I am searching for, and that kind of works, but it's not 100% effective.

So I brute force it.  I search for the artist or song, and go to the artist's page and use the album view to visually search for "Masters" next to the recording - there's usually a non-Masters, and a Masters of many artists recordings - both explicit and cleaned up.

As I find Master recordings for my favorite artists I make a Playlist, and I put all the Masters versions in first, and follow up with my favorites that have no Masters version, and now I have used those Playlists to Download the songs to my FiiO M15 for offline use, very handy.

Until I read your question just now I hadn't thought of that missing option for searching on Masters only on Tidal for a long time, it doesn't bother me so much now that I've lived without that ability and still found all the Masters recordings for my favorite music - which is still ongoing, so much Music!

As for Dave, he has only one album on Tidal that is a "Masters" quality recording (the first one in this list, it's not always the first or last, you have to go through all of the Album list:




Searching for Dave Brubeck that MQA Master shows at the end of the search list drop-down:



Other artists have more Masters recordings, some newer ones have all Masters recordings along with the "Premium" FLAC 44.1 recordings listings.

Everyone has different tastes, here are a few Masters Playlists to share - All a work in Progress:


Spoiler: Playlists



MQA 192Khz
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/bd51ad45-df8a-4333-8615-d7526b80b70a

Instrumental Jazz - TIDAL Masters
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/53250bbe-4248-4cd8-88e0-2e5bf73309a1

London Philharmonic Orchestra
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/92cc561a-2895-4e5f-a644-4c2f9a9d284c

London Symphony Orchestra
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/249cbc2a-bc41-44eb-aaf5-c752f86ecb3b

Birgit Nilsson
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/2b78f0f7-ebea-494b-b732-d3146fdb614e

Bille Eilish
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/fb7d43b8-e2b8-4587-8df3-c7f11ba59033

Ariana Grande
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/17553b24-9a30-4516-b99c-914cc2370801

Diana Krall
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/ac09f876-a1a7-4a56-8263-2870be68ac80

Carly Rae Jepsen
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/52c3bb4e-b89d-4d9b-bd8f-978a4d770f63

Charli XCX
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/aa192e2b-1b2f-4c81-8cae-f14de13f007b

And, many more...


New Albums and tracks show up in my Home and I have learned how to quickly dig out what I am interested in keeping and listening to later and build lists from those searching times.

I've tried several album and artist names - adding Master or Masters afterward and I am getting lots of useful hits, you might try that.

I will continue to use just the song or artist name, go to the artist "page" and scroll through the tracks "All" and Albums "All to get the Masters first and then go back and fill in the rest.

That's not a hard and fast rule, as I found in the above Playlists some started with non-masters tracks.


iFi audio said:


> Let's thus make a note to continue this conversation in 2025-2030 or so


And, by then we will all hopefully have had 5-10 years of blissful MQA listening enjoyment.  And, on through whatever better process replaces MQA.  MQA Ubiquitous?

I can never understand how some people waste time arguing over MQA; so much good MQA listening time lost, for no useful result.

Listen to MQA or not - it's up to our personal preference.  Does MQA sound better to you?  Then that is all that matters.  Whatever brings joy to your ears and happiness to our hearts.


----------



## Bernard23

I have no truck with it, but I've no need for it. I'd rather stream in native hi res without any encoding, but I'm lucky to have a high speed Internet connection so file size is not an issue.


----------



## hmscott (Nov 26, 2020)

Bernard23 said:


> I have no truck with it, but I've no need for it. I'd rather stream in native hi res without any encoding, but I'm lucky to have a high speed Internet connection so file size is not an issue.


You do know that MQA is a UK company, a native son so to speak, does that help?

Meet The Team | About Us | MQA
Meet some of the people responsible for bringing this award-winning British technology to market.

Homepage | Experience the best sound with MQA | MQA


----------



## Taz777

The TIDAL interface is actually very, very good. Sure, it could do with better searching and more search filters, particularly filters on a list of search results. Try comparing it to the Qobuz UI and it's markedly better IMO.


----------



## hmscott (Nov 26, 2020)

Taz777 said:


> The TIDAL interface is actually very, very good. Sure, it could do with better searching and more search filters, particularly filters on a list of search results. Try comparing it to the Qobuz UI and it's markedly better IMO.


Yup, I tried the same "Dave Brubeck" search in the Amazon Music HD Windows app and had less success when searching for UltraHD - the equivalent of the best quality there.

I've gotten past the initial Tidal App interface issues and don't mind it.  It's not like I curse it - ever - I know how to work around and through it enough to get done what I am trying to do.

On Android I use UAPP on my FiiO M15 and Android phones, and stream Tidal through UAPP as it does full unfolding before the Android Tidal App and my FiiO M15 did full unfolding - now they all work great.

UAPP has some useful MQA Masters focus while streaming Tidal through it, if UAPP saved local copies I'd stay in UAPP.  The Android Tidal app allows local copy saves for offline use.

IDK why the Windows Tidal App doesn't allow local saves - the Windows Amazon Music HD app allows local saves  -  that is a feature I wish Tidal would add to the Windows Tidal App.

After so many years of UI's, it doesn't take long to figure one out and get to work.


----------



## Bernard23 (Nov 26, 2020)

hmscott said:


> You do know that MQA is a UK company, a native son so to speak, does that help?
> 
> Meet The Team | About Us | MQA
> Meet some of the people responsible for bringing this award-winning British technology to market.
> ...


Yes I'm aware of that, but then I've always considered myself as a European, but that's for another day on another forum....
Either way, I don't think being a native manufacturer is a reason to buy something you don't need.


----------



## Left Channel (Nov 26, 2020)

PortableMusic said:


> if i have a performer or artist and i'd like to search all of his/her albums/tracks that are MQA, how would i do this please?



There is a third-party list of MQA albums you can sort by artist and album. It is regularly updated, and in fact I see yesterday's date in there now. Click the link for "MQA_List.csv" in this post: https://www.meridianunplugged.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=268318

MQA search seems like something Tidal could easily add, as you can go into "Explore" and click the "TIDAL Masters" tag to list MQA albums by category. But of course, what seems easy to us may be for the developers a horrible Gordian Knot of code to rewrite.


----------



## boxster233

Bernard23 said:


> What is the ideal protocol, MQA decoding (if that's what it does) in the app, or in the DAC? I'm presuming the only benefit to mqa is file size, but since we're on the cusp of 5G and already into unlimited data provision then it seems a bit needlessly complicated?
> 
> Edit: just watched both videos posted earlier, so I get the protocol. I'm still confused as to why we need MQA, it's adding another processing layer of complication that's arguably got a shorter lifespan than betamax.


Mqa filters sound nice to some. I like the


Bernard23 said:


> Well of course, I guess more of a rhetorical question. Meridian must have their rationale for investing in it, I guess I'm missing something because I can't understand why they would do it, given how file size is rapidly going to be a non issue. Ironically I'm in an online workshop discussing digitalisation of the manufacturing sector, and size, speed and accuracy of data transmission is somewhat key in this journey. The challenge of streaming hi res audio files is tiny in comparison. The next 5-10 years will be step change transformational.


Change always happens slower than those online workshops promise and particularly in manufacturing. A lot of the solutions aren’t baked yet and people act like they exist.

5g will make data size a non issue, but it will take a few years or more for everyone to upgrade and for it to exist and roll out in all major cities, particularly across the globe.


----------



## hmscott (Nov 26, 2020)

Bernard23 said:


> Yes I'm aware of that, but then I've always considered myself as a European, but that's for another day on another forum....
> Either way, I don't think being a native manufacturer is a reason to buy something you don't need.


If you have no personal interest nor need for Tidal Masters or MQA, what are you doing here?

Perhaps after a time you'll come back around to an understanding that brings you back here and then we can help you, or you can help us.

Have you tried streaming Tidal MQA Masters and compared it to other streaming services?


----------



## hmscott (Nov 28, 2020)

> MQA search seems like something Tidal could easily add, as you can go into "Explore" and click the "TIDAL Masters" tag to list MQA albums by category. But of course, what seems easy to us maybe for the developers a horrible Gordian Knot of code to rewrite.


Yes, that's it really, I'm sure it would open a wide range of issues - locking them into one form or another - at the least providing an interface that people rely on that they would hear negative things about if they took it out - I think I heard 2 years ago that happened, that might be why we haven't seen it since.  Something didn't scale correctly, perhaps.

What if everyone searched on "" + MQA ?  Enough of those and the service would be brought to its knees.  And, stopping that behavior might be more difficult than adding icons to a search dialog, there might be token handling issues - requiring an exact match for MQA searches vs the more broad returns normally.


Left Channel said:


> There is a third-party list of MQA albums you can sort by artist and album. It is regularly updated, and in fact, I see yesterday's date in there now. Click the link for "MQA_List.csv" in this post: https://www.meridianunplugged.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=268318


That's very interesting - the naming " 'Explosion of MQA Releases'?" and the date "11/24" means it's kept up to date, with over 1,048,576 tracks... quite an undertaking.

Earlier this month there was an announcement from MQA UK that Tidal added "Millions of tracks", so there must now be far more MQA recordings than are listed in that spreadsheet.  Hopefully, they will keep updating it.

*TIDAL ADDS MILLIONS OF MQA TRACKS, OFFERING EXTENSIVE CATALOGUE OF HIGHEST QUALITY STREAMING AUDIO*
Nov 12 2020
https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/news/tidal-masters-adds-millions-of-master-quality-tracks

_> MQA users have doubled since 2019 on TIDAL
> TIDAL HiFi users now stream 40% more tracks in Master Quality than last year_

"Today, global music and entertainment streaming platform, *TIDAL*, added millions of tracks in MQA from Warner Music Group to its Masters catalogue. TIDAL, in partnership with MQA, provides guaranteed delivery of the original sound recording with TIDAL Masters. Now music fans can listen to an expanded Masters catalogue, featuring iconic albums from artists such as The Notorious B.I.G., Missy Elliott, LCD Soundsystem, Madonna and more..."


----------



## Bernard23

hmscott said:


> If you have no personal interest nor need for Tidal Masters or MQA, what are you doing here?
> 
> Perhaps after a time you'll come back around to an understanding that brings you back here and then we can help you, or you can help us.
> 
> Have you tried streaming Tidal MQA Masters and compared it to other streaming services?


Curiosity, because yes I use Tidal, but not because it uses MQA, but because it has a good catalogue and can stream in exclusive mode. I also use Spotify premium, and have a soon to expire Amazon HD sub. I've been a user of J River since 2012 ish, and have just added MusicBee to my desktop to play my ripped CD FLAC library. I prefer the bit perfect school of thought rather than colour to suit. Incidentally, it's not a bad thing to challenge things, I guess some people are uncomfortable with that; that's not my intention anyway; it's the pursuance of the truth, and understanding why / how things really work. 



boxster233 said:


> hange always happens slower than those online workshops promise and particularly in manufacturing. A lot of the solutions aren’t baked yet and people act like they exist.
> 
> 5g will make data size a non issue, but it will take a few years or more for everyone to upgrade and for it to exist and roll out in all major cities, particularly across the globe.



In Europe it's likely we have already banned ICE from sales within the next decade. We're already at L3 CAV, the infrastructure required to move to 4 is already happening, L5 is possible within 5-10 years if legislators and manufacturers collaborate efficiently. 5G and 6G are necessary for this, we're already in the process of putting high speed data systems via satellite within next 5 years, there's your 5G around the globe with no dropouts in rural areas problem solved.
OK, there's some big assumptions there (FWIW, I live in the SW corner of S wales, miles from any large urban conurbation, and about 6 miles from the coast, and I get 5G here already), but the infrastructure will be here soon enough, as business will continue to monetise high speed comms. The uptake from manufacturing sectors as you say is probably some way behind that curve, given the majority are still in Industry 2 or 3 at best, and many haven't even fully grasped that wave yet.

Back to MQA, I'm not trying to dismiss it, I'm intrigued as to what's driving it, where it's place is in the future. FWIW I'm not particularly a fan of hi-res audio, at my age I can't hear any difference between CDA and 24/96; though I'm sure I can differentiate between Spotify highest and CDA. There are a few albums I bought from HD Tracks, as it turns out, most of which were not remastered in hi res, they were simply upsampled. The handful that are genuine hi res mastered sound good, a couple in particular sound fantastic, but that's more likely because they have been fully remastered from the original multitracks (they're all old pre-digital recording and mastering era)


----------



## Left Channel (Nov 26, 2020)

hmscott said:


> That's very interesting - the naming " 'Explosion of MQA Releases'?" and the date "11/24" means it's kept up to date, with over 1.048.576 tracks... quite an undertaking.
> 
> Earlier this month there was an announcement from MQA UK that Tidal added "Millions of tracks", so there must now be far more MQA recordings than are listed in that spreadsheet. Hopefully, they will keep updating it.
> 
> ...



I searched the spreadsheet for the artists mentioned in the press release, and they're all there on various Warner and subsidiary labels. Last time I downloaded that spreadsheet, in March 2019, it had about 14,000 rows. Now there are 113,876. That's a big jump. But in March 2019 I estimated that added up to only about 110,000 tracks, and I don't immediately see how they have "millions", plural, squeezed in there now. I did that estimate by sorting the spreadsheet by albums, EPs, and singles, then multiplying by an average of 12 tracks per album, three per EP, and one track per single. I don't have the energy to do that again this morning, but feel free to knock yourself out.


----------



## iFi audio

hmscott said:


> I can never understand how some people waste time arguing over MQA;



That's exactly why I never argue


----------



## Whitigir

iFi audio said:


> That's exactly why I never argue


As soon as some one started “arguing”, I would just “smile” and say “you are right” 

Anyways, debating with an open mind is always healthy, arguing is not.


----------



## Whitigir

PortableMusic said:


> May I ask what it means to have hardware decoding of MQAs 8x versus 16x?  I tried to look this up repeatedly and can't find out the answer.
> 
> I am thinking of using my desktop PC's USB (Windows 10) to connect to a Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 Digital, or a Topping D90 DAC, or a Mytek Brooklyn DAV+ (as they all claim to have MQA hardware decoding but they don't specify if the MQA hardware decoding is 8x or 16x! Some say "full decoding MQA", some say "MQA 8x", etc.   I'll connect my Meze Empyrean headphones to one of these three DACs/headphone amps.
> 
> ...



8X is going upto 384Khz in sampling rate and 16X is going upward to 768Khz

The original ideas of MQA is pretty simple but also confusing at time.  I could be wrong as everything is still “trade secret”....anyways..since I tried MQA with M8 and it really has some clear improvements over the same file playing by FLAC standard.....I try to read and try to explain it to myself.

Remember, the time Nyquist and others were into the digital maths. They couldn’t have the processing and computing power the way we do nowadays.  Therefore, the 44.1Khz was deemed to be the most practical standard.  Also, that it is already beyond human hearings.....and everyone agreed.

Now, with the new Push of High-resolutions.  Also, in the studio, they record at higher sample rates 384 or 768Khz, and then down sample to Redbook 44.1 to record onto CD and distribute.

So, by down sampling, they needed an algorithms, and some set of DSP.  So the people from MQA thought that, hey, what if we also store these very same algorithms and MQA into the files, and what if the devices can utilizes these factors to upsample the 44.1 standard back upto 384 or 768....aka 8x or 16x upsampling ?

Voila, the ideas of MQA was born.  So, the bits of the files have some bits to store code and triggers the devices to unfold accordingly.  The devices just have to be capable (or having these algorithms and DSP in the library already), so when it see a specific ”code”, it would trigger a specific set of “algorithms and DSP” ?  So, instead of having the algorithms and DSP stored for each files, they are storing it in the DAC instead.  

Have you ever used upsampling by Hqplayers ? It has so many digital filters, but these can all be stored, and then triggered by the files, instead of you having to flick it on accordingly to your liking....

I think when MQA people claimed that it is a lossy process, that means it is a lossy against the original recording, and not Redbook.  If you are using this standard, then your CD is also a Lossy result from the original recording.


----------



## PortableMusic

Just two or three days ago, my Tidal desktop app updated itself.  since then, the number of albums per row is fixed:  6 albums per row.

Prior to this update, which was merely a day or two ago, i was able to zoom in or out and more columns of albums would show up per row (or fewer columns if one were to zoom in).  this is very convenient for folks with larger computer monitors as it is a joy to be able to view many albums on the screen - very efficient.

May i ask if anyone else here on this thread has experience with this please? 

Apparently, here's a thread about this very issue:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TIdaL/comments/kfkl1q/update_just_destroyed_my_ability_to_use_two/

Thank you in advance.


----------



## iFi audio

Whitigir said:


> As soon as some one started “arguing”, I would just “smile” and say “you are right”



You are right 



Whitigir said:


> Anyways, debating with an open mind is always healthy, arguing is not.



True and there's a very thin line in-between these. As for MQA, it's not forced on us. We can use it or not. And the more choices there are, the better.


----------



## Deolum

iFi audio said:


> You are right
> 
> 
> 
> True and there's a very thin line in-between these. As for MQA, it's not forced on us. We can use it or not. And the more choices there are, the better.


How is MQA not forced? Is there a way to get normal high-res file? 

I just ended my Tidal subscription because Quobuz is now so far ahead and has so many more tracks in high-res that can actually be played properly on every equipment. I don't see any reason to use Tidal unless you're a Hiphop fan.

What i'll really miss is the Tidal TV App. That's very good and nicely made.


----------



## Whitigir

Deolum said:


> How is MQA not forced? Is there a way to get normal high-res file?
> 
> I just ended my Tidal subscription because Quobuz is now so far ahead and has so many more tracks in high-res that can actually be played properly on every equipment. I don't see any reason to use Tidal unless you're a Hiphop fan.
> 
> What i'll really miss is the Tidal TV App. That's very good and nicely made.


True that QuooBuz has a vast library of hi-res now, streaming or purchasing options.  They are very nice indeed, much better than what it used to be a couple years ago lol!  Tidal just does not have any hi-res at all, which I sad.  I will also cancel my sub when my current month ends


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Deolum said:


> How is MQA not forced? Is there a way to get normal high-res file?
> 
> I just ended my Tidal subscription because Quobuz is now so far ahead and has so many more tracks in high-res that can actually be played properly on every equipment. I don't see any reason to use Tidal unless you're a Hiphop fan.
> 
> What i'll really miss is the Tidal TV App. That's very good and nicely made.



Sure, you can switch from Master Quality to hifi and then I believe you get 16/44.1 I can check if you point me at a specific album since my Brooklyn shows both bit depth and sample rate.

Qobuz is not available in as many places as Tidal for some reason. I have MQA DACs and I'm happy with Tidal sound quality. But there are sometimes annoying gaps in albums. For now I have Deezer to fill the gaps but if Qobuz ever gets their heads out and charges a fair price (Tidal hifi is a bit less than 11,5 euros here) I would definitely consider it.

Some of the MQA albums sound really fantastic. I mean like the vinyl I remember. Super!


----------



## iliketohideincloset (Dec 29, 2020)

iFi audio said:


> True and there's a very thin line in-between these. As for MQA, it's not forced on us. We can use it or not. And the more choices there are, the better.



No it's not forced on us but on the industry and therefor in the end on the consumer. For me it is not about the quality. The quality is great as long as you get equipment that can render and decode. But in the end it is just a way to make more money for record labels and of course Meridian/MQA. Guess who pays for that? Everyone in the supply chain including the artists... so for me it is more of an ethical question and in the end I simply can't support it. Simple as that. If you don't give a damn as long as it sounds great, that's your decision.

This topic has been brought up by a lot of people in the past years, give this a read if you mind https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music

Edit: I almost forgot. Did you notice that Tidal started to pull a lot of 16/44 and replaced them with MQA 16/44? But no, it is not forced on us


----------



## ABlide

I pay almost 20 eur for Tidal and Qobuz is not available in Sweden


----------



## boxster233

iliketohideincloset said:


> No it's not forced on us but on the industry and therefor in the end on the consumer. For me it is not about the quality. The quality is great as long as you get equipment that can render and decode. But in the end it is just a way to make more money for record labels and of course Meridian/MQA. Guess who pays for that? Everyone in the supply chain including the artists... so for me it is more of an ethical question and in the end I simply can't support it. Simple as that. If you don't give a damn as long as it sounds great, that's your decision.
> 
> This topic has been brought up by a lot of people in the past years, give this a read if you mind https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music
> 
> Edit: I almost forgot. Did you notice that Tidal started to pull a lot of 16/44 and replaced them with MQA 16/44? But no, it is not forced on us


But it stills not forced on us. You have plenty of options outside Tidal. You don’t have to buy mqa gear. You don’t need mqa or master audio to be in tidal either.


----------



## iliketohideincloset (Dec 29, 2020)

boxster233 said:


> But it stills not forced on us. You have plenty of options outside Tidal. You don’t have to buy mqa gear. You don’t need mqa or master audio to be in tidal either.



Sure. That is correct. I never bought into MQA and I am not a Tidal customer anymore. We will see how long you can still listen to non MQA content on Tidal...


----------



## JDFlood (Dec 30, 2020)

I was interested in knowing what folks generally thought of MQA sound, and if defaulting to it was generally regarded as the better choice. After reading three pages of the thread, comparing some of the Masters/MQA with Red Book and realizing it showed nothing other than Masters were better than red book. I’m 68 I don’t have that long to live. Could someone give me the Cliffnotes to this? To an experienced... but not professional golden ears listener do MQA encoded recordings sound a bit better than there red book version? Has anyone actually read all 60 pages of this... whatever it turned into. I understand the intent of the OP... I have good naturedly walk into this kind of thing before.


----------



## Left Channel

JDFlood said:


> I was interested in knowing what folks generally thought of MQA sound, and if defaulting to it was generally regarded as the better choice. After reading three pages of the tread, comparing some of the Masters/MQA with Red Book and realizing it showed nothing other than Masters were better than red book. I’m 68 I don’t have that long to live. Could someone give me the Cliffnotes to this? To an experienced... but not professional golden ears listener do MQA encoded recordings sound a bit better than there red book version? Has anyone actually read all 60 pages of this... whatever it turned into. I understand the intent of the OP... I have good naturedly walk into this kind of thing before.



High resolution audio sounds better than Red Book, if you can hear the difference. Not everyone can. MQA is supposed to replicate high resolution audio, and on the best equipment can even add what they call the "time domain" that you'd hear when you're in the room. To me, when done right MQA sounds the same as high resolution but I've never heard that "time domain" thing, and to me both sound better than Red Book. But many people cannot hear the difference, and in fact many cannot hear any difference from a 320 kbps MP3 file. Among those who can tell the difference, some can often express it only in emotional terms. So basically, it depends on your ears and equipment, and I can only tell you what I hear. Sorry there's no Cliffs Notes version.


----------



## JDFlood (Dec 30, 2020)

Left Channel said:


> High resolution audio sounds better than Red Book, if you can hear a difference. Not everyone can. MQA is supposed to replicate high resolution audio, and on the best equipment can even add what they call the "time domain" that you'd hear when you're in the room. To me, when done right MQA sounds the same as high resolution but I've never heard that "time domain" thing, and to me both sound better than Red Book. But many people cannot hear the difference, and in fact many cannot hear any difference from a 320 kbps MP3 file. Among those who can tell the difference, some can often express it only in emotional terms. So basically, it depends on your ears and equipment, and I can only tell you what I hear. Sorry there's no Cliffs Notes version.


Thanks. Good summary. Sounds right to me. I find that hi Rez recordings sound better, sometimes appearant without listening for difference, but not usualy in an earth shattering way... it can be covered up by poor recording / mastering. On the other hand some really good hiRez recordings make me look up and take notice. I can’t say I have ever noticed a profound and consistent difference with MQA.. but I have never looked (proactively listened) or did any systematic study. These days I just like to enjoy listening to music. I was thinking of getting a Berkley Alpha 3 DAC next year for my main system. I suspect that would bring up the noticeable improvements in all HiRez formats ... amd allow me to use my duel AES outputs from my streamer and maybe make MQA stand out more.


----------



## trueno84

It's funny to see that there are still bashing within MQA sub-forum. Why are they here in the first place? Why are they behaving in such a oxymoron manner? Once can speaks about tidal forcing MQA on them while they seems to force others to believe their ideas about MQA. What an idiot


----------



## iliketohideincloset

trueno84 said:


> It's funny to see that there are still bashing within MQA sub-forum. Why are they here in the first place? Why are they behaving in such a oxymoron manner? Once can speaks about tidal forcing MQA on them while they seems to force others to believe their ideas about MQA. What an idiot



Well if this isn't the right place to discuss this topic I don't know where else. I am sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable in any way but if you have a problem with people having different opinions the internet might not the best place for you to spend your time. If you are only interested in circle jerking how great MQA is fine. Go along. I don't have problem with that but calling me an idiot for expressing my opinion is just childish and inappropriate.


----------



## JDFlood (Dec 30, 2020)

trueno84 said:


> It's funny to see that there are still bashing within MQA sub-forum. Why are they here in the first place? Why are they behaving in such a oxymoron manner? Once can speaks about tidal forcing MQA on them while they seems to force others to believe their ideas about MQA. What an idiot


I don’t get it either. It’s like people have pent up aggression to use on arguing for the sake of arguing and conspiracy theories. If I had not heard a difference, I would simply state that If someone wanted my opinion. Audio is so much about individual values, highly detailed subjective observation, the system you have, and that will be vastly different based on how much experience you have. I much prefer talking with guys that want to share their experiences and observations versus try to win some senseless argument.


----------



## iliketohideincloset

JDFlood said:


> I don’t get it either. It’s like people have pent up aggression to use on arguing for the sake of arguing and conspiracy theories. If I had not heard a difference, I would simply state that If someone wanted my opinion. Audio is so much about individual values and highly detailed subjective observationo that will be vastly different based on how much experience you have. I much prefer talking with guys that want to share their experiences and observations versus try to win some senseless argument.



I am not trying to win a senseless argument here. I know that there are people who enjoy MQA and that is fine. I don't feel comfortable using it and just expressed my feelings towards it. Can't see any aggression or even conspiracy theories here. I think MQA is hurting the industry... I was not even talking about sound quality at all. That's not for me to decide. Either you like it or not which is fine for me.


----------



## trueno84

Don't like it just leave the sub forum instead of being toxic or forcefully disagree of anything we mentioned or trying to prove your existence in this MQA world that you don't like. simple and be gone. You keen on bashing MQA, start a sub forum and go full toxic on it.


----------



## trueno84

iliketohideincloset said:


> Well if this isn't the right place to discuss this topic I don't know where else. I am sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable in any way but if you have a problem with people having different opinions the internet might not the best place for you to spend your time. If you are only interested in circle jerking how great MQA is fine. Go along. I don't have problem with that but calling me an idiot for expressing my opinion is just childish and inappropriate.


 
For that I apologies on that. I do not mean that to direct on you. More of that particular idiot on page 1 as i just stray to this sub-forum today buddy. Once again my apology on that.


----------



## iliketohideincloset

trueno84 said:


> For that I apologies on that. I do not mean that to direct on you. More of that particular idiot on page 1 as i just stray to this sub-forum today buddy. Once again my apology on that.



Thanks mate. No hard feelings. I will discuss this elsewhere. 

On a side note, I listened to MQA on a several occasions with decent gear and hardware rendering/decoding and it sounds great. No doubt. I just personally don't like the whole concept of it. From a technical view it is pretty interesting, id give it that. I had no intention to be toxic. My apologies.


----------



## trueno84

iliketohideincloset said:


> Thanks mate. No hard feelings. I will discuss this elsewhere.
> 
> On a side note, I listened to MQA on a several occasions with decent gear and hardware rendering/decoding and it sounds great. No doubt. I just personally don't like the whole concept of it. From a technical view it is pretty interesting, id give it that. I had no intention to be toxic. My apologies.



Appreciate it buddy, my interest on MQA is chance upon looking for balance between storage VS sound quality as 24/96 file are waaaayyyyy too huge. Hence it's a good balance. Understanding that it isn't as good as a pure 24/96 file, I gladly take it. 

I do hope we can have much more other topic discussion elsewhere in this forum as one thing for sure we love music, that makes us closer ^_^


----------



## iFi audio (Dec 30, 2020)

boxster233 said:


> But it stills not forced on us. You have plenty of options outside Tidal. You don’t have to buy mqa gear. You don’t need mqa or master audio to be in tidal either.



Was going to list this 

I believe that the market is so saturated with hardware and options to stream music that one can avoid everything related to MQA and be fine 



iliketohideincloset said:


> I just personally don't like the whole concept of it.



Many people have issues with this exact subject and that's also perfectly fine, so I understand you. 



iliketohideincloset said:


> I had no intention to be toxic. My apologies.


All good


----------



## Deolum

But you still need Tidal + MQA devices to get at least the sound of Quobuz + any device. And i think Quobuz has far more highres tracks, especially in the 192 KHZ range.

Tidal was once the leader in Hifi but it's now really far second. In terms of suggestions spotify is miles ahead. So i don't see Tidal competive anymore. The only positive thing is the very good TV app. 

But even if Tidal wasn't gonna make profit i don't think Jay-Z would go broke about that.


----------



## JDFlood

I switched over to Quobuz after months of urging by my audio dealer. It does seem to have a lot more HiRez music. I am glad I did.


----------



## Bernard23

Deolum said:


> But you still need Tidal + MQA devices to get at least the sound of Quobuz + any device. And i think Quobuz has far more highres tracks, especially in the 192 KHZ range.
> 
> Tidal was once the leader in Hifi but it's now really far second. In terms of suggestions spotify is miles ahead. So i don't see Tidal competive anymore. The only positive thing is the very good TV app.
> 
> But even if Tidal wasn't gonna make profit i don't think Jay-Z would go broke about that.


Just to be clear, what you're saying is that without a verified MQA decoder in your dac, then SQ is compromised, to say qobuz (or other hi res sources)?


----------



## JDFlood

iliketohideincloset said:


> I am not trying to win a senseless argument here. I know that there are people who enjoy MQA and that is fine. I don't feel comfortable using it and just expressed my feelings towards it. Can't see any aggression or even conspiracy theories here. I think MQA is hurting the industry... I was not even talking about sound quality at all. That's not for me to decide. Either you like it or not which is fine for me.



i wasn’t responding to anything specifically you said. It was the first few pages of this thread... and where I dropped down here and there...


----------



## Deolum

Bernard23 said:


> Just to be clear, what you're saying is that without a verified MQA decoder in your dac, then SQ is compromised, to say qobuz (or other hi res sources)?


Yes


----------



## gimmeheadroom (Dec 31, 2020)

Deolum said:


> Yes


Not necessarily. The Tidal app does the first unfold. You should at least get a 16/44.1 level of quality.

The question is whether all the bits are there or whether the MQA mastering changes the recording. I think MQA sounds very good even without hardware unfold but I'm not sure if it's because they're mostly using really good masters or for some technical reason(s).

Look fellas, you can always buy used CDs. They're cheap and there's a huge market. I'd like to see streaming services offer 24/192 FLAC but until that's common, MQA is as good as it gets as far as I can tell.


----------



## Deolum (Dec 31, 2020)

gimmeheadroom said:


> Not necessarily. The Tidal app does the first unfold. You should at least get a 16/44.1 level of quality.
> The question is whether all the bits are there or whether the MQA mastering changes the recording. I think MQA sounds very good even without hardware unfold but I'm not sure if it's because they're mostly using really good masters or for some technical reason(s).
> 
> Look fellas, you can always by used CDs. They're cheap and there's a huge market. I'd like to see streaming services offer 24/192 FLAC but until that's common, MQA is as good as it gets as far as I can tell.


Quobuz offers a lot of 24/192 Flac.

Maybe i've not read enough into the advantages of MQA because i only see disadvantages.

I always thought the only advantage of MQA is to save storage which really was a thing years ago. Now that both SD cards and mobile data can handle so much more bits this advantage gets quite redundant and it will get less important.

On the other hand MQA has the big disadvantage that all components need to be MQA certified. If you use a streamer + a dac you need both pieces to be MQA certified.

When you have both pieces MQA certified you will get at best ! the same quality as a standard 24 bit high-res flac and at worst it's still a bit worse because it was compromised but i don't want to discuss that.

So MQA is the big weekness of Tidal imo but it's marketed as the big strength which is kinda odd. I'm pretty sure many consumers think that MQA even sounds better than a normal 24 bit highres file. They see the shiny logo, hear the word master, see a lots of advertisement in shops and then buy MQA stuff. That's how marketing and a lot of consumers work.

So is there apart from the advantage of saving space - which is imo not an advantage anymore - anything else which is good about MQA? Am i missing something? Because if that's the only advantage i can't understand why it's still discussed controvers and not clearly stated that its bulls..t.


----------



## iliketohideincloset

So when streaming 24/96 MQA are you using less bandwidth as when using 24/96 PCM? I am no mobile user and never got into the space/bandwidth aspect of streaming hi-res.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Deolum said:


> Quobuz offers a lot of 24/192 Flac.
> 
> Maybe i've not read enough into the advantages of MQA because i only see disadvantages.
> 
> ...


Qobuz is not available everywhere. As far as I know, much less places than Tidal.

I agree, the idea of compressing audio streams would have been awesome in 1985. In 2020 it seems dumb and pointless.

I find the sound of many MQA albums very analog. I don't know why that is, but it is. I'm not advocating for MQA. I'm saying in the absence of a better streaming option (and there is an absence where I live and where a lot of other people live) I'm fine with it.


----------



## rkw (Dec 31, 2020)

iliketohideincloset said:


> So when streaming 24/96 MQA are you using less bandwidth as when using 24/96 PCM?


Yes, that is one of the main objectives of MQA. The MQA file streamed would be (typically) a 24/48 FLAC file. The file can also be played as a normal FLAC file with no decoding. MQA information is encoded into low bits of the PCM data.


----------



## PortableMusic (Dec 31, 2020)

i don't even understand why so many people hate MQA.

like so many things available to us, if we don't like it, don't use it.

most of us don't run around saying how much we dislike or hate purple shirts with lime green and shocking pink flowers!


----------



## gimmeheadroom

PortableMusic said:


> i don't even understand why so many people hate MQA.
> 
> like so many things available to us, if we don't like it, don't use it.
> 
> most of us don't run around saying how much we dislike or hate purple shirts with lime green and shocking pink flowers!


This should be obvious but somehow it's not. Let's hope things will improve in the future


----------



## Deolum (Dec 31, 2020)

PortableMusic said:


> i don't even understand why so many people hate MQA.
> 
> like so many things available to us, if we don't like it, don't use it.
> 
> most of us don't run around saying how much we dislike or hate purple shirts with lime green and shocking pink flowers!


For me it's because it's not transparent stated that MQA is only for saving space and not sounding better while it's heavily marketed as superior sound. Like i said in my previous post i think MQA really needs to be categorized by vendors for what it is and not used as a marketing gag because of a shiny logo.

If you go in a shop now and ask for a Dac the vendor will most likely say "and it can even play MQA". So what is MQA? I don't think he'll say it if he even knows it. So many of the average customers will just say "wow master quality i take that". If he says if you use this you will only need to stream 250 mbits per track instead of 300 mbits he most likely wouldn't.

I don't hate it and i don't think many people hate it but it's important to talk openly about it and don't let it exist somehow and make people buy MQA stuff for reasons they usually wouldn't.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Regular 16/44.1 streaming is available for every MQA album. People who don't pay for the hifi tier get all the same albums, just not the MQA versions.


----------



## Dannemand (Dec 31, 2020)

gimmeheadroom said:


> Regular 16/44.1 streaming is available for every MQA album. People who don't pay for the hifi tier get all the same albums, just not the MQA versions.


That used to be the case, but is unfortunately no longer so: The slate of Warner MQA albums added earlier this year come ONLY as MQA, not as regular 16/44. And what's worse, they are all 16/44 MQA.

I've always been a "moderate defender" of MQA, mostly because I think there IS a need for lower bandwidth and lower disk space HiRes options: Even to this day in USA, most mobile plans have limited data allotments. Economical ones absolutely do. And even Unlimited postpaid plans (which generally run $60/month) often have data caps. As pointed out, 24/96 FLAC files really are quite big, not to mention 24/192 ones.

Add to this that Qobuz and Amazon HD (the main HiRes alternatives to Tidal) send everything through the Mixer on LG Quad DAC phones. At least Tidal used to play MQA files (24-bit ones) in full quality on these phones. And on MQA USB DACs too, as long as volume is set to max. (Until Tidal has fixed the current bug, version 2.21.0 can be installed from apkmirror.)

As far as quality / size ratio goes, I don't believe anything comes even close to MQA. And well recorded, well mastered MQA releases really do sound great. Anybody who claims that MQA sounds horrible and that the MQA filter completely destroys the music (and some people really do hate MQA and really do claim that) are not being honest. Just check some of the free 2L and David Elias downloads and tell me they sound horrible.

That said, I also believe that the argument of MQA being a marketing gimmick is absolutely true. The media industry always loved new formats that let them sell old wine on new bottles to the same customers one more time. Among the MQA releases on Tidal only few reach the SQ level of those 2L and David Elias tracks. And many are just bad re-released of poor recordings.

And these Warner 16/44 MQAs make me seriously consider changing my stance on MQA, particularly considering they don't have non-MQA alternatives: I used to be able to say that most MQA tracks were 24-bit, so the loss of resolution wasn't a big issue (MQA uses the lowest order bits to store its origami). But with 16-bit that loss of resolution is significant, and I would expect it to affect SQ in some cases. I assume when using HiFi mode (as opposed to Master mode) the MQA is simply stripped, but the lost bits are still lost.

So the dire picture that MQA haters have been painting all along suddenly comes a little closer to reality.

(Oh, and BTW I don't like the MQA filter either when applied to plain RedBook tracks, as UAPP does.)

That said, there are some great MQA experiences in Tidal. In the classical genre I have previously mentioned the catalog of Everest Records 3-channel recordings on 35mm film tape from the 1950s and 60s, such as this recording of Copland's 3rd Symphony, directed by the composer himself. These albums are $40 a pop on HDtracks. And among the Warner albums, some are great for other reasons than audio quality, such as this classic recording of Dvorak's cello concerto (arguably history's greatest) with cellist Jacqueline du Pre (arguably history's greatest) conducted by her husband Daniel Barenboim (pretty great too).


----------



## iliketohideincloset

Dannemand said:


> And these Warner 16/44 MQAs make me seriously consider changing my stance on MQA, particularly considering they don't have non-MQA alternatives



That's what made me switch to Qobuz. To me the MQA alternatives sound worse on my hardware even using Audirvana. They might sound great on MQA certified equipment but for me they sounded lifeless and kinda flat with less detail. Again, this is just my personal experience. Others might enjoy them.


----------



## Deolum (Dec 31, 2020)

gimmeheadroom said:


> Regular 16/44.1 streaming is available for every MQA album. People who don't pay for the hifi tier get all the same albums, just not the MQA versions.


In my country people who don't pay for the Hifi Tier get only 320 kbits. Which is marketed as "premium sound quality" on Tidal.

And i only found out about that on third party sites. Not on Tidal itself.


----------



## hmscott

Deolum said:


> In my country people who don't pay for the Hifi Tier get only 320 kbits. Which is marketed as "premium sound quality" on Tidal.
> 
> And i only found out about that on third party sites. Not on Tidal itself.


It's the same in the US, Premium Quality and Hifi Quality levels of service, pay more get more quality.

Even outside of the US you can sign up with Bestbuy and get the Tidal annual subscription, first year $89 with $119/yr renewal fee:

*TIDAL - HiFi Music, 12-Month Subscription starting at purchase, Auto-renews at $119.99 per year [Digital]
Model:TIDAL HIFI DIG 1 YR SKU:6407163  *$89.99 Your price for this item is $89.99 Save $30 Was $119.99
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/tidal-...9-99-per-year-digital/6407163.p?skuId=6407163

Note that it was saying for new subscribers for a while, before that it was as is now, a voucher you use through Tidal login that sends you to Bestbuy to enter the voucher number, at least that's how it was for me back in April of this year.

To be safe maybe create a new account with a new email address, or chat with Bestbuy to make sure you can extend your current account.  I wanted to preserve the work I put into making playlists so I let my monthly subscription expire and use the BestBuy voucher to add another year of subscription for $99 - the cost varies during Bestbuy sales, right now it's $89.99, then it will soon go back to $119.99

I wouldn't get the Premium tier, only the Hifi tier to get access to full CD quality + MQA Masters at up to 192khz (more is possible).


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Dannemand said:


> That used to be the case, but is unfortunately no longer so: The slate of Warner MQA albums added earlier this year come ONLY as MQA, not as regular 16/44. And what's worse, they are all 16/44 MQA.



Can you link me to an album or two that doesn't have a 16/44.1 hifi version? I wonder if it is regional. I can see both sample rate and bit depth on my Brooklyn so I should be able to check it.



Deolum said:


> In my country people who don't pay for the Hifi Tier get only 320 kbits. Which is marketed as "premium sound quality" on Tidal.
> 
> And i only found out about that on third party sites. Not on Tidal itself.


I guess the "hifi" tier is MQA + Redbook. That makes sense now that you mention it. Still, Tidal hifi is very affordable here. I know the price varies a lot by country though.


----------



## iliketohideincloset

gimmeheadroom said:


> Can you link me to an album or two that doesn't have a 16/44.1 hifi version? I wonder if it is regional. I can see both sample rate and bit depth on my Brooklyn so I should be able to check it.
> 
> 
> I guess the "hifi" tier is MQA + Redbook. That makes sense now that you mention it. Still, Tidal hifi is very affordable here. I know the price varies a lot by country though.



The whole Pink Floyd catalogue on Tidal is only available in MQA for example.


----------



## rkw

iliketohideincloset said:


> The whole Pink Floyd catalogue on Tidal is only available in MQA for example.


I'm in the US. I do not see any Pink Floyd albums on Tidal marked as MQA (Master).


----------



## behemothkat

rkw said:


> I'm in the US. I do not see any Pink Floyd albums on Tidal marked as MQA (Master).


I’m in EU, all the PF albums are MQA:


----------



## rkw (Jan 1, 2021)

behemothkat said:


> I’m in EU, all the PF albums are MQA:


Very interesting. Not the case here (I looked on both computer and phone).


----------



## iliketohideincloset

rkw said:


> Very interesting. Not the case here (I looked on both computer and phone).



That's pretty odd and I would love to know why...

This is a pretty interesting talk on MQA from the 34C3 Congress by german Chaos Computer Club even though the title is cringe worthy clickbait so please take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

iliketohideincloset said:


> The whole Pink Floyd catalogue on Tidal is only available in MQA for example.


Thanks, I didn't notice this before because I am always set to Masters.

The Brooklyn sees MQA in all cases. If you play Masters with passthru MQA dac of course you get MQA. If you turn off passthrough of MQA dac the Brooklyn still sees the MQA stream and lights purple.

When set to hifi (lossless mode) Tidal is sending a 16/44.1 bit stream which lights purple (Tidal app is doing unfold of MQA).

I don't mind this on Tidal, I do want MQA which is kinda what Tidal is all about. But if it spreads outside Tidal and there is no longer a choice then yeah maybe I would agree it's a bad thing.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

rkw said:


> Very interesting. Not the case here (I looked on both computer and phone).


Do you have a hifi membership? Do you have a DAC that shows the kind of info I mentioned above? It would be interesting to see what kind of bitstream you're getting.

If you don't have Tidal hifi then this would explain it. But only somewhat.


----------



## trueno84

gimmeheadroom said:


> Do you have a hifi membership? Do you have a DAC that shows the kind of info I mentioned above? It would be interesting to see what kind of bitstream you're getting.
> 
> If you don't have Tidal hifi then this would explain it. But only somewhat.



Same as mine. I have the highest subscription. From Singapore


----------



## iliketohideincloset (Jan 1, 2021)

I am located in Germany. Masters subscription. My headphone amp only has an indicator for the sample rate I guess.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

48 KHz is almost definitely MQA. There is almost no music sold at 48 KHz.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

trueno84 said:


> Same as mine. I have the highest subscription. From Singapore


I don't understand. Does that mean you don't have MQA albums for Pink Floyd?


----------



## MrWalkman

Dannemand said:


> That used to be the case, but is unfortunately no longer so: The slate of Warner MQA albums added earlier this year come ONLY as MQA, not as regular 16/44. And what's worse, they are all 16/44 MQA.
> 
> I've always been a "moderate defender" of MQA, mostly because I think there IS a need for lower bandwidth and lower disk space HiRes options: Even to this day in USA, most mobile plans have limited data allotments. Economical ones absolutely do. And even Unlimited postpaid plans (which generally run $60/month) often have data caps. As pointed out, 24/96 FLAC files really are quite big, not to mention 24/192 ones.
> 
> ...



On a non-MQA device, the file is at 24/44.1/48, so it's already better than the standard 16/44.1/48 CD quality.

Otherwise, even Tidal does a first unfold, to 24/88.2/96, which may not be the same as an original 24/88.2/96, but it's still better than CD quality or better than just playing the file on a non-MQA device.

Also, nobody forces you to use the format or to buy MQA compatible devices, so I really don't understand the hate.


----------



## iliketohideincloset

If I play the masters version of Dark Side Of The Moon Tidal set to master the indicator is "yellow" if i set Tidal to lossless the indicator is "blue".


----------



## MrWalkman

iliketohideincloset said:


> If I play the masters version of Dark Side Of The Moon Tidal set to master the indicator is "yellow" if i set Tidal to lossless the indicator is "blue".



What indicator/on what device?


----------



## gimmeheadroom

The app does the 1st unfold for people who don't use an MQA DAC. It would help if you could distinguish between 44.1 and 48 KHz because they are very different. 44.1 indicates a normal commercial recording. When Tidal is serving 24 bit 48 KHz that is certainly an MQA album.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

MrWalkman said:


> On a non-MQA device, the file is at 24/44.1/48, so it's already better than the standard 16/44.1/48 CD quality.
> 
> Otherwise, even Tidal does a first unfold, to 24/88.2/96, which may not be the same as an original 24/88.2/96, but it's still better than CD quality or better than just playing the file on a non-MQA device.
> 
> Also, nobody forces you to use the format or to buy MQA compatible devices, so I really don't understand the hate.


Surprisingly, many 24/48 files eventually unfold to 16.1/44. We noticed this in the past week or so when somebody asked about a metal band. Anyway, that's really weird.


----------



## iliketohideincloset

gimmeheadroom said:


> The app does the 1st unfold for people who don't use an MQA DAC. It would help if you could distinguish between 44.1 and 48 KHz because they are very different. 44.1 indicates a normal commercial recording. When Tidal is serving 24 bit 48 KHz that is certainly an MQA album.



I can see the unfold in Audirvana I guess. On the left is the source and on the right whats played. Thats why my headphone amp/cad shows it is playing hi-res...


----------



## MrWalkman (Jan 1, 2021)

gimmeheadroom said:


> Surprisingly, many 24/48 files eventually unfold to 16.1/44. We noticed this in the past week or so when somebody asked about a metal band. Anyway, that's really weird.



That's not really possible. For example, for a 24/96, everything above 48 kHz gets compressed with the MQA algorythm, so you what remains for non-MQA devices is the 24/48.

The 24/48 can't be "unfolded" to 16/48, as an unfold means expanding something, not packing it.

There has to be something else. Can you link or quote the post with the issue?


----------



## Dannemand

MrWalkman said:


> On a non-MQA device, the file is at 24/44.1/48, so it's already better than the standard 16/44.1/48 CD quality.
> 
> Otherwise, even Tidal does a first unfold, to 24/88.2/96, which may not be the same as an original 24/88.2/96, but it's still better than CD quality or better than just playing the file on a non-MQA device.
> 
> Also, nobody forces you to use the format or to buy MQA compatible devices, so I really don't understand the hate.



First of all I am a moderate MQA proponent, not a hater, although with enough insight to also understand some of the counterarguments. So please be careful how you peg me.

What you say is indeed how it USED to be. But the latest slate of Warner MQAs are all 16/44, NOT 24/44. You're not going to get 24 bits from them, regardless of your DAC. 

And the reason for my post is that I would prefer a plain RedBook 16/44 over a MQA 16/44 -- where the MQA sacrifices some resolution to store additional samples. That's acceptable in a 24-bit file, but less so in a 16-bit file.

According to my USB DAC (Gustard A18 MkII) those Warner MQAs contain no additional samples either, i.e. they "unfold" to 44.1Khz. So I have to wonder what was done to them to earn the MQA badge?

Other MQA tracks on Tidal (such as the Everest Records I mentioned) are 24/48 and unfold to 24/192. They sound great, and I absolutely don't hate them 😉


----------



## MrWalkman

Dannemand said:


> First of all I am a moderate MQA proponent, not a hater, although with enough insight to also understand some of the counterarguments. So please be careful how you peg me.
> 
> What you say is indeed how it USED to be. But the latest slate of Warner MQAs are all 16/44, NOT 24/44. You're not going to get 24 bits from them, regardless of your DAC.
> 
> ...



I answered to the topic in general, not to you in particular. Take it easy.

Can you link the post describing the issue? I would like to test some things.


----------



## Dannemand (Jan 1, 2021)

MrWalkman said:


> I answered to the topic in general, not to you in particular. Take it easy.



Understood. Since your post quoted me (and only me) I reasonably assumed you were addressing me. So yes, take it easy and be careful what you post.


----------



## Dannemand (Jan 1, 2021)

MrWalkman said:


> Can you link the post describing the issue? I would like to test some things.



It's the post from me which you quoted:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/tidal-masters-mqa-thread.838888/post-16075107

That Dvorak / du Pre album I mentioned is a good example of the issue I have with the Warner MQAs:

https://tidal.com/browse/album/79657145

If any of you see a non-MQA version of that album, I'd love a link. My main concern is that we don't get non-MQA versions of those, at least in USA.


----------



## Left Channel

Deolum said:


> So is there apart from the advantage of saving space - which is imo not an advantage anymore - anything else which is good about MQA? Am i missing something? Because if that's the only advantage i can't understand why it's still discussed controvers and not clearly stated that its bulls..t.



A day and three pages later, lol, but here's an answer: there's also the "time domain" thing. I've never heard it and I can't explain it, but here you go: https://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/mqa-its-about-time-not-frequency/


----------



## iliketohideincloset

Left Channel said:


> A day and three pages later, lol, but here's an answer: there's also the "time domain" thing. I've never heard it and I can't explain it, but here you go: https://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/mqa-its-about-time-not-frequency/



Thank's for the read.


----------



## Deolum

Left Channel said:


> A day and three pages later, lol, but here's an answer: there's also the "time domain" thing. I've never heard it and I can't explain it, but here you go: https://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/mqa-its-about-time-not-frequency/


Indeed interesting.


----------



## MrWalkman

Dannemand said:


> Understood. Since your post quoted me (and only me) I reasonably assumed you were addressing me. So yes, take it easy and be careful what you post.



Sorry, I initially wrote part of the answer, and I finished the post a lot later, forgetting that I quoted you, and addressing the topic in general.


----------



## MrWalkman (Jan 1, 2021)

Dannemand said:


> That Dvorak / du Pre album I mentioned is a good example of the issue I have with the Warner MQAs:
> 
> https://tidal.com/browse/album/79657145
> 
> If any of you see a non-MQA version of that album, I'd love a link. My main concern is that we don't get non-MQA versions of those, at least in USA.



The non-MQA version will be played when you select the maximum quality as "HiFi" instead of "Master" by the way.

I looked into it, and I have no idea what's happening either. I checked the "HiFi" quality 16/44 and it has a different MD5 than the MQA counterpart of the same song, but the size of the files is almost the same - it may look like the MQA is just the 16/44 FLAC but with MQA tags in it.





I will try contacting Tidal about this, as MQA was made to compress high frequency energy from Hi-Res files, and 16/44 is not Hi-Res. Maybe it's some kind of mistake.


----------



## rkw (Jan 1, 2021)

MrWalkman said:


> The non-MQA version will be played when you select the maximum quality as "HiFi" instead of "Master" by the way.
> 
> I looked into it, and I have no idea what's happening either. I checked the "HiFi" quality 16/44 and it has a different MD5 than the MQA counterpart of the same song, but the size of the files is almost the same - it may look like the MQA is just the 16/44 FLAC but with MQA tags in it.
> 
> ...


I don't see any problem here. 16/44 is a valid MQA format and is a 16/44 FLAC file with MQA encoding. The Tidal desktop app recognizes the file as MQA and does the first unfold to 88.2 kHz. If I turn on the Passthrough MQA option, it plays at 44.1. This is consistent with how it's supposed to work. There are MQA Redbook CDs sold in Japan that play like a standard audio CD but decodes if the stream is sent to an MQA DAC.

This is also part of the controversy. Some people want the original 16/44 and don't trust the quality of encoding hi-res to 16/44.


----------



## trueno84

gimmeheadroom said:


> I don't understand. Does that mean you don't have MQA albums for Pink Floyd?



That's correct. I do not have that. and I'm on tidal HiFi


----------



## boxster233

trueno84 said:


> That's correct. I do not have that. and I'm on tidal HiFi


I have tidal top tier family plan and no masters for Pink Floyd for me in u.s.


----------



## rkw

gimmeheadroom said:


> Do you have a hifi membership? Do you have a DAC that shows the kind of info I mentioned above? It would be interesting to see what kind of bitstream you're getting.


Same as @trueno84 and @boxster233, I have a HiFi subscription and no Pink Floyd albums are MQA. I am in the US. It is possible that Tidal may be streaming a different version in the Czech Republic. Contracts with the record labels are separate for each country.


----------



## PortableMusic (Jan 1, 2021)

rkw said:


> Same as @trueno84 and @boxster233, I have a HiFi subscription and no Pink Floyd albums are MQA. I am in the US. It is possible that Tidal may be streaming a different version in the Czech Republic. Contracts with the record labels are separate for each country.



Unfortunately, ditto for me:  US here as well and also not one single Pink Floyd album is MQA.  Bummer.

why, Tidal, why?

this has got to be one of the best groups with great master tapes to begin with that ought to go MQA!

the albums were often engineered by Alan Parsons!!!


----------



## MrWalkman

rkw said:


> I don't see any problem here. 16/44 is a valid MQA format and is a 16/44 FLAC file with MQA encoding. The Tidal desktop app recognizes the file as MQA and does the first unfold to 88.2 kHz. If I turn on the Passthrough MQA option, it plays at 44.1. This is consistent with how it's supposed to work. There are MQA Redbook CDs sold in Japan that play like a standard audio CD but decodes if the stream is sent to an MQA DAC.
> 
> This is also part of the controversy. Some people want the original 16/44 and don't trust the quality of encoding hi-res to 16/44.



Actually MQA files should have the default state as 24/44/48 and not 16 bit, so there is definitely an issue here.

While playing the MQA files for that album, there is no unfolding being done to 96 or any other frequency. Instead, it's being played at 16/44/48. Also, again, MQA is made to compress high frequencies, but Hi-Res files are 24 bit, not 16 bit, so again, there is something wrong here.

Regarding CD quality, as I said, just change the Tidal quality from Settings, to "HiFi". Master means that Master quality is available, but you can change the quality you want to use, and voila - HiFi will play at CD quality.


----------



## rkw (Jan 2, 2021)

MrWalkman said:


> Actually MQA files should have the default state as 24/44/48 and not 16 bit, so there is definitely an issue here.


16-bit/44.1 is a valid MQA format. It is the format used on MQA Redbook audio CDs sold in Japan.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-encoded-cds-yes
Essentially Warner is using MQA-CD tracks saved as FLAC files, for online streaming. Unsurprisingly, MQA-CDs never became popular.
https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/44726-mqa-cd-dead-in-the-water/


MrWalkman said:


> While playing the MQA files for that album, there is no unfolding being done to 96 or any other frequency.


When I play the album on the desktop Tidal app, the software unfolds it to 88 as indicated by my DAC. Does the desktop app not do this for you?
If I turn on the Passthrough MQA option, it plays at 44.
All of this would be expected for a 16/44 MQA file.


----------



## iliketohideincloset (Jan 2, 2021)

trueno84 said:


> That's correct. I do not have that. and I'm on tidal HiFi



Did you try using Tidal through a VPN with a location in Europe? I will check later if I can set mine to your location...

Edit: Just set my VPN to Singapore and still Pink Floyd is only available as Masters for me..


----------



## MrWalkman

iliketohideincloset said:


> Did you try using Tidal through a VPN with a location in Europe? I will check later if I can set mine to your location...
> 
> Edit: Just set my VPN to Singapore and still Pink Floyd is only available as Masters for me..



It's like on Netflix - there's the country you're accessing the content from, and the country of the account.


----------



## iliketohideincloset

MrWalkman said:


> It's like on Netflix - there's the country you're accessing the content from, and the country of the account.



Yes. It seems like it is bound to the country you registered from and your payment comes from I guess.


----------



## trueno84

iliketohideincloset said:


> Yes. It seems like it is bound to the country you registered from and your payment comes from I guess.



I tried buddy, it's bound to the country I'm registered in.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

MrWalkman said:


> Actually MQA files should have the default state as 24/44/48 and not 16 bit, so there is definitely an issue here.



There are many 24/48 MQA files lately but at the beginning most of the were 16/44.1. And now many new 16/44.1 MQA are being added.



MrWalkman said:


> Regarding CD quality, as I said, just change the Tidal quality from Settings, to "HiFi". Master means that Master quality is available, but you can change the quality you want to use, and voila - HiFi will play at CD quality.



That's what I thought but it's not true. Tidal is streaming MQA *even* when you select Hifi. If a Master is available for that album and you play it at Hifi, you get a 16/44.1 MQA bitstream whether you select MQA external DAC or not.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

MrWalkman said:


> That's not really possible. For example, for a 24/96, everything above 48 kHz gets compressed with the MQA algorythm, so you what remains for non-MQA devices is the 24/48.
> 
> The 24/48 can't be "unfolded" to 16/48, as an unfold means expanding something, not packing it.
> 
> There has to be something else. Can you link or quote the post with the issue?


I think it's upthread from here, can't find it at the moment.

16/44.1, not 48.

However, my Brooklyn shows exactly what comes in and goes out so the facts are not in question. I just have no idea why they do this.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

iliketohideincloset said:


> I can see the unfold in Audirvana I guess. On the left is the source and on the right whats played. Thats why my headphone amp/cad shows it is playing hi-res...


Thanks, that's a little hard to understand as in why somebody has a 16/88.2 master, but oh well. Anyway, that is an example of a 16/44.1 datastream for MQA


----------



## UntilThen

Whitigir said:


> As soon as some one started “arguing”, I would just “smile” and say “you are right”
> 
> Anyways, debating with an open mind is always healthy, arguing is not.


----------



## rkw

gimmeheadroom said:


> Thanks, that's a little hard to understand as in why somebody has a 16/88.2 master, but oh well.


Audirvana has done the first unfold to 88.2 in software. The master may be higher resolution (a multiple of 44.1). An MQA decoding DAC will take a 16/44.1 file and expand it to the master resolution, up to 352.8. So, 44.1 decoded to 352.8... understandably some people are skeptical.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

rkw said:


> Audirvana has done the first unfold to 88.2 in software. The master may be higher resolution (a multiple of 44.1). An MQA decoding DAC will take a 16/44.1 file and expand it to the master resolution, up to 352.8. So, 44.1 decoded to 352.8... understandably some people are skeptical.


That wasn't what I found odd. My question was who would use a 16 bit master at 88 KHz? I would have thought they should have used 24 bit depth.


----------



## rkw

gimmeheadroom said:


> That wasn't what I found odd. My question was who would use a 16 bit master at 88 KHz? I would have thought they should have used 24 bit depth.


The source file is 16/44.1 and Audirvana unfolded it to 16/88.2. That's all the information we have from the screenshot. We don't know the resolution of the master they started with (might have been 24 bit).


----------



## PortableMusic (Jan 2, 2021)

rkw said:


> The source file is 16/44.1 and Audirvana unfolded it to 16/88.2. That's all the information we have from the screenshot. We don't know the resolution of the master they started with (might have been 24 bit).



i don't know about all this controversy that folks have with Tidal.  i'm a newcomer (only around 3 months) to the world of headphones (but a long time audiophile) with just one set of headphones (Empyreans) and one DAP (A&K Kann Alpha) and i got a subscription to Tidal Hifi.  the only issue i've noticed is that from time to time, when using Tidal on my whole house system (in-wall speakers and AVRs) which has a Bluesound Node 2i (connected via ethernet to a switch to my router), that it would, from time to time, abruptly stop streaming without any reason that i can find.  Interestingly, the Kann Alpha has not abruptly stopped, however, i don't listen to the Kann Alpha for nearly as many hours straight as i do in my whole house AVR/Node 2i system, which tends to be on for many hours a day.

besides that, i do my critical listening on my headphones, and when i'm just doing regular things and want a little music in the background, i use the Node 2i and the whole house sound system,  which is merely mid-fi (or low-fi), but convenient with built-in, in-wall speakers.

i don't have all the myriad of problems with the streaming bitrates.  they all seem to work as advertised.  additionally, both my DAP and the Node 2i have full unfolding of MQAs built-in.   the DAP is even better in that the dual ES9068 dac chips have baked-in, on board hardware unfolding right on the dac chips.  this would hopefully ensure that the full MQA unfolding is taking place without issues.

i haven't found issues thus far.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

rkw said:


> The source file is 16/44.1 and Audirvana unfolded it to 16/88.2. That's all the information we have from the screenshot. We don't know the resolution of the master they started with (might have been 24 bit).


If it was a 24 bit master they should have had it unfold to 24/88.2. There are plenty of 24 bit files on Tidal. That kind of sample rate at 16 bits doesn't help so much especially with MQA.


----------



## iFi audio

PortableMusic said:


> (but a long time audiophile) with just one set of headphones (Empyreans) and one DAP (A&K Kann Alpha)



Let me just say that you went rather big from the get-go 

Empyreans are cool, aren't they  ?


----------



## PortableMusic (Jan 2, 2021)

iFi audio said:


> Let me just say that you went rather big from the get-go
> 
> Empyreans are cool, aren't they  ?



@iFi audio:

when i moved into my current home, i had to decide to go sans floorstanding speakers and instead, get in-wall speakers and AVRs for an audio visual rack hidden away, or go the floorstanding speakers but lose some space and have less nice decor.  after much thought, the former won.  sadly, i've been without floorstanding speakers for ~10 years now.

during the last several months, it dawned upon me that as much as i don't typically prefer headphones over floorstanding speakers (love the visceral impact of full range speakers!), i might just get a bit of the high end enjoyment out of a pair of headphones and, with the advent of streaming, streaming services are now available.

many years ago, when i was in college, i spent a good portion of my savings on a pair of Stax electrostatics for my dorm room, even though i had a pair of LS 3/5a speakers in the room, there were times when i'd have to use headphones.  with that familiarity of open back headphones, while realizing that electrostatics and planar magnetics are very different, i dug a bit deeper into the Empyreans and thought that the chances are good that i'd enjoy its sound as well.  without having the ability nowadays to go listen to them in a showroom first, i took a leap of faith after much research.

ditto for the Kann Alpha:  these DAPs didn't even exist when i stopped my audiophile hobby ~10 years ago.  had to research and see which one i'd most likely enjoy using.

i'm glad i got the Empyreans/Kann Alpha/Tidal Hifi.  these three have worked out well for me.


----------



## iFi audio

PortableMusic said:


> @iFi audio:
> 
> when i moved into my current home, i had to decide to go sans floorstanding speakers and instead, get in-wall speakers and AVRs for an audio visual rack hidden away, or go the floorstanding speakers but lose some space and have less nice decor.  after much thought, the former won.  sadly, i've been without floorstanding speakers for ~10 years now.
> 
> ...



Thanks for sharing! Headphones remove a number of issues regular stereo setups often suffer from (size and room acoustics) so I imagine that you don't miss speakers too much 

And yes, slam from an open baffle, directness of crossoverless full-range drivers or mids done the LS 3/5a aren't easy to replace, so I feel your pain, but at the same time I'm happy that your headphone rig works well for you. Enjoy and Happy New Year


----------



## Deolum

I'm confused. My streamer is MQA ready and says it play MQA 24 bit to my Dac which is not MQA ready. What happens in my Dac then? Does it convert the 24 bit signal into 16 bit? Or does the streamer send two signals where one is 16 bit and the other is an encoded 24 bit?


----------



## rkw

Deolum said:


> I'm confused. My streamer is MQA ready and says it play MQA 24 bit to my Dac which is not MQA ready. What happens in my Dac then? Does it convert the 24 bit signal into 16 bit? Or does the streamer send two signals where one is 16 bit and the other is an encoded 24 bit?


Your streamer has done the MQA decoding to 24 bits. Nothing more needs to be done and your DAC will play the 24 bit stream directly.


----------



## iliketohideincloset

headfry said:


> Looking forward to more feedback from all interested parties!



I am not really interested in high resolution in general as good recordings sound great to me in 16/44 as they are. Bad recordings won't sound any better no matter what. The only thing I experienced is that the Tidal/MQA 16/44 sound different to me than the non Tidal/MQA 16/44 of the same recording. If you can just listen to Muse - Origin Of Symmetry on Tidal and Qobuz both set to lossless or Tidal/MQA 16/44 and local 16/44 flac. I would be interested in your findings...


----------



## gimmeheadroom

iliketohideincloset said:


> I am not really interested in high resolution in general as good recordings sound great to me in 16/44 as they are. Bad recordings won't sound any better no matter what. The only thing I experienced is that the Tidal/MQA 16/44 sound different to me than the non Tidal/MQA 16/44 of the same recording. If you can just listen to Muse - Origin Of Symmetry on Tidal and Qobuz both set to lossless or Tidal/MQA 16/44 and local 16/44 flac. I would be interested in your findings...


Tidal seems to have some really good masters for MQA albums. The Van Morrison stuff is incredible. Also Elton John's Captain Fantastic sounds like vinyl.

The problem is that we have no way to know which masters anybody is using so there is no basis for comparison. All you can do is try to A-B whatever you're interested in.

Personally, I want the highest res version of the best master I can get so nothing is lost. I'm happy with the sound quality of Tidal Hifi and a lot of the Deezer stuff sounds great also. Deezer does not have exclusive mode so there is room for improvement. But at the end of the day I want to enjoy the music and not spend time analyzing it.


----------



## Deolum

rkw said:


> Your streamer has done the MQA decoding to 24 bits. Nothing more needs to be done and your DAC will play the 24 bit stream directly.


Does it mean it's enough when one part is MQA ready? Streamer oder Dac?

And what is MQA studio?


----------



## gimmeheadroom

If your source has full MQA support that is all you need. It doesn't matter whether it's a streamer or DAC or streamer with a built-in DAC like node 2i.

MQA studio is the "officially approved MQA master" in theory the best sounding version or at least the one the guys with the money chose.


----------



## Deolum

gimmeheadroom said:


> If your source has full MQA support that is all you need. It doesn't matter whether it's a streamer or DAC or streamer with a built-in DAC like node 2i.
> 
> MQA studio is the "officially approved MQA master" in theory the best sounding version or at least the one the guys with the money chose.


Okay then Tidal is maybe not so bad as i thought. I thought every piece in the chain has to be MQA ready. Funny that in the last time almost every track that sounded especially good for me that it made me look on the display was in MQA but i thought it's just random because my Dac doesn't play MQA anyway. Then i'll so some more tests between MQA Studio and Qobuz the next days.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

The Tidal desktop app has two settings. If you use passthru MQA you will get an MQA stream with no unfolding. That means you get the unexpanded version. If you set the Tidal desktop app not to passthrough MQA then it will do the first unfold and you get a "better" stream. All this is with no hardware or software aside from the app.

If you have a streamer or DAC that has full MQA support, then you get the full unfolding.

You don't have to have any MQA software or hardware besides the desktop app to get at least a "good" MQA version.

https://support.tidal.com/hc/en-us/articles/360005773698-Optimizing-HiFi

"MQA files are compressed through a process known as ‘Music Origami’ in order to make them small enough to stream or download. TIDAL utilizes MQA’s Core Decoder compression technology to achieve the first unfold and deliver higher than CD-quality. This first unfold is capable of an output of 88.2kHz or 96kHz. 

MQA Renderers are capable of the second unfold. Renderers can come in the form of products such as Digital Analog Converters or headphones. When paired with a core decoder they can complete the final unfold enabling you to hear exactly what the artist created and recorded in the highest possible sound quality. "


----------



## MrWalkman

gimmeheadroom said:


> The Tidal desktop app has two settings. If you use passthru MQA you will get an MQA stream with no unfolding. That means you get the unexpanded version. If you set the Tidal desktop app not to passthrough MQA then it will do the first unfold and you get a "better" stream. All this is with no hardware or software aside from the app.
> 
> If you have a streamer or DAC that has full MQA support, then you get the full unfolding.
> 
> ...



To bring some clarification: Tidal on its own is a MQA Core decoder. The "Passthrough" option is for if Tidal should do the first unfold or if it should just send the raw MQA data to the connected audio device.

While the "Passthrough" option is off, Tidal will do a first unfold, to 88.2/96 kHz. That means that you can benefit of the "Master" quality even if you don't have a device with MQA support.


Otherwise, there are two options:

1. You have a MQA Renderer device - this device needs a software counterpart to do the first unfold, and then the device itself will finish the unfold.

2. You have a MQA Full decoder - this device can fully decode the MQA file on its own, and you need to set "Passthrough" to on, so the MQA data will just be passed to the device, without doing any first unfolds or anything like that.


One example of a MQA Renderer is Dragonfly Cobalt. This USB DAC needs the "Passthrough" option in Tidal to be set to off, so Tidal will do the first unfold, followed by the USB DAC completing the final unfold. Otherwise, if the "Passthrough" setting will be set to on, this USB DAC will just play the 24/44.1/48 kHz FLAC file, without doing anything MQA-related.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

I think some renderers including Dragonly do not do a full unfold.


----------



## MrWalkman

gimmeheadroom said:


> I think some renderers including Dragonly do not do a full unfold.




Well, they don't mention anything about that, so I can't tell for sure:


> As MQA Renderers, DragonFlys Black, Red, and Cobalt complete the unfolding process, allowing music lovers to enjoy a wider selection of high-res music.




I was wondering how would a Dragonfly Cobalt/Red can complete an unfold to 192 kHz for example, when they only support up to 96 kHz. Also, when starting to play a MQA file, the led would first light up in the color for 88.2/96 kHz before changing the color to the one for MQA streams, so I'm not entirely sure either.


----------



## alekc

gimmeheadroom said:


> Tidal seems to have some really good masters for MQA albums. The Van Morrison stuff is incredible. Also Elton John's Captain Fantastic sounds like vinyl.
> 
> The problem is that we have no way to know which masters anybody is using so there is no basis for comparison. All you can do is try to A-B whatever you're interested in.
> 
> Personally, I want the highest res version of the best master I can get so nothing is lost. I'm happy with the sound quality of Tidal Hifi and a lot of the Deezer stuff sounds great also. Deezer does not have exclusive mode so there is room for improvement. But at the end of the day I want to enjoy the music and not spend time analyzing it.



I agree with @gimmeheadroom however I have a bit different perspective. For me MQA is not solving any problems but actually only adds complexity to system and is not only totally pointless but also since it is not lossless compression algorithm as it used to be marked I see no use for it. However - and this is kind of important "however" - some Tidal masters (MQA based) tracks have a lot better mastering than non-MQA ones. So for me the "magic" of MQA comes from different mastering only, MQA has nothing to do it with. 

As I've said above, MQA brings only unneeded complexity to setup. For example Audirvana can detect proper MQA bitrate on Mytek dacs only when MQA filter is enabled. The thing is I prefer MQA filter to be disabled and many tracks are not available in MQA format.  

@gimmeheadroom you've mentioned deezer. Last time I've checked both Audirvana and Roon weren't able to stream from Deezer. I want a single app to manage all of my music, so if none of popular players supports Deezer I will skip on it. I've seen some discussion on Roon, Audirvana and deezer community forums about support but a quick peak revealed that Deezer is not really interested in opening API, at least at this point. This makes me not consider Deezer as another stream source I'd like to pay for. I'm waiting for Qobuz in the mean time in my location.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

alekc said:


> I agree with @gimmeheadroom however I have a bit different perspective. For me MQA is not solving any problems but actually only adds complexity to system and is not only totally pointless but also since it is not lossless compression algorithm as it used to be marked I see no use for it. However - and this is kind of important "however" - some Tidal masters (MQA based) tracks have a lot better mastering than non-MQA ones. So for me the "magic" of MQA comes from different mastering only, MQA has nothing to do it with.
> 
> As I've said above, MQA brings only unneeded complexity to setup. For example Audirvana can detect proper MQA bitrate on Mytek dacs only when MQA filter is enabled. The thing is I prefer MQA filter to be disabled and many tracks are not available in MQA format.
> 
> @gimmeheadroom you've mentioned deezer. Last time I've checked both Audirvana and Roon weren't able to stream from Deezer. I want a single app to manage all of my music, so if none of popular players supports Deezer I will skip on it. I've seen some discussion on Roon, Audirvana and deezer community forums about support but a quick peak revealed that Deezer is not really interested in opening API, at least at this point. This makes me not consider Deezer as another stream source I'd like to pay for. I'm waiting for Qobuz in the mean time in my location.


I'm not recommending Deezer since it doesn't have exclusive mode in Windows. It does stream bitperfect over my node 2i so it's ok except I don't use the node 2i in a main system. Qobuz isn't available here either, so this is about it.


----------



## Deolum

MrWalkman said:


> To bring some clarification: Tidal on its own is a MQA Core decoder. The "Passthrough" option is for if Tidal should do the first unfold or if it should just send the raw MQA data to the connected audio device.
> 
> While the "Passthrough" option is off, Tidal will do a first unfold, to 88.2/96 kHz. That means that you can benefit of the "Master" quality even if you don't have a device with MQA support.
> 
> ...


So what is the first unfold without the second unfold? Is it like a lite MQA quality?


----------



## PortableMusic

there is a "loudness normalization" toggle setting on my Windows Tidal app. 

does one setting (on or off) give you superior sound quality please? 

typically, i wouldn't want this setting "on" because you'd think that it would be in the signal path and anything superfluous in the signal path can't be good for the sound, and yet, i thought that maybe it's wise to not have one album be that much louder than the next album!  or worse yet, in mixes, one song can be much louder than the next which would be inconvenient.

look forward to hearing your thoughts.  thanks in advance.


----------



## MrWalkman

Loudness normalization or dynamic normalizer is playing all the songs at the same volume level.

Some songs can be quieter, while some can be louder. Instead of having to turn the volume up or down based on the current song, this option aims to make them all play at the same volume.

So there's nothing that would increase sound quality, except if loudness is perceived as increased sound quality.


----------



## PortableMusic

MrWalkman said:


> Loudness normalization or dynamic normalizer is playing all the songs at the same volume level.
> 
> Some songs can be quieter, while some can be louder. Instead of having to turn the volume up or down based on the current song, this option aims to make them all play at the same volume.
> 
> So there's nothing that would increase sound quality, except if loudness is perceived as increased sound quality.



thank you @MrWalkman for your reply.

i understand what loudness normalization accomplishes, but my question is whether or not engaging it, i.e. turning it "on", would mean another item in the signal path of the sound stream?  it would seem like there WOULD be an extra thing in the signal path.  often, in audio, removing as many things in the signal path is usually deemed beneficial.

my question in this case is for experienced Tidal users who are audiophiles to discuss whether there are actual sound benefits to turning this off?  alternatively, are there sound penalties of turning it on?

thank you again in advance.


----------



## rkw

Deolum said:


> So what is the first unfold without the second unfold? Is it like a lite MQA quality?


Yes. Each unfold doubles the resolution. The first unfold decodes a 44.1 or 48 source to 2x (88.2 or 96). The first unfold can be done by software such as the Tidal app or Audirvana.

MQA enabled hardware can do 2 or 3 levels of unfold (to 4x or 8x, 176/192 or 352/384) depending on resolution of the original master. They need to use the original data, which requires bypassing the software unfold (using the Passthrough option).


----------



## MrWalkman

rkw said:


> MQA enabled hardware can do 2 or 3 levels of unfold (to 4x or 8x, 176/192 or 352/384) depending on resolution of the original master. They need to use the original data, which requires bypassing the software unfold (using the Passthrough option).



That is 100% true for MQA Full Decoder devices. Otherwise, MQA Renderers won't work with the "Passthrough" option enabled, but while the option is disabled, Tidal will do the first unfold, and then the MQA Renderer will complete it afterwards.

So there are two types of MQA-enabled hardware.


----------



## iFi audio

MrWalkman said:


> but while the option is disabled, Tidal will do the first unfold, and then the MQA Renderer will complete it afterwards.



Yup, that's how it works.


----------



## PortableMusic

how does Tidal Connect fit into all of this?  confused.

when i choose Tidal Connect, there are no options for passthrough or not.  you just select Tidal Connect and there is a little checkmark after it.

is Tidal Connect desirable?  should one use it if it's available as an option due to the device?

i have two devices that use Tidal:

1)  Bluesound Node 2i for my whole house mid-fi/low-fi, in-wall speakers, AVRs on rack system  (Node 2i is ethernet connected)

2)  a separate headphones-only system: the Empyreans and the A&K Kann Alpha via obviously wifi.

I don't see Tidal Connect on the Kann Alpha.

on the Node 2i, which i am able to control using the Tidal Windows app on my desktop Windows PC (connected via ethernet to the same network via a network switch), i see Tidal Connect and i selected it.

am i doing it correctly?


----------



## 1-MiC

I’ve been with Amazon music since it started 13 years ago. I bought my digital music through them. I resisted streaming for a long while, with the mentality that if you “love music” you’ll “support” the artist through purchase, but I eventually gave in.

Just this month I’ve been trying out Tidal. The iOS app is comparable to Amazon HD, but the desktop version is much better than Amazon’s product. Tidal is more stable on both, and I would assume on all other platforms as well. I’m afraid Tidal is winning me over.

I wish Tidal wasn’t 2x the price of Amazon. MQA does complicate the process, because I am indeed curious.
I have a DFR, as well as a Marantz HD-DAC1, a non MQA DAC. Part of me wants to do a little A/B comparisons, but it won’t be very fun. I know I enjoy the marantz more, I doubt the MQA render will change that, yet I’m still curious.
Part of me wants to explore a DAC that fully unfolds MQA, which I could justify by moving my marantz into the bedroom, but I don’t really need to! All of this takes away time from just enjoying music, which was the point of trying out Tidal.



PortableMusic said:


> thank you @MrWalkman for your reply.
> 
> i understand what loudness normalization accomplishes, but my question is whether or not engaging it, i.e. turning it "on", would mean another item in the signal path of the sound stream?  it would seem like there WOULD be an extra thing in the signal path.  often, in audio, removing as many things in the signal path is usually deemed beneficial.
> 
> ...



you know I turn it off in every application that offers it for any reason. Having done some minimal mixing and engineering in the past, I like to listen to things how they were intended to be presented. However from what I’ve read, normalization is not a signal processing like compression is. Essentially it shouldn’t have a bearing on the sound quality.


----------



## rkw

PortableMusic said:


> I don't see Tidal Connect on the Kann Alpha.


Tidal Connect only works on devices that can play Tidal on their own, like your Bluesound. The Connect function is like a remote control (it doesn't transmit a music stream to the target). These are the supported devices: https://tidal.com/supported-devices?filter=tidal-connect


----------



## SenorChang8

1-MiC said:


> I’ve been with Amazon music since it started 13 years ago. I bought my digital music through them. I resisted streaming for a long while, with the mentality that if you “love music” you’ll “support” the artist through purchase, but I eventually gave in.
> 
> I wish Tidal wasn’t 2x the price of Amazon.



If it’s any consolation Tidal have better royalties for artists than most other streaming sites.

Although I’m curious how much the whole MQA process costs and what their cut is..?


----------



## gimmeheadroom

SenorChang8 said:


> If it’s any consolation Tidal have better royalties for artists than most other streaming sites.
> 
> Although I’m curious how much the whole MQA process costs and what their cut is..?


One musician recently posted that MQA cost him nothing. He just did it to be on the bandwagon with other people putting out MQA albums.


----------



## Deolum

So i've compared some Tidal MQA Studio tracks with Qobuz.

I took the first Studio tracks that i've found:

Ed Sheeran - Afterglow 24/44,1
Sia - Hey Boy 24/44,1
Emmanuel Pahud - D Major Op. 25 VII 24/96

I compared the first two tracks with Grado GS1000e, HD 600 and AH-D9200 and the last one with GS1000e and AKG K1000.

Tidal studio seem to sound smoother with rounder edges while Qobuz presentation seems a bit sharper edged and flatter. I also had the feeling that the Tidal bass had more quality and reached a bit deeper than the Qobuz one.

On the last track i found soundstage and imaging on the Tidal track better while Qobuz sounded a bit more 2 dimensional.

Overall i preferred 7 times the Tidal and 1 time the Qobuz (non-blindtest).

Interesting.


----------



## behemothkat

Deolum said:


> So i've compared some Tidal MQA Studio tracks with Qobuz.
> 
> I took the first Studio tracks that i've found:
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing your observations.
A slightly offtop of MQA discussion, but can you compare few files in 44/16 between Tidal and Qobuz as well? Thx in advance!


----------



## Deolum

behemothkat said:


> Thanks for sharing your observations.
> A slightly offtop of MQA discussion, but can you compare few files in 44/16 between Tidal and Qobuz as well? Thx in advance!


You mean non MQA? There won't be a difference. I don't use the desktop app but my Lumin OS of my streamer so same app and bitrate is exact the same.


----------



## behemothkat

Deolum said:


> You mean non MQA? There won't be a difference. I don't use the desktop app but my Lumin OS of my streamer so same app and bitrate is exact the same.


I’m asking because I remember there were some discussions on Reddit (unfortunately cannot find this thread now) about different albums CD quality between Tidal and Qobuz as well. 
Unfortunately Qobuz is still not here in Hungary - hence I’m unable to listen it myself


----------



## iFi audio

Deolum said:


> I don't use the desktop app but my Lumin OS of my streamer so same app and bitrate is exact the same.



Did I get this right that you use Lumin's app on a different streamer?


----------



## Deolum

iFi audio said:


> Did I get this right that you use Lumin's app on a different streamer?


No i use the Lumin app on my Lumin streamer.


----------



## iFi audio

Deolum said:


> No i use the Lumin app on my Lumin streamer.



OK, thanks. I've asked because this app works rather well on streamers other than Lumin's own


----------



## SenorChang8

gimmeheadroom said:


> One musician recently posted that MQA cost him nothing. He just did it to be on the bandwagon with other people putting out MQA albums.



That’s surprising it costs nothing but obviously helps with artists adopting it for a bigger library.


----------



## boxster233

Deolum said:


> So i've compared some Tidal MQA Studio tracks with Qobuz.
> 
> I took the first Studio tracks that i've found:
> 
> ...


This absolutely describes the experience I had with Tidal and MQA versus Qobuz and why I went with Tidal.


----------



## MrWalkman (Jan 5, 2021)

trueno84 said:


> That's correct. I do not have that. and I'm on tidal HiFi



Hmm, indeed, Pink Floyd has all the albums in MQA now. They didn't before - I'm not sure when this became available. I'm curious to see to what sample rate will "The Wall" unfold, as I couldn't find it in Hi-Res.






It seems that many albums are now available in MQA - for example albums from Metallica.

I can also find MQA versions of Daft Punk albums, including the "Tron: Legacy" soundtrack.


----------



## 1-MiC

I did a quick comparison of tidal masters using my laptop with my Dragonfly Red vs Marantz HD-DAC1, simply because DFR does the mqa rendering. 
I will say the DFR has ease of use going for it, 1 device no cables. That's is about all the advantage it had. Ill post my notes for reference
Mind you, this is the first time I've had two amplifiers available to A/B. There is a large price difference in these units, but I was curious.

I listened to a couple tracks:
Van Morrison- Into the Mystic
Amy Winehouse- You Know I'm No Good
Miguel- destinado a morir
and
Dr. Dre - Nothin But a "G" thang

Nothin but a G thang
DFR: MQA Render
Initially Snoops' vocals are a little thin, the reverb is very noticeable and almost distracting. It seems like he is standing too far from the microphone. Halfway through the song I'm not bothered by it. Dr. Dre sounds a little more natural but he also has a much richer tone to his voice. 
The melody of the instrumental is center but everything is out L & R. The snare and kick drum sound wide in the mix, but this is the 4th song I've compared and I know my headphones go out quite a bit further.
The bassline and kick drums are enjoyable, but it takes a while to notice it past the in your face vocals.
During the chorus I can catch moments where one voice is more noticeable but they are mixed pretty well together.
Overall the song sounds a little thin.

"It's the capital S., oh yes I'm fresh, N.double-O.P.
D.O. double-G.Y., D.O. double-G., ya see " 

Marantz:
Right away the kick drum and bassline have more impact. I thought for a second there was going to be a large volume mismatch, because they were that much more obvious. The snare is also about 15% wider L and R. is 10% too much? Maybe 10%? Either way, 10 seconds in, the changes in imaging and soundstage are apparent. It was a lot to process all at once. My typing couldn't keep up.
Vocals are not AS thin. The reverb isn't as overwhelming, but it is a part of the mix and not going any where. When I don't focus on it it, the vocals do sounds more natural, where as on the DFR it has my attention. I would assume this is showing me a smoother midrange on the Marantz? Dr. Dre does not sound "thin" anymore.
The melody now takes the center, vocals Center L and Center R, everything else has expanded more L and R.
The kick has impact, the bassline is funky and the low end is NOT overwhelmed by the vocals anymore, the warmth of the Marantz really makes everything blend well.
The chorus is still difficult to discern a particular voice, but the fact that two voices are mixed together is much more obvious. 

All in all it seems the DFR is a bit sharper and much more congested. It lacks low end quantity. The reason I picked my notes from that particular song was because it was the first one I played and was not enjoying the quality. I was assuming I didn't enjoy the mix until I switched amps. More so it helped me see that the MQA render was not something I need to be focusing on. The signal chain clearly had much more impact. Now I'm curious about a unit that does full MQA unfold, but I'll wait till the opportunity arises to try one out.


----------



## Left Channel (Jan 5, 2021)

1-MiC said:


> I did a quick comparison of tidal masters using my laptop with my Dragonfly Red vs Marantz HD-DAC1,



That's very interesting, and now I'm thinking about trying that Marantz, but you're really comparing apples to oranges there. For one thing, those products are not based on the same DAC chips and design guidelines. They're also in such drastically different price classes that if the Marantz didn't sound better I'd feel very cheated! If you want to compare MQA and non-MQA, I suggest you compare the Dragonfly Red with the Dragonfly Black, or do the same with Marantz if they ever decide to support MQA. Personally I can't stand the sound of any ESS-based DAC, so none of the "dragonflies" work for me and I gave mine away. I also am just as happy with standard Hi-Res as I am MQA (when both are true master-quality, which is a whole 'nother conversation).


----------



## MrWalkman (Jan 5, 2021)

I found many MQA albums of some of my favorite artists, and they all sound awesome/better, compared to 16/44.1 versions of those albums that I previously had on my DAP.


----------



## Bernard23 (Jan 5, 2021)

Deolum said:


> So i've compared some Tidal MQA Studio tracks with Qobuz.
> 
> I took the first Studio tracks that i've found:
> 
> ...


That's been my conclusion, albeit after just one day with qobuz. I'm also using a marantz HD DAC1, and with both of my Grado phones I'm finding Tidal in both 16/44 and masters to be a more lively and engaging presentation than the equivalent tracks in qobuz.
However, musicbee (which is free) streaming flac files off my hard drive and NAS is even better. Marginal, and you've got to listen carefully, but it's there.


----------



## BobSmith8901

Melody Gardot _Sunset In The Blue_ (2020) is a real treat in Tidal MQA.


----------



## rkw

MrWalkman said:


> Hmm, indeed, Pink Floyd has all the albums in MQA now.


Still not in the US. Your website has .ml domain. Are you in Mali?


----------



## PortableMusic

rkw said:


> *Still not in the US*. Your website has .ml domain. Are you in Mali?



might this mean at some point soon, the US will also get Pink Floyd in MQA too?

it seems as though they are rolling out mqa for Pink Floyd region by region.

just speculating.


----------



## iliketohideincloset

It's too bad I find the MQA sq way worse than redbook flacs but good to see ya'll enjoying it.


----------



## MrWalkman (Jan 6, 2021)

iliketohideincloset said:


> It's too bad I find the MQA sq way worse than redbook flacs but good to see ya'll enjoying it.



I have no idea about you, but MQA sounds definitely better than CD quality on my DAP (WM1A)/Dragonfly Cobalt.

Even though more and more albums start to become available in MQA, that only applies for the "Master" sound quality option. You can also switch to "HiFi" for CD quality, to "High" for AAC 256 (or 320), or to "Low" for AAC 96 kbps.

I didn't even intended on buying MQA gear specifically.

I think it's a nice little format, which is completely optional, and that sounds great, allowing "better-than-CD-quality" audio to be streamed easily over internet.



rkw said:


> Still not in the US. Your website has .ml domain. Are you in Mali?



No, it's somewhere in Europe. Mali (.ml) is a free domain name.


----------



## iFi audio

MrWalkman said:


> I found many MQA albums of some of my favorite artists, and they all sound awesome/better, compared to 16/44.1 versions of those albums that I previously had on my DAP.



The Acid's Liminal LP? Dang, color me interested and thanks for listing this gem


----------



## MrWalkman (Jan 7, 2021)

iFi audio said:


> The Acid's Liminal LP? Dang, color me interested and thanks for listing this gem



Actually, "Liminal" is an album of them.

The other one is "The Bomb", which is a soundtrack they made for the movie with the same name. The movie is kind of a no talking documentary about nuclear bombs.

"_Enthralling and entrancing, The Bomb combines archival nuclear test footage and Cold War propaganda films, set to modern electronic trip-hop by The Acid. The narration of traditional documentary is eschewed as the images are allowed to speak for themselves, unfiltered. The result strikes an awesome and terrifying emotional nerve, one that we have grown numb to in the wake of the Cold War, as one realizes the still present risk of a nuclear apocalypse through accident, proliferation, and escalation._"

In any case, all music available on Tidal from "The Acid", is available in MQA now.


----------



## iFi audio

MrWalkman said:


> The other one is "The Bomb", which is a soundtrack they made for the movie with the same name. The movie is kind of a no talking documentary about nuclear bombs.



Thanks for that as well. Great stuff


----------



## PortableMusic

might anyone know when Pink Floyd albums will turn MQA in the US?  thanks.


----------



## alekc

BobSmith8901 said:


> Melody Gardot _Sunset In The Blue_ (2020) is a real treat in Tidal MQA.



I wonder: have you heard CD release using good transport?

It is indeed brilliant album no matter what medium is used.


----------



## BobSmith8901

alekc said:


> I wonder: have you heard CD release using good transport?
> 
> It is indeed brilliant album no matter what medium is used.



No I haven't but I'm sure it's great. 

The production was obviously as good as it gets in all aspects. It seems there was extreme attention to detail when it came to the engineering of the very striking recording of her vocals and where her voice was in the mix, as you can hear every subtle nuance.


----------



## Left Channel

alekc said:


> I wonder: have you heard CD release using good transport?
> 
> It is indeed brilliant album no matter what medium is used.





BobSmith8901 said:


> No I haven't but I'm sure it's great.
> 
> The production was obviously as good as it gets in all aspects. It seems there was extreme attention to detail when it came to the engineering of the very striking recording of her vocals and where her voice was in the mix, as you can hear every subtle nuance.



Especially impressive given that Gardot was based in Paris, her arranger and conductor Vince Mendoza was in Los Angeles, and the majority of her musicians were in England, with everyone stuck in place due to the pandemic. (I got that information from the review on Qobuz. Tidal offers only a more generic review rented from TiVo, under Credits > Info. Too bad Qobuz currently sells this only as a Hi-Res download, not for streaming, which is ironic as they are based in Paris too.)


----------



## PortableMusic

Left Channel said:


> Especially impressive given that Gardot was based in Paris, her arranger and conductor Vince Mendoza was in Los Angeles, and the majority of her musicians were in England, with everyone stuck in place due to the pandemic. (I got that information from the review on Qobuz. Tidal offers only a more generic review rented from TiVo, under Credits > Info. Too bad Qobuz currently sells this only as a Hi-Res download, not for streaming, which is ironic as they are based in Paris too.)



@Left Channel:   thanks for this additional detail.  very interesting!

would this mean then they all recorded in separate studios and the many recordings were mixed by an engineer?

there would be many different venues/rooms, microphones, control boards, etc.

this recording would be the result of the _opposite _of simply mic'd recordings.


----------



## Left Channel

PortableMusic said:


> @Left Channel:   thanks for this additional detail.  very interesting!
> 
> would this mean then they all recorded in separate studios and the many recordings were mixed by an engineer?
> 
> ...



I don't know exactly, but the review does mention that at one point Mendoza found himself conducting on-screen from California with musicians playing in London’s Abbey Road Studios. It does not mention that Gardot was online at the same time, so maybe they mixed her in later. The reviewer also gives a credit to producer Larry Klein and sound engineer Al Schmitt, who she'd worked with on a successful album before, and then says " Upon listening to the end result, however, we soon forget the last-minute DIY means with which this album was made."


----------



## judomaniak57

Just found this thread. i enjoy MQA recordings, i know lots dont ,still sounds better then most cd quality recordings. i have only found 2 or 3 albums that i thought sounded better in cd quality then the MQA. not bad considering i have 400 or so albums and a couple thousand songs on different playlist downloaded from tidal


----------



## alekc

BobSmith8901 said:


> No I haven't but I'm sure it's great.
> 
> The production was obviously as good as it gets in all aspects. It seems there was extreme attention to detail when it came to the engineering of the very striking recording of her vocals and where her voice was in the mix, as you can hear every subtle nuance.



I've asked since I am away from my main rig and have only Mojo (Chord does not support MQA) with LCD-1 with me but I really wonder is there a much difference between CD and Tidal release of this wonderful album. As my belief is that some MQA releases sounds better due to different mastering and not due to MQA compression I am looking forward to long a AB testing when I will be able to play it from CD and Tidal with MQA enabled DAC simultaneously.


----------



## PortableMusic (Jan 9, 2021)

i wonder why there is so little information, or replies, to the question of if and when Sony will put MQA versions of Pink Floyd's albums and tracks on Tidal soon?

since Warner did it in Europe recently, i was hoping that Sony would also jump on the MQA train.  then again, Sony has a history of preferring proprietary technologies.  sort of like if it's not invented here (i.e. by Sony), we don't want to jump on it.  witness _*Betamax, MiniDiscs, Memory Sticks*_, etc.  

Let's hope not in this case!


----------



## gimmeheadroom

PortableMusic said:


> i wonder why there is so little information, or replies, to the question of if and when Sony will put MQA versions of Pink Floyd's albums and tracks on Tidal soon?
> 
> since Warner did it in Europe recently, i was hoping that Sony would also jump on the MQA train.  then again, Sony has a history of preferring proprietary technologies.  sort of like if it's not invented here (i.e. by Sony), we don't want to jump on it.  let's hope not in this case!


That's an interesting comment and I have to agree with it. Sony is the king of proprietary technology misadventures. I didn't notice NIH syndrome from them but it's very possible.

Actually that would be an ok situation I think. I would like choices in unwatermarked hires in addition to MQA options. This could work out!


----------



## PortableMusic

gimmeheadroom said:


> That's an interesting comment and I have to agree with it. Sony is the king of proprietary technology misadventures. I didn't notice NIH syndrome from them but it's very possible.
> 
> *Actually that would be an ok situation I think. I would like choices in unwatermarked hires in addition to MQA options. This could work out!*



@gimmeheadroom:  hi there and thanks for your comment.

would you mind clarifying what you meant please?  when you wrote that it would be an ok situation and that you like choices, are you saying that you're happy that Tidal does NOT have Sony albums in MQA?

confused.  thanks.


----------



## rkw

PortableMusic said:


> i wonder why there is so little information, or replies, to the question of if and when Sony will put MQA versions of Pink Floyd's albums and tracks on Tidal soon?


No information because Sony hasn't made any public statements or press releases about it. Simple as that.

BTW, Sony Classical is a huge catalog. I have never seen any Sony Classical release with MQA.


----------



## Uncle00Jesse

Sorry for my ignorance on this, just a couple of questions about mqa:

1. in order to benefit, you need a specific MQA capable DAC, is that correct? What are some standouts in this category?

2. If not using an MQA DAC, what happens when you play an MQA track? Should you always use the non MQA version in tidal instead or does it not matter?


----------



## Deolum

Uncle00Jesse said:


> Sorry for my ignorance on this, just a couple of questions about mqa:
> 
> 1. in order to benefit, you need a specific MQA capable DAC, is that correct? What are some standouts in this category?
> 
> 2. If not using an MQA DAC, what happens when you play an MQA track? Should you always use the non MQA version in tidal instead or does it not matter?


Read on p. 66. I asked the same.


----------



## MrWalkman

Uncle00Jesse said:


> Sorry for my ignorance on this, just a couple of questions about mqa:
> 
> 1. in order to benefit, you need a specific MQA capable DAC, is that correct? What are some standouts in this category?
> 
> 2. If not using an MQA DAC, what happens when you play an MQA track? Should you always use the non MQA version in tidal instead or does it not matter?



1. You need a MQA Full Decoder or a MQA Renderer

A MQA Full Decoder can decode the MQA file on its own. The only thing is that the MQA data has to be sent without being altered by another device in the path. For example, in the Tidal app you need to set "Exclusive" to on, and also "Passthrough" to on, to the MQA data will be passed to the DAC untouched

A MQA Renderer needs the playing software to do a first unfold, and then the DAC device completed the unfold. In Tidal, you would need "Exclusive" to on, and "Passthrough" to off. While "Passthrough" is off, Tidal will do the first unfold instead of sending all the data to the DAC.


2. If you're not using a type of device mentioned above, then the file will just be played as a 24/44.1/48 kHz FLAC file - the idea is that you can still play the files, but not at their best, which can only be achieved with one of those DAC types.

Not all apps can do the first unfold. I know only of Tidal, Audirvana, and on Android devices you can use USB Audio Player Pro. On Android, the UAPP app can also play tracks from Tidal (you log in the app with your Tidal details and you can search for tracks, see your favorites, etc.).


----------



## Uncle00Jesse

Thank you for the info! This is probably a long shot since it’s so old but I’m still using a Squeezebox Touch as my Tidal streamer to the DAC, therefore not using the official app. Do you know if I can change those settings you mentioned through the Logitech server or would I have to use the app for that?


----------



## 1-MiC

That being said, the quality of your stream is not as important as the quality of your chain. I'm not utilizing MQA unfolds anymore than the initial software unfold, and I'm still enjoying Tidal all the same. I cancelled my Amazon HD subscription because of it, and they offer more "hi-res" without any decoding needing to be done.


----------



## Left Channel

Uncle00Jesse said:


> Thank you for the info! This is probably a long shot since it’s so old but I’m still using a Squeezebox Touch as my Tidal streamer to the DAC, therefore not using the official app. Do you know if I can change those settings you mentioned through the Logitech server or would I have to use the app for that?



The Tidal app for LMS/Squeezebox does not support MQA. Certification would cost time and money, so I doubt that will ever happen. This has been discussed many times on the slimdevices forum. (For Hi-Res streaming on LMS/Squeezebox I use my local downloads or the Qobuz streaming app for LMS, but that's a different thread.)

If on the other hand you use the Tidal app for Windows or Mac, the app would do the "first unfold" in software regardless of whether you have an MQA DAC. I think that was left out of a previous post above. From there an MQA "renderer" DAC takes it the rest of the way, while a full MQA DAC doesn't require that first unfold.

For what it's worth the MQA first unfold, also known as "1x software decoding" sounds fine to me.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

PortableMusic said:


> @gimmeheadroom:  hi there and thanks for your comment.
> 
> would you mind clarifying what you meant please?  when you wrote that it would be an ok situation and that you like choices, are you saying that you're happy that Tidal does NOT have Sony albums in MQA?
> 
> confused.  thanks.


I think it is good if the same albums are available in more than one version. It's hard to know what master is used for anything but Sony has a good reputation for jazz releases including on SACD that get good reviews.

In the past we had catalog numbers from different record companies for the same album. I would not like to see a situation where everything is MQA, or nothing is MQA. I'd like to be able to choose from different versions just like I did before MQA came out. 



Uncle00Jesse said:


> Sorry for my ignorance on this, just a couple of questions about mqa:
> 
> 1. in order to benefit, you need a specific MQA capable DAC, is that correct? What are some standouts in this category?
> 
> 2. If not using an MQA DAC, what happens when you play an MQA track? Should you always use the non MQA version in tidal instead or does it not matter?


Plenty of discussion on this at different points in history in this thread and elsewhere.

1. No, there is benefit without an MQA DAC but for "full benefit" you need MQA support, yes.
In what price range?

2. The Tidal desktop app does the first unfold so you get some benefit. As far as I can tell, if there is an MQA version and you set the hifi option instead of Master, you will still get an MQA stream, only the Tidal app will not unfold at all. Let your ears be the judge of whichever version you like. There is no rule except that the customer is always right


----------



## PortableMusic

gimmeheadroom said:


> ...
> 
> Plenty of discussion on this at different points in history in this thread and elsewhere.
> 
> ...



it's interesting for me to read that a number of the good folks here are happy with, or interested in doing only the first unfold and be done with that, i.e. not going to full MQA hardware unfolding, which as per the MQA site (their own site), is their version of "ideal" - full hardware unfolding.   software first unfold is a Plan B.

it's interesting to me because for myself, my decision making has never included a first unfold only!   i want full hardware unfolding, or no mqa at all.

my thinking is that if i were to do MQA, i'd do mqa as they intended it to sound, i.e. full hardware unfolding.  otherwise, i'd live sans mqa until the day i am good to go for full hardware unfolding.

chacun a son gout!


----------



## gimmeheadroom

PortableMusic said:


> it's interesting for me to read that a number of the good folks here are happy with, or interested in doing only the first unfold and be done with that, i.e. not going to full MQA hardware unfolding, which as per the MQA site (their own site), is their version of "ideal" - full hardware unfolding.   software first unfold is a Plan B.
> 
> it's interesting to me because for myself, my decision making has never included a first unfold only!   i want full hardware unfolding, or no mqa at all.
> 
> ...


I did a quick listen one time and I think the sound with the Tidal app doing the unfolding is pretty good. For casual listening it's certainly good enough. If you have an analytical setup and like hearing every detail then it's probably worth shelling out for a good MQA DAC to get the last mile out of the stream.


----------



## PortableMusic

gimmeheadroom said:


> I did a quick listen one time and I think the sound with the Tidal app doing the unfolding is pretty good. For casual listening it's certainly good enough.* If you have an analytical setup and like hearing every detail then it's probably worth shelling out for a good MQA DAC to get the last mile out of the stream.*



i have two set ups:

1)  mid-fi/low-fi:   in wall speakers in order to save space and have better decor, whole house system, powered by audio visual rack of AVRs.  Bluesound Node 2i connected to this system via ethernet.

2)  Empyreans, A&K Kann Alpha.

In both cases, full hardware MQA unfolding is done "in device", i.e. the Node 2i does full hardware unfolding in the Node 2i, and the Kann Alpha has dual ES9068 dac chips with on-chip MQA full hardware unfolding.

nothing to deal with for me: all done "in one box".


----------



## gimmeheadroom

The Empys aren't exactly the most analytical cans. I guess you could compare by using the app unfold on the Kann vs. the hardware support and be hard pressed to notice a difference.


----------



## Uncle00Jesse

gimmeheadroom said:


> I think it is good if the same albums are available in more than one version. It's hard to know what master is used for anything but Sony has a good reputation for jazz releases including on SACD that get good reviews.
> 
> In the past we had catalog numbers from different record companies for the same album. I would not like to see a situation where everything is MQA, or nothing is MQA. I'd like to be able to choose from different versions just like I did before MQA came out.
> 
> ...



1k give or take. I hear good things about the D90 but I’m really treble sensitive and I think it might be a little too aggressive


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Uncle00Jesse said:


> 1k give or take. I hear good things about the D90 but I’m really treble sensitive and I think it might be a little too aggressive


I don't have experience with anything in that price range and have not heard any Topping gear. There are threads on several MQA DACs below that price point from Pro Ject and SMSL here on the forums along with some threads on the A90 and D90.

I can recommend the Mytek Brooklyn but it costs more than twice that amount. They do have a Liberty DAC at that price point but it's very hard to find trustworthy reviews on it. If you can get one on trial it might be worth looking into.


----------



## Brava210 (Jan 10, 2021)

MrWalkman said:


> I have no idea about you, but MQA sounds definitely better than CD quality on my DAP (WM1A)/Dragonfly Cobalt.
> 
> Even though more and more albums start to become available in MQA, that only applies for the "Master" sound quality option. You can also switch to "HiFi" for CD quality, to "High" for AAC 256 (or 320), or to "Low" for AAC 96 kbps.
> 
> ...


It's strange some albums on Tidal MQA sound much better than Qobuz......but then some just sound appaling compared to Qobuz....David Bowie Scary Monsters being one


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Brava210 said:


> It's strange some albums on Tidal MQA sound much better than Qobuz......but then some just sound appaling compared to Qobuz....David Bowie Scary Monsters being one


Why is it strange? Probably more depends on exactly which master they're serving. As far as I know there is no way to tell because they don't show you.


----------



## Brava210

gimmeheadroom said:


> Why is it strange? Probably more depends on exactly which master they're serving. As far as I know there is no way to tell because they don't show you.


Why is there more than one Master?
Gary


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Brava210 said:


> Why is there more than one Master?
> Gary


I don't know. But I do know sometimes several record companies put out the same album and it is mastered and remastered by different engineers. Tidal does show credits sometimes but their cataloging leaves a lot to be desired and sometimes it looks like they get some things wrong. In many cases the info is incomplete.

It could be as simple as trying to generate sales from old albums when the remasters are supposed to be better. In many cases I found the remasters worse. Sometimes they're better. 

If you look at this site which hosts reviews for SACDs you can see just how many versions of albums there can be- and this is only for SACDs which don't sell nearly as much as CDs. The link is an example for Miles Davis' Kind of Blue album but you get the idea http://www.sa-cd.net/search/kind+of+blue

Discogs.net can help you find how many versions there are of albums also.


----------



## MrWalkman

An interesting fact, maybe - on a Sony WM1A player, MQA files are being played at a sample rate of 352.8 kHz.

I'm playing a MQA 44.1 file right now (16/44.1, not 24 bit), and the sample rate at which the sound card is playing goes to 352.8 kHz.






There is also a Spectrum Visualizer, which has a "High" band, which is for high frequencies in a Hi-Res song, and while playing the normal 16/44.1, the "High" band is inactive, while when playing the "MQA" version, there is activity in that band.



 



And yes, they sound great!


----------



## gimmeheadroom

MrWalkman said:


> An interesting fact, maybe - on a Sony WM1A player, MQA files are being played at a sample rate of 352.8 kHz.
> 
> I'm playing a MQA 44.1 file right now (16/44.1, not 24 bit), and the sample rate at which the sound card is playing goes to 352.8 kHz.
> 
> ...


Thanks, I'll check these out. Somebody posted a link to a bunch of 352 KHz classical MQA earlier and I listened to some of them. It's super to have that kind of resolution available from a streaming service


----------



## Deolum

MrWalkman said:


> An interesting fact, maybe - on a Sony WM1A player, MQA files are being played at a sample rate of 352.8 kHz.
> 
> I'm playing a MQA 44.1 file right now (16/44.1, not 24 bit), and the sample rate at which the sound card is playing goes to 352.8 kHz.
> 
> ...


Sounds like a misttake and should sound worse than the 16/44.1 or is that a feature? Amazon HD also had the problem that it played everything as 192 KHz on some devices.


----------



## MrWalkman

Deolum said:


> Sounds like a misttake and should sound worse than the 16/44.1 or is that a feature? Amazon HD also had the problem that it played everything as 192 KHz on some devices.



These Sony players have a function, DSEE HX, which upsamples audio (with a sample rate of maximum of 44.1/48 kHz) to 32 bit/176.4/192 kHz, and it really works. I would say that Sony knows how to do upsampling well, and in this case I can promise you that it sounds good.

One example of what good upsampling can do, is the HQ Player app, which I recommend giving it a try, after checking out some guides on the internet.

So the MQA file is 16/44.1, but then it gets unfolded, and the "High" bar of the spectrum analyzer shows that the unfolding process indeed works.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Deolum said:


> Sounds like a misttake and should sound worse than the 16/44.1 or is that a feature? Amazon HD also had the problem that it played everything as 192 KHz on some devices.


Those files are 16/44.1 whether or not MQA is enabled on the desktop app, and whether or not MQA is enabled on my Brooklyn.

Here is a 24/352.8 MQA file https://tidal.com/browse/track/84634525

They do exist, but the Daft Punk album is not one of them.


----------



## Deolum

MrWalkman said:


> These Sony players have a function, DSEE HX, which upsamples audio (with a sample rate of maximum of 44.1/48 kHz) to 32 bit/176.4/192 kHz, and it really works. I would say that Sony knows how to do upsampling well, and in this case I can promise you that it sounds good.
> 
> One example of what good upsampling can do, is the HQ Player app, which I recommend giving it a try, after checking out some guides on the internet.
> 
> So the MQA file is 16/44.1, but then it gets unfolded, and the "High" bar of the spectrum analyzer shows that the unfolding process indeed works.


Personally i've never liked any form of upsampling. But i'd like to try the MScaler.


----------



## MrWalkman

Deolum said:


> Personally i've never liked any form of upsampling. But i'd like to try the MScaler.



I tried HQ Audio player with Dragonfly Cobalt, and it sounds "wow"!


----------



## iFi audio

PortableMusic said:


> might anyone know when Pink Floyd albums will turn MQA in the US? thanks.



If they aren't in the US yet, I imagine that they should rather sooner than later.


----------



## PortableMusic

iFi audio said:


> If they aren't in the US yet, I imagine that *they should rather sooner than later.*



@iFi audio:  hi there.  may i ask why you might be so certain please?

i ask because in Europe, Pink Floyd is distributed by Warner, and in the US, Pink Floyd is distributed by Sony.

Warner, as we all know, has a huge MQA changeover a couple of months ago - i believe the announcement said something like "...one million tracks..." iirc.

Sony likes proprietary technologies and MQA is not Sony's invention.  That's why i am cautiously hesitant in hoping that Sony will also do MQA in the US.


----------



## Bernard23

MrWalkman said:


> These Sony players have a function, DSEE HX, which upsamples audio (with a sample rate of maximum of 44.1/48 kHz) to 32 bit/176.4/192 kHz, and it really works. I would say that Sony knows how to do upsampling well, and in this case I can promise you that it sounds good.
> 
> One example of what good upsampling can do, is the HQ Player app, which I recommend giving it a try, after checking out some guides on the internet.
> 
> So the MQA file is 16/44.1, but then it gets unfolded, and the "High" bar of the spectrum analyzer shows that the unfolding process indeed works.


This is exactly what I have been experimenting with last week with the Audirvana app, forced upsampling. The theory is that upsampling carried out in the PC is less likely to introduce artefacts etc than in the DAC, but that of course depends on how good the DAC is! In my case, I can't hear any benefit in upsampling, even to DSD, so I can only conclude that the circuit design and chip implementation in the Marantz is capable.


----------



## alekc (Jan 11, 2021)

Bernard23 said:


> This is exactly what I have been experimenting with last week with the Audirvana app, forced upsampling. The theory is that upsampling carried out in the PC is less likely to introduce artefacts etc than in the DAC, but that of course depends on how good the DAC is! In my case, I can't hear any benefit in upsampling, even to DSD, so I can only conclude that the circuit design and chip implementation in the Marantz is capable.



I have very mixed experience with upsampling done by Audirvana and not all DACs I've tested were even capable to work correctly when upsampling to their maximum limit. This also bring your PC configuration (CPU, power management etc.) into play. However the bottom line is from my experience: the end result depends strongly on your DAC and track you are upsampling plus correct Audirvana settings. Upsampling to maximum does not always brings the best result IMHO. To make long story short I am usually disabling upsampling in Audirvana. However I highly value this option and I am happy I can experiment with it using only software. On the other hand my cd transport has upsampling capability and there I've left it enabled after some experiments, but again the maximum upsampling didn't sound best.

In Audirvana I use mostly x2 (for cheaper DACs) or DSD256 (for more expensive ones).

Last but not least: if I remember correctly if your DAC is set as MQA decoder or renderer MQA upsampling is not possible. This also may be the reason why there is not difference in sound, since simply audio processing options in Audirvana are disabled.


----------



## iFi audio

PortableMusic said:


> @iFi audio: hi there. may i ask why you might be so certain please?



In truth I'm not and I don't have any insider info or anything of the sort 

I was rather thinking out loud that music as known as Pink Floyd should get MQA ASAP, but that's just my gut feeling.


----------



## Bernard23

alekc said:


> I have very mixed experience with upsampling done by Audirvana and not all DACs I've tested were even capable to work correctly when upsampling to their maximum limit. This also bring your PC configuration (CPU, power management etc.) into play. However the bottom line is from my experience: the end result depends strongly on your DAC and track you are upsampling plus correct Audirvana settings. Upsampling to maximum does not always brings the best result IMHO. To make long story short I am usually disabling upsampling in Audirvana. However I highly value this option and I am happy I can experiment with it using only software. On the other hand my cd transport has upsampling capability and there I've left it enabled after some experiments, but again the maximum upsampling didn't sound best.
> 
> In Audirvana I use mostly x2 (for cheaper DACs) or DSD256 (for more expensive ones).
> 
> Last but not least: if I remember correctly if your DAC is set as MQA decoder or renderer MQA upsampling is not possible. This also may be the reason why there is not difference in sound, since simply audio processing options in Audirvana are disabled.


My DAC isn't MQA rendering capable, and having tried every audirvana option, both using upsampling, using SoX filters, no up sampling etc I've concluded it makes no repeatable discernable difference for me, so I've no intention of continuing beyond the free trial.


----------



## judomaniak57

when playing MQA from my node 2i some songs have a green dot some a blue dot by the MQA symbol, anybody know what they mean. node2i doesnt come with a manual


----------



## MrWalkman (Jan 12, 2021)

judomaniak57 said:


> when playing MQA from my node 2i some songs have a green dot some a blue dot by the MQA symbol, anybody know what they mean. node2i doesnt come with a manual



*Provenance*
Provenance and technical standards are completely different things. A music file can be altered after artist release, irrespective of the technology used. Provenance is indicated when MQA is played back.


The MQA ‘Studio’ (blue light) gives confirmation directly from mastering engineers, producers or artists to their listeners. _MQA Studio_ authenticates that the sound you are hearing is exactly as played in the studio when the music was completed and, by implication, that this is also the definitive version of the recording at that point in time.
A second level, ‘MQA’ (green light) is available to indicate that although the stream is genuine, provenance may be uncertain or that it is not yet the final release


MQA provenance recognises that great music may only be available in early analogue or early digital or Redbook CD format; such recordings, if vouched for by the rights holder, can be marked MQA Studio and enjoy the profound sonic benefits of the MQA chain.


----------



## MrWalkman

PortableMusic said:


> i was hoping that Sony would also jump on the MQA train. then again, Sony has a history of preferring proprietary technologies. sort of like if it's not invented here (i.e. by Sony), we don't want to jump on it



From the MQA website:

"Sony Music, Warner Music, Universal Music and Merlin (on behalf of independent labels), are all licensed partners. This means the availability of MQA music continues to grow worldwide. "


----------



## PortableMusic

MrWalkman said:


> From the MQA website:
> 
> "Sony Music, Warner Music, Universal Music and Merlin (on behalf of independent labels), are all licensed partners. This means the availability of MQA music continues to grow worldwide. "



that's outstanding news!  thank you.  that page on MQA is from summer 2020, so it's quite recent, ~ 6 months.

this means that Sony distributed music here in the US has a chance of going MQA on Tidal as well!  great!  thankyou @MrWalkman.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

MrWalkman said:


> *Provenance*
> Provenance and technical standards are completely different things. A music file can be altered after artist release, irrespective of the technology used. Provenance is indicated when MQA is played back.
> 
> 
> ...


There is also purple which I see when I turn off Tidal's pass through, it indicates the dac realizes that Tidal did the first unfold.


----------



## MrWalkman

gimmeheadroom said:


> There is also purple which I see when I turn off Tidal's pass through, it indicates the dac realizes that Tidal did the first unfold.



Purple is a color chosen by the DAC's manufacturer to indicate that the DAC is in the MQA mode, and they all seem to use Purple

"Blue" and "Green" are actual colors as per MQA's specifications. The blue or green icon shows up even in USB Audio Player Pro, as well as in Audirvana, for example.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

MrWalkman said:


> Purple is a color chosen by the DAC's manufacturer to indicate that the DAC is in the MQA mode, and they all seem to use Purple
> 
> "Blue" and "Green" are actual colors as per MQA's specifications. The blue or green icon shows up even in USB Audio Player Pro, as well as in Audirvana, for example.


DACs running blue and green are also in MQA mode so I think my explanation is a bit more clear along with your fine point that it is not an official MQA color per se.

I'm pretty sure when I turn off MQA in my Brooklyn, none of the MQA colors are illuminated, even when receiving an MQA stream from Tidal.


----------



## MrWalkman

If anyone is curious to try the "Dark Side o


gimmeheadroom said:


> DACs running blue and green are also in MQA mode so I think my explanation is a bit more clear along with your fine point that it is not an official MQA color per se.
> 
> I'm pretty sure when I turn off MQA in my Brooklyn, none of the MQA colors are illuminated, even when receiving an MQA stream from Tidal.



At least my DragonFly Cobalt uses Purple for all-MQA, and then Blue is for 48 kHz (like normal, non-MQA 16 or 24 bit, 48 kHz), and Green is for 44.1 kHz.

I'm not entirely sure why a DAC would need the purple color if it's already showing Blue or Green for MQA.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

MrWalkman said:


> If anyone is curious to try the "Dark Side o
> 
> 
> At least my DragonFly Cobalt uses Purple for all-MQA, and then Blue is for 48 kHz (like normal, non-MQA 16 or 24 bit, 48 kHz), and Green is for 44.1 kHz.
> ...


I can't understand what you're saying. It sounds like your DAC displays two colors at one time?

The way the Brooklyn works is that if MQA is on and it receives a non-unfolded MQA stream is shows blue or green as appropriate. It does not have to do with the bit depth or sample rate, blue is about Official Studio and green is unofficial. The Brooklyn shows actual bit depth and sample rate of every input stream regardless of MQA, PCM, DSD etc.

If MQA is on and it receives a 1X unfolded stream as when Tidal desktop does not passthrough MQA, it shows purple.

If MQA is off the MQA indicator remains unlit.


----------



## MrWalkman

gimmeheadroom said:


> I can't understand what you're saying. It sounds like your DAC displays two colors at one time?



No.

When playing non-MQA, Dragonfly Cobalt will display Green for the 44.1 kHz sample rate, Blue for the 48 kHz sample rate, Amber for 88.2 kHz, and White for 96 kHz.

While playing MQA ("Passthrough" off only), the light will turn to Purple.



gimmeheadroom said:


> The way the Brooklyn works is that if MQA is on and it receives a non-unfolded MQA stream is shows blue or green as appropriate. It does not have to do with the bit depth or sample rate, blue is about Official Studio and green is unofficial. The Brooklyn shows actual bit depth and sample rate of every input stream regardless of MQA, PCM, DSD etc.
> 
> If MQA is on and it receives a 1X unfolded stream as when Tidal desktop does not passthrough MQA, it shows purple.



Ok, I get it now.

I didn't know that full MQA decoders are set up so they could also work when the "Passthrough" option in Tidal is off.


----------



## Ficcion2

For whatever its worth, Im enjoying MQA streams with my Matrix Element M. 
A ton of jazz records got the MQA switch over and I personally like how older albums like Pat Metheny's ECM era sounds.

The PCM streams sound so flat for those particular recordings but they sound more "rounded" out now. 

I remember trying out Quboz for the free trial and liking the sound over there even over some MQA streams.

Currently trying the Roon free trial and I really like it. Sounds better too (to me). 

Might try out Quboz again.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

MrWalkman said:


> No.
> 
> When playing non-MQA, Dragonfly Cobalt will display Green for the 44.1 kHz sample rate, Blue for the 48 kHz sample rate, Amber for 88.2 kHz, and White for 96 kHz.
> 
> ...


I didn't either. I found it by mistake when I was checking the actual bit depth of some MQA album bitstreams. I tried various combinations of settings and there it was.

It does not do anything further in this case as far as I know. I think it assumes that somebody upstream did something to the native MQA bitstream so he tells you that, but leaves it alone.


----------



## alekc

BobSmith8901 said:


> Melody Gardot _Sunset In The Blue_ (2020) is a real treat in Tidal MQA.



After very careful and long listening sessions of this brilliant album I've decided that my favorite version is CD upsampled to either DSD 128 or PCM 96, not MQA. Silver disc spinning is still great experience with great transport and dac.


----------



## telecaster

Meridian MQA through Meridian Explorer and Meridian 861 

I use a Brix mini pc as a player, connected to a Meridian Explorer usb asynchronous spdif out.
It feed my DAC Meridian 861. I use ROON and tidal MQA is recognized for the first unfold. It's a 44KHz 24bits unfolded to 88KHz.
I love it! Roon plus Tidal is the bomb!
I must say that I have another Brix mini pc as a ROCK via ethernet (mini roon server) with SSD and it is very fast and reliable that way. I tried with other configuration in the past and it was always a problem somewhere.

Now I want a ipad pro as a ROON remote!


----------



## battermoose11

I would like to chime in. I listen to Tidal most of the time, The main conclusion, IMHO, is that the music from the MQA versions seems to be less fatiguing over longer periods of time. My overall thought is what HEADFRY said in the second paragraph of the thread starter. My gear is an old dell with I5 processor, output via usb to aSchiit Modi2 to a Vali 2 and finally to my Hifiman 400i.


----------



## Telin




----------



## Brava210

alekc said:


> After very careful and long listening sessions of this brilliant album I've decided that my favorite version is CD upsampled to either DSD 128 or PCM 96, not MQA. Silver disc spinning is still great experience with great transport and dac.


I must say....what a very special voice.


----------



## Left Channel

alekc said:


> After very careful and long listening sessions of this brilliant album I've decided that my favorite version is CD upsampled to either DSD 128 or PCM 96, not MQA. Silver disc spinning is still great experience with great transport and dac.



Great CD player! I really like my NuPrime CDT-8 Pro, and I don't use half the features like the upsampling you were doing there. I pair it with a DAC-9.


----------



## alekc

Left Channel said:


> Great CD player! I really like my NuPrime CDT-8 Pro, and I don't use half the features like the upsampling you were doing there. I pair it with a DAC-9.



Can't agree more  

I never heard it with Nuprime dac but I am sure it is great setup. 

When I bought Mytek I felt something has been missing from my setup and it turned out it was CD transport. If the CDT-8 would be first purchase I could end up pairing it with one of Nuprime DACs and headphone amps. In fact Mytek does not support all upsampling settings CDT-8 provides but I still love the pairing. Sorry for maybe a bit unfortunate wordplay but overall "CDT-8 sounds great with upsampling disabled" 

Considering how happy I am with this purchase I may consider upgrade in form of CDT-10 one day, but honestly I don't see any reason to do it now. Simply CDT-8 provides everything I need and ever wanted with small exception of the awful remote.  

I find it great add on to any streamer when you are tired of streaming music and want to play a bit oldschool spinning silver discs instead.


----------



## KaiFi

I've been listening to MQA streams on Tidal with my Hip DAC. I like what I hear, but I'm not sure exactly what I'm supposed to be listening for. The problem is I listen to classical which can vary so much in quality from recording to recording and I find quality of the recording matters more than format. But I'm enjoying it, so whatever.


----------



## vanhalen26

Question on MQA unfolding.  I’m looking at a portable player that does x8 unfolding.  I see others that go x16 unfolding.  Is there much content that actually uses x16?  I’m still trying to get my head around MQA a little.  Thanks


----------



## Dannemand (Feb 6, 2021)

vanhalen26 said:


> Question on MQA unfolding.  I’m looking at a portable player that does x8 unfolding.  I see others that go x16 unfolding.  Is there much content that actually uses x16?  I’m still trying to get my head around MQA a little.  Thanks



I replied to this in the V30 Music Apps, Tips and Tricks thread. Suffice to say I am skeptical about those 16x claims. Even the 8x claims are a bit dubious, although we do have 8x MQA content.


----------



## Dannemand (Feb 6, 2021)

KaiFi said:


> I've been listening to MQA streams on Tidal with my Hip DAC. I like what I hear, but I'm not sure exactly what I'm supposed to be listening for. The problem is I listen to classical which can vary so much in quality from recording to recording and I find quality of the recording matters more than format. But I'm enjoying it, so whatever.



That is the problem in a nutshell: A lot of classical MQA releases are poor recordings in the first place. Particularly the many Warner releases (EMI etc) are 16/44 MQA with no additional samples to unfold. So there isn't much (or any) additional quality, even if the recording was a good one to begin with. Of course many of them are great historical performances, which accounts for something.

2L has released several high quality classical MQA albums and playlists on Tidal of which I linked a few below. Many tracks are also available for free download in several formats on the good old 2L Test Bench website. I tend to find 2L's mastering a tad hot (as if they never realized that the Loudness War is over). But their recording quality is indisputable.

https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/3f6a06c7-0dfc-4170-bac3-dce62aa6c42e
https://tidal.com/browse/album/2400318
https://tidal.com/browse/album/59883218

Another great catalog of classical MQA releases are the Everest Records Master Transfers from 3-track 35mm tapes. I am listing a selection below, but more can be found by googling *site:tidal.com "everest records"*. (The abbreviated descriptions below are to keep each on one line in my Keep list).



Spoiler: Everest Records Master Transfers on Tidal



Copland: Appalachian: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79242759
Copland: Symphony No. 3: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79238533
Rimski-Korsakov Scheherazade: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79238847
Berlioz: Sym Fantastique: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79238872
Tchaikovsky Manfred Sym: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79241901
Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 5: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79238925
Tchaikovsky: Violin Concerto: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79239430
Bartók Conc for Orchestra: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79242372
Prokofiev: Sym No. 5: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79238867
Stravinsky Rite of Spring: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79238563
Hindemith: Sym in E-flat: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79240169
Sibelius: Symphony No. 5: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79240939
Schumann: Piano Concerto: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79241380
Shostakovich: Symphony No. 6: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79241088
Shostakovich: Symphony No. 9: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79238930
Mahler: Symphony No. 1: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79239101
Mahler: Symphony No. 5: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79241148
Mahler: Symphony No. 9: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79238612
Beethoven: Symphony No. 3: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79240950
Beethoven: Symphony No. 6: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79242429
Beethoven: Symphony No. 7: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79242486
Beethoven: Symphony No. 9: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79242511
Schubert: Symphony No. 8: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79238813
Khatchaturian: Piano Concerto: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79241873
Stravinsky: Ebony Conc & Sym in 3: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79238766
Sibelius: Violin Concerto: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79241347
Debussy Iberia, Ravel Valse&Espas: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79240924
Hindemith, Mozart: Violin Conc: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79238803
Gershwin:Rhapsody & American: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79240363
Mussorgsky Pictures at Exhibition: https://listen.tidal.com/album/79240889



Otherwise I tend to find that the best recordings are NOT available as MQA. Such as pretty much anything from Reference Recordings (Keith Johnson & Co) of which I listed some below. Not all are classical, but all are great test tracks.



Spoiler: Reference Recordings on Tidal



Tutti!: Orchestral Sampler: https://listen.tidal.com/album/45720637
30th Anniversary Sampler: https://listen.tidal.com/album/45718779
Pittsburgh Tchaikovsky Symph 5: https://listen.tidal.com/album/50935838
Pittsburgh Brahms Symphony 4: https://listen.tidal.com/album/95887708
Pittsburgh Bruckner Symphony 4: https://listen.tidal.com/album/42802473
Pittsburgh Bruckner Symphony 9: https://listen.tidal.com/album/143090758
Minnesota Bruckner Symphony 9: https://listen.tidal.com/album/45715306
Minnesota Pics at an Exhibition: https://listen.tidal.com/album/45716262
Stravinsky: Sacre, Firebird, Rossig: https://listen.tidal.com/album/45716607
Minnesota Reveries: https://listen.tidal.com/album/45719006
Rachmaninoff Sym Dances & Voca: https://listen.tidal.com/album/45716985
Minnesota: Bolero! Fireworks https://listen.tidal.com/album/45715512
Copland Fanfare, Appala, Sym3: https://listen.tidal.com/album/45713960
Minnesota Exotic Dances: https://listen.tidal.com/album/45717887
Minnesota Mephisto & Co: https://listen.tidal.com/album/45715935
Dvořák & Janáček: Orchestral: https://listen.tidal.com/album/38110280
Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 6: https://listen.tidal.com/album/59468103
Shostakovich Symp 5 & Barber: https://listen.tidal.com/album/76948704
Mahler Symphony No. 1: https://listen.tidal.com/album/49818040
Schoenberg: American Symphony: https://listen.tidal.com/album/68901239
Mozart: Piano Conc Nos. 21 & 24: https://listen.tidal.com/album/45714319
Nojima Plays Liszt: https://listen.tidal.com/album/45717983
Kansas City / Miraculous Metam: https://tidal.com/browse/album/38113758
The Banner Saga: https://listen.tidal.com/album/25413161
Dick Hyman Plays Duke Ellington: https://listen.tidal.com/album/45717350
Dick Hyman Plays Fats Waller: https://listen.tidal.com/album/45714730
Doug MacLeod / Brand New Eyes: https://listen.tidal.com/album/45716918
Doug MacLeod / Break the Chain: https://listen.tidal.com/album/74289912
Doug MacLeod / There's a Time: https://listen.tidal.com/album/45715806



Also, pretty much any releases produced or engineered by Steven Epstein tend to be excellent, such as the following. More can be found by filtering in Tidal on Steven Epstein as Producer, Engineer or Production Team. There are several MQA as well, although I don't have a list.

Maazel / Sibelius: Complete Orchestral works: https://listen.tidal.com/album/1788170

That's it for now.


----------



## SenorChang8

That’s a very extensive list, I will enjoy going through them. Thank you @Dannemand !


----------



## rkw

vanhalen26 said:


> Question on MQA unfolding.  I’m looking at a portable player that does x8 unfolding.  I see others that go x16 unfolding.  Is there much content that actually uses x16?


I'm skeptical that anything beyond the first unfold (x2) produces meaningful results. The MQA source files streamed from Tidal are no higher than 24-bit/48kHz (many are only 16-bit/44.1kHz). x2 expands to a 24/96 lossy stream and x4 expands to a 24/192 lossy stream. At x8 it will be 24/384 and I'm incredulous about how much information could be "encoded" into the original 24/48 stream.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

The 384 KHz does sound great though


----------



## Alpha1Ric

AStell kern Alpha unfolding 8x or 16x?


----------



## boxster233

Alpha1Ric said:


> AStell kern Alpha unfolding 8x or 16x?


8x according to Moon Audio.


----------



## PortableMusic

i'd like to see what the good folks here think about the possible future of Tidal when Spotify Hifi goes live?

i am a Tidal-only guy.  i started with Tidal Hifi and it's the ONLY streaming source i use, so i'm all-in.  i want Tidal to do VERY well.

when Spotify Hifi starts later this year, what if Tidal continues to bleed more in terms of having insufficient revenue to keep it afloat?  might Qobuz and Primephonic, inter alia, be merged into Tidal and thus, form a uber hifi single source, while Spotify Hifi serves the broad based general users?  so Tidal (now merged, hypothetically, with Qobuz/Primephonic) will be the high end boutique of streaming, and Spotify Hifi will be the Gap/Banana Republic of streaming?  just thinking out loud...

i'm concerned that anything negative will happen with Tidal Hifi as i'm all-in, as i mentioned earlier.

thanks in advance.


----------



## boxster233

PortableMusic said:


> i'd like to see what the good folks here think about the possible future of Tidal when Spotify Hifi goes live?
> 
> i am a Tidal-only guy.  i started with Tidal Hifi and it's the ONLY streaming source i use, so i'm all-in.  i want Tidal to do VERY well.
> 
> ...


Things have been negative for tidal and streaming companies in general for a decade but they keep surviving. I doubt there will be a merger of sorts because they all carry substantial debt. Spotify hifi doesn’t seem to be really hifi since it’s only cd quality so doubt it will pull many audiophiles and tidal fans away.


----------



## PortableMusic

boxster233 said:


> Things have been negative for tidal and streaming companies in general for a decade but they keep surviving. I doubt there will be a merger of sorts because they all carry substantial debt. Spotify hifi doesn’t seem to be really hifi since it’s only cd quality so *doubt it will pull many audiophiles and tidal fans away*.



@boxter233:   but my fear is that there aren't enough of us audiophiles to sustain Tidal!  that's my point and that's why Tidal et al all have been having financial woes for so long.


----------



## boxster233

PortableMusic said:


> @boxter233:   but my fear is that there aren't enough of us audiophiles to sustain Tidal!  that's my point and that's why Tidal et al all have been having financial woes for so long.


It’s a rational fear but don’t think anyone has answers at all.


----------



## rkw

PortableMusic said:


> i am a Tidal-only guy.  i started with Tidal Hifi and it's the ONLY streaming source i use, so i'm all-in.  i want Tidal to do VERY well.


What does being "all-in" mean to you? For Tidal, the only thing I could think of is buying into MQA. Otherwise, for most people there isn't much to tie them into a particular streaming service and pretty easy to switch between services.


----------



## PortableMusic

rkw said:


> What does being "all-in" mean to you? For Tidal, the only thing I could think of is buying into MQA. Otherwise, for most people there isn't much to tie them into a particular streaming service and pretty easy to switch between services.



by all-in, i meant that i've only recently started to stream via a pay service.  previously, i've only tried free Pandora, which sounds awful and can only be used as low volume background music for me.

since i've started Tidal Hifi, i also veered away from speakers and went with a pair of Empyreans and an A&K Kann Alpha.  so i've only tried streaming hi-res via Tidal Hifi.  so i casually used the term "all-in", meaning i don't have an interest in changing.  hopefully, i won't be forced to, because i like Tidal thus far, though their classical offerings can be better categorized, sorted, and their search for classical leaves much to be desired, but i don't listen to classical all the time, so while it's an annoyance, the breadth of music of Tidal is important to me as well.


----------



## rkw

PortableMusic said:


> i've only tried streaming hi-res via Tidal Hifi.  so i casually used the term "all-in", meaning i don't have an interest in changing.  hopefully, i won't be forced to, because i like Tidal thus far


I would say, don't worry about it. Tidal received a large investment from Sprint (now merged with T-Mobile) that should keep them going for at least a few more years. Then they will either find more funding or a buyer, or shut down. If Tidal shuts down, there are other services that can serve your needs and switching will be relatively easy.


----------



## Left Channel (Feb 25, 2021)

boxster233 said:


> Things have been negative for tidal and streaming companies in general for a decade but they keep surviving. I doubt there will be a merger of sorts because they all carry substantial debt. Spotify hifi doesn’t seem to be really hifi since it’s only cd quality so doubt it will pull many audiophiles and tidal fans away.


Yup, they're all losing money nonstop while trying to outlast each other. Just to clear up one thing though, as defined by industry marketing, "Hi Fi" is CD quality and "Hi Res" is anything above that. CD quality means 16/44.1, which is most of the tracks on Tidal, while Hi Res means Tidal MQA or on other services 24/48 and above. But you're right, even with Spotify offering CD quality Tidal still has an edge (as does Qobuz, and also Amazon HD if it worked right).


----------



## BobSmith8901 (Feb 25, 2021)

PortableMusic said:


> i'd like to see what the good folks here think about the possible future of Tidal when Spotify Hifi goes live?
> 
> i am a Tidal-only guy.  i started with Tidal Hifi and it's the ONLY streaming source i use, so i'm all-in.  i want Tidal to do VERY well.
> 
> ...


I've been a Tidal Hi-Fi user now for around three years and I too hope they'll be around for the future. I can't help but think that Spotify Hifi is going to have some impact on Tidal in terms of some users dropping Tidal for Spotify. We don't know at this point if Spotify is going to also have Hi-Res offerings above 16/44.1 or not. That will make things interesting if they do.

I think it's also possible that if things get bad enough for them (Tidal) that they may change their subscription model a bit, and maybe offer something a bit more expensive, toward the more audiophile users, maybe have a streaming platform that offers more customization to what the user wants to see when they log-in, and allow users to integrate their own music into a desktop or mobile platform, etc.

Going forward I would imagine that they want to increase their subscription prices, especially for Hi-Fi, but are afraid of a mass exodus, especially with Spotify's new move. But, yeah, I really hope they survive. The integration of UAPP and Tidal MQA for me just works, even on my aging equipment, and, for the money, it can't be beat. Note: I can't get Qobuz where I live so that's not an option.


----------



## Dannemand (Feb 25, 2021)

Left Channel said:


> Yup, they're all losing money nonstop while trying to outlast each other. Just to clear up one thing though, as defined by industry marketing, "Hi Fi" is CD quality and "Hi Res" is anything above that. CD quality means 16/44.1, which is most of the tracks on Tidal, while Hi Res means Tidal MQA or on other services 24/48 and above. But you're right, even with Spotify offering CD quality Tidal still has an edge (as does Qobuz, and also Amazon HD if it worked right).


^ Spot on!

Strictly speaking, we could argue that 24/44 is HiRes(olution), since bit depth is the resolution part. But I would say HiRes starts for real at 24/88.2 or 24/96.

Of note, after last year's Warner dump, I think the majority of MQA releases on Tidal are now the 16/44 variant (such as Jacqueline du Pre's Dvorak) which contain no origami, so no additional samples - nor any spare bits to store them. Those cannot possibly qualify as HiRes.

These 16/44 MQAs may still be better than their original CDs if they were re-encoded with the MQA Encoder, which (allegedly) uses knowledge about the original ADC to update each sample so it aligns better on the waveform. But HiRes they are not. They do NOT earn the MQA 'Studio' dot probably for that reason.

There are also a number of 24/44 and 24/48 MQAs on Tidal, which (strangely) do NOT contain origami (i.e. no additional samples). Examples are Billie Eilish's haunting No Time to Die (24/44.1) and the Barenboim/Staatskapelle Berlin 2016 Bruckner cycle (24/48). For some reason the latter earns the MQA 'Studio' dot, while the former does not. Maybe MQA also goes by the logic that HiRes starts at 24/48.

Speaking of MQA and the future of Tidal: The two are intertwined, Tidal being the dominant source of MQA content. So I would imagine that Meridian/MQA will do their part to keep Tidal alive.


----------



## liuj2001

I know I can download original FLACs from Tidal, and move them from device to device, so I don't need to download them separately on different devices using the Tidal app. Does anyone know if I can do the same on Qobuz or Amazon HD?


----------



## Dannemand (Feb 25, 2021)

liuj2001 said:


> I know I can download original FLACs from Tidal, and move them from device to device, so I don't need to download them separately on different devices using the Tidal app. Does anyone know if I can do the same on Qobuz or Amazon HD?



I don't think you can do that legally. Speaking of keeping Tidal afloat 

Edit: Please don't get me wrong: As a Tidal subscriber you are of course doing your part, as long as you don't keep them FLACs after ending your subscription. I still don't think it is legal, though. Personally I do NOT want to risk getting Tidal lawyers on my back.


----------



## Double C

liuj2001 said:


> I know I can download original FLACs from Tidal, and move them from device to device, so I don't need to download them separately on different devices using the Tidal app. Does anyone know if I can do the same on Qobuz or Amazon HD?



How do you do this?


----------



## liuj2001

Dannemand said:


> I don't think you can do that legally. Speaking of keeping Tidal afloat
> 
> Edit: Please don't get me wrong: As a Tidal subscriber you are of course doing your part, as long as you don't keep them FLACs after ending your subscription. I still don't think it is legal, though. Personally I do NOT want to risk getting Tidal lawyers on my back.


Yeah, I read the fine lines and am very aware of that. I've no intention to unsubscribe at any time soon. The pandemic keeps everyone at home, and my internet data limit is capped out everyone, this pushes me to seek alternatives other than streaming all the time.


----------



## liuj2001

Double C said:


> How do you do this?


Google is your friend  Sorry, I think it may be a bit controversial to post instruction here.


----------



## Double C

liuj2001 said:


> Google is your friend  Sorry, I think it may be a bit controversial to post instruction here.


Gotcha, I thought it was something built in I had missed. Ty


----------



## rkw

BobSmith8901 said:


> I can't help but think that Spotify Hifi is going to have some impact on Tidal in terms of some users dropping Tidal for Spotify.


Of course Spotify HiFi will impact Tidal (and Qobuz). Spotify HiFi will bring an additional choice and more competition. We have already seen the effect of Amazon HD here on Head-Fi, where members discussed choosing between services and some decided to drop Tidal for Amazon. This will also happen with Spotify.

The real competition is between the big three: Spotify, Apple Music, and Amazon. This is where Spotify is trying position itself. In comparison, the subscriber numbers for Tidal and Qobuz are in the noise, a roundoff error. They have less than 1% market share and get dumped into "others" category in the charts.


----------



## PortableMusic

i wonder why Primephonic, Qobuz, and Tidal won't all merge together and try to stay afloat that way?

since they are all so small, why not join forces and try to be successful as the high end boutique of streaming services?


----------



## MrWalkman

liuj2001 said:


> Yeah, I read the fine lines and am very aware of that. I've no intention to unsubscribe at any time soon. The pandemic keeps everyone at home, and my internet data limit is capped out everyone, this pushes me to seek alternatives other than streaming all the time.



I usually stream to discover new music, and then I get what I like on the SD card of my Sony WM1A.


----------



## boxster233

PortableMusic said:


> i wonder why Primephonic, Qobuz, and Tidal won't all merge together and try to stay afloat that way?
> 
> since they are all so small, why not join forces and try to be successful as the high end boutique of streaming services?


Different beliefs, strategies, technologies, existing contracts with music industry, who wants to end the boss. So many reasons why companies don’t merge.


----------



## PortableMusic

boxster233 said:


> Different beliefs, strategies, technologies, existing contracts with music industry, who wants to end the boss. So many reasons why companies don’t merge.


it seems highly likely that some form of consolidation is inevitable due to the continued loss and bleeding at these smaller boutique-y streaming services.  there can't be that many of them around for too much longer.  their owners wouldn't want continued losses ad infinitum!


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Spotify has a free tier and that is where most of their numbers from from. So I doubt how meaningful that pie chart is. Google music? LOL I guess that also counts all the poor victims who used google music on their phones.

There are very few bit perfect or lossless services. Google is not, Deezer is not (unless you have a Bluesound device) last time I looked scamazon was not. Apple is not. Looking at mass market numbers where google and scamazon make it easy to add on if you're already roped into paying for their other things is not very meaningful. The audiophile market has always been a tiny percentage compared to boombox audio. The services doing bit perfect will always have audiophile customers, they don't have to be the biggest or have ten zillion "subscribers" to make their business viable.


----------



## bfreedma

gimmeheadroom said:


> Spotify has a free tier and that is where most of their numbers from from. So I doubt how meaningful that pie chart is. Google music? LOL I guess that also counts all the poor victims who used google music on their phones.
> 
> There are very few bit perfect or lossless services. Google is not, Deezer is not (unless you have a Bluesound device) last time I looked scamazon was not. Apple is not. Looking at mass market numbers where google and scamazon make it easy to add on if you're already roped into paying for their other things is not very meaningful. The audiophile market has always been a tiny percentage compared to boombox audio. The services doing bit perfect will always have audiophile customers, they don't have to be the biggest or have ten zillion "subscribers" to make their business viable.



The problem is that none of the current services offering hi-res are anywhere close to being financially viable.  The audiophile customer base is far too small to support a streaming service in isolation.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

bfreedma said:


> The problem is that none of the current services offering hi-res are anywhere close to being financially viable.  The audiophile customer base is far too small to support a streaming service in isolation.


And yet they've been in business for years. So I have no idea what that statement means.


----------



## bfreedma

gimmeheadroom said:


> And yet they've been in business for years. So I have no idea what that statement means.



They have been supported by initial investment, but that isn’t an endless source of income.  Tidal and Qobuz have both been clear that they aren’t profitable and have never been.  Neither are showing a rate of growth indicating there is any change to this coming.

They will either need to merge with one of the larger streaming services or will likely disappear in the next 2-4 years.  The costs for negotiating and maintaining licensing agreements and underlying infrastructure require more subscribers than just the audiophile community.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

bfreedma said:


> They have been supported by initial investment, but that isn’t an endless source of income.  Tidal and Qobuz have both been clear that they aren’t profitable and have never been.  Neither are showing a rate of growth indicating there is any change to this coming.
> 
> They will either need to merge with one of the larger streaming services or will likely disappear in the next 2-4 years.  The costs for negotiating and maintaining licensing agreements and underlying infrastructure require more subscribers than just the audiophile community.


I don't find the FUD compelling. What happens happens. Until then all we can see from the outside is they continue to work fine. Nobody should be ditching their CDs or albums though.


----------



## bfreedma

gimmeheadroom said:


> I don't find the FUD compelling. What happens happens. Until then all we can see from the outside is they continue to work fine. Nobody should be ditching their CDs or albums though.



How is quoting market share and public financial statements FUD?  I want the hi-res services to succeed, but they live under the same p&l constraints that any other business does.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

I don't think it reflects reality and I'm not accusing you of FUD. I'm accusing the people with an agenda who create misleading graphics of spreading FUD. I mentioned a few reasons why I think those numbers are not realistic or helpful.


----------



## rkw

gimmeheadroom said:


> There are very few bit perfect or lossless services. Google is not, Deezer is not


Deezer HiFi is CD quality lossless. Originally lossless was only available on Mac/PC app, later added to mobile and web.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

rkw said:


> Deezer HiFi is CD quality lossless. Originally lossless was only available on Mac/PC app, later added to mobile and web.


It is lossless but it is not bit perfect unless you have Bluesound.


----------



## rkw

gimmeheadroom said:


> It is lossless but it is not bit perfect unless you have Bluesound.


Deezer is bit perfect on several streamers, notably Chromecast. A list of devices is listed here (those with HiFi logo).
https://www.deezer.com/en/devices/soundsystems
It's been a few years since I did a Deezer free trial and I don't remember exactly, but I thought it was bit perfect on USB from a Mac. Ultimately I didn't subscribe because I didn't like the UI and the search function was poor for classical music.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

rkw said:


> Deezer is bit perfect on several streamers, notably Chromecast. A list of devices is listed here (those with HiFi logo).
> https://www.deezer.com/en/devices/soundsystems
> It's been a few years since I did a Deezer free trial and I don't remember exactly, but I thought it was bit perfect on USB from a Mac. Ultimately I didn't subscribe because I didn't like the UI and the search function was poor for classical music.


I have had deezer for a couple of years off and on. As far as I know the desktop apps don't do bitperfect. I use it on a Bluesound but for me the desktop app is most important.


----------



## Deolum

PortableMusic said:


> i'd like to see what the good folks here think about the possible future of Tidal when Spotify Hifi goes live?
> 
> i am a Tidal-only guy.  i started with Tidal Hifi and it's the ONLY streaming source i use, so i'm all-in.  i want Tidal to do VERY well.
> 
> ...


Wow love you. Didn't know anything about Spotify Hifi. I waited so long for this and finally it's there. Bye Quobuz, bye Tidal.


----------



## pilgrimbilly

Deolum said:


> Wow love you. Didn't know anything about Spotify Hifi. I waited so long for this and finally it's there. Bye Quobuz, bye Tidal.


Later this year and not global.


----------



## tameral

Trying Audirvana with Tidal and Qobuz

Leaning towards Qobuz at this point - the whole MQA thing with Tidal puts me off - although the interface is better - perhaps I'm ignorant but prefer transparent FLAC stats vs MQA mystery


----------



## boxster233

tameral said:


> Trying Audirvana with Tidal and Qobuz
> 
> Leaning towards Qobuz at this point - the whole MQA thing with Tidal puts me off - although the interface is better - perhaps I'm ignorant but prefer transparent FLAC stats vs MQA mystery


I think a lot of people value transparency but also remember transparency is good but so is musical enjoyment. The MQA filters on full decoders and renderers sound so good in my opinion. Either way, enjoy your journey.


----------



## tameral

boxster233 said:


> I think a lot of people value transparency but also remember transparency is good but so is musical enjoyment. The MQA filters on full decoders and renderers sound so good in my opinion. Either way, enjoy your journey.


Have a Bifrost 2 on the way and currently just using an E30 - from my understanding I need an MQA dac to really take advantage of Tidal - which could be inaccurate.  I keep leaning towards Qobuz at this point


----------



## gimmeheadroom

tameral said:


> Have a Bifrost 2 on the way and currently just using an E30 - from my understanding I need an MQA dac to really take advantage of Tidal - which could be inaccurate.  I keep leaning towards Qobuz at this point


The Tidal desktop app does the first unfold. To get the max. benefit you need a DAC that does the full unfold. I checked a few songs with the Tidal software unfold vs. MQA DACs and I think the desktop app does a very good job.


----------



## Taz777

You'll still get most of the benefits of MQA with the first unfold in software (e.g. the TIDAL app). The full decoding is just a nice to have as far as I have been able to determine through listening. Plus, many DACs simply upsample once the first unfold has been done anyway, so you're not really getting anything special.


----------



## tameral

Thanks for your experienced replies - are you all suggesting that Qobuz sound quality is not as good as Tidal sound quality even if you do not have an MQA DAC because the Tidal desktop app sufficiently addresses this?


----------



## boxster233

tameral said:


> Thanks for your experienced replies - are you all suggesting that Qobuz sound quality is not as good as Tidal sound quality even if you do not have an MQA DAC because the Tidal desktop app sufficiently addresses this?


I believe they both offer trials. I recommend trying both. I did that with Spotify and then with Qobuz. Both times I chose Tidal because I enjoyed the sound more. I also have a Tidal family plan for family sharing.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

tameral said:


> Thanks for your experienced replies - are you all suggesting that Qobuz sound quality is not as good as Tidal sound quality even if you do not have an MQA DAC because the Tidal desktop app sufficiently addresses this?


Qobuz biggest problem is availability. We can't get it here at all.

The sound quality is probably not the factor between the hifi streaming services, it comes down more to who has the music you want in their catalog, how you like the UX, if you care about music suggestions etc.

I have deezer also but they don't have a bitperfect desktop app. So like @boxster233 said just try whichever ones you can and see what you like.


----------



## Taz777

tameral said:


> Thanks for your experienced replies - are you all suggesting that Qobuz sound quality is not as good as Tidal sound quality even if you do not have an MQA DAC because the Tidal desktop app sufficiently addresses this?


Sound quality is a very subjective thing and only your ears can decide what is good and what is not. Forget about graphs and numbers as nobody hears music in exactly the same way (that's a controversial point, I know, but it's a valid one as far as I am concerned). Also, a bad recording of a 24/192 song will sound bad compared to a good recording of a 16/44.1 song.

I ran Qobuz and TIDAL in parallel for 12 months. I maintained almost equivalent playlists across both platforms. Here is why I cancelled Qobuz and continued with TIDAL.

1. The 'Hi-Res' content is few and far between on both platforms for the songs and genres that I like to listen to. Around 80% of my playlists contain CD-quality FLAC music, and CD-quality is more than good enough for me.

2. I listen mainly to offline playlists on my portable devices and this is where TIDAL scores heavily. My micro-SD cards are less full due to the smaller file sizes for TIDAL Masters files. I see Masters tracks in my playlists growing over time so I'll reap storage benefits even more.

3. The offline mechanism for Qobuz on my portable devices was confusing and inefficient in how the offline content was stored. With TIDAL it's simple and intuitive. And it works very well.

4. This is the most important deciding factor for me: choose the platform that has the music you enjoy listening to! It's no use choosing 24/192 platforms if they don't contain your music preferences. I'd rather have music even in MP3 format than not available on a music streaming service. It's all about the music.

That's just my view. Others may hold entirely the opposite view.


----------



## Dannemand

Taz777 said:


> Sound quality is a very subjective thing and only your ears can decide what is good and what is not. Forget about graphs and numbers as nobody hears music in exactly the same way (that's a controversial point, I know, but it's a valid one as far as I am concerned). Also, a bad recording of a 24/192 song will sound bad compared to a good recording of a 16/44.1 song.
> 
> I ran Qobuz and TIDAL in parallel for 12 months. I maintained almost equivalent playlists across both platforms. Here is why I cancelled Qobuz and continued with TIDAL.
> 
> ...


Excellent points there!


----------



## Left Channel (Mar 15, 2021)

tameral said:


> Thanks for your experienced replies - are you all suggesting that Qobuz sound quality is not as good as Tidal sound quality even if you do not have an MQA DAC because the Tidal desktop app sufficiently addresses this?



To my ears, when produced from equally high quality masters, Tidal MQA and Qobuz Hi-Res are equally good. To me the main differences between Tidal and Qobuz are catalog, user interface, and supplemental content. (I don't use the offline music caching feature. If I want something offline, I buy it as a download from Qobuz or HD Tracks.)


----------



## voltatet

Hey guys, I recently got the SU9 DAC which I have connected to Macbook Pro using USB. The weird thing is that MQA is lit up green but no matter what song I try it says 44.1khz. I have Exclusive mode enabled as well as MQA passthrough. Anyone know if I have to do something special to get higher than 44.1khz? SU9 doesn't show bitrate so maybe it's 24 instead of 16 but I can't tell.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Some MQA files have PCM bitstreams 16/44.1 and that's all there is. Others go as high as 24/352 but those usually start out as 24/48


----------



## voltatet

gimmeheadroom said:


> Some MQA files have PCM bitstreams 16/44.1 and that's all there is. Others go as high as 24/352 but those usually start out as 24/48



Thanks! You're right didn't realize. I thought all MQA was the same. I was checking out Tame Impala and his stuff all was 44.1khz. But I found some Taylor Swift that was 96khz and then found this playlist with 192khz which the DAC is showing. https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/1cbce60c-2412-451e-a1e1-39faf87b617b So I guess all is well lol


----------



## gimmeheadroom

voltatet said:


> Thanks! You're right didn't realize. I thought all MQA was the same. I was checking out Tame Impala and his stuff all was 44.1khz. But I found some Taylor Swift that was 96khz and then found this playlist with 192khz which the DAC is showing. https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/1cbce60c-2412-451e-a1e1-39faf87b617b So I guess all is well lol


I don't know if this is new or I just didn't realize it for the longest time. But lately I started to see a lot of 16/44.1 that just doesn't expand any higher. I think it really is new.

Another problem is you and I have no guarantee that we get the same bitstream even when we share links, because the content varies by region. It makes it hard to help people sometimes.


----------



## Dannemand (Apr 6, 2021)

voltatet said:


> Hey guys, I recently got the SU9 DAC which I have connected to Macbook Pro using USB. The weird thing is that MQA is lit up green but no matter what song I try it says 44.1khz. I have Exclusive mode enabled as well as MQA passthrough. Anyone know if I have to do something special to get higher than 44.1khz? SU9 doesn't show bitrate so maybe it's 24 instead of 16 but I can't tell.



Maybe the tracks you tried were all 44.1Khz ones. If you're only seeing the green MQA dot, and not the blue MQA Studio dot, then that's probably what's happening.

A lot of MQA tracks on Tidal (in fact millions, mostly from Warner) were remastered from 16/44 sources. They'll still authenticate as MQA -- and they have in fact been re-encoded with the MQA encoder -- but they have no HiRes samples to unfold, and your DAC is correct to display 44.1Khz.

Try some of the 2L albums, such as the ones linked below. They were MQA encoded from 352.8Khz DXD masters. That doesn't make them genuine 352.8Khz tracks, but that's what your DAC should display.

2L Reflections Trondheim: https://listen.tidal.com/album/59883218
2L The Nordic Sound: https://listen.tidal.com/album/2400318
2L Mozart Violin Concerto: https://listen.tidal.com/album/59527094

Edit: Whoa, you guys managed to write a dozen posts in the time it took me to type one reply on my phone.


----------



## rkw

gimmeheadroom said:


> I don't know if this is new or I just didn't realize it for the longest time. But lately I started to see a lot of 16/44.1 that just doesn't expand any higher. I think it really is new.


Probably from Warner Music Group (includes many record labels), which has been converting most of their catalog on Tidal to MQA. Much of it is not higher than 44.1.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marksp...ks-coming-to-tidal-masters-from-warner-music/


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Yeah maybe that could be it.


----------



## judomaniak57

any news on Pink Floyd getting the MQA treatment for the north american listeners


----------



## GoldenOne (Apr 12, 2021)

I am currently working on a video investigating MQA and the performance of the "Unfolding" technique.
For this I had some tracks published on tidal, in MQA. These tracks contained various test signals such as impulse response, square wave, white noise, multitone, and even the entire RMAA test sequence.

After collecting all evidence and documenting all the discovered issues (some of which have not yet been discussed elsewhere), I contacted MQA to give them a chance to comment prior to this video (and post here) going live, and to discuss it further if needed, or to do further testing if they felt there was an issue.

They have not responded to me, BUT, they have had my tracks pulled from Tidal, and have spoken to the publisher I used to have them block me.




The tracks are still up on some sites such as Deezer, and I have the MQA encoded files saved as well as analog recordings of a full-decode. And I will share these in the final post and video so that others can look into them.

But for now, I'm just posting this quickly in order to inform people that MQA's response to me reaching out, rather than publishing without getting their side, was to attempt to censor me, and I want to ask that a few people confirm the track's presence on services before it is fully gone, such that they cannot later claim it was never there (though as mentioned, I do still have the MQA encoded files anyway).
If you go in roon and search for "The Callout" by GoldenSound, you will still see that it shows as being on Tidal, in MQA in their DB. Though I'm sure this will not be for long.

The tracks have been removed from tidal, but are still up on other services. They will likely be gone from there soon too.
The video and post, as well as the tracks themselves, should hopefully prove quite useful for anyone wanting to look further into what MQA is doing.

I acted in good faith to ensure the final result was as fair as possible, and MQA's reaction is nothing but petty and says quite a lot....
For a company which has nothing to hide, this sure is a very hostile way of responding to criticism.


----------



## Double C

GoldenOne said:


> I am currently working on a video investigating MQA and the performance of the "Unfolding" technique.
> For this I had some tracks published on tidal, in MQA. These tracks contained various test signals such as impulse response, square wave, white noise, multitone, and even the entire RMAA test sequence.
> 
> After collecting all evidence and documenting all the discovered issues (some of which have not yet been discussed elsewhere), I contacted MQA to give them a chance to comment prior to this video (and post here) going live, and to discuss it further if needed, or to do further testing if they felt there was an issue.
> ...




Interesting....when can we expect your video will be released?


----------



## GoldenOne

Double C said:


> Interesting....when can we expect your video will be released?


Should be within the next few days. I had offered MQA until Wednesday to respond to my email, so I'll wait until then on the off chance they do respond. (Given what happened today, I'm not expecting this is likely, but I want to keep my word).


----------



## pedalhead (Apr 15, 2021)

.


----------



## wormcycle

GoldenOne said:


> Should be within the next few days. I had offered MQA until Wednesday to respond to my email, so I'll wait until then on the off chance they do respond. (Given what happened today, I'm not expecting this is likely, but I want to keep my word).


You can expect all kind of nastiness for your work. I got off Tidal, subscribed to Qobuz and the only reason was not to give a dime to MQA. What starts with a big lie "lossless" can only continue to exist by lying. Cannot wait for you video but it will be difficult to publish it.


----------



## rlw6534

GoldenOne said:


> I am currently working on a video investigating MQA and the performance of the "Unfolding" technique.
> For this I had some tracks published on tidal, in MQA. These tracks contained various test signals such as impulse response, square wave, white noise, multitone, and even the entire RMAA test sequence.
> 
> After collecting all evidence and documenting all the discovered issues (some of which have not yet been discussed elsewhere), I contacted MQA to give them a chance to comment prior to this video (and post here) going live, and to discuss it further if needed, or to do further testing if they felt there was an issue.
> ...



They show up on search but the tracks can't be played; "This track is not currently available from Tidal"


----------



## crenca

Even promotors (well, he is a half-hearted promotor now) of MQA such as Stereophile's John Atkinson have admitted the importance of capturing an encoded impulse response to see what MQA is _really _doing.  This would be very significant @GoldenOne if you have truly managed this and would be a real step in the direction of getting behind the proprietary black box veil that is MQA.


----------



## GoldenOne

The video is now up for those who would like to watch.
I'll write up a text version soon


----------



## MrWalkman

GoldenOne said:


> The video is now up for those who would like to watch.
> I'll write up a text version soon




Very interesting, thanks!


----------



## Palyodgree (Apr 16, 2021)

*GoldenOne i received an email from Mark Waldrep about your YouTube video ,..fabulous work ! *


----------



## ClieOS

GoldenOne said:


> The video is now up for those who would like to watch.
> I'll write up a text version soon



RESPECT!


----------



## Northern

Well done!


----------



## crenca

@GoldenOne , Good work overall.  My anti-MQA credentials are solid (see Computer Audiophile MQA thread(s)), so I am going to ask you to clarify something if you would.  How do you define lossless/lossy?  You appear to be using in colloquially and not technically, even contrary to what you rightly demand of MQA Ltd. itself.  For example the mere presence of IMD and imaging artifacts from MQA's very poor reconstruction filter does not in-of-itself make an encoding/file "lossy", but you seem to state this (granted in summery) at least twice.  I don't see how your work proves that the audio band (20-20), that which is not "folded" by MQA in the LSB's, is technically "lossy".  Yes the ultrasonic content, if there is any, is _compressed _(and thus lossy) but MQA/Bob Stuart were already forced to concede as much 2 or 3 years ago.

Thanks!


----------



## Bluecactus123

Hey guys, I have tidal hifi, but I don't have a device which plays MQA, so am I listening to Flac files instead, even though it says MQA underneath?


----------



## rlw6534 (Apr 17, 2021)

Bluecactus123 said:


> Hey guys, I have tidal hifi, but I don't have a device which plays MQA, so am I listening to Flac files instead, even though it says MQA underneath?



MQA encoded files are still in a flac container and can be played on non-MQA devices.  It's VERY controversial whether that's a good or bad thing (probably bad IMO).   Unfortunately, Tidal has replaced most of the normal flac tracks with the MQA encoded version (when available) so you don't have a choice at his point.   There is plenty of info in the forums and elsewhere if you want more info and have the time to research...    

Note that depending on your device, the Tidal app (or UAPP for android) can perform the first unfold internally (to 88.1 or 96 kHz) before sending to the DAC.


----------



## ames9000

GoldenOne said:


> The video is now up for those who would like to watch.
> I'll write up a text version soon



everyone needs to see this..


----------



## Bluecactus123

ames9000 said:


> everyone needs to see this..


Because of this video i cancelled my tidal subscription and moved over to Deezer


----------



## mammal

Bluecactus123 said:


> Because of this video i cancelled my tidal subscription and moved over to Deezer


Yeah, me too! I was using Roon and explicitly told it to only stream HiFi (not Master), yet I know now that even that isn't the original release...


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Bluecactus123 said:


> Hey guys, I have tidal hifi, but I don't have a device which plays MQA, so am I listening to Flac files instead, even though it says MQA underneath?


Not necessarily. The Tidal desktop and phone apps do the 1st unfold if you don't have MQA hardware.

I compared a few songs using software vs. hardware decode and I think the software decode does a very good job.


----------



## judomaniak57

I only stream my music now. Tidal masters only b/c we dont have Qubuzz in Canada. i like MQA i listen with my ears not spectrum anylizers or what ever. if i compare the cd quality version to the Mqa version both on Tidal i will pick the MQA version 99% of the time. i use my ears to tell me what sounds better and thats all that matters to me. Dont really care if MQA is not losseles like MQA says i just know it sounds better to me. and i have a good system that is very revealing and i can tell the differnce. maybe once qubuzz comes to canada i will switch over and change my mind but for me i am a MQA streamer and i like it


----------



## Palyodgree

I don’t rely on measurements too much either  , carry on ,....


----------



## tameral

Qobuz all the way for me.  Had a chance to audition Tidal but the whole MQA thing is nonsense in a time when bandwidth is freely available


----------



## Bluecactus123

judomaniak57 said:


> I only stream my music now. Tidal masters only b/c we dont have Qubuzz in Canada. i like MQA i listen with my ears not spectrum anylizers or what ever. if i compare the cd quality version to the Mqa version both on Tidal i will pick the MQA version 99% of the time. i use my ears to tell me what sounds better and thats all that matters to me. Dont really care if MQA is not losseles like MQA says i just know it sounds better to me. and i have a good system that is very revealing and i can tell the differnce. maybe once qubuzz comes to canada i will switch over and change my mind but for me i am a MQA streamer and i like it


In what way do you find MQA better than Flac?


----------



## ubs28

wormcycle said:


> You can expect all kind of nastiness for your work. I got off Tidal, subscribed to Qobuz and the only reason was not to give a dime to MQA. What starts with a big lie "lossless" can only continue to exist by lying. Cannot wait for you video but it will be difficult to publish it.



The only thing I consider lossless is wav files. That is also the format that I used when sending off my work to mastering engineers, in 24-bit even.


----------



## hmscott (Apr 22, 2021)

headfry said:


> I thought I would start a thread for those who appreciate the SQ of MQA - both files and Tidal Masters -.(as opposed to those
> debating the merits from a scientific standpoint).
> 
> I'm going by my perceptions, but on Tidal decoded MQA by and large I'm getting a smoother, cleaner
> ...





> ------>>If you enjoy MQA'd music, looking forward to hearing from you!


Thank you for creating this thread @headfry 

What I am enjoying listening to on Tidal right now: https://tidal.com/browse/mix/013cd3fbc0b688c9e438ce8ed95807

More joy filled listening sessions:
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/984f2a52-c11d-407c-a3c3-6ea23dc89772
https://tidal.com/browse/mix/0025f99132d968a14d68cb9c7f50de
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/54bc4e66-9fa9-4445-9104-0acafb47424e
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/e4038bdf-6588-4189-b229-89930ce21df6
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/9d002a1b-321b-4916-a54b-acf56fb0f5f9
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/e4038bdf-6588-4189-b229-89930ce21df6
https://tidal.com/browse/album/156492998


----------



## Palyodgree (Apr 22, 2021)

well there’s a number of recording engineers including industry manufacturers whom came out against MQA over the years since its introduction,you can read through their complaints and concerns and if that doesn’t make you think I don’t know what will ...
On the other hand one example there are plenty of people in this hobby that can’t distinguish between a compressed recording over one that’s not , they just don’t know what they are hearing . Some I’ve chatted with are making judgment calls on audio components when asked the tracks they use I found out are compressed mixes , they just don’t know . You don’t have to have golden ears to hear it and the same pretty much applies to noise levels with MQA .

Though if you find MQA smooths out certain frequencies with the music you like well enjoy , My take on the people behind pushing MQA on the industry are nothing more then grifters .


----------



## headfry

Palyodgree said:


> well there’s a number of recording engineers including industry manufacturers whom came out against MQA over the years since its introduction,you can read through their complaints and concerns and if that doesn’t make you think I don’t know what will ...
> On the other hand one example there are plenty of people in this hobby that can’t distinguish between a compressed recording over one that’s not , they just don’t know what they are hearing . Some I’ve chatted with are making judgment calls on audio components when asked the tracks they use I found out are compressed mixes , they just don’t know . You don’t have to have golden ears to hear it and the same pretty much applies to noise levels with MQA .
> 
> Though if you find MQA smooths out certain frequencies with the music you like well enjoy , My take on the people behind pushing MQA on the industry are nothing more then grifters .


How long have you been listening to MQA?


----------



## Palyodgree

headfry said:


> How long have you been listening to MQA?


 How long to you have to think about it ? LOL


----------



## judomaniak57

there is also many industry giants and pros who have embraced MQA. this debate can go on forever without a winner. listen to what u like


Palyodgree said:


> well there’s a number of recording engineers including industry manufacturers whom came out against MQA over the years since its introduction,you can read through their complaints and concerns and if that doesn’t make you think I don’t know what will ...
> On the other hand one example there are plenty of people in this hobby that can’t distinguish between a compressed recording over one that’s not , they just don’t know what they are hearing . Some I’ve chatted with are making judgment calls on audio components when asked the tracks they use I found out are compressed mixes , they just don’t know . You don’t have to have golden ears to hear it and the same pretty much applies to noise levels with MQA .
> 
> Though if you find MQA smooths out certain frequencies with the music you like well enjoy , My take on the people behind pushing MQA on the industry are nothing more then grifters .


----------



## Palyodgree

judomaniak57 said:


> there is also many industry giants and pros who have embraced MQA. this debate can go on forever without a winner. listen to what u like


Really ,.put a list together of these industry giants and so called professionals then post it over on the pro MQA thread ,.Perhaps you haven’t noticed this thread isn’t debating MQA ..


----------



## judomaniak57

i am not the one that posted a anti mqa post on a pro mqa thread. look at the first post in this thread to see what this thread is for


----------



## A Jedi

judomaniak57 said:


> look at the first post in this thread to see what this thread is for



You're right. This is the hype thread. Facts don't belong here.

I'm only slightly joking.


----------



## gimmeheadroom (Apr 22, 2021)

judomaniak57 said:


> listen to what u like


^ is the obvious answer.

I don't get the MQA bashing. If you like it, listen to it. If not, don't. No need to keep complaining or trying to save the world.

I don't like Apple products so I don't buy them. I don't like iTunes or AAC, I don't use them. I don't go on Apple threads and say the people who like those things can't hear or they have no clue or they're victims. Everybody is allowed to like what he likes and not like what he doesn't like. What he is not allowed to do is decide what other people are allowed to like or insult them for liking it.

When will it end?

I like the sound of MQA _even though it is not lossless. I also like ATRAC even though it isn't lossless._

I like DSD even more and it's lossless


----------



## A Jedi

gimmeheadroom said:


> ^ is the obvious answer.
> 
> I don't get the MQA bashing. If you like it, listen to it. If not, don't. No need to keep complaining or trying to save the world.
> 
> ...



Nobody is deciding for anybody. I don't see any comments stating you shouldn't listen to or like MQA. All the comments are "this is what MQA does, MQA lies in the description of what they do". These are facts. You can still like MQA if you want. Stop being a victim dude.


----------



## headfry

Palyodgree said:


> How long to you have to think about it ? LOL


Just what I thought, thanks for the honest reply.


----------



## judomaniak57

i will post it here since i am not debating i am stating a fact- DCS, aurender, moon , nad, esoteric, lumin,


Palyodgree said:


> Really ,.put a list together of these industry giants and so called professionals then post it over on the pro MQA thread ,.Perhaps you haven’t noticed this thread isn’t debating MQA ..



mark levinson, meridian, yba, alo ,ifi, astell and kern just to name a few of the big names that support mqa


----------



## Bluecactus123

judomaniak57 said:


> i will post it here since i am not debating i am stating a fact- DCS, aurender, moon , nad, esoteric, lumin,
> 
> 
> mark levinson, meridian, yba, alo ,ifi, astell and kern just to name a few of the big names that support mqa


Imagine if these brands did not support MQA. They would lose half of their customers. PS Audio themselves stated that they only implemented MQA into their equipment because they didn't want to lose clients.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

judomaniak57 said:


> i will post it here since i am not debating i am stating a fact- DCS, aurender, moon , nad, esoteric, lumin,
> 
> 
> mark levinson, meridian, yba, alo ,ifi, astell and kern just to name a few of the big names that support mqa


Add Mytek, Bluesound, Oppo (dead but still kicking). It's good to have choices. None of these manufacturers stopped supporting PCM or flac.

Guys, just because MQA is not lossless does not mean it doesn't sound good. There are other lossy codec that sound great like ATRAC (later versions). Probably the most unusual thing about MQA is that it is lossy but also high res. I don't think there is another example of such a codec.



Bluecactus123 said:


> Imagine if these brands did not support MQA. They would lose half of their customers. PS Audio themselves stated that they only implemented MQA into their equipment because they didn't want to lose clients.


So apparently people do want it?

Again, if you don't like it nobody is holding a gun to your head.


----------



## Bluecactus123 (Apr 22, 2021)

gimmeheadroom said:


> Add Mytek, Bluesound, Oppo (dead but still kicking). It's good to have choices. None of these manufacturers stopped supporting PCM or flac.
> 
> Guys, just because MQA is not lossless does not mean it doesn't sound good. There are other lossy codec that sound great like ATRAC (later versions). Probably the most unusual thing about MQA is that it is lossy but also high res. I don't think there is another example of such a codec.
> 
> ...


It seems people do, for reasons mostly unrelated to technical performance or the difference in sound quality compared to FLAC I'd wager


----------



## Bernard23 (Apr 22, 2021)

Surely the issue isn't whether it sounds good or not, it's the apparently misleading BS that it's marketed with. I don't mind the SQ either on my phone with grados, but I object to being sold something that doesn't actually do what it claims to do. That's deception, and I object to that kind of crap. Once we just accept stuff, "cos yeah it's OK, I don't care how it works" ,  we might find that we have "social media apps" running the world.... Oh wait.


----------



## Palyodgree (Apr 23, 2021)

judomaniak57 said:


> i will post it here since i am not debating i am stating a fact- DCS, aurender, moon , nad, esoteric, lumin,
> 
> 
> mark levinson, meridian, yba, alo ,ifi, astell and kern just to name a few of the big names that support mqa


LOL!. I guess you skimmed through GoldenOne video with clenched teeth and pounding your fist though if you did actually listen you simply can’t take truth in the evidence , facts sometimes hurt people’s feelings in this day and age and you seem to fit in that category and finally you also failed to grasp the marketing decision of these companies to add MQA to their product line, express your support on the pro MQA thread .


----------



## Palyodgree

headfry said:


> Just what I thought, thanks for the honest reply.


If you can refute any part of GoldenOne video I’ll wholeheartedly agree with you on MQA ,.please no word salads You show me hard evidence any part of Goldenones forensic analysis on MQA are false....


----------



## judomaniak57

headfry said:


> I thought I would start a thread for those who appreciate the SQ of MQA - both files and Tidal Masters -.(as opposed to those
> debating the merits from a scientific standpoint).





Palyodgree said:


> , express your support on the pro MQA thread .


i am expressing my support on the pro MQA thread


----------



## Dannemand (Apr 23, 2021)

Palyodgree said:


> If you can refute any part of GoldenOne video I’ll wholeheartedly agree with you on MQA ,.please no word salads You show me hard evidence any part of Goldenones forensic analysis on MQA are false....



GoldenOne's test is massively flawed in its very premise and lacks basic understanding of MQA's working. He managed to trick the encoder into creating its worst possible output, by telling it to encode real music while feeding it synthetic square waves and spike signals outside its encoding envelope -- and ignoring the encoder's warnings about it. The predictably poor results were then "analyzed" and posted as representative of MQA's performance.

In a better context, the analysis wasn't that bad, and even raised a few interesting questions. But it was poorly premised and misleadingly framed: There was no desire to truly "explore how MQA works". And GoldenOne has shown zero interest in performing similar analysis on "best effort" real music samples, say using the free 2L tracks which provide multiple DXD recordings and MQA encodes for comparison. His analysis would be far more credible if it were based on the best MQA can do rather than the worst it can be tricked into doing.

(As a note, even a comparison between 2L's DXD files and their MQA encodes would show differences, as the MQA encoder re-aligns samples to compensate for ADC peculiarities. Yes, it is a lossy codec, aimed at analog-to-analog fidelity. )

I have posted about this in other threads on head-hi, and far more knowledgeable people have posted about it on ASR (including Amir himself). That hasn't dented the excitement of anti-MQA crusaders, who are salivating at the thought of finally killing Tidal -- and through that MQA.

I thought of posting about this here when GoldenOne first advertised the coming of his video (since its outcome was fully predictable) but I chose not because *it does not belong in this thread *as has been repeatedly pointed out.

I am not even that enthusiastic about MQA myself: I do wish they were more transparent and open, and I have often posted that I would prefer if MQA didn't exist and studios happily shared their crown jewels in HiRes FLAC without watermarks. But that is not this world. I also have issues with Tidal's recent changes: I dislike that they no longer have parallel CD and MQA versions of albums, but instead stream truncated (and downsampled in the case of 48KHz base rate tracks) versions of MQA albums to those who choose the Hi-Fi quality setting. My concerns about the Warner 16/44 MQAs are well documented in these forums, although my stance has softened after recent tests I performed.

In any case do I prioritize quality of recordings over format any day: HiRes FLAC or MQA doesn't matter compared to good recordings. But I have a Tidal subscription (which I just renewed for 3 months) and some of my music there is MQA -- and sounds fantastic on my Gustard A18 DAC and my LG V30 phone. Mostly because that's how it was recorded.

The reason I bother responding now is less in defense of MQA and more in defense of common sense and factual analysis. And most of the fanatical venom spewed against MQA possesses neither. And either way, it *still doesn't belong in this thread*. Including this post of mine. Thus I do not intend to debate it further in here. And I have no desire to attend the anti-MQA echo chambers.

Have a great weekend, everybody. Listen to some good, well recorded music from your preferred source, whatever it may be


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Dannemand said:


> GoldenOne's test is massively flawed in its very premise and lacks basic understanding of MQA's working. He managed to trick the encoder into creating its worst possible output, by telling it to encode real music while feeding it synthetic square waves and spike signals outside its encoding envelope -- and ignoring the encoder's warnings about it. The predictably poor results were then "analyzed" and posted as representative of MQA's performance.
> 
> In a better context, the analysis wasn't that bad, and even raised a few interesting questions. But it was poorly premised and misleadingly framed: There was no desire to truly "explore how MQA works". And GoldenOne has shown zero interest in performing similar analysis on "best effort" MQA encodes from real music, say using the free 2L tracks which provide multiple DXD recordings and MQA encodes for comparison. His analysis would be far more credible if it were based on the best MQA can do rather than the worst it can be tricked into doing.
> 
> ...


Outstanding! Best post in recent memory.


----------



## littlej0e

Dannemand said:


> GoldenOne's test is massively flawed in its very premise and lacks basic understanding of MQA's working. He managed to trick the encoder into creating its worst possible output, by telling it to encode real music while feeding it synthetic square waves and spike signals outside its encoding envelope -- and ignoring the encoder's warnings about it. The predictably poor results were then "analyzed" and posted as representative of MQA's performance.
> 
> In a better context, the analysis wasn't that bad, and even raised a few interesting questions. But it was poorly premised and misleadingly framed: There was no desire to truly "explore how MQA works". And GoldenOne has shown zero interest in performing similar analysis on "best effort" real music samples, say using the free 2L tracks which provide multiple DXD recordings and MQA encodes for comparison. His analysis would be far more credible if it were based on the best MQA can do rather than the worst it can be tricked into doing.
> 
> ...



It would be great if you could provide hard evidence to refute any of GoldenOne’s findings other than opinions, speculation, and theories. Seriously. I’m not being argumentative. I would simply like to know the truth. I think everybody would regardless of the camp they are in.


----------



## Dannemand (Apr 23, 2021)

littlej0e said:


> It would be great if you could provide hard evidence to refute any of GoldenOne’s findings other than opinions, speculation, and theories. Seriously. I’m not being argumentative. I would simply like to know the truth. I think everybody would regardless of the camp they are in.



The main giveaway is in the early minutes of GoldenOne's video: The encoder rejected his synthetic samples until he tricked it by wrapping them in music. MQA's response (shown only as small-print legalese) elaborates on that and how the samples triggered many warnings from the encoder.

MQA was designed to encode music, as perceived by humans; recorded by microphones and sampled by ADCs. It uses FLAC for backwards compatibility, but instead of wasting space to bit-perfectly preserve noise and high frequency amplitudes that never exist in music, it uses that space to store ultrasonics (HiRes samples in a compressed form). This is a deliberate trade-off assuming that these contribute more to musical fidelity. One can disagree, but that was always its premise.

So when GoldenOne tricked the MQA encoder into encoding signals far outside its envelope, it was destined to fail. And it warned about it. Most conclusions in his analysis become invalid because the entire premise is false.

Such tests can be perfectly useful when applied to DACs or a bit-perfect codec. But that is a different premise. And I think he knew that.

Beyond that look for my recent posts here on head-fi, and posts by mieswall, filter_listener and amirm in the thread on ASR:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...i-published-music-on-tidal-to-test-mqa.22549/

It's a vast thread with much hate, salivation and guesswork, and little understanding of MQA outside of those three members.

And that's all from me. Already more than I intended.


----------



## littlej0e (Apr 24, 2021)

Dannemand said:


> The main giveaway is in the early minutes of GoldenOne's video: The encoder rejected his synthetic samples until he tricked it by wrapping them in music. MQA's response (shown only as small-print legalese) elaborates on that and how the samples triggered many warnings from the encoder.
> 
> MQA was designed to encode music, as perceived by humans; recorded by microphones and sampled by ADCs. It uses FLAC for backwards compatibility, but instead of wasting space to bit-perfectly preserve noise and high frequency amplitudes that never exist in music, it uses that space to store ultrasonics (HiRes samples in a compressed form). This is a deliberate trade-off assuming that these contribute more to musical fidelity. One can disagree, but that was always its premise.
> 
> ...



Very interesting...and in my humble opinion, a more than relevant complaint. There do indeed appear to be flaws in the testing method(s). Well, not so much flaws as lack of options due to the immediate takedowns of his tracks and the lack of transparency from MQA. It would be great for him (or preferably someone else) to retest to either validate his findings or refute them. Seems like the problems are they check for pulse signals to make testing and validation harder plus they seemingly lack transparency. A little bit of truth and examples could go along way and MQA could quell this and squash it for good. It sure would be nice if they did. Seems like they will see a bit of a blowback in the audio nerd community until they do.


----------



## Taz777

One issue that I have is that so many audio forums are being ruined by this hostility. Many people enjoy TIDAL for the depth of its music catalogue because the music that they enjoy listening to isn’t available on other streaming services. Conversely, audio enthusiasts may find other streaming services that are more aligned with their musical interests. I really cannot understand the hostility that now prevails on several audio forums.


----------



## littlej0e (Apr 24, 2021)

Taz777 said:


> One issue that I have is that so many audio forums are being ruined by this hostility. Many people enjoy TIDAL for the depth of its music catalogue because the music that they enjoy listening to isn’t available on other streaming services. Conversely, audio enthusiasts may find other streaming services that are more aligned with their musical interests. I really cannot understand the hostility that now prevails on several audio forums.


That's really sad. When it becomes more about taking a side and assaulting each other in forums, or something other than enjoying music...what's the point?!? I get that people are pissed at the mere sense of impropriety with MQA, and I think they have a right to, but maybe let the situation play out before going full cannibal on each other?

Meanwhile, it seems like the ball is in MQA's court to refute GoldenOne's (and other's) claims despite the lack of ability for deep and thorough testing.


----------



## Dannemand (Apr 24, 2021)

littlej0e said:


> That's really sad. When it becomes more about taking a side and assaulting each other in forums, or something other than enjoying music...what's the point?!? I get that people are pissed at the mere sense of impropriety with MQA, and I think they have a right to, but maybe let the situation play out before going full cannibal on each other?
> 
> Meanwhile, it seems like the ball is in MQA's court to refute GoldenOne's (and other's) claims despite the lack of ability for deep and thorough testing.



I wouldn't expect more response from MQA than what they already sent. They never agreed to these tests in the first place, and nothing they have said or done in the past has satisfied their critics. They probably just concluded that haters will be haters.

GoldenOne could resolve this by performing proper tests:

1) Compare the 2L MQA files to their DXD counterparts (352.8kHz original recordings) and publish the BEST samples he can find from there, not the WORST. There will still be differences: The MQAs are only 15-20% the size of the DXDs; and the MQA encoder tries to compensate for the different ADCs 2L has used over the years. But if the best from 2L still measures as horribly as the samples he published, he will REALLY have proven something.

2)  Probe the MQA encoder with various synthetic test tracks and see how far he can go WITHOUT it rejecting them or giving warnings. Don't try to fool it, we already know where that leads. This will show the worst "good faith" performance from the MQA encoder.

3)  Re-test full-on synthetic test tracks, but select the MQA encoder's mode for synthetic/electronic music (which I understand it has, I forget where I read that). I would expect it to switch to a more FLAC-like mode -- heck maybe it even adapts dynamically, like VBR. This would show whether the encoder CAN handle extreme content properly when it is used as it was intended.

If performed honestly and objectively, such tests would be valid, and might finally prove what he set out to prove. Or maybe disprove it. They SHOULD get the attention of MQA. And of us all. He certainly has the knowledge and equipment to perform them.


----------



## tameral

its always the dynamic between being appreciative / conservative vs demanding more

in the case of digital streaming - it is fair to demand the WAV file at this point of the original master - if there is some sort of secret studio master then sure give me a 24bit 192khz Flac of that without all the BS

And I tend to have pause with something that in some way implicates the need that I have a DAC take part in its unique form of lossy losslessness


----------



## xand

GoldenOne said:


> The video is now up for those who would like to watch.
> I'll write up a text version soon




Some short notes on the content up to about 15 minutes in (I'll maybe watch the rest later, but listening to the first 15 minutes wasn't particularly useful/enlightening - except perhaps it is evidence for item 8...):

1. The MQA description (https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/qa/is-mqa-lossless) is disingenuous, as I don't think anyone who is asking the question is asking about the file format, but whether there is any loss of audible data by going through the MQA process.

2. What MQA does is: (i) "de-blur" the music content, then (ii) "folds" the music content: https://www.bobtalks.co.uk/blog/mqaplayback/origami-and-the-last-mile/

3. MQA is clearly "lossy" at the level of the original file, as it's logically impossible to carry out both those processes, put the result into a flac, and still deliver something which is bit-identical to the original file.

4. Having said that, the MQA argument is that they're not aiming for lossless at the level of the original file, but instead for "no loss of audible data" - see: https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers-losslessness-questions.

5. On their argument - who knows. I will say that the "lossy nature of MQA as I described in 3 doesn't mean that MQA will necessarily sound worse than an original high-res source - just like Ogg Vorbix/ACC/MP3 at 256 or more may not sound worse than the original FLAC it was encoded from, depending on what exactly is in the original FLAC (i.e. what the musical content is). @GoldenOne the author could/should have tested this by giving them a high-res file. See the Darko Audio link: https://darko.audio/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/ though - he apparently tested/listened to a number of original high-res  flacs against the corresponding MQA'ed flac - and if it does actually sound the same or better then it would be fair for MQA to say it's "losslesss".

6. Assuming the video is accurate, the video author's release should never have been made into a master. I don't see any reason for "CD quality" stuff to be subject to the MQA process, so that's clearly egg on someone's face. Same thing for the Neil Young music since it was delivered only as "CD quality". Tidal/music publishers should really fix this. I see from posts Warner is the problem...

7. In spite of 6, comments by the video author about how MQA authenticated (https://www.extreamsd.com/index.php/mqa) doesn't mean anything may still be inaccurate - apart from the video author (who in this case is also the producer), the copyright owner can also enable the flag. As the video author is probably an unsigned artist, they might actually be the copyright owner, but - who knows. Want to weigh in since you're here? One logical issue: the entire point of the video author uploading the file was to make it subject to the MQA process, it is only because of the problem in 6 that the video even exists. Occum's razor suggests he might have specifically agreed/asked for it to be converted to MQA. *shrug*

8. I have believed for a some time that when tidal HAS a MQA master file, even if you pick the "hi-fi" version, you get the MQA flac. MQA argues against the MQA flac being worse than a normal flac (e.g. https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers-bit-depth-mqa) - whether this is true really depends on whether the MQA signal data is really inaudible and encoded in a way which does not hurt the original data. I have no idea if this is the case, but I certainly agree that if someone picks Tidal Hi-Fi, Tidal should deliver a non-MQA flac. This means more storage is needed (to keep two flac files per song), but will probably mean that Tidal always sounds at least as good as Qubuz (which is often considered not to be the case).


Note: I prepped this some time ago, here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/iba...om-new-firmware-2-6-2021.943221/post-16299605 Noticed this thread existed today because of the UAPP thread, only minor changes to what I originally posted, and I haven't wanted to watch the rest of the video so far.


----------



## hmscott (Apr 28, 2021)

Someone mentioned this before, but I just now thought to look it up 

*2L - The MQA Experience (Compilation)** - 352.8khz MQA Masters*
*https://tidal.com/browse/album/165535570*

And, due to the way I am running my D90 MQA + Xduoo TA-20 off of battery power to disconnect from mains noise, my Tidal settings get lost occasionally - it depends on the order I shutdown, and right away I could tell something was wrong when I went to listen to these recordings - it was dull and lifeless compared to what I usually expect out of Tidal Masters through my Ananda's.  The magic wasn't there.

It turns out the device selector had defaulted to the System Output which is a generic default, so I needed to select D90 MQA device, and it wasn't totally improved so I went to the Options and sure enough the 3 toggles that need to be enabled for best sound were at defaults as well, so I enabled them all again, and heard what I expected from a 352.8khz MQA, listening joy. 


Spoiler: Screen images










Reversing one or more of these settings, or simply selecting the Default "System Output" is a good way to A/B the differences.  Headphones like the Ananda, or sensitive IEM's are better at hearing those differences.  On lesser headphones, the sound can get a general improvement in clarity or simply sound the same to "dead ears", as opposed to "Dead Eye's".  There are volume variations at each of the settings, and I find from "System Output" to fully setup D90 MQA I need to back off 2 steps on the TA-20 Volume, YMMV. 


And, I'm off to look for more Tidal MQA listening joy, on the "Tidal Music" FB Group... 


Spoiler: Tidal Music - Facebook Group Rules



Similar to what the OP (and the rest of us Tidal fans) wants for here, with the added tribulations of running a Facebook group 
https://www.facebook.com/groups/tidalmusic
About​🔳TIDAL is the first music service with High Fidelity sound quality, with many albums featured in the superior MQA (Master Quality Authenticated) format, High Definition music videos and Curated Editorial, expertly crafted by music journalists.
🔳This group is for music lovers/gear heads/audiophiles to discuss anything relating to TIDAL. Share your favorite music finds, ask questions, share tips/tricks, discuss & post pics of your streamer/systems. Get the word out there that TIDAL is the best-sounding streaming service around!
🔳We do not take kindly to haters. Especially MQA haters, who can be expected to be Booted from the Group and Blocked from entering again. Ask yourself before posting Anti - MQA posts .. is it worth the risk?
🔳 This group is NOT for self promotion of artists/record labels etc. There are other groups for that. If you spam here you will be removed from the group. If your profile represents self promotion/artist/record labels etc., you will be denied access to this group. We don't like having to do this, but frankly, you have proven that you cannot read and follow rules.
🔳 No Watch Parties!
🔳 No Qobuz, Amazon or Spotify ‘Soft-Promotion’.
🔳 No one to be Invited to join. If you think someone might be interested in joining the group: .. ask them to join .. don’t use FB’s ‘Invite’ tab. We will decline them.
✅ Please answer the 3 questions upon requesting membership or you will be denied.
Thank you and enjoy the group!

"Ken Worthing Admin · April 16 at 4:11 AM  ·
MQA is a feature of TIDAL and in this Group, we are positive proponents of it.
Those who want to, may feel free to post Anti-MQA videos to other FB Groups, as the ones that get posted here will get deleted and repeated uploads from the same users will get those users booted and blocked.
They are free to grind their Anti-MQA axe elsewhere.
Here: We're not having it.
P.S. Posting Angry or Laughing emoticons have consequences. Prisoners are definitely not taken here. Think before you react.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/tidalmusic/announcements



2L - The Nordic Sound - Also 352.8khz MQA Masters, there may be repeats of selections from the 1st link above...
https://tidal.com/browse/album/2400318


----------



## alsorkin

Dannemand said:


> GoldenOne's test is massively flawed in its very premise and lacks basic understanding of MQA's working. He managed to trick the encoder into creating its worst possible output, by telling it to encode real music while feeding it synthetic square waves and spike signals outside its encoding envelope -- and ignoring the encoder's warnings about it. The predictably poor results were then "analyzed" and posted as representative of MQA's performance.
> 
> In a better context, the analysis wasn't that bad, and even raised a few interesting questions. But it was poorly premised and misleadingly framed: There was no desire to truly "explore how MQA works". And GoldenOne has shown zero interest in performing similar analysis on "best effort" real music samples, say using the free 2L tracks which provide multiple DXD recordings and MQA encodes for comparison. His analysis would be far more credible if it were based on the best MQA can do rather than the worst it can be tricked into doing.
> 
> ...


Well stated opinion.


----------



## vanhalen26

Question on the Warner and other MQA songs in 16/44.  Would they sound the same on a player that’s capable of rendering/decoding irrespective of if they were played with the MQA addon in UAPP for example?  

From what I’ve read, it’s sound like they’ve been updated and the MQA flag turned on, but there’s no actual MQA decoding going on in playback.  If that’s the case, it’s a shame they are flagged as MQA, as than we can no longer use EQ settings on it.  

I have a large offline collection of high res and flac songs, I’m wondering if it’s worth upgrading some of my old content in favor of the new Warner tracks.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Dannemand said:


> MQA was designed to encode music, as perceived by humans; recorded by microphones and sampled by ADCs. It uses FLAC for backwards compatibility, but instead of wasting space to bit-perfectly preserve noise and high frequency amplitudes that never exist in music, it uses that space to store ultrasonics (HiRes samples in a compressed form). This is a deliberate trade-off assuming that these contribute more to musical fidelity. One can disagree, but that was always its premise.


There are other codec that are "psychoacoustic" for example ATRAC. Especially later variants sound much better than they could appear to on paper.
It's known years ago that MQA is lossy. But many of us still enjoy it. It could be they're choosing the best masters for MQA. It could be the guys who designed MQA understand human hearing well. It really doesn't matter.

It seems to me the two acceptable choices are:

1. Listen to MQA and enjoy it.
2. Don't listen to MQA in which case you have no standing. It's like complaining about the weather. All the vitriol in the world won't change anything 



tameral said:


> its always the dynamic between being appreciative / conservative vs demanding more
> 
> in the case of digital streaming - it is fair to demand the WAV file at this point of the original master - if there is some sort of secret studio master then sure give me a 24bit 192khz Flac of that without all the BS


That is not reasonable. What's reasonable is to pick the services and business you like and don't use the ones you don't. 



tameral said:


> And I tend to have pause with something that in some way implicates the need that I have a DAC take part in its unique form of lossy losslessness


You don't. The desktop and phone apps do the 1st unfold without any special equipment and to my ears they sound very good. If you don't like it, you don't have to pay for it.
To get the most out of high res MQA you need hardware.

To play DVD you need a computer or disc player. To play bluray you need a bluray player. You need HDMI which is licensed proprietary hardware. This is how business works.


----------



## tameral

gimmeheadroom said:


> There are other codec that are "psychoacoustic" for example ATRAC. Especially later variants sound much better than they could appear to on paper.
> It's known years ago that MQA is lossy. But many of us still enjoy it. It could be they're choosing the best masters for MQA. It could be the guys who designed MQA understand human hearing well. It really doesn't matter.
> 
> It seems to me the two acceptable choices are:
> ...



I use Qobuz.  I've made my decision.

In 20 years please tell me we shouldn't just be streaming the original WAVs or something better or just good ol' flac at 24khz 192 for giggles

That's a silly comparison to suggest formats for movies that are completely standardized - it's not like anything else exists except Blu Ray or HD Blu ray - they are all the same players, just varying in quality I suppose

It's not like in movies we've been going backward - increasingly clever tricks to limit file size - we are going bigger and bigger.  Streaming a movie takes up how much data?  The only argument is that nobody cares about music quality I suppose.  But we will get there.  MQA is just a dead end


----------



## gimmeheadroom

tameral said:


> I use Qobuz.  I've made my decision.


So what's the point of repeatedly complaining in threads for people who like MQA?

MQA bashing is the new vandalism.


----------



## tameral

The same longing for better streaming quality led to Tidal - and here's hoping - to the next evolution.  Peace ya'll.


----------



## Hooster (Apr 25, 2021)

I just moved from Tidal to qobuz. Why? Because to me it sounds better. I have had Tidal for years now and I have an MQA capable DAC, (by coincidence, I did not buy it because it has MQA). I have never seen, heard or understood any benefit associated with MQA but I do regret the licensing fees for it that I must have payed by using Tidal and having an MQA capable DAC.
How do I like the non MQA qobuz? It is awesome, the same music sounds better to me than it did on Tidal and it is much more transparent as to what it is doing, what resolution it is actually streaming.

MQA may have been relevant back in the day of low bandwidth. Most people these days have enough bandwidth to stream lossless hi rez audio. That being the case I suggest you do just that instead of using and paying for a solution to a problem that no longer exists.

Do I care what happens to MQA? No, if someone wants to pay for using it and accept the limitations imposed by it, fine by me. It is no longer any of my business.

What pushed me over the edge:




How to test MQA's leaky filter: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/to... 
2018 RMAF MQA talk by Chris Connaker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSv0l... 
Archimago's MQA article: https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/review... 
PS Audio vid on MQA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPfmW... 
Schiit on MQA: https://www.schiit.com/news/news/why-... 
Linn on MQA: https://web.archive.org/web/202011112... 
Neil Young removes albums from TIDAL: https://neilyoungarchives.com/news/1/... 
John Atkinson of stereophile confirms low-level distortion: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/to...


----------



## xand

Hooster said:


> I just moved from Tidal to qobuz. Why? Because to me it sounds better.


Is this the reason or is the reason the list of links?



Hooster said:


> MQA may have been relevant back in the day of low bandwidth. Most people these days have enough bandwidth to stream lossless hi rez audio. That being the case I suggest you do just that instead of using and paying for a solution to a problem that no longer exists.


This is conditionally true - but only true because there are so few releases of anything above 96/24.



Hooster said:


> What pushed me over the edge:



Hmm, see my comments on the first one above - https://www.head-fi.org/threads/tidal-masters-mqa-thread.838888/post-16315971



Hooster said:


> John Atkinson of stereophile confirms low-level distortion: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/to...


This is the only other link I clicked - and Stereophile is not talking about MQA. 

Are you unsure about whether qubuz sounds better enough so that you need to try to trick yourself?


----------



## A Jedi (Apr 25, 2021)

xand said:


> Are you unsure about whether qubuz sounds better enough so that you need to try to trick yourself?



What's your angle here? Are you tricking yourself into believing the OP can't hear the difference because that supports whatever opinion you have?

Maybe he/she can hear a difference, maybe not. It's not your place to question - or are you the arbiter of all truths?

I certainly heard a difference and that was way before this MQA crap came out. I didn't want to switch to Qobuz because they have a smaller library but Tidal simply didn't sound right to me. Not compared to CD and not compared to Qobuz.


----------



## Dannemand (Apr 25, 2021)

Temperatures are rising, and it would appear that I have contributed to a flame war in this thread. For that I apologize since it was truly not my intention.

I am neither the Opening Poster of this thread, nor a moderator on this forum. But I would suggest we all respect the thread topic defined by @headfry:



headfry said:


> I thought I would start a thread for those who appreciate the SQ of MQA - both files and Tidal Masters -.(as opposed to those
> debating the merits from a scientific standpoint).



And to the extent we go beyond that topic (which I admit that I have done) that we at least remain respectful.

Again just a suggestion, since I have seen many useful threads go down the drain once the for-and-against MQA set in.


----------



## xand (Apr 26, 2021)

A Jedi said:


> What's your angle here? Are you tricking yourself into believing the OP can't hear the difference because that supports whatever opinion you have?


No, the OPs post is just internally inconsistent.

The first sentence talks about sound but the last sentence, excluding the links, suggests that there are other reasons and it's not sound.

You'll note I have already posted way before the OP that the general consensus seems to be that Qobuz sounds better than Tidal.

I have no view myself as I'm not in a Qobuz country and don't want to rely on VPN.


----------



## xand (Apr 26, 2021)

vanhalen26 said:


> I have a large offline collection of high res and flac songs, I’m wondering if it’s worth upgrading some of my old content in favor of the new Warner tracks.


I'm not sure it's possible to answer your queries definitively.

However, to determine your own answer to the quoted question, I suggest you do a test yourself on a few files (ideally single blinded) - both specifically listening hard to short sections and listening to the whole songs completely a few times.

I was pretty sure based on a sighted (I'm lazy) test of the four Tidal master tracks (can't remember which ones exactly but one of those with a difference was Lewis Capaldi - Someone You Loved) that my own ripped CD files were either better or no different to the masters.

I then contemplated going back to buying a bunch of CDs and gave up on this as being too incredibly painful (requirement to rip, local CD prices).

I then contemplated buying digital files and decided that would be unnecessarily expensive.

So I'm stuck with Tidal lol.


----------



## littlej0e (Apr 26, 2021)

Dannemand said:


> I wouldn't expect more response from MQA than what they already sent. They never agreed to these tests in the first place, and nothing they have said or done in the past has satisfied their critics. They probably just concluded that haters will be haters.


That drives me nuts. I get they never agreed to the tests in the first place and that "haters gonna hate", but if the tech is legit they could easily end all of this by definitely proving things one way or another. Do to the fact they haven't likely means one of three things:

They don't see GoldenOne's video as enough of a threat to their business to warrant investing resources in refuting his claims any more than they already have, just as you said.
MQA has already become the de-facto standard and they have most of the industry by the short and curly's.
The consequences of allowing conclusive validation and testing would somehow be more detrimental to their business than disproving GoldenOne's claims in the first place. This seems most likely to me personally, but that doesn't necessarily mean MQA isn't legit. It could be akin to Microsoft not wanting to post their source code for Windows. This seems perfectly reasonable, but unknowns aren't usually a good look for any company.



Dannemand said:


> GoldenOne could resolve this by performing proper tests:
> 
> 1) Compare the 2L MQA files to their DXD counterparts (352.8kHz original recordings) and publish the BEST samples he can find from there, not the WORST. There will still be differences: The MQAs are only 15-20% the size of the DXDs; and the MQA encoder tries to compensate for the different ADCs 2L has used over the years. But if the best from 2L still measures as horribly as the samples he published, he will REALLY have proven something.
> 
> ...



Agreed and I think this is more than reasonable. Seems like the issue is getting around MQA's checks and figuring out how to upload and encode tracks with the criteria you mentioned. Honestly, I would prefer if someone other than GoldenOne did this to rule out any potential bias, flawed processes, etc. It would be more in keeping with the scientific method and disputing the results of one person is much easier than disputing results of many people, whatever the results may be.

Aside from testing MQA, I think Tidal is in a similar "slightly sticky, but currently manageable" situation. They likely won't give a two craps about any of this until they reach a financial inflection point where lost revenue from sub cancellations equals the additional cost of serving true lossless Hi-Rez content plus MQA licensing fees. If I'm MQA and Tidal, I keep weathering this bad press storm until people hopefully lose interest and move on the the next headline, then go back to business as usual.

Regardless, it will be quite interesting to see how this plays out.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Apr 27, 2021)

Dannemand said:


> I wouldn't expect more response from MQA than what they already sent. They never agreed to these tests in the first place, and nothing they have said or done in the past has satisfied their critics. They probably just concluded that haters will be haters.
> 
> GoldenOne could resolve this by performing proper tests:
> 
> ...


MQA are the ones who stripped him of any further chance to test the codec, so it would be a bit big of anyone to declare that he's not given them a fair chance.  Furthermore, it is a common fact of life that test signals that are good at testing equipment / codec performance and fidelity are not musical, they are not musical because test signals have test roles to fulfil that are not fulfilled by regular music, not because test signals are unrepresentative of music reproduction performance.  I mean, basically the only test you can run using an unstructured music signal is the null test... which MQA, raw or unfolded, will just as well fail, digitally if not audibly, and which FLAC will predictably pass 100%.  Is that the takeaway then?

If a "synth mode" exists for MQA, it also wasn't up to him to select or not select it.  And if the codec adapts dynamically, would he / the operator needed to do anything different at all?

None of this is intended to endorse GoldenOne's claims, but just my way of saying "if there's something wrong with them, this is not it and that is not it"...
----------------------
Now, as a member of a company contracted to put out MQA products, I of course have no technical information to contribute publicly on the matter--which is just as well because this is not what this thread is about--but I think I am allowed to give a suitably ambiguous opinion. 

My opinion is that, if all parties in the know (i.e. licensees) were not bound by NDA and spoke about MQA freely and without consideration of vested interests, then... the result would be VERY bad for business 

That will be all. 

Note, I didn't say whose what business it would be bad for 

I mean, since when is it ever good for *our* business for me to speak without regard for vested interests and all the skeletons in our closet, right? 🤣


----------



## ubs28

Considering that “audiophiles” got bad ears (as people on head-fi say the Apple Airpods Max are better than the Sennheiser HD 800S), I say it shouldn’t matter that MQA is not accurate.

However I do hear a difference between Tidal and my local music.

The only reason I got Tidal still is because they offer me a very good discount. As soon Tidal stops providing this nice discount to me, I cancel my subscription.


----------



## vanhalen26

Joe Bloggs said:


> MQA are the ones who stripped him of any further chance to test the codec, so it would be a bit big of anyone to declare that he's not given them a fair chance.  Furthermore, it is a common fact of life that test signals that are good at testing equipment / codec performance and fidelity are not musical, they are not musical because test signals have test roles to fulfil that are not fulfilled by regular music, not because test signals are unrepresentative of music reproduction performance.  I mean, basically the only test you can run using an unstructured music signal is the null test... which MQA, raw or unfolded, will just as well fail, digitally if not audibly, and which FLAC will predictably pass 100%.  Is that the takeaway then?
> 
> If a "synth mode" exists for MQA, it also wasn't up to him to select or not select it.  And if the codec adapts dynamically, would he / the operator needed to do anything different at all?
> 
> ...


Joe - do you listen to MQA in your downtime or stick to non-MQA?


----------



## hmscott (Apr 27, 2021)

New MQA ready DAC/AMP Dongle from THX - Onyx:
https://www.thx.com/onyx/

And, It is a Razer.com exclusive:
https://www.razer.com/mobile-accessories/thx-onyx/RC21-01630100-R3M1

THX Onyx™ Portable DAC Headphone Amplifier US$199.99
THX Achromatic Audio Amplifier (THX AAA™)
Master Quality Authenticated (MQA)
ESS ES9281PRO DAC

MASTER-QUALITY AUDIO. ON THE GO.
Amp up your headphones and upgrade to master-quality audio with the THX Onyx™—a powerful, portable digital-to-analog (DAC) amplifier equipped with THX AAA™ technology, to ensure the highest fidelity mobile listening experience for your music, movies, and games.

TECH SPECS​
AT A GLANCE
Input Type: USB-C or USB (via included adapter)
Output Type: 3.5 mm analog jack
Headphone Impedance Range: 22-1000 Ohms
Output Impedance: 0.25 Ohms
Dynamic Range: 118 dB
Quality (THD+N, 1kHz): -110 dB
Output Power (Per ch, 22 Ω, <1% THD+N): 180 mW
MQA Playback: Yes
Headset Mic Support: Yes (Use with iOS products is for media consumption only, no call or mic functionality.)
USB & DAC Config: ESS ES9281PRO
AMP Config: THX AAA-78
Compatible Platforms: Android, iOS, Windows 10, and Mac (USB-C to Lightning adapter not included)
Accessories: USB-A Male to USB-C Female Adapter




About the THX Onyx setup video, I have questions about their Tidal options configuration shown.  The video clip of the Device Settings only showed selecting "Exclusive" mode; I would expect also requiring "Passthrough MQA" to put the Onyx in full unfolding mode - Purple LED's lit, and for highest output "Maximum Volume" Enabled - then we can control the volume level with the Tidal App on the phone, tablet, PC, Mac - and remember to set the volume on the device to 10% before plugging in the Onyx, as per their instructions: to avoid blowing your ears out!:


Spoiler: Tidal Streaming Device Options



Don't forget to reduce your App volume to 10% as per THX Onyx instruction...before plugging in the Onyx.







*ESS Introduces Suite of USB CODECs featuring Audiophile SABRE DACs*
ESS Simplifies high-quality USB-C audio solutions for headsets, adaptors and more
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-...B-CODECs-featuring-Audiophile-SABRE-DACs.html

"...The ES9281PRO is the flagship of the new line and can provide best-in-class audio performance at 124 dB DNR and -112 Total Harmonic Distortion plus Noise (THD+N).
The ES9281PRO is the first USB product to offer an integrated hardware MQA (Master Quality Authenticated) renderer that makes MQA playback easy and cost-efficient.  MQA technology is becoming widely accepted as the standard for distributing ultra-high-quality music across a variety of platforms.  The encoding process folds extra information into the signal that can be recovered later.  The subsequent “unfolding” process takes place in two steps: the first unfold, called Core Decoding, can be done on most DSP systems, including software included in smartphone applications.  The final step in the unfolding, called rendering, needs to be done in tight cooperation with the DAC.  The ES9281PRO will automatically detect the MQA stream and engage the rendering; the entire process requires no additional design work."

First(?) used in the Asus ROG Delta S headset:

*ROG Delta S headset*
https://rog.asus.com/headsets-audio/headsets/usb-headsets/rog-delta-s-model/

*ROG Delta S headset*
ROG Delta S gaming headset delivers impeccably clear, detailed audio to give serious gamers the edge to win. It features the industry-leading, hi-fi-grade ESS 9281 CODEC with QUAD DAC™ technology, and is the first gaming headset with Master Quality Authenticated (MQA) technology, which is an award-winning technology that delivers studio-quality audio files to reveal every detail of the original recording. Embedded MQA Renderer technology in ROG Delta S can connect to an MQA core signal and complete the final "unfold" of an MQA file for incredible audio quality.
https://press.asus.com/PressRelease...***-Lineup-for-Leveling-Up-Gaming-Experiences
https://www.asus.com/us/Headphones-Headsets/ROG-Delta/

*ASUS ROG Delta S Gaming Headset with USB-C | Ai Powered Noise-Canceling Microphone | Over-Ear Headphones for PC, Mac, Nintendo Switch, and Sony Playstation | Ergonomic Design, Black - $179.99*
https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-ROG-Noise-Canceling-Microphone-Playstation/dp/B08QHBJ1WJ

*head-fi reviews -THX ONYX Portable DAC/Amplifier*
https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/thx-onyx-portable-dac-amplifier.25116/reviews
Source: https://hifitrends.com/2021/04/07/w...r-first-dac-headphone-amp-combo-is-marvelous/


----------



## Taz777

hmscott said:


> New MQA ready DAC/AMP Dongle from THX - Onyx:
> https://www.thx.com/onyx/
> 
> And, It is a Razer.com exclusive:
> ...




Thanks for posting the videos! I have one on order that should arrive in the next 5-10 days. I'll be using it with my iPhone and looking at the dongles/adapters needed, it's not going to be a pretty sight, but I think the sound quality will make up for it. I think this is how it connects to an iPhone:

iPhone --> CCK cable --> Onyx USB adapter --> Onyx


----------



## hmscott (Apr 27, 2021)

New MQA releases to look forward to on: May 28th on Tidal

*MONTREUX JAZZ FESTIVAL: MQA RELEASES ON BMG - Apr 14 2021*
https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/news/montreux-jazz-festival-mqa-releases-on-bmg

*Give us some of your first impressions of MQA.*

_“When I first heard MQA – a Ray Charles record with Milt Jackson (from the album Soul Brothers) – I just couldn’t believe it, it was like I was sitting in the room listening to them. It was really extraordinary. That’s what made me realise that this is serious.”_

*The Ray Charles, Milt Jackson - Soul Brothers - 192khz MQA*
https://tidal.com/browse/album/68711686



Spoiler: More Q&A



https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/news/montreux-jazz-festival-mqa-releases-on-bmg

*And MQA’s effect on The Montreux Years recordings?*

_“With the Nina Simone record, it felt to me like I’m in the room with her. Which is the point. The more lifelike it is, the better it is in my estimation.

“But Montreux is live so you have a sense of place because of that. Apart from some of the excessive processing, there were one or two things going back to the original format problems that were noisy, like lights buzzing for example. One has to make the decision as a mastering engineer, how far do you take this to remove the distractions and make the audio come through._

*You’ve described working on The Montreux Years as a highlight of your working life?*

_“It’s been a highlight because it’s music I know from a musical perspective. After I left school, I joined a band and we ended up playing in Morocco for a couple of summer seasons in the late 1960s. By happy coincidence, the owner of the Moroccan hotel where we were performing was a huge Nina Simone fan and he managed to book her for a week. We were in awe of her, so dumbstruck. Seeing Nina Simone in ‘68, she was really at her peak.”

“The Montreux archive is astounding and unique, and it’s been fantastic to be able to revisit it. It’s been an amazing listening experience.” _



*Pre-order ‘Nina Simone: The Montreux Years’ and ‘Etta James: The Montreux Years’ here [and **Google**]. The audio will also be available on digital download and streaming services, and in full master quality on TIDAL. Global release date: 28 May 2021.

From the MQA Press Release material:


Spoiler: Album Cover Mockups











*Download the official press release *here*.

*Album and CD Track Listings:*


Spoiler: Click to see Track Listings



*From:

Montreux Jazz Fest And BMG Unveil Special New Music Releases By Nina Simone and Etta James*
https://hifitrends.com/2021/04/14/m...music-releases-by-nina-simone-and-etta-james/

*TRACKLISTINGS:

NINA SIMONE: THE MONTREUX YEARS*

2LP

*SIDE A*

Someone To Watch Over Me (Intro) °
Backlash Blues †
I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be Free †
See-Line Woman *
*SIDE B*

Little Girl Blue (Pt 1 and 2) †
Don’t Smoke In The Bed *
Stars †
What Little Moonlight Can Do *
*SIDE C*

African Mailman †
Just In Time **
Four Women *
No Woman No Cry *
*SIDE D*

Liberian Calypso *
Ne Me Quitte Pas *
Montreux Blues ‡
My Baby Just Cares For Me *
† _Recorded live at Casino Montreux 3 July 1976_

‡ _Recorded live at Casino Montreux 19 July 1981_

° _Recorded live at Casino Montreux 10 July 1987_

* _Recorded live at Casino Montreux 13July 1990_

** _Recorded live at Casino Kursaal 16 June 1968_

*NINA SIMONE: THE MONTREUX YEARS*

2CD

*CD ONE*

Someone To Watch Over Me (Intro) °
Backlash Blues †
I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be Free †
See-Line Woman *
Little Girl Blue (Pt1 and 2) †
Don’t Smoke In Bed *
Stars †
What. A Little Moonlight Can Do *
African Mailman †
Four Women *
No Woman No Cry *
Liberian Calypso *
Ne Me Quitte Pas *
Montreux Blues ‡
My Baby Just Cares for Me *
*CD TWO*
_All tracks recorded live at Casino Kursaal 16th June 1968_

Intro
Go To Hell
Just In Time
When I Was A Young Girl
Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood
Ne Me Quitte Pas
To Love Somebody
Backlash Blues
The House Of The Rising Sun
See-Line Woman
Please Read Me
Ain’t Got No, I Got Life
Gin House Blues
I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be Free
*ETTA JAMES: THE MONTREUX YEARS*

2 LP

*SIDE ONE*

Breakin’ Up Somebody’s Home *
I Got The Will •
I’d Rather Go Blind ‡
A Lover Is Forever †
*SIDE TWO*

Damn Your Eyes •
Tell Mama ‡
Running And Hiding Blues *
Something’s Got A Hold On Me •
*SIDE THREE*

Beware †
Come To Mama *
Medley: At Last / Trust In Me / Sunday Holiday Kind Of Love •
*SIDE FOUR*

I Sing The Blues For You †
Baby What You Wany Me To Do (Encore) °
* _Recorded live at Casino Montreux 18 July 1990_

• _Recorded live at Casino Montreux 12 July 1989_

† _Recorded live at Auditorium Stravinski 15 July 1993_

‡ _Recorded live at Casino Montreux 9 July 1977_

° _Recorded live at Casino Montreux 8 July 1978_

*ETTA JAMES: THE MONTREUX YEARS*

2 CD

*CD ONE*

Breakin’ Up Somebody’s Home *
I Got The Will •
A Lover Is Forever †
Damn Your Eyes •
Tell Mama ‡
Running And Hiding Blues *
Something’s Got A Hold On Me •
Beware †
Come To Mama *
Medley: At Last / Trust In Me / Sunday Holiday Kind Of Love •
I Sing The Blues For You †
Baby What You Wany Me To Do (Encore) °
*CD TWO*

_All tracks recorded live at Casino Montreux 11th July 1975_

Respect Yourself
Drown in My Own Tears
W-O-M-A-N
Dust My Broom
I’d Rather Go Blind
All The Way Down
Baby What Do You Want Me To Do
Rock Me Baby
Stormy Monday
* _Recorded live at Casino Montreux 18 July 1990_

• _Recorded live at Casino Montreux 12 July 1989_

† _Recorded live at Auditorium Stravinski 15 July 1993_

‡ _Recorded live at Casino Montreux 9 July 1977_

° _Recorded live at Casino Montreux 8 July 1978_



And, I am enjoying Tidal MQA Masters of Etta James and Nina Simone, available on Tidal now.

*The Right Time - Etta James - 1991 - 44.1khz MQA*
https://tidal.com/browse/album/3466856

*I Put A Spell On You - Nina Simone 1964 - 96khz MQA*
https://tidal.com/browse/album/108022684


----------



## Palyodgree

hmscott said:


> New MQA releases to look forward to on: May 28th on Tidal
> 
> *MONTREUX JAZZ FESTIVAL: MQA RELEASES ON BMG - Apr 14 2021*
> https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/news/montreux-jazz-festival-mqa-releases-on-bmg
> ...


LOL ,...


----------



## Palyodgree

Dannemand said:


> GoldenOne's test is massively flawed in its very premise and lacks basic understanding of MQA's working. He managed to trick the encoder into creating its worst possible output, by telling it to encode real music while feeding it synthetic square waves and spike signals outside its encoding envelope -- and ignoring the encoder's warnings about it. The predictably poor results were then "analyzed" and posted as representative of MQA's performance.
> 
> In a better context, the analysis wasn't that bad, and even raised a few interesting questions. But it was poorly premised and misleadingly framed: There was no desire to truly "explore how MQA works". And GoldenOne has shown zero interest in performing similar analysis on "best effort" real music samples, say using the free 2L tracks which provide multiple DXD recordings and MQA encodes for comparison. His analysis would be far more credible if it were based on the best MQA can do rather than the worst it can be tricked into doing.
> 
> ...


Nice word salad , I get it however many people in this hobby have no clue what they are listening to and your reference to the founder of ASR I was in his home years ago where he showed me several components he loved because they measured so well ,.lol ,.carry on ..


----------



## Dannemand

Palyodgree said:


> LOL ,...


@hmscott's post is exactly what this thread is about, according to the OP's topic description and its title.

And your posts continue to be exactly what the OP described as being NOT the thread topic.

If you are not interested in the thread topic, nobody is forcing you to participate here.


----------



## Dannemand (Apr 27, 2021)

Palyodgree said:


> Nice word salad , I get it however many people in this hobby have no clue what they are listening to and your reference to the founder of ASR I was in his home years ago where he showed me several components he loved because they measured so well ,.lol ,.carry on ..



I've read the MQA patents by Stuart and Craven. And I understand them. I also have a few of my own patents and consulted on others, which helps when reading patent documents. Plus I've studied most of the objective analysis on the subject (which unfortunately is too scarce).

So while it is absolutely true that I may have have no clue, I think I understand it at least as well as most of the people who express their opinions about it.

And do note that I still haven't posted a definitive opinion on it yet, even if you think I have.


----------



## gimmeheadroom (Apr 27, 2021)

Interesting one here, guys. https://tidal.com/browse/album/77642707

Usually all the tracks on an album are the same bit depth and sample rate. Here, the first two songs are 24/48 but the third is 16/44.1. After that it switches back to 24/48 for the rest of the album.

My Brooklyn DAC+ is great for checking this because it can tell me the bit depth and sample rate for any input, both with and without MQA expansion. Great diagnostic tool as well as a great DAC for MQA albums!


----------



## Bytor123

gimmeheadroom said:


> Interesting one here, guys. https://tidal.com/browse/album/77642707
> 
> Usually all the tracks on an album are the same bit depth and sample rate. Here, the first two songs are 24/48 but the third is 16/44.1. After that it switches back to 24/48 for the rest of the album.
> 
> My Brooklyn DAC+ is great for checking this because it can tell me the bit depth and sample rate for any input, both with and with MQA expansion. Great diagnostic tool as well as a great DAC for MQA albums!


Can you not hear a difference? Why would you need it 'checking'?


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Bytor123 said:


> Can you not hear a difference? Why would you need it 'checking'?


Are you saying measurements have no value?


----------



## Bytor123

gimmeheadroom said:


> Are you saying measurements have no value?


No? I'm asking why does s/he need something to show what s/he's listening to is 'better'.


----------



## Dannemand (Apr 27, 2021)

Joe Bloggs said:


> MQA are the ones who stripped him of any further chance to test the codec, so it would be a bit big of anyone to declare that he's not given them a fair chance.  Furthermore, it is a common fact of life that test signals that are good at testing equipment / codec performance and fidelity are not musical, they are not musical because test signals have test roles to fulfil that are not fulfilled by regular music, not because test signals are unrepresentative of music reproduction performance.  I mean, basically the only test you can run using an unstructured music signal is the null test... which MQA, raw or unfolded, will just as well fail, digitally if not audibly, and which FLAC will predictably pass 100%.  Is that the takeaway then?
> 
> If a "synth mode" exists for MQA, it also wasn't up to him to select or not select it.  And if the codec adapts dynamically, would he / the operator needed to do anything different at all?
> 
> None of this is intended to endorse GoldenOne's claims, but just my way of saying "if there's something wrong with them, this is not it and that is not it"...



Again, my argument in this discussion is LESS about whether MQA is good or bad, and mainly about the validity of GoldenOne's analysis, which (A) seemed to me like a hit job disguising as objective analysis, and (B) was in actual fact based on tricking the encoder into accepting signals outside its defined performance envelope -- evidenced by it rejecting his test tracks, and next by the warnings it gave even when he managed to hide his tests inside music tracks. If you insist on running you car far above its red line, despite all the warning lights and alarms, don't be surprised if you break the engine.

As I wrote, there is nothing wrong with synthetic signals when testing a DAC or a lossless codec. But this codec is officially designed to encode "other information" (ultrasonic samples) in the bits normally used to preserve noise and extreme amplitudes in the high harmonics. Its premise being that none of those exist in actual music. It IS a lossy codec specifically for music, and useless for anything else. So a test looking to preserve those bits serves no legitimate purpose.

I only read somewhere that the encoder has a mode for synthetic music, but I don't know how it is implemented or whether Tidal offers this mode to artists who upload their tracks. I am guessing that Tidal exposes less than the complete encoder toolbox. You are right that if it were adaptive, it should have switched mode instead of rejecting the test tracks.

But my main argument against GoldenOne's analysis is that he never bothered performing the same before-and-after analysis on any of the readily available 2L tracks, where he could have compared their MQA encodes to original DXD tracks or a number of resampled versions. We can assume that their encodes were made with good understanding of how to use the MQA encoder and its settings. I recall @Currawong saying that those DXDs contain lots of ultrasonics (as one would expect in a 352.8kHz track) so there is plenty of opportunity to test the MQA encoder's performance on challenging material that is still within its defined envelope.

I fully agree that more openness from MQA would be enlightening. I don't know if GoldenOne requested their cooperation before he began his project or only after. As many journalists (and "journalists") have found over the years: Once you have published a hit-job on a company or individual, the target tends to be less cooperative afterwards


----------



## Dannemand

littlej0e said:


> Agreed and I think this is more than reasonable. Seems like the issue is getting around MQA's checks and figuring out how to upload and encode tracks with the criteria you mentioned. Honestly, I would prefer if someone other than GoldenOne did this to rule out any potential bias, flawed processes, etc. It would be more in keeping with the scientific method and disputing the results of one person is much easier than disputing results of many people, whatever the results may be.



See my reply to @Joe Bloggs above.

The most relevant test GoldenOne could perform now to convince me of his sincerity, would be analyzing those 2L tracks the same way as his test tracks. This doesn't require access to the MQA encoder (they're already encoded) nor does it allow him to (deliberately or not) misuse the encoder or its settings to obtains skewed results.


----------



## Dannemand

Bytor123 said:


> Can you not hear a difference? Why would you need it 'checking'?


That's what audiophiles do. And why they spend so much money instead of just listening to music.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

vanhalen26 said:


> Joe - do you listen to MQA in your downtime or stick to non-MQA?


Hi. You may know that I conceptualized the Magesound 8-ball on our players (now simply known as MSEB), and in my downtime these days I'm trying to program a dynamics recovery plugin that lets you get full dynamics back from crushed 90s-00s masters and any other recordings that were victims of the loudness war.  If you're a dynamics addict like me you may even want it on all your recordings.  Now if you know what MQA allows and doesn't allow on playback I think that answers the question 😄


----------



## vanhalen26

Joe Bloggs said:


> Hi. You may know that I conceptualized the Magesound 8-ball on our players (now simply known as MSEB), and in my downtime these days I'm trying to program a dynamics recovery plugin that lets you get full dynamics back from crushed 90s-00s masters and any other recordings that were victims of the loudness war.  If you're a dynamics addict like me you may even want it on all your recordings.  Now if you know what MQA allows and doesn't allow on playback I think that answers the question 😄


Ok, I’m moving on with my questions about that.  If you find a miracle cure for brickwalled recordings, I’d love to hear about that.  Insanely, some producers continue to ruin good music with that!


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Dannemand said:


> Again, my argument in this discussion is LESS about whether MQA is good or bad, and mainly about the validity of GoldenOne's analysis, which (A) seemed to me like a hit job disguising as objective analysis, and (B) was in actual fact based on tricking the encoder into accepting signals outside its defined performance envelope -- evidenced by it rejecting his test tracks, and next by the warnings it gave even when he managed to hide his tests inside music tracks. If you insist on running you car far above its red line, despite all the warning lights and alarms, don't be surprised if you break the engine.
> 
> As I wrote, there is nothing wrong with synthetic signals when testing a DAC or a lossless codec. But this codec is officially designed to encode "other information" (ultrasonic samples) in the bits normally used to preserve noise and extreme amplitudes in the high harmonics. Its premise being that none of those exist in actual music. It IS a lossy codec specifically for music, and useless for anything else. So a test looking to preserve those bits serves no legitimate purpose.
> 
> ...


As far as I can tell, all GoldenOne had done publicly by the time his recordings were all pulled from the catalog and him barred from publishing any further MQA recordings was... publish some MQA recordings.

As I was going to say, there's nothing special about test tones (other than the ultrasonic ones) that should make them unencodable.  The only special thing about test signals compared to music is, well, they're designed to give test results.  You can't design a psychoacoustic encoder that totally failed to encode test tones if you tried, and I think codecs like AAC are more psychoacoustic from the ground up than MQA would ever be.  As I said, the only test I can see done with music signals (as you propose) is the null test, which MQA would just as well fail.  Can you enlighten me as to the tests you would propose to have him run? 

Finally, did anyone ever get anything out of MQA from saying "hey I want to run some test signals through your system and publish the test results in public"? 

Not that I predict anything bad would come out of it , but it just seems to be something that institutionally can't happen


----------



## hmscott (Apr 28, 2021)

*John Lennon - Plastic Ono Band, The Ultimate Collection - 2021- 120 Tracks - 07:26:10... 192khz MQA*
https://tidal.com/browse/album/180827516

*John Lennon - 35 videos - 04/28/2021 - unrelated to "The Ultimate Collection" Videos*
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/2db30213-ab33-4b9a-946c-6ff654e4aab3

*Youtube Playlist*
*Imagine - John Lennon & The Plastic Ono Band (w The Flux Fiddlers) (Ultimate Mix 2018) - 4K REMASTER*


*What Are You Listening To Right Now?*
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/wha...w-rules-please-read-them.253245/post-16322495​


----------



## Dannemand (Apr 27, 2021)

Joe Bloggs said:


> As far as I can tell, all GoldenOne had done publicly by the time his recordings were all pulled from the catalog and him barred from publishing any further MQA recordings was... publish some MQA recordings.
> 
> As I was going to say, there's nothing special about test tones (other than the ultrasonic ones) that should make them unencodable.  The only special thing about test signals compared to music is, well, they're designed to give test results.  You can't design a psychoacoustic encoder that totally failed to encode test tones if you tried, and I think codecs like AAC are more psychoacoustic from the ground up than MQA would ever be.  As I said, the only test I can see done with music signals (as you propose) is the null test, which MQA would just as well fail.  Can you enlighten me as to the tests you would propose to have him run?
> 
> ...



Please read my full posts again, as I already answered these questions several times. I completely acknowledge your smarts and credentials, but it looks a bit like you are replying to what you *thought* I was saying, not what I was *actually* saying.

The test signals GoldenOne used (A) didn't contain noise, and (B) contained amplitudes in the high brilliance band where no music has such amplitudes. MQA was designed on the premise that those bits are wasted in the PCM stream to bit-perfectly preserve content that isn't present in any "natural" music (synthesized music is a different story). And it uses those bits to store other information (ultrasonic samples). Therefore it makes no sense to test it on such signals. I could have told him the outcome before he posted them -- and I strongly considered doing so.

That is *not* to say that test signals aren't useful. They are fantastic for testing lots of equipment. But *not* on a lossy codec that was deliberately designed with a narrower envelope, specifically targeting musical recordings from microphones, sampled by ADCs.

As I've now posted several times, GoldenOne should perform the same analysis using master tracks and "best effort" MQA encodes, such as the publicly available ones from 2L. If those *also* show poor performance, then he *will* have proven something. Showing poor performance on test signals that obviously break the encoder -- obvious with even the most rudimentary understanding of MQA's premise -- proves nothing.

We really, really should stop this, as we are trashing this thread, burying perfectly good posts from good members discussing Tidal tracks and albums they like. Discussions they are entirely permitted to have without constantly being bombarded by people telling them they are wrong.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Apr 27, 2021)

Dannemand said:


> Please read my full posts again, as I already answered these questions several times. I completely acknowledge your smarts and credentials, but it looks a bit like you are replying to what you *thought* I was saying, not what I was *actually* saying.
> 
> The test signals GoldenOne used (A) didn't contain noise, and (B) contained amplitudes in the high brilliance band where no music has such amplitudes. MQA was designed on the premise that those bits are wasted in the PCM stream to bit-perfectly preserve content that isn't present in any "natural" music (synthesized music is a different story). And it uses those bits to store other information (ultrasonic samples). Therefore it makes no sense to test it on such signals. I could have told him the outcome before he posted them -- and I strongly considered doing so.
> 
> ...


I could point out how you pick and choose which things I say to reply to and ignored the key question I asked you, that goes to the the premise on which everything you said in this reply stands on, the not answering of which makes it all moot;  but then I am not trying to support GoldenOne's claims, just disputing your analysis of it, which I suppose gets us further off topic than ever.  So I'd just drop this.  I agree that music content is more important than anything, although bolder souls than me had already pointed out the implications of MQA in that regard.


----------



## xand

Joe Bloggs said:


> I could point out how you pick and choose which things I say to reply to and ignored the key question I asked you, that goes to the the premise on which everything you said in this reply stands on, the not answering of which makes it all moot;


🙄


----------



## Dannemand (Apr 28, 2021)

Joe Bloggs said:


> Can you enlighten me as to the tests you would propose to have him run?





Dannemand said:


> As I've now posted several times, GoldenOne should perform the same analysis using master tracks and "best effort" MQA encodes, such as the publicly available ones from 2L. If those *also* show poor performance, then he *will* have proven something. Showing poor performance on test signals that obviously break the encoder -- obvious with even the most rudimentary understanding of MQA's premise -- proves nothing.





Joe Bloggs said:


> I could point out how you pick and choose which things I say to reply to and ignored the key question I asked you, that goes to the the premise on which everything you said in this reply stands on, the not answering of which makes it all moot.



Test. MQA. using. music.

It's not that difficult a concept to comprehend, and I've repeated it umpteen times now.

But yes, time for the Ignore button.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Apr 28, 2021)

Dannemand said:


> Test. MQA. using. music.
> 
> It's not that difficult a concept to comprehend, and I've repeated it umpteen times now.
> 
> But yes, time for the Ignore button.


And there I thought you were claiming that the right test signal would have been just fine?

It's impossible to test using music, that was the point.  The analytical features you use with test signal output to calculate performance metrics are not there.  Unless you're happy with it failing the null test as the only possible test, as I pointed out.  Bye.


----------



## Currawong

Dannemand said:


> I recall @Currawong saying that those DXDs contain lots of ultrasonics


They contain high amounts of DS modulation noise above 48 kHz, so they can't capture very high ultrasonics from instruments (assuming the mic used in a recording can, which is somewhat unlikely anyway).


----------



## Jammin72

Lol, I love it!  Even if the mic can, is it placed exactly perfect?  Is it in a 0db recording situation? Is it.. well you get it.


----------



## Hooster (Apr 28, 2021)

I used to go to a restaurant called Bob's. I went there all the time. They sell food I like in vast variety, faithful to the raw material. They claim to only use the best and freshest ingredients, Bob vouches for it and he has even developed a process to authenticate the quality of his food. Furthermore, all his cooks are certified by the process to only deliver the best cooking. I bought this line, hook and sinker for many years. I have paid hundreds of $ to Bob and his restaurant. It pains be to admit this but I have been a sucker. I have been taken in by a suntan and a grin and I am the poorer for it.
I recently had a chance to Yves's restaurant. I tried the same food I had at Bob's. It wasn't authenticated and there was no branded process the food had to go through, Yves just provided good food and was honest about where it came from and how it was processed. It was good, I liked it and I will be going to Yves's in the future. No big deal, right? Wrong.

I have been using Tidal for years and to find that I have been what amounts to short changed all that time hurts. It really does. Why? Because getting the most out of my audio system is a major hobby for me. I have spent a great deal of time researching what components work the best for my use case and a lot of money purchasing these components. I could never in my wildest dreams have imagined that the streaming service I was using was the weakest link but knowing what I know now I have the feeling that it was. I have for example spent long hours researching what cables work best for me and paid thousands of $ on those cables. I have done major modification work on components. It has been my passion. I recently started a trial of Qobuz and oh my, it just sounds like a breath of fresh air. It seems more natural, detailed and the bass is better than Tidal. It is clearly different and more natural to my ears. Why would it be like that, Tidal and Qobuz are just streaming the same ones and zeros, right? Wrong. Tidal is doing something to the files and to me it is not good. Does someone else agree with me? Seems like they do:

https://alpha-audio.net/review/mult...otify-vs-master-files-vs-vinyl-vs-cassette/2/

"Tidal: again *a very high basic volume. We estimate 3 dB higher than the reference level at which we are listening*

Qubuz: Qobus sounds really more musical; where Tidal – also in this track – sounds a bit flatter, the Qubuz version of the master offers much more soundstage, a more logical balance between the instruments."

"Tidal: the track is – again – *to loud.  It seems as if the loudness is switched on; the music slips when it becomes complex. This is the logical consequence of a high volume so you lose headroom. It is even clipping we notice.*

Qobuz: volume is at the right level here. That way the music (and the equipment) can breath. Complex passages don’t collapse now. Soundstage is wide."

"Tidal: *Way to loud! We hear a ‘ringing’ at the piano that we have never heard in the many times we play this track. The piano almost clipped, the floor-drum stroke is far too dominant. Weird. *

Qobuz: the recording as we know it. Dynamic and tight."

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Ok, so it seems like Tidal is in addition to using a gimmick, MQA. they are using the infantile "loudness war" tactic of boosting the level to the max and compressing music. I thought the days of that kind of rubbish were mostly over, but clearly not. (If you ever compare sound reproduction, ALWAYS make sure you match levels correctly).

To find that Bob has over the years been cheaping out on his ingredients and masking it by over spicing the food and with gimmicks like some meaningless certification is deeply disappointing. I will be enjoying the honest food which Yves serves up from now on.

To me the MQA brand is dirt and I will avoid anything to do with it at all costs. I challenge anyone to compare, correctly level matched, real hi res audio as served by Qobuz with Tidal MQA processed files which you may or may not agree is real hi rez. If you prefer Tidal MQA, then by all means, keep it.

Now, imagine if Netflix was using some compression to stream it's 4k content and this was marketed as somehow being better than uncorrupted 4k and people spent money on paying for "authenticated" compressed 4k and components that can play it. People would just laugh at such a stupid idea but in the snake oil infested world of audio you could convince people that this kind of processing is somehow better than the real deal and they should spend money to get it! Imbecilic.



How to test MQA's leaky filter: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/to...
2018 RMAF MQA talk by Chris Connaker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSv0l...
Archimago's MQA article: https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/review...
PS Audio vid on MQA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPfmW...
Schiit on MQA: https://www.schiit.com/news/news/why-...
Linn on MQA: https://web.archive.org/web/202011112...
Neil Young removes albums from TIDAL: https://neilyoungarchives.com/news/1/...
John Atkinson of stereophile confirms low-level distortion: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/to...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Currawong said:


> They contain high amounts of DS modulation noise above 48 kHz, so they can't capture very high ultrasonics from instruments (assuming the mic used in a recording can, which is somewhat unlikely anyway).


DXD is not DSD, it is simply high sample rate and bit depth PCM.  There is no inherent reason why DXD files would contain any ultrasonic noise.


----------



## Taz777

The *music* in this compilation is quite breathtaking. Sounds pretty good on my mid-level desktop system, even better with good quality headphones. I'm not really a classical music fan, but appreciate the quality of the recording of the tracks in this compilation. TIDAL link:

2L - The MQA Experience (Compliation)


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Thanks @Taz777 I will check it out


----------



## Currawong

Joe Bloggs said:


> DXD is not DSD, it is simply high sample rate and bit depth PCM.  There is no inherent reason why DXD files would contain any ultrasonic noise.



Most ADCs capture in DSD, before decimating to PCM. Thus, if you look at the spectral content of the output, you'll see noise rising above 48kHz.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Currawong said:


> Most ADCs capture in DSD, before decimating to PCM. Thus, if you look at the spectral content of the output, you'll see noise rising above 48kHz.


Thanks for pointing that "exherent" reason for ultrasonic noise in _some_ DXD recordings.  (I'm listening to one that doesn't and ABing between that and the MQA version for a bit).


----------



## Currawong

Joe Bloggs said:


> Thanks for pointing that "exherent" reason for ultrasonic noise in _some_ DXD recordings.  (I'm listening to one that doesn't and ABing between that and the MQA version for a bit).


Suggestions for ones that don't have that noise and are 192k on Qobuz and MQA on TIDAL are welcome.


----------



## Hooster

I wrote a long post, above and I guess it is a lot to ask people browsing forums to read it. Here it is condensed:

I have tried Tidal and Qobuz and I find the sound quality of Qobuz superior, to a degree that makes me angry I have put up with Tidal for so long.

I won't repeat what I said about MQA.


----------



## sebek

Tidal sounds really crap compared to Qobuz.

I wish I could choose Tidal because it has a better archive, but Qobuz's SQ is infinitely superior.

Tidal has that kind of bass boost that makes some records or songs truly unlistenable, confusing, booming and painful to hear.


----------



## NOMOS

Qobuz sounds really crap compared to Tidal .

I wish I could choose Qobuz because it has a better Classic Musik archive ,

but Tidal SQ is infinitely superior.

Qobuz has that kind of bass shy that makes some records or songs truly 

unlistenable, confusing ,harsch , and painful to hear 

 Audiophile Greetings , Nomos


----------



## chef8489

NOMOS said:


> Qobuz sounds really crap compared to Tidal .
> 
> I wish I could choose Qobuz because it has a better Classic Musik archive ,
> 
> ...


Thats surprising as most people I know says the opposite and prefer qobuz including myself. Unfortunately qobuz is a bit laggy on my se100.


----------



## littlej0e

Haha, that’s fair. I think all this bickering back and forth is hilarious. It’s ok to like whatever you like and I don’t understand why some folks take this so personally. Enjoy the music and ignore the rest.

After using both, here are my personal feelings on the subject.

Interface: Tidal
Sound: Qobuz
Search: Qobuz
Content: tie
Cost: Tidal (for me at least)


Truth is, if Tidal streamed in full hi-res (or if my system and ear couldn’t discern between the incredibly slight difference between MQA and hi-res on _some_ tracks) I’d likely jump back to Tidal in a heartbeat. It’s just too good of a value proposition.


----------



## NOMOS

littlej0e said:


> Haha, that’s fair. I think all this bickering back and forth is hilarious. It’s ok to like whatever you like and I don’t understand why some folks take this so personally. Enjoy the music and ignore the rest.


That hits the nail on the head ,...
Have a nice day , littlejOe and Enjoy your Music


----------



## snapandslide

Well I've signed up to Qobuz today to trial it - I have no equipment that makes use of MQA, so time to test alternatives. Qobuz's has definitely sharpened up from the last time I tried it! Still need to do more testing on sound. The cost disparity is not small in the UK - £12.50 vs £20 a month, so I will give Qobuz a fair crack. Most of my library carried over to Qobuz, just need to check a few which didn't, but it seems a lot of my slightly random electronic music albums.


----------



## vanhalen26

snapandslide said:


> Well I've signed up to Qobuz today to trial it - I have no equipment that makes use of MQA, so time to test alternatives. Qobuz's has definitely sharpened up from the last time I tried it! Still need to do more testing on sound. The cost disparity is not small in the UK - £12.50 vs £20 a month, so I will give Qobuz a fair crack. Most of my library carried over to Qobuz, just need to check a few which didn't, but it seems a lot of my slightly random electronic music albums.


If you can get a group together, the price is pretty good on the family plan.


----------



## littlej0e

vanhalen26 said:


> If you can get a group together, the price is pretty good on the family plan.



Agreed. Trying to find a Qobuz group as we speak!


----------



## vanhalen26

littlej0e said:


> Agreed. Trying to find a Qobuz group as we speak!


If you find one let me know, I’d consider.

I have a tidal family plan as well - I could also trade a spot in that for a Qobuz spot, we only use 3 of our spots.


----------



## Brava210

snapandslide said:


> Well I've signed up to Qobuz today to trial it - I have no equipment that makes use of MQA, so time to test alternatives. Qobuz's has definitely sharpened up from the last time I tried it! Still need to do more testing on sound. The cost disparity is not small in the UK - £12.50 vs £20 a month, so I will give Qobuz a fair crack. Most of my library carried over to Qobuz, just need to check a few which didn't, but it seems a lot of my slightly random electronic music albums.


It's actually only £12.50 if you pay upfront yearly.
It still better value though.


----------



## snapandslide

Brava210 said:


> It's actually only £12.50 if you pay upfront yearly.
> It still better value though.


yea it is and a lot of my fav albums are in hi-res. I've felt for some time there was a bit of a veil to music if you play via the Tidal app, and nothing has really changed my mind on that. Its going to be a no brainer. 

There is a massive annoyance I am ranting about with Qobuz - you cannot sort favourite releases by their release date! I find this massively irritating.


----------



## Brava210

I have found on Tidal that albums I know very well have now had MQA status applied and instantly sound louder and weird, I have Tidal Qobuz and Apple btw


----------



## snapandslide

Brava210 said:


> I have found on Tidal that albums I know very well have now had MQA status applied and instantly sound louder and weird, I have Tidal Qobuz and Apple btw


jup agree - the veil applies to the non MQA status. MQA isn't that bad when you have at least 8x unfold, but otherwise I don't like it. Tidal's interface has got a lot better, but Qobuz has also improved a lot. For whatever reason I'm finding Qobuz much more engaging (also credit to the W2, which is great). Sadly Tidal is looking to be a goner.


----------



## Brava210

snapandslide said:


> jup agree - the veil applies to the non MQA status. MQA isn't that bad when you have at least 8x unfold, but otherwise I don't like it. Tidal's interface has got a lot better, but Qobuz has also improved a lot. For whatever reason I'm finding Qobuz much more engaging (also credit to the W2, which is great). Sadly Tidal is looking to be a goner.


W2?


----------



## snapandslide

Brava210 said:


> W2?


The Luxury and Precision dongle!


----------



## Currawong

snapandslide said:


> 8x unfold


8x upsampling using the MQA filter, but yes, I agree, the stuff they've processed sounds less than idea through anything but either their filter, or an emulation of it. It's really poor that they've butchered music intentionally that it only sounds its best through their approved hardware.

My TIDAL subscription ends in a couple of days and I've converted all my playlists to use Qobuz. Only a couple of albums and artists weren't on there. I'm thinking of writing to them and asking them to put their stuff on Qobuz.


----------



## snapandslide

Currawong said:


> 8x upsampling using the MQA filter, but yes, I agree, the stuff they've processed sounds less than idea through anything but either their filter, or an emulation of it. It's really poor that they've butchered music intentionally that it only sounds its best through their approved hardware.
> 
> My TIDAL subscription ends in a couple of days and I've converted all my playlists to use Qobuz. Only a couple of albums and artists weren't on there. *I'm thinking of writing to them and asking them to put their stuff on Qobuz.*



That is actually not a bad idea at all! 

I'm also struck by how much the UI and overall UX has improved on the Qobuz apps (iphone and windows) - Tidal has definitely improved too, and clearly their algorithms are better for recommendation, but it does feels as if it needs a bit of a facelift.


----------



## Hooster (May 7, 2021)

I think Tidal is going to have to do something drastic if they want to survive. Something like Tidal "Classic" where they stream music with no "enhancements" and gimmicks. MQA should be optional and people who do not want it should be able to stream honest unaltered files in hi rez. It should be crystal clear what resolution you are streaming no matter what device you are using. I still prefer Tidal in terms of their library and interface over Qobuz. I just can't accept the baggage that comes with Tidal.


----------



## vanhalen26

Hooster said:


> I think Tidal is going to have to do something drastic if they want to survive. Something like Tidal "Classic" where they stream music with no "enhancements" and gimmicks. MQA should be optional and people who do not want it should be able to stream honest unaltered files in hi rez. It should be crystal clear what resolution you are streaming no matter what device you are using. I still prefer Tidal in terms of their library and interface over Qobuz. I just can't accept the baggage that comes with Tidal.


Without MQA, what would differentiate them from HD Spotify or the rumored HD Apple Music - both of which are way more mainstream.  I see tough times ahead for tidal.  I think their best bet is to actually abandon MQA in favor of HD flac like Qobuz.  Then there won’t be hardware issues on playback.


----------



## snapandslide

vanhalen26 said:


> Without MQA, what would differentiate them from HD Spotify or the rumored HD Apple Music - both of which are way more mainstream.  I see tough times ahead for tidal.  I think their best bet is to actually abandon MQA in favor of HD flac like Qobuz.  Then there won’t be hardware issues on playback.


Fully agree with you. The more time I also spend with Qobuz, I am impressed Tidal have got away from charging so much over them. Also to add, the Qobuz app is actually pretty good on iOS and Windows - they've definitely upped their game.


----------



## rlanger

Currawong said:


> 8x upsampling using the MQA filter, but yes, I agree, the stuff they've processed sounds less than idea through anything but either their filter, or an emulation of it. It's really poor that they've butchered music intentionally that it only sounds its best through their approved hardware.
> 
> My TIDAL subscription ends in a couple of days and I've converted all my playlists to use Qobuz. Only a couple of albums and artists weren't on there. I'm thinking of writing to them and asking them to put their stuff on Qobuz.


How are you getting Tidal and Qobuz in Japan, if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## Hooster

rlanger said:


> How are you getting Tidal and Qobuz in Japan, if you don't mind me asking?



You can get it anywhere you like if you have a VPN.


----------



## blotmouse

Interesting, good future info and read by a moderate. 
https://darko.audio/2021/04/tidal-forks-mqa/


----------



## bfreedma

blotmouse said:


> Interesting, good future info and read by a moderate.
> https://darko.audio/2021/04/tidal-forks-mqa/



John Darko is hardly a moderate in regards to MQA.  He’s been one of its biggest proponents/cheerleaders since it was released, writing numerous articles about how “great” MQA is and how unfair the criticism is.

The article in your link is exactly the one sided pro-MQA piece I would accept from Darke.


----------



## rkw

bfreedma said:


> The article in your link is exactly the one sided pro-MQA piece I would accept from Darke.


Did you read the entire article? It is not pro-MQA.


----------



## bfreedma

rkw said:


> Did you read the entire article? It is not pro-MQA.



The second half is definitely more balanced.  I guess Darko is embarrassed now that MQA has been exposed and is trying to cover for all of the hype he gave them earlier.


----------



## rlanger

Hooster said:


> You can get it anywhere you like if you have a VPN.


Yes, but the apps are not available on the Japanese Play store, so only available on PC through VPN I guess. 

Was never really interested in Tidal, although I would like to try Qobuz. Currently on an AmazonHD trial.


----------



## alekc

bfreedma said:


> The second half is definitely more balanced.  I guess Darko is embarrassed now that MQA has been exposed and is trying to cover for all of the hype he gave them earlier.



Indeed. There is nothing wrong in changing mind but this guy is pretending to be an expert while mixing up technical facts and making a business around it. I've stopped following Darko long time ago and due to mqa I am also considering canceling my Tidal subscription. I will just wait a bit for Spotify and possibly new Tidal pricing scheme in my region.


----------



## Currawong

bfreedma said:


> The second half is definitely more balanced.  I guess Darko is embarrassed now that MQA has been exposed and is trying to cover for all of the hype he gave them earlier.


I don't think so. I held about the same level of opinion as Darko in the earlier years, and, like him, the more that came to light, the more put off MQA I became.  A good point he made in his article is:



> In 2019, I pointed a reader looking to better understand my position on MQA at Ricky Gervais’ Twitter feed: _“It used to be considered reasonable to listen & try to understand both sides of an argument. But now, if opposing extremists are screaming at each other & you don’t agree 100% with either, you’re considered the enemy of both. It’s why many people are afraid to contribute at all.” _


I don't think that is fair to condemn Darko because of either a: his opinions in the past based upon what he knew, and what he had experienced at the time; or b: his refusal to militantly condemn it.  If anything, he makes reasonable points. 

What really damages any argument against MQA is that is regularly backed up by personal attacks and character assassinations of people who don't agree.  The most hypocritical thing ultimately is that the people who are most militantly crying out that their freedom of choice as to how they can listen to music online, are often the ones who want to shout down other peoples' freedom to express a dissenting opinion to their own.  Something to think about.


----------



## xand (May 10, 2021)

Currawong said:


> What really damages any argument against MQA is that is regularly backed up by personal attacks and character assassinations of people who don't agree.  The most hypocritical thing ultimately is that the people who are most militantly crying out that their freedom of choice as to how they can listen to music online, are often the ones who want to shout down other peoples' freedom to express a dissenting opinion to their own.  Something to think about.


What really damages any argument FOR MQA.

For example, in case you didn't notice (or have blinders on for subjective reasons):



bfreedma said:


> The second half is definitely more balanced.  I guess Darko is embarrassed now that MQA has been exposed and is trying to cover for all of the hype he gave them earlier.





alekc said:


> Indeed. There is nothing wrong in changing mind but this guy is pretending to be an expert while mixing up technical facts and making a business around it. I've stopped following Darko long time ago and due to mqa I am also considering canceling my Tidal subscription. I will just wait a bit for Spotify and possibly new Tidal pricing scheme in my region.



And as you said, not that Darko is even blatantly for MQA... Just making the anti MQA crowd unhappy for some reason.

I should say that my knowledge of pro/anti MQA is mostly limited to Darko or from this thread.. Where frankly the most the pro MQA people have done is to ask the anti MQA people to go away (from this thread).


----------



## originalsnuffy

I would imagine MQA slide sets (Powerpoint pitch) for record labels come down to:   

We can protect your valuable hi res files from being copied and distributed by unauthorized parties.   Our compression system is easy on the ears and almost sounds like the original FLAC files.   Implicit in our decoding is a nuanced take on watermarking.   You have to have an MQA system which is a tightly controlled ecosystem in order to play the music.   So bootlegs are stopped in their tracks.    Sign here.


----------



## bfreedma

Currawong said:


> I don't think so. I held about the same level of opinion as Darko in the earlier years, and, like him, the more that came to light, the more put off MQA I became.  A good point he made in his article is:
> 
> 
> I don't think that is fair to condemn Darko because of either a: his opinions in the past based upon what he knew, and what he had experienced at the time; or b: his refusal to militantly condemn it.  If anything, he makes reasonable points.
> ...



What really damages the MQA discussion is conflating the issue as some sort of referendum on personal choice based on audible preference.  My issue is the marketing of MQA as something it clearly is not now nor was not in 2019.

I’ve never taken issue with anyone’s preference for MQA’s audio output.  I certainly do take issue with MQA’s business approach and technical obfuscation.  The business objectives have been plain to see since day 1 and openly discussed, with those questioning MQA shouted down by MQA/Meridian and their supporters.  Something to think about.

I‘ll make further comments in the other MQA thread.


----------



## xand

originalsnuffy said:


> I would imagine MQA slide sets (Powerpoint pitch) for record labels come down to:
> 
> We can protect your valuable hi res files from being copied and distributed by unauthorized parties.   Our compression system is easy on the ears and almost sounds like the original FLAC files.   Implicit in our decoding is a nuanced take on watermarking.   You have to have an MQA system which is a tightly controlled ecosystem in order to play the music.   So bootlegs are stopped in their tracks.    Sign here.


I'm not sure there's any bootleg protection provided by MQA?

Any link to description?


----------



## snapandslide

After trialling Qobuz for a few weeks, Tidal subscription officially cancelled. Happy to look at Tidal in the future, but for the next year, Qobuz it is.


----------



## mammal

snapandslide said:


> After trialling Qobuz for a few weeks, Tidal subscription officially cancelled. Happy to look at Tidal in the future, but for the next year, Qobuz it is.


Same here, I also noticed that I get less song skips with Qobuz than with Tidal using Roon. Before, there were some networking issues (also reported on Roonlabs community forum) when using Tidal, but with Qobuz all works perfectly. So glad I have switched.


----------



## RagnarL (May 17, 2021)

Hello folks, unfortunately I don't understand this hype around Qobuz. Have both Tidal and Qobuz for a long time, been testing Qobuz time afrer time since 2018. And yes, when I had audio equipment that couldn't unfold mqa fully, Qobuz was much better in terms of sound than Tidal mqa. But when I bought cambridge audio for home  and ibasso dx 220 for on the go music experience (now I have Astell Kern spkm gold and Shanling m8 that can make full mqa unfolding) something changed.  Qobuz disappointed me in terms of sound quality, hi res music sounds noticeably warmer,  compared to Tidal MQA where high frequencies are much airy and more extended. So it feels like hi res music from Qobuz is slightly muddy. Besides it looks like the majority  of the hi res files from Qobuz are in 44-48-88 kHz, and there is not a lot of music in 96-192 khz. So when I do A/B testing it seems that mqa music  from Tidal has more resolution and sharpness because of the Qobuz warmth.  Moreover Qobuz app has more issues and bugs in off-line mode compared to Tidal app.So for now I guess I'll have to cancel Qobuz again (this time I've been trying it for thee months) and stay with Tidal mqa.


----------



## rlw6534 (May 17, 2021)

Wonder how Tidal and Qobuz are going to respond to Apple Music lossless/atmos and Amazon Ultra HD price changes announced today?

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/05/apple-music-announces-spatial-audio-and-lossless-audio/

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/17/amazon-music-lossless-for-free/


----------



## vanhalen26

rlw6534 said:


> Wonder how Tidal and Qobuz are going to respond to Apple Music lossless/atmos and Amazon Ultra HD price changes announced today?


Well, I had Tidal and recently added Qobuz.  I’ll drop Tidal when my sub runs out. I also have an Apple plan for my family … if the Apple app works well on my dx300 I’d probably drop Qobuz when that year runs out.   Others are probably in that boat to.  Presently it doesn’t work well, lots of buffering for tracks that I don’t get with Qobuz or Tidal.


----------



## snapandslide

vanhalen26 said:


> Well, I had Tidal and recently added Qobuz.  I’ll drop Tidal when my sub runs out. I also have an Apple plan for my family … if the Apple app works well on my dx300 I’d probably drop Qobuz when that year runs out.   Others are probably in that boat to.  Presently it doesn’t work well, lots of buffering for tracks that I don’t get with Qobuz or Tidal.


Same philosophy from me - i think Apple and Spotify are still 8-12 months out for a hi res/cd quality service to be up and running and reliable. Also I like to support the smaller operators where possible, and so would rather stay with Qobuz or Tidal and give them a chance to improve.


----------



## rlw6534

vanhalen26 said:


> Well, I had Tidal and recently added Qobuz.  I’ll drop Tidal when my sub runs out. I also have an Apple plan for my family … if the Apple app works well on my dx300 I’d probably drop Qobuz when that year runs out.   Others are probably in that boat to.  Presently it doesn’t work well, lots of buffering for tracks that I don’t get with Qobuz or Tidal.



I guess the next big question will be if the Apple Music app will play high resolution/lossless on Android hardware.  An external DAC will be needed on Apple hardware for anything above 24/48.


----------



## RagnarL (May 17, 2021)

Deezer also has hi fi cd quality.


----------



## thatoneheadphonedood

Heres my question. I currently have a tidal subscription and using the MQA as tidal uses. I couldnt find a good answer to my question while scrolling through this but Is MQA files good or not. I have a small audio set up so far (im new to being an audiophile). A fiio m5, grado sr60e, modded akg k52's a klipsch speaker set and other random earphones. I also have a spotify subscription too.


----------



## iFi audio

thatoneheadphonedood said:


> but Is MQA files good or not.



As in, whether MQA is considered as good sounding in general?


----------



## thatoneheadphonedood

iFi audio said:


> As in, whether MQA is considered as good sounding in general?


Yeah! I havent found a good answer yet. Like is it good as a flac or something like that.


----------



## iFi audio

thatoneheadphonedood said:


> Yeah! I havent found a good answer yet. Like is it good as a flac or something like that.



In that sense it's considered as good I believe. Most people who listen to MQA seem to enjoy it.


----------



## thatoneheadphonedood

iFi audio said:


> In that sense it's considered as good I believe. Most people who listen to MQA seem to enjoy it.


Okie thanks! I was a bit confused whether it was good or not but and i guess i will stay in tidal!


----------



## hifi80sman (May 18, 2021)

thatoneheadphonedood said:


> Okie thanks! I was a bit confused whether it was good or not but and i guess i will stay in tidal!


I just ran into this on YouTube.  I found it very interesting.

I current have Spotify and added Apple Music back on a promo ($10 for 3 months).  While their upcoming lossless tier is attractive, I'm more curious regarding Spatial Audio with music.


----------



## xand (May 19, 2021)

thatoneheadphonedood said:


> Okie thanks! I was a bit confused whether it was good or not but and i guess i will stay in tidal!


Eh I would only stay with it if you find it is better.

I don't suggest doing direct A/B on a track by track basis as I find it super boring. Just move a playlist from Spotify to Tidal (e.g. Using soundizz) and listen to it on Tidal for abit, then switch back to Spotify for abit, and see if generally there's any difference either way to you. I'd stick with the cheaper service if not.



hifi80sman said:


> I just ran into this on YouTube.  I found it very interesting.



Meh. My own thoughts are: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/tidal-masters-mqa-thread.838888/post-16315971

MQA responded perhaps(?): https://pastebin.com/2YfT6vfZ


----------



## Currawong

thatoneheadphonedood said:


> Heres my question. I currently have a tidal subscription and using the MQA as tidal uses. I couldnt find a good answer to my question while scrolling through this but Is MQA files good or not. I have a small audio set up so far (im new to being an audiophile). A fiio m5, grado sr60e, modded akg k52's a klipsch speaker set and other random earphones. I also have a spotify subscription too.


It seems to vary a lot. Old music seems just to have had bass added, and loses detail. New stuff sounds a bit "3D". Classical that I've tried has been ruined. Apparently the stuff that got "white glove" treatment can be good.


----------



## Taz777

thatoneheadphonedood said:


> Heres my question. I currently have a tidal subscription and using the MQA as tidal uses. I couldnt find a good answer to my question while scrolling through this but Is MQA files good or not. I have a small audio set up so far (im new to being an audiophile). A fiio m5, grado sr60e, modded akg k52's a klipsch speaker set and other random earphones. I also have a spotify subscription too.


There are quite a few music streaming services out there and most offer free trials. You could try some of them out for free and then decide on which one you enjoy the most.

It’s fairly low risk and services like TIDAL generally only require one month’s notice to cancel your subscription if you’re not happy with the service. My advice would be to listen to the music using your own system and your own ears! That's really the only way to see which streaming service provides the most enjoyable listening experience for you.

Specifically for TIDAL and 'Masters' tracks, you would need MQA-compatible hardware to get the full sonic benefits.


----------



## Taz777

thatoneheadphonedood said:


> Yeah! I havent found a good answer yet. Like is it good as a flac or something like that.


Be careful of comparing something with FLAC. FLAC on its own is a just a DRM-free, open-source way to store audio files. It is 'lossless' in the sense that the contents of the FLAC file are stored in such a way that they can be reconstructed in a lossless way. It does not necessarily mean that you are listening to real lossless music if the original encoding to FLAC was from a lossy format.

For example, I've just used dBpoweramp to convert a low-bitrate (160kbs) MP3 audio file into a FLAC file. The MP3 file was 7.9MB in size. The FLAC version is 43MB in size.  Just looking at the files on my filesystem, most would jump to the conclusion that the FLAC must be better! However, you would have no idea where the FLAC came from and whether or not someone just converted a very poor quality MP3 file into a FLAC, as I did.

Thus, it's important to understand the provenance of your music source / streaming service / digital download site.


----------



## iFi audio

thatoneheadphonedood said:


> Okie thanks! I was a bit confused whether it was good or not but and i guess i will stay in tidal!



The best way would be to have a listen and find out for yourself


----------



## GoldenOne

Part 2 is now up:


----------



## Brava210

I have used Tidal for years, I have never liked the pushing of certain artists for example
Jay Z, Beyonce being top of the "New" Album list for at least 18 months?, how is that possible.
Now a lot of my favourite albums have been tagged - Master- and ruined the sound.
 Amazon, Apple are now at least half the price I cannot see it surviving especially with the MESS that is MQA.


----------



## ubs28 (May 27, 2021)

Tidal is going to be extinct soon. Qobuz was not really something to worry about despite offering real lossless audio as they were priced too high (Tidal was kind to offer big discounts, so I never paid full price for Tidal) and was more difficult to find music on.

But now Apple is also going to offer lossless audio at a much lower price. Tidal is done for with their crappy MQA.

MQA is just for making money, not for sound quality and that is what is going to be the downfall of Tidal with other players joining the market now.


----------



## Signal2Noise

Brava210 said:


> …I have never liked the pushing of certain artists for example
> Jay Z, Beyonce being top of the "New" Album list for at least 18 months?, how is that possible.
> ...


Erm…because Jay-Z is/was a majority stake holder of Tidal and now is member of their board of directors. And Beyoncé is Jay-Z’s wife. Tidal is his platform to promote their music. #1 reason why I never subscribed.


----------



## ClieOS

MQA = Monetized Quasi-scientific Abomination


----------



## Brava210

I was being Sarcastic, I know he owns a majority share, it just makes a mockery of the Tidal Top Album listing


----------



## RagnarL (May 27, 2021)

MQA is great if your device can do full mqa unfolding, I have both Tidal and Qobuz  in my Astell Kern Spkm gold and Shanling m8 and Cambridge audio at home and mqa files do sound really nice, not worse than hi res from qobuz but save me much more memory on the memory cards of my daps.


----------



## Brava210

RagnarL said:


> MQA is great if your device can do full mqa unfolding, I have both Tidal and Qobuz  in my Astell Kern Spkm gold and Shanling m8 and Cambridge audio at home and mqa files do sound really nice, not worse than hi res from qobuz but save me much more memory on the memory cards of my daps.


I think the mqa files are just louder/padded out to sound better.
The album's I know intimately that have now had the Master stamp are now louder and squidgy.


----------



## JES

Brava210 said:


> ... squidgy.


I had to look this word up lol


----------



## RagnarL

MQA or HI RES, who cares?  here you can find a popular video from the audio experts saying that hi res music is a trickery and actually people fail A/B tests when listening to 16/44 and 24/192 and somites even mp3 files.


----------



## mammal

RagnarL said:


> MQA or HI RES, who cares? here you can find a popular video from the audio experts saying that hi res music is a trickery and actually people fail A/B tests when listening to 16/44 and 24/192 and somites even mp3 files.


I think part of the issue people have with MQA is their marketing claims. The lack of transparency I guess. Also, I can only assume that your DAC has the licence fee priced in, increasing the cost of the unit. I for one don't care much, as I fail the basic mp3 vs flac test. But I understand others who are unhappy too.


----------



## Signal2Noise

I buy high-res 24-bit albums on occasion because I like seeing the “HR” and/or gold dot stamp on various device displays.


----------



## Left Channel

RagnarL said:


> <Media>
> 
> MQA or HI RES, who cares?  here you can find a popular video from the audio experts saying that hi res music is a trickery and actually people fail A/B tests when listening to 16/44 and 24/192 and somites even mp3 files.



And here's an academic study that shows some people can't hear any difference, while others can. Among those who can, many are able to describe it only in emotional terms.

http://www.doc.gold.ac.uk/~mas03dm/papers/SoundQuality_WilliamsonSouthMullensiefen_ICMPC2014.pdf

I can hear it well, but I'm jealous of those who can't. Because their wallets stay thicker.


----------



## BobSmith8901 (Jun 13, 2021)

FWIW if anyone wasn't aware, it was reported back in March that Twitter and Square CEO Jack Dorsey bought a majority stake in Tidal. It's Dorsey's Square that is buying the majority stake. Sounds like Tidal will probably survive for the foreseeable future with his cash war chest.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/04/square-acquiring-a-majority-stake-in-jay-zs-tidal.html


----------



## iFi audio

ubs28 said:


> MQA is just for making money, not for sound quality



Although I get that many people here dislike MQA, probably even more in general actually like it because of how it sounds


----------



## Deolum

Just made Tidal Hifi abo for the 10th time or so but now i have a fully MQA compatible chain (just coincidence). I'll compare some tracks to Qobuz.


----------



## ballard3

Deolum said:


> Just made Tidal Hifi abo for the 10th time or so but now i have a fully MQA compatible chain (just coincidence). I'll compare some tracks to Qobuz.


Let us know, please


----------



## Hooster

iFi audio said:


> Although I get that many people here dislike MQA, probably even more in general actually like it because of how it sounds



MQA is a lossy compression scheme. What does it sound like? Violins? Trumpets? Drums? I find it hard to see how it can actually "sound" like anything apart from whatever changes may happen due to the compression. 

https://alpha-audio.net/review/mult...otify-vs-master-files-vs-vinyl-vs-cassette/2/


----------



## boxster233

iFi audio said:


> Although I get that many people here dislike MQA, probably even more in general actually like it because of how it sounds


I am in the same boat. I know it changes the sound and I love how it sounds more than dsd, flac, or other formats. The mqa filter is so just smooth and pleasing.


----------



## ClieOS (Jun 3, 2021)

The problem is not how MQA sounds (*as in subjective term) or whether individual likes it or not - but the problem of deceptive marketing and its effect of biasing uninformed consumers into believing it offers something (*as in objective term) that it clearly doesn't. If MQA admits it is a lossy codec, which really isn't that much off from a marketing scheme that ultimately is aimed to make money out of nothing - and people accept that while still choose to like it, I would have no problem with MQA. An informed decision, even if it is not technical the best decision, is still better than an uninformed decision based on lies that seems to only benefit one particular party monetarily


----------



## boxster233

ClieOS said:


> The problem is not how MQA sounds (*as in subjective term) or whether individual likes it or not - but the problem of deceptive marketing and its effect of biasing uninformed consumers into believing it offers something (*as in objective term) that it clearly doesn't. If MQA admits it is a lossy codec, which really isn't that much off from a marketing scheme that ultimately is aimed to make money out of nothing - and people accept that while still choose to like it, I would have no problem with MQA. An informed decision, even if it is not technical the best decision, is still better than an uninformed decision based on lies that seems to only benefit one particular party monetarily


I’ve moved on from how they marketed it and am sick of this continued discussion in mqa forums. It’s exhausting.


----------



## littlej0e (Jun 3, 2021)

boxster233 said:


> I’ve moved on from how they marketed it and am sick of this continued discussion in mqa forums. It’s exhausting.


This is the most important point in my opinion. You love how it sounds, so nothing else should matter. It’s the exact same thing with measurements versus listening or sound differences in cables -it’s all subjective. This hobby is all about preference and I don’t think anyone has the right to tell people what they should or should not be listening to.

I’ve personally been beating this anti-MQA horse for a while now. But I guess I never stopped to think about some of the unintended consequences of beating it until I read the simple truth of your statement:


boxster233 said:


> I know it changes the sound and I love how it sounds more than dsd, flac, or other formats. The mqa filter is so just smooth and pleasing.



The bulk of the arrows should be aimed at MQA themselves, not the user’s of their technology. Raising awareness then letting people make their own decision(s) should be the way. Not badgering people into giving up something they truly enjoy.

Enjoy your MQA, sir, and ignore all of the anti-MQA crusaders like me.


----------



## ClieOS (Jun 3, 2021)

boxster233 said:


> I’ve moved on from how they marketed it and am sick of this continued discussion in mqa forums. It’s exhausting.



If you already understand the merit / downside of MQA and make your decision about it,  then all the power to you! There is no real need for you to continue to pay attention to what we are discussing here (*at least not till some other major discovery or disclosure is made). 

However, the continue discussion here in the forum does serve the purpose of educating the uninformed about what MQA really is so they can make the same kind of informed decision that you have made for yourself - perhaps also pressure MQA to change how it is marketing itself to be more fact / evidence based in the future.


----------



## boxster233

littlej0e said:


> This is the most important point in my opinion. You love how it sounds, so nothing else should matter. It’s the exact same thing with measurements versus listening or sound differences in cables -it’s all subjective. This hobby is all about preference and I don’t think anyone has the right to tell people what they should or should not be listening to.
> 
> I’ve personally been beating this anti-MQA horse for a while now. But I guess I never stopped to think about some of the unintended consequences of beating it until I read the simple truth of your statement:
> 
> ...


That post was so good it almost made me cry. Just liking your post isn’t enough. Amen is all I can say. Thank you for saying that.



ClieOS said:


> If you already understand the merit of MQA and make your decision about, then all the power to you! There is no real need for you to continue to pay attention to what we are discussing here (*at least not till some other major discovery or disclosure is made).
> 
> However, the continue discussion here in the forum does serve the purpose of educating the uninformed about what MQA really is so they can make the same kind of informed decision that you have made for yourself - perhaps also pressure MQA to change how it is marketing itself to be more fact / evidence based in the future.


I come here to see others that enjoy MQA and Tidal. It’s not fun going to a place where people complain all the time.


----------



## ClieOS

boxster233 said:


> I come here to see others that enjoy MQA and Tidal. It’s not fun going to a place where people complain all the time.



I think people tend to post more about complaint and question they face on a particular product then how joyful they are enjoying it. Of course, if MQA doesn't have these issues to begin with and be transparent about the technology and it's marketing, people won't need to complain about it afterward.


----------



## Currawong

boxster233 said:


> I am in the same boat. I know it changes the sound and I love how it sounds more than dsd, flac, or other formats. The mqa filter is so just smooth and pleasing.


The problem is, MQA is not a "format". FLAC is a container for audio that uses lossless compression. MQA is a method of lossy audio compression. 

Saying "I love how it sounds" doesn't have any meaning. You're not "hearing MQA" but hearing the music after it has been processed by MQA. The problem here is: What music? How it has been applied to old and new music, and even some particular albums where the process was done carefully by an individual using their tools, is often quite different. I found it butchered old music, for example, and wrecks classical. The 3D-plug-in-like effect on modern music is arguably nicer in some ways, but sounds weirdly mutated through some DACs.

I think that for certain people who like certain types of recently recorded music with MQA-compatible set-ups it will be enjoyable, so keeping the focus on discussing what music and set-ups work optimally with it is a better idea.


----------



## boxster233

Currawong said:


> The problem is, MQA is not a "format". FLAC is a container for audio that uses lossless compression. MQA is a method of lossy audio compression.
> 
> Saying "I love how it sounds" doesn't have any meaning. You're not "hearing MQA" but hearing the music after it has been processed by MQA. The problem here is: What music? How it has been applied to old and new music, and even some particular albums where the process was done carefully by an individual using their tools, is often quite different. I found it butchered old music, for example, and wrecks classical. The 3D-plug-in-like effect on modern music is arguably nicer in some ways, but sounds weirdly mutated through some DACs.
> 
> I think that for certain people who like certain types of recently recorded music with MQA-compatible set-ups it will be enjoyable, so keeping the focus on discussing what music and set-ups work optimally with it is a better idea.


Sorry my terminology was wrong. I enjoy it when I listen to my indie and indie pop recorded in the last 10 years.

I made my original comment to respond to another person that enjoys MQA.


----------



## Taz777

I just want to mention that reading negative, angry posts on audio forums has an effect on people’s mental health that they may not be aware of. Please just take a moment to see the wider impact of your posts. It also reduces participation on forums due to the anxiety of being 'jumped on'! Subscribing to TIDAL doesn’t make anyone a bad person. Many of us are literally trying to survive lockdown and music is an important factor in keeping us hanging on, whether that be music streamed from TIDAL or any other music streaming service.


----------



## Deolum

Taz777 said:


> I just want to mention that reading negative, angry posts on audio forums has an effect on people’s mental health that they may not be aware of. Please just take a moment to see the wider impact of your posts. It also reduces participation on forums due to the anxiety of being 'jumped on'! Subscribing to TIDAL doesn’t make anyone a bad person. Many of us are literally trying to survive lockdown and music is an important factor in keeping us hanging on, whether that be music streamed from TIDAL or any other music streaming service.


When it's about spending money on audio stuff i personally prefer honest statements over we're all unicorns living on rainbows and everything is great. Doesn't apply for Tidal more than for headphones though. Can't stand seeing these headphones hanging on trees and decorated with flowers in headphone reviews anymore.

So after some time comparing Tidal to Qobuz again i came to the same conclusion as i always got: Tidal sounds some sort of smoother and more organic maybe because the high frequencys are party smoothed out. Qobuz sounds cleaner, sharper, maybe a bit more detailed with better imaging. Hard to say what i prefer.


----------



## boxster233

Taz777 said:


> I just want to mention that reading negative, angry posts on audio forums has an effect on people’s mental health that they may not be aware of. Please just take a moment to see the wider impact of your posts. It also reduces participation on forums due to the anxiety of being 'jumped on'! Subscribing to TIDAL doesn’t make anyone a bad person. Many of us are literally trying to survive lockdown and music is an important factor in keeping us hanging on, whether that be music streamed from TIDAL or any other music streaming service.


This is a really great point. It’s detrimental to the communities as a whole. The opinions of anti-MQA are well documented and valid. But seeing them ad nauseum is exhausting. Headphones are a hobby of joy and passion for me. No topic has been more toxic than MQA on headphones.com, headfi, audiogon and Roon communities. Until this video happened and the research, these forums were quieter and while I agree with the research, I’m not sure we are better off as a community after it.


----------



## Сomrade (Jun 5, 2021)

There are four categories of high-quality primary recording that helps to describe the origin of Hi-RES audio files.
• MQ-*P* (from a digital wizard *P*CM at least 48 kHz / 20 bits);
• MQ-*A* (*A*nalog Master);
• MQ-*C* (increased discretization with 44.1 kHz / 16-bit wizard high-quality *C*D);
• MQ-*D* (Master *D*SD)


----------



## pilgrimbilly

Сomrade said:


> There are four categories of quality master recording to help describe the origin of HI-RES sound files.
> • MQ-P (from a PCM digital wizard at least 48 kHz / 20-bit);
> • MQ-A (analog master);
> • MQ-C (increased sampling from 44.1 kHz / 16-bit wizard of high-quality CD);
> • MQ-D (Master DSD)


?


----------



## littlej0e

boxster233 said:


> This is a really great point. It’s detrimental to the communities as a whole. The opinions of anti-MQA are well documented and valid. But seeing them ad nauseum is exhausting. Headphones are a hobby of joy and passion for me. No topic has been more toxic than MQA on headphones.com, headfi, audiogon and Roon communities. Until this video happened and the research, these forums were quieter and while I agree with the research, I’m not sure we are better off as a community after it.


You made a great point yourself. Anything that drives toxicity and separates people, especially in an extremely niche’ community, is absolutely a bad thing. It seems like a lot of folks are just pissed at the situation and inadvertently direct their anger at others in the community. The whole point of this forum is to share a hobby we all love.

It also seems like some people are so pissed off they are willing to badger the crap out of anyone that enjoys or uses Tidal and MQA thinking this is the correct way to incite change.
It’s really a shame.


----------



## Hooster

Deolum said:


> When it's about spending money on audio stuff i personally prefer honest statements over we're all unicorns living on rainbows and everything is great. Doesn't apply for Tidal more than for headphones though. Can't stand seeing these headphones hanging on trees and decorated with flowers in headphone reviews anymore.
> 
> So after some time comparing Tidal to Qobuz again i came to the same conclusion as i always got: Tidal sounds some sort of smoother and more organic maybe because the high frequencys are party smoothed out. Qobuz sounds cleaner, sharper, maybe a bit more detailed with better imaging. Hard to say what i prefer.



Since I have also compared Tidal with Qobuz let me share my experience. Tidal does comparatively sound superficially smoother and sometimes maybe bassier. I find that Quobuz does indeed sound sharper but that is because it opens things up and instruments seem to be more floating in their own space rather then piled on top of each other. Since I am pursuing 2 goals with my audio hobby I need to consider which of these serves me best. 

Goal number one is to enjoy music. There is some superficial enjoyment to be had from the Tidal approach, smooth sound and bass can be fun and pleasing. There is a price to pay though. I find that the musical insight and emotion to be had from listening to Quobuz more than compensates. 

Goal number two is simply higher fidelity sound. In this case there is no contest, Quobuz wins hands down. It is simply clearer and more 3 dimensional and it lets you hear into a recording while Tidal seems superficial. (Since I have invested a large amount of time, work and money into squeezing the highest fidelity sound I can out of my system I can not accept something that is counter productive to that goal.)

My conclusion is that for me Tidal is pointless and MQA is more of a hindrance than a help since I have high speed internet and I am not in any need of compression.

I can see how people pursuing goal number 1 could in some cases prefer Tidal. If smooth and bassy is what you like you are perfectly entitled to your preference. Enjoy.


----------



## vonspanky

Hello. My name is John and  I love Tidal and MQA. There, I said it.
It has revived my enjoyment of music listening and audio. Before I was married and had kids I had the time, space and money to build up a multi ££££ hifi and record/cd collection. That all went and now I have streaming and the audio quality is excellent for a fraction of the cost. 

...... I'll see myself out.


----------



## Deolum

Best thing about Tidal is still the TV app.


----------



## jsmiller58

vonspanky said:


> Hello. My name is John and  I love Tidal and MQA. There, I said it.
> It has revived my enjoyment of music listening and audio. Before I was married and had kids I had the time, space and money to build up a multi ££££ hifi and record/cd collection. That all went and now I have streaming and the audio quality is excellent for a fraction of the cost.
> 
> ...... I'll see myself out.


An admission like that will require you to be placed in the Audiophile Witness Protection Program -


----------



## UntilThen

vonspanky said:


> Hello. My name is John and  I love Tidal and MQA. There, I said it.
> It has revived my enjoyment of music listening and audio. Before I was married and had kids I had the time, space and money to build up a multi ££££ hifi and record/cd collection. That all went and now I have streaming and the audio quality is excellent for a fraction of the cost.
> 
> ...... I'll see myself out.



Hahaha ... I still have Roon / Tidal but I also have Apple Music now.


----------



## iFi audio

vonspanky said:


> Hello. My name is John and I love Tidal and MQA. There, I said it.



Good for you, honestly. This hobby is so subjective that we should rely more on what we like and not what others say


----------



## PROblemdetected (Aug 22, 2021)

Hooster said:


> Since I have also compared Tidal with Qobuz let me share my experience. Tidal does comparatively sound superficially smoother and sometimes maybe bassier. I find that Quobuz does indeed sound sharper but that is because it opens things up and instruments seem to be more floating in their own space rather then piled on top of each other. Since I am pursuing 2 goals with my audio hobby I need to consider which of these serves me best.
> 
> Goal number one is to enjoy music. There is some superficial enjoyment to be had from the Tidal approach, smooth sound and bass can be fun and pleasing. There is a price to pay though. I find that the musical insight and emotion to be had from listening to Quobuz more than compensates.
> 
> ...



U know u got multiple versions of the same LP on both platforms?
Because I found downloading all version of one LP that some versiones are the same, others and differents (M, ME, E, differents bitrates...)

So the differences are u claiming for are not for the platform, are for the versions.

And the player maybe add some "touch".
Just try to play any song on tidal app, after that use the UAPP player and sure it will be less warmer that the first one.


----------



## wormcycle

Taz777 said:


> I just want to mention that reading negative, angry posts on audio forums has an effect on people’s mental health that they may not be aware of. Please just take a moment to see the wider impact of your posts. It also reduces participation on forums due to the anxiety of being 'jumped on'! Subscribing to TIDAL doesn’t make anyone a bad person. Many of us are literally trying to survive lockdown and music is an important factor in keeping us hanging on, whether that be music streamed from TIDAL or any other music streaming service.


Another big, fluffy safe space? No thank you


----------



## Hooster

sakt1moko said:


> U know u got multiple versions of the same LP on both platforms?
> Because I found downloading all version of one LP that some versiones are the same, others and differents (M, ME, E, differents bitrates...)
> 
> So the differences are u claiming for are not for the platform, are for the versions.
> ...



I don't have Tidal any more and I am not interested in getting it again. 

I have high speed internet and I do not need any lossy compression so MQA is of no value to me.


----------



## PROblemdetected

Hooster said:


> I don't have Tidal any more and I am not interested in getting it again.
> 
> I have high speed internet and I do not need any lossy compression so MQA is of no value to me.



That's not the point.

I just told u that tidal and qoobuz shares a lot of LP, not MQA, just the 16/24 bits version on qoobuz are the same than tidal.

If u are angry about MQA dont told to me mate, just vote with ur wallet, but the files are the same, try with another external player, just have to download files from them and u ill figure out.


----------



## Hooster

sakt1moko said:


> That's not the point.
> 
> I just told u that tidal and qoobuz shares a lot of LP, not MQA, just the 16/24 bits version on qoobuz are the same than tidal.
> 
> If u are angry about MQA dont told to me mate, just vote with ur wallet, but the files are the same, try with another external player, just have to download files from them and u ill figure out.



There is nothing to figure out and nothing to be angry about. MQA was useful when internet speeds were slow. These days it has become irrelevant.


----------



## boxster233

Hooster said:


> There is nothing to figure out and nothing to be angry about. MQA was useful when internet speeds were slow. These days it has become irrelevant.


This is a gross over simplification. For high quality listening, mqa is easier and more convenient to download and download offline. I live in major metropolitan with 5G and even I have buffering issues. The network and capacity issues aren’t solved fully and MQA through tidal was much more convenient solution (storage space and bandwidth) vs what I get with Apple Music now.


----------



## Hooster

boxster233 said:


> This is a gross over simplification. For high quality listening, mqa is easier and more convenient to download and download offline. I live in major metropolitan with 5G and even I have buffering issues. The network and capacity issues aren’t solved fully and MQA through tidal was much more convenient solution (storage space and bandwidth) vs what I get with Apple Music now.



Sure, some people still have "buffering issues", for whatever reason. I totally understand and sympathize.


----------



## PROblemdetected

Hooster said:


> There is nothing to figure out and nothing to be angry about. MQA was useful when internet speeds were slow. These days it has become irrelevant.



Again with MQA...

Im talking about services based on your comment tidal vs qobuz.

They got multiple LPs that are exactly the same mate. U should try before start complaining about it.

Anyways, have fun.


----------



## Taz777

The recent *My Daily Discovery* is one of TIDAL's best features. Also, I've recently seen *My New Arrivals* appear. Both of these have introduced me to great new artists and songs. If you want to see how good your headphones are and check the limits of your hearing then this TIDAL album is one I recommend. I've used it a lot over the past few weeks.

https://tidal.com/browse/album/94976096


----------



## PROblemdetected

Taz777 said:


> The recent *My Daily Discovery* is one of TIDAL's best features. Also, I've recently seen *My New Arrivals* appear. Both of these have introduced me to great new artists and songs. If you want to see how good your headphones are and check the limits of your hearing then this TIDAL album is one I recommend. I've used it a lot over the past few weeks.
> 
> https://tidal.com/browse/album/94976096



Yeah, my daily discovery works really well.
Thanks for sharing that album!


----------



## iFi audio

Taz777 said:


> https://tidal.com/browse/album/94976096



That's very cool and useful, thanks!


----------



## Hariwulf

iliketohideincloset said:


> Sure. That is correct. I never bought into MQA and I am not a Tidal customer anymore. We will see how long you can still listen to non MQA content on Tidal...


Not long. I listen extreme metal, and albums I could listen in FLAC are now only available in MQA. I am not gonna pay for disservice. W.t.f.
I am pissed as hell, and I will probably move to Qobuz.


----------



## boxster233

Hariwulf said:


> Not long. I listen extreme metal, and albums I could listen in FLAC are now only available in MQA. I am not gonna pay for disservice. W.t.f.
> I am pissed as hell, and I will probably move to Qobuz.


Relax. Let go of your animosity and judgment. Enjoy.


----------



## MrWalkman (Sep 5, 2021)

Hariwulf said:


> Not long. I listen extreme metal, and albums I could listen in FLAC are now only available in MQA. I am not gonna pay for disservice. W.t.f.
> I am pissed as hell, and I will probably move to Qobuz.



Are they sounding worse now, or something?

If you don't have a MQA device, they're playing like any other FLAC.

It happens that I have a Dragonfly Cobalt. MQA doesn't bother me, and I don't have to pay extra specifically for MQA on Tidal or anything like that.

With Cobalt and MQA I really enjoy the sound quality, I hear nothing wrong in comparison to normal FLAC content.

Edit: Over the time I found it's best to not focus too much over technicalities. Just trust your ears. MQA sounds good to me.


----------



## PROblemdetected

Hariwulf said:


> Not long. I listen extreme metal, and albums I could listen in FLAC are now only available in MQA. I am not gonna pay for disservice. W.t.f.
> I am pissed as hell, and I will probably move to Qobuz.


Tell me one example, I want to test that affirmation


----------



## Hariwulf

I think the last was Finntroll.


----------



## Hariwulf

Also, I got a little emotional earlier. I mean, yes, I am annoyed, but I shouldn't have made a rant.


----------



## PROblemdetected

Hariwulf said:


> I think the last was Finntroll.







Yep, U are right, this group only had MASTER edition for some of this albums.


----------



## MrWalkman

sakt1moko said:


> Yep, U are right, this group only had MASTER edition for some of this albums.



But do they sound worse now? I think this is the more important thing.


----------



## PROblemdetected

MrWalkman said:


> But do they sound worse now? I think this is the more important thing.


Im not on the train of TIDAL vs QOOBUZ vs EAC. I just enjoy the possibilities to have all the catalogue of our favourites artist on 2click distance.
Ive got a matrix i-mini 3 pro full mqa decoder, and I usually test versions of any album. The only difference I get is when two versions got different dynamic range.
Some people love vynil rips, for me they are ugly and sound unnatural. Im not going to start a conversation about my feelings on any vynil post.

Im really surprised that tidal removes hifi albums of the catalogue, im gonna check if another artist doesn't have cdrip versions of their albums


----------



## moshe tes

boxster233 said:


> This is a really great point. It’s detrimental to the communities as a whole. The opinions of anti-MQA are well documented and valid. But seeing them ad nauseum is exhausting. Headphones are a hobby of joy and passion for me. No topic has been more toxic than MQA on headphones.com, headfi, audiogon and Roon communities. Until this video happened and the research, these forums were quieter and while I agree with the research, I’m not sure we are better off as a community after it.


It will not stop until MQA changes its crony ways or is buried in the ground. You have to understand that the vitriol towards MQA has more to do with their restrictions rather than the sound quality. No one would have a problem if they were not forcing themselves down our throats. It is indeed infuriating when Tidal drops Hi-Res versions in favor of MQA. In any case, it is a good thing that there is stiff competition and none of the other giant streaming services seem to be clamoring for MQA. And I don't believe this will change considering the advent of 5G upon us. I have been using Amazon Music HD with my Prime membership and it has all the titles I had on Tidal and more.


----------



## boxster233

moshe tes said:


> It will not stop until MQA changes its crony ways or is buried in the ground. You have to understand that the vitriol towards MQA has more to do with their restrictions rather than the sound quality. No one would have a problem if they were not forcing themselves down our throats. It is indeed infuriating when Tidal drops Hi-Res versions in favor of MQA. In any case, it is a good thing that there is stiff competition and none of the other giant streaming services seem to be clamoring for MQA. And I don't believe this will change considering the advent of 5G upon us. I have been using Amazon Music HD with my Prime membership and it has all the titles I had on Tidal and more.


They are not forcing themselves down your throat. You have other options besides Tidal, besides MQA. They are probably less than 1 percent of music listening and market.

I do wish Tidal would lower prices so I can ditch apple and go back to Tidal.


----------



## moshe tes

boxster233 said:


> They are not forcing themselves down your throat. You have other options besides Tidal, besides MQA. They are probably less than 1 percent of music listening and market.
> 
> I do wish Tidal would lower prices so I can ditch apple and go back to Tidal.


They are doing exactly that when Tidal finds it necessary to ditch original versions in favor of MQA. And when "properly" implemented MQA dacs have to channel every format through MQA filters. I used to be a happy Tidal customer, and I wish I could continue to be, but not when Tidal is fornicating with MQA. 
It would be great if Tidal lowered prices, but then they would go out of business. I generally like the customer-centric approach of Amazon, so I say long-live Amazon!


----------



## MrWalkman (Sep 24, 2021)

moshe tes said:


> It will not stop until MQA changes its crony ways or is buried in the ground. You have to understand that the vitriol towards MQA has more to do with their restrictions rather than the sound quality. No one would have a problem if they were not forcing themselves down our throats. It is indeed infuriating when Tidal drops Hi-Res versions in favor of MQA. In any case, it is a good thing that there is stiff competition and none of the other giant streaming services seem to be clamoring for MQA. And I don't believe this will change considering the advent of 5G upon us. I have been using Amazon Music HD with my Prime membership and it has all the titles I had on Tidal and more.



MQA files play like normal FLAC if you don't have a MQA device.

Have you found that playing MQA as normal FLAC does something bad to the sound quality of that FLAC?

Basically, if you don't have a MQA device, they're just FLAC files.


----------



## moshe tes

MrWalkman said:


> MQA files play like normal FLAC if you don't have a MQA device.
> 
> Have you found that playing MQA as normal FLAC does something bad to the sound quality of that FLAC?


That is not true! And it is easily provable. The artifacts/distortions which some people find pleasing are frustrating to me and they are audible too. MQA also completely changes the "inaudible"/ultrasonic band of the music. You may not hear this part of the music, but you certainly can feel it.  
Regardless, this is the subjective aspect of the argument when done by ear.
The most disagreeable aspect to most people is the centralization and propriety of MQA or what I call the thievery of MQA. Not delivering on promises or providing evidence thereof, but expecting to get paid nonetheless.


----------



## boxster233

moshe tes said:


> They are doing exactly that when Tidal finds it necessary to ditch original versions in favor of MQA. And when "properly" implemented MQA dacs have to channel every format through MQA filters. I used to be a happy Tidal customer, and I wish I could continue to be, but not when Tidal is fornicating with MQA.
> It would be great if Tidal lowered prices, but then they would go out of business. I generally like the customer-centric approach of Amazon, so I say long-live Amazon!


Then leave Tidal and buy non-mqa gear. Be happy and save your rage for important things.


----------



## moshe tes

boxster233 said:


> Then leave Tidal and buy non-mqa gear. Be happy and save your rage for important things.



Which is exactly what I did. And just because this is not important to you does not mean it is not important to me or others. If my disapproval of MQA contributes to the localization or complete remission of this MQA cancer, then I will take on my oncologist role and play my part.


----------



## boxster233

moshe tes said:


> Which is exactly what I did. And just because this is not important to you does not mean it is not important to me or others. If my disapproval of MQA contributes to the localization or complete remission of this MQA cancer, then I will take on my oncologist role and play my part.


Why is it that you feel your opinion is so important that you want to drown out the opinions of others who are trying to go about their life and enjoy things?


----------



## jsmiller58 (Sep 24, 2021)

moshe tes said:


> Which is exactly what I did. And just because this is not important to you does not mean it is not important to me or others. If my disapproval of MQA contributes to the localization or complete remission of this MQA cancer, then I will take on my oncologist role and play my part.


What you are missing is that, well, while everyone will recognize your right to free speech, do you recognize that, to put it simply - we have had enough already.

Your posting here will do nothing to change Tidal’s or MQA’s ways….  Please launch a letter writing campaign towards them.  Continuing to annoy consumers may actually backfire on your cause.  (And, as causes go, this is not a particularly socially relevant one.)

Edit:  I went back and reread what you wrote…. “_If my disapproval of MQA contributes to the localization or complete remission of this MQA cancer, then I will take on my oncologist role and play my part._”  Wow.  Seriously.  I won’t write what I really want to write because, well, there is no need as you have made my point quite well on your own…


----------



## Hooster

boxster233 said:


> Why is it that you feel your opinion is so important that you want to drown out the opinions of others who are trying to go about their life and enjoy things?



His opinion is as important as anyone else's including yours. I agree with you, I think people should try to go about their life and enjoy things. Tidal and MQA are not helping me to achieve those goals so I have ditched both of them.

Don't get me wrong, MQA could be a blessing if you have laggy internet and buffering issues.


----------



## jsmiller58

Hooster said:


> His opinion is as important as anyone else's including yours. I agree with you, I think people should try to go about their life and enjoy things. Tidal and MQA are not helping me to achieve those goals so I have ditched both of them.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, MQA could be a blessing if you have laggy internet and buffering issues.


Speaking for myself only…. There is what people say.  And there is how they say it.  Moshe, I’m sorry, appears to me to have gone off the rails…


----------



## moshe tes

boxster233 said:


> Why is it that you feel your opinion is so important that you want to drown out the opinions of others who are trying to go about their life and enjoy things?


Drown out? You can't be serious, I literally have no control over this thread, how am I drowning out your opinions? If you like MQA, good for you, but as long as MQA has an interest in encroaching on things I like (i.e Tidal), then I will pursue my opinions with passion. If you don't like it, you can ignore it.


----------



## moshe tes

jsmiller58 said:


> Speaking for myself only…. There is what people say.  And there is how they say it.  Moshe, I’m sorry, appears to me to have gone off the rails…


I appreciate your concern, but please don't take my analogies too seriously. I'm simply trying to get a point across.


----------



## boxster233

moshe tes said:


> Drown out? You can't be serious, I literally have no control over this thread, how am I drowning out your opinions? If you like MQA, good for you, but as long as MQA has an interest in encroaching on things I like (i.e Tidal), then I will pursue my opinions with passion. If you don't like it, you can ignore it.


Of the last posts on this thread, you’re the single largest poster and it’s just constant negativity. We know your opinion. Can you write a letter to tidal? Can we move on?


----------



## moshe tes

boxster233 said:


> Of the last posts on this thread, you’re the single largest poster and it’s just constant negativity. We know your opinion. Can you write a letter to tidal? Can we move on?


Okay thanks, I'm done.


----------



## jlemaster1957

Hi I am an Noob Head-fier (this is my first post after the New Members forum one) and I have a technical question re: streaming MQA from TIDAL on iPhone.

My IPhone set up is as follows:
Wifi (Google Wifi 1GB home set up or publicly available network at work) -->iPhone 12 Pro Max running iOs 14.8 --> Apple Lightning to USB-A OTG Camera Adapter -->iFi Zen Dac V2 (DAC)  (OR) iFi micro iDSD Signature (OR) Hidizs DH80S Dac/AMP
For any of these, the sampling LED lights indicate hi-fi streaming at 88 KHz or more (PCM?) but not MQA when TIDAL is set to Master streaming quality for Wifi and Cellular

LED sampling indicator  colors for MQA signal differ by  device -- magenta for the iDSD and DH80S when they are rendering, Dark Green for the Zen Dac V2 (or Dark blue for MQA Studio) when decoding. I have restarted the phone, updated its software, uninstalled and re-installed TIDAL, including (at one point) changing my TIDAL account entirely, replacing the OTG Camera Adapter, and installing new iFi firmware to those devices. None of this fixed the problem.

In the following set up, all the above devices indicate MQA signal is received and the external DACs are unfolding.
Wifi (Google Wifi 1GB home set up or same publicly available network at work)) -->Windows 10 (on an HP laptop) OR Mac Os 11.5.2 (on a 2020 Macbook Pro) --> -->iFi Zen Dac V2 (OR) iFi micro iDSD Signature (OR) Hidizs DH80S

So the DACs are all working in terms of decoding or rendering MQA, just not when connected to the iPhone

Initially I had only the Zen DAC V2, and thought the problem may have been that TIDAL does not allow Passthrough for iOs only for MacOs and Windows version. Since the Zen Dac V2 is a decoder, I figured if I used MQA renderers, the MQA LED indicator would indicate MQA is received/unfolded on those devices when streaming from TIDAL connected to Iphone; however, this is not happening for either rendering or decoding DACs connected to the iPhone.

Interesting additional pieces of data. : When streaming TIDAL from Windows or MacOS devices  (those noted above) when they are connected to Wifi via Personal Hotpot from the same iPhone (also as noted above), MQA is appropriately decoded (on the Zen Dac V2) or rendered (on the others), suggesting that the wifi signal is not the problem.

I have not been able to figure out how to encourage my DACs to decode or render MQA when connected to iPhone 12 Max Pro with iOS 14.8 by any means I have been able to discover. Correspondence with TIDAL has not resolved this, although they acknowledge that MQA decoding DACS requires use of Passthrough. Correspondence with iFI led to firmware changes on their devices, but these changes did not make a difference. Thereafter iFi have just indicated "it must be a problem with your iPhone set up"

Any advice would be appreciated.


----------



## boxster233 (Sep 26, 2021)

jlemaster1957 said:


> Hi I am an Noob Head-fier (this is my first post after the New Members forum one) and I have a technical question re: streaming MQA from TIDAL on iPhone.
> 
> My IPhone set up is as follows:
> Wifi (Google Wifi 1GB home set up or publicly available network at work) -->iPhone 12 Pro Max running iOs 14.8 --> Apple Lightning to USB-A OTG Camera Adapter -->iFi Zen Dac V2 (DAC)  (OR) iFi micro iDSD Signature (OR) Hidizs DH80S Dac/AMP
> ...


I’m not an expert but I believe if you’re using this adapter from Apple that it cannot do mqa. The camera one is required iirc.


----------



## rlw6534

boxster233 said:


> I’m not an expert but I believe if you’re using this adapter from Apple that it cannot do mqa. The camera one is required iirc.



I have that adapter and it has worked with Tidal and MQA on my iPhone X and iPad Air 2 and either my Zen Dac Signature V1 or Dragonfly Cobalt (both are MQA renderers).  The lights are magenta/purple when playing MQA.  I can check again tomorrow to see if anything has changed with the Tidal app.  I have recently been using Roon, which also works with MQA on both DACs.


----------



## rlw6534

rlw6534 said:


> I have that adapter and it has worked with Tidal and MQA on my iPhone X and iPad Air 2 and either my Zen Dac Signature V1 or Dragonfly Cobalt (both are MQA renderers).  The lights are magenta/purple when playing MQA.  I can check again tomorrow to see if anything has changed with the Tidal app.  I have recently been using Roon, which also works with MQA on both DACs.



I checked again today using the Tidal app and I am still getting MQA on both of my DACs with the iPhone and iPad.  No idea why it isn't working for @jlemaster1957...


----------



## jlemaster1957

boxster233 said:


> I’m not an expert but I believe if you’re using this adapter from Apple that it cannot do mqa. The camera one is required iirc.


Thanks this is the one I have been using, is it not the correct one? It is the Apple original Lightning male to USB- A female.


----------



## jlemaster1957

Reading earlier in this thread, I saw that some folks had deleted the TIDAL iOs App and reinstalled it and resolved the problem- I tried that this morning (again), but no cigar… 😟


----------



## rlw6534

jlemaster1957 said:


> Thanks this is the one I have been using, is it not the correct one? It is the Apple original Lightning male to USB- A female.



I should have looked closer.  I have the genuine apple model (purchased from Apple).  It looks like the one @boxster233 linked is potentially an off-brand that looks the same.


----------



## rlw6534 (Sep 26, 2021)

jlemaster1957 said:


> Reading earlier in this thread, I saw that some folks had deleted the TIDAL iOs App and reinstalled it and resolved the problem- I tried that this morning (again), but no cigar… 😟



Please don't be insulted but are you sure you have enabled Master quality in the iOS app?  It's not on by default.

Nevermind, you said that you already did that...


----------



## boxster233 (Sep 26, 2021)

rlw6534 said:


> Please don't be insulted but are you sure you have enabled Master quality in the iOS app?  It's not on by default.
> 
> Nevermind, you said that you already did that...


My apologies I posted wrong adapter. And I can’t find the correct one now. It’s weird. Needs to be apple version and have usb a and lightning female plug.


----------



## jsmiller58

.


boxster233 said:


> My apologies I posted wrong adapter. And I can’t find the correct one now. It’s weird. Needs to be apple version and have usb a and lightning female plug.


I don’t have an iPhone, but running Tidal on my iPad through my Lotoo S1 I do get MQA.  I don’t think I had to do anything special on the app.  I don’t need a camera kit adapter, just running through a usbc to lightning cable.


----------



## boxster233

jsmiller58 said:


> .
> 
> I don’t have an iPhone, but running Tidal on my iPad through my Lotoo S1 I do get MQA.  I don’t think I had to do anything special on the app.  I don’t need a camera kit adapter, just running through a usbc to lightning cable.


I don’t have zen dac but I know with xdsd you need the camera kit adapter when going from iOS tidal to xdsd.


----------



## jlemaster1957

rlw6534 said:


> Please don't be insulted but are you sure you have enabled Master quality in the iOS app?  It's not on by default.
> 
> Nevermind, you said that you already did that...


yes, correct- I check that every time, and then advance to the next track.


----------



## jlemaster1957

jsmiller58 said:


> .
> 
> I don’t have an iPhone, but running Tidal on my iPad through my Lotoo S1 I do get MQA.  I don’t think I had to do anything special on the app.  I don’t need a camera kit adapter, just running through a usbc to lightning cable.


Yes, to be clear, I get MQA to the same MQA encoding/rendering devices when I stream from TIDAL HiFi using MacBook Pro or a Windows 10 desktop implementation of the app. The problem is completely limited to the iPhone.


----------



## jlemaster1957

boxster233 said:


> I don’t have zen dac but I know with xdsd you need the camera kit adapter when going from iOS tidal to xdsd.


Thanks yes- I am using the camera kit adapter when going from iOs Tidal to either the iFi Zen DAC or micro iDSD, as well as to the HIDIZS DH80s. I'm not getting MQA on any of those DACs from iPhone, but I do get it on all of them when streaming from Macbook using MacOs 11.5.2 or HP laptop usng Windows 10. It seems to be an issue either with the iOs TIDAL app or the iPhone 12 Max pro itself.


----------



## hmscott (Nov 17, 2021)

Some Tidal news came in the mail, and as Release notes in the Tidal Windows App, here's the release notes summary:


Spoiler: Windows App Release notes about the Tidal Membership Tier changes



Release November 17, 2021
TIDAL reintroduces TIDAL HiFi and launches TIDAL HiFi Plus.

TIDAL Premium is now TIDAL HiFi:
* TIDAL Premium subscribers are upgraded to TIDAL HiFi at no extra cost.
* TIDAL HiFi includes music streaming in high-fidelity sound quality.

TIDAL HiFi is now named TIDAL HiFi Plus:
* TIDAL HiFi subscribers are upgraded to TIDAL HiFi Plus at no extra cost.
* TIDAL HiFi Plus is the only tier that includes all premium, immersive sound formats like Master Quality audio, Sony 360 Reality Audio, Dolby Atmos, and HiFi.
* It also includes Direct Artist Payouts, with as much as 10% of your subscription fee being directed to your most streamed artist.


And, I received an email from Tidal about my annual membership (through BestBuy).


Spoiler: Tidal Membership Tier changes email



Welcome to TIDAL HiFi Plus
Great news, Scott! You’ve been upgraded to TIDAL HiFi Plus at no extra cost to you.
We are introducing My Activity, which allows you to track your listening habits and share your activity with friends.
As always, you have access to immersive and innovative audio formats, exclusively on HiFi Plus.

Hear the Difference
TIDAL HiFi Plus delivers sound at peak performance – with HiFi quality of 1411 kbps and up to 9216 kbps for Master Quality audio

Immersive Audio Formats
Be immersed in a field of sound with Sony 360 Reality Audio and Dolby Atmos.

My Activity
Get a breakdown of how artists are impacted through your streams, track your listening activity, and share what you're listening to with friends. (Coming soon)

Listen to music the way it’s meant to sound
We continue to put the artists and fans at the center of everything we do through new subscription tiers, royalty transparency, and more ways for fans to support artists.


*Learn more at https://tidal.com/ForMusic*
*https://tidal.com/tiers/hifi*
*https://tidal.com/tiers/hifi-plus*
*https://tidal.com/tiers/free*

There are some articles that also came out today, here are a few:

Tidal launches free streaming and splits HiFi into two plans
Plus the company is taking new steps to get more money to artists
https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/17/22787051/tidal-free-hifi-plus-announced-features-artist-payments

Tidal adds a free tier and brings HiFi audio to its $10 plan
Artists will earn more royalties from users on the $20 HiFi Plus tier.
https://www.engadget.com/tidal-free-streaming-plan-artist-paymetns-royalties-153606001.html

Tidal Launches Free Tier, Steps Into User-Centric Payments
The Square-owned Tidal is pushing to attract a wider audience.
https://www.billboard.com/business/business-news/tidal-free-user-centric-update-square-10140143/

There was also mention that the Hifiplus will add download... but I can already do that on Android (iOS?), but not on Windows which was a bit odd because Amazon Music HD allows downloads on Windows.  I still really enjoy listening to Tidal over AMHD so I really do hope Tidal adds Download saves to Windows


----------



## GoldenOne

I'll be testing shortly to see if the new hifi tier is genuine lossless or still the same mqa but with mqa flagging removed that they previously used


----------



## MrWalkman

Tidal in low quality (AAC 96kbps) sounds really nice when streaming audio via BT to one of my Walkman players, so 160kbps for the free tier should be really ok. This proves how the audio source matters when down-converting, by the way.

The only thing with the free tier is the ads, but they're understandable.


----------



## boxster233

I wish they had brought down price of hifi plus family plan to compete with apple. Double the price is a big ask.


----------



## hmscott (Nov 17, 2021)

boxster233 said:


> I wish they had brought down price of hifi plus family plan to compete with apple. Double the price is a big ask.


Bestbuy sells the Tidal Family Plan at a discount:
*TIDAL - HiFi Family Music, 12-Month Subscription starting at purchase, Auto-renews at $179.99 per year [Digital] - $14.99/mo*
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/tidal-...9-99-per-year-digital/6431968.p?skuId=6431968

That is why I was chuffed to find Bestbuy's deal on Annual Tidal Hifi for $89/year, and I've already renewed once @ $119.99, both a big savings over 12x$19.99=$239.88

*TIDAL - HiFi Music, 12-Month Subscription starting at purchase, Auto-renews at $119.99 per year [Digital] - $9.99/mo*
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/tidal-...9-99-per-year-digital/6407163.p?skuId=6407163

BTW, normally I'd recommend creating a Bestbuy account and login to see the discount, but either way, logged in or out the price is still $119.99.

Bestbuy hasn't changed the name to Tidal Hifi Plus, and it isn't at the sometimes $89/$99 sale price, but it's still a great deal saving 50%!.


----------



## rkw

GoldenOne said:


> I'll be testing shortly to see if the new hifi tier is genuine lossless or still the same mqa but with mqa flagging removed that they previously used


I think this is just the rollout of the mid tier to the US market. I would be surprised if it's different from the initial countries.


----------



## jlemaster1957

hmscott said:


> Some Tidal news came in the mail, and as Release notes in the Tidal Windows App, here's the release notes summary:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Windows App Release notes about the Tidal Membership Tier changes
> ...


True downloads/purchases of MQA files would be great too. As others have noted, downloads cannot now be moved to another device or saved wherever the user wants, and ‘don’t last forever’ -it seems TIDAL means us to store songs , as it were, for going on vacation and taking our devices with us when we are ‘offline’


----------



## rkw

jlemaster1957 said:


> True downloads/purchases of MQA files would be great too. As others have noted, downloads cannot now be moved to another device or saved wherever the user wants, and ‘don’t last forever’ -it seems TIDAL means us to store songs , as it were, for going on vacation and taking our devices with us when we are ‘offline’


This is a licensing requirement that the music labels impose on all the streaming services.


----------



## TubeStack (Nov 19, 2021)

I’ll never go back to Tidal.

Apple Music has been better for me in every possible way, and I don’t even have to pay anything extra for it.


----------



## peterinvan

GoldenOne said:


> I'll be testing shortly to see if the new hifi tier is genuine lossless or still the same mqa but with mqa flagging removed that they previously used


I see Tidal responding to the threat from new lossless service from Spotify, Apple, and Qobuz.See Darko’s latest post on his website.  He touches on the issue of Tidal not being transparant with us users.  Is Tidal storing (and streaming) the original FLAC files or are they storing only the batch processed MQA tracks (and “white glove” masters processed, then throttling the MQA files down to serve the HiFi user?  The only benefit of MQA, is that for smart phone users cellular data usage and offline storage benefit from the slightly smaller MQA file sizes.
one good announcement is that Tidal appears to be improving the revenue to the artists.
BTW… my downloaded Tidal playlists seem to be available ”forever” whereas downloaded albums need to be ”refreshed” before going off line, by starting the album before you leave WiFi.


----------



## hash70

boxster233 said:


> I wish they had brought down price of hifi plus family plan to compete with apple. Double the price is a big ask.


Use a vpn buddy,I got billed £1.08 yesterday for tidal hifi plus using Denmark vpn


----------



## Jester

TubeStack said:


> I’ll never go back to Tidal.
> 
> Apple Music has been better for me in every possible way, and I don’t even have to pay anything extra for it.


Agreed. And getting the bigger catalog is also a major factor.


----------



## iamoneagain (Nov 20, 2021)

Jester said:


> Agreed. And getting the bigger catalog is also a major factor.


The big issue with Apple Music is it’s only lossy over Airplay 2. That’s a deal breaker for me. Tidal Connect can do lossless and their catalog is pretty good. What I don’t like is MQA still being part of their catalog even at new hifi tier. I’m still holding out for Spotify hifi to offer best catelog and wireless lossless thru Spotify connect.


----------



## Jester

iamoneagain said:


> The big thing issue with Apple Music is it’s only lossy over Airplay 2. That’s a deal breaker for me. Tidal Connect can do lossless and their catalog is pretty good. What I don’t like is MQA still being part of their catalog even at new hifi tier. I’m still holding out for Spotify hifi to offer best catalog and wireless lossless thru Spotify connect.


I'm right there with you in regards to holding out for Spotify up'ing their game.  Everything I've seen says by the end of the year, but there is less than a month and a half left and I just don't see it happening.


----------



## iamoneagain

Jester said:


> I'm right there with you in regards to holding out for Spotify up'ing their game.  Everything I've seen says by the end of the year, but there is less than a month and a half left and I just don't see it happening.


We’ll we’ve seen the evidence that it should be in testing due to the leaks on the setup. Not really sure what they’re waiting for. And technically do have until end of year.


----------



## dirtrat

I'm done with Apple products and services! Tidal has worked well for me. I tried Qobuz but it was constantly pausing and having streaming issues in my car while Tidal worked perfectly for me. Tidal is also cheaper for me.


----------



## iamoneagain

dirtrat said:


> I'm done with Apple products and services! Tidal has worked well for me. I tried Qobuz but it was constantly pausing and having streaming issues in my car while Tidal worked perfectly for me. Tidal is also cheaper for me.



The Qobuz app itself isn’t great and far behind others for personal discovery. Thru roon, none of that matters but can’t use roon outside the house. The other drawbacks are there is no Connect feature like Tidal and Qobuz catalog still has a lot of holes. It’s much better than when first introduced to US but seems to be lacking compared to all other streaming services.


----------



## hash70

and What is happening with spotify hifi,thats us going in to December and it still hasn't launched get


----------



## Taz777

dirtrat said:


> I'm done with Apple products and services! Tidal has worked well for me. I tried Qobuz but it was constantly pausing and having streaming issues in my car while Tidal worked perfectly for me. Tidal is also cheaper for me.


TIDAL works for me too. I have Qobuz as well. The TIDAL desktop app does everything I need to discover great new music. I have Roon to play music around the house, but I prefer TIDAL for music discovery (yes, even compared to Roon Radio). I can control the direction of music discovery better with TIDAL - e.g. Track Radio, Masters Track Radio, Suggested Tracks, Artist Radio, etc.

The Producers and Songwriters mixes are a fantastic part of TIDAL exploration and discovery. All the apps are stable and easy to use. The offline playlists work perfectly on DAPs when I'm out and about. TIDAL isn't perfect, but it does most of everything that I need it to do.

Oh, and it's all about the music!


----------



## MrWalkman

Taz777 said:


> TIDAL works for me too. I have Qobuz as well. The TIDAL desktop app does everything I need to discover great new music. I have Roon to play music around the house, but I prefer TIDAL for music discovery (yes, even compared to Roon Radio). I can control the direction of music discovery better with TIDAL - e.g. Track Radio, Masters Track Radio, Suggested Tracks, Artist Radio, etc.
> 
> The Producers and Songwriters mixes are a fantastic part of TIDAL exploration and discovery. All the apps are stable and easy to use. The offline playlists work perfectly on DAPs when I'm out and about. TIDAL isn't perfect, but it does most of everything that I need it to do.
> 
> Oh, and it's all about the music!



Exactly, all about the music.

I never had any trouble with MQA. Tidal works best for me, and I enjoy it.


----------



## Jester

Taz777 said:


> TIDAL works for me too. I have Qobuz as well. The TIDAL desktop app does everything I need to discover great new music. I have Roon to play music around the house, but I prefer TIDAL for music discovery (yes, even compared to Roon Radio). I can control the direction of music discovery better with TIDAL - e.g. Track Radio, Masters Track Radio, Suggested Tracks, Artist Radio, etc.
> 
> The Producers and Songwriters mixes are a fantastic part of TIDAL exploration and discovery. All the apps are stable and easy to use. The offline playlists work perfectly on DAPs when I'm out and about. TIDAL isn't perfect, but it does most of everything that I need it to do.
> 
> Oh, and it's all about the music!


You are bringing up some good points regarding Tidal and you are right it is all about the music at the end of the day.


----------



## boxster233

Taz777 said:


> TIDAL works for me too. I have Qobuz as well. The TIDAL desktop app does everything I need to discover great new music. I have Roon to play music around the house, but I prefer TIDAL for music discovery (yes, even compared to Roon Radio). I can control the direction of music discovery better with TIDAL - e.g. Track Radio, Masters Track Radio, Suggested Tracks, Artist Radio, etc.
> 
> The Producers and Songwriters mixes are a fantastic part of TIDAL exploration and discovery. All the apps are stable and easy to use. The offline playlists work perfectly on DAPs when I'm out and about. TIDAL isn't perfect, but it does most of everything that I need it to do.
> 
> Oh, and it's all about the music!


I agree, I switched to Apple six months ago and it just pushes pop music and doesn’t give me the indie genres or similar that I like. My wife keeps complaining about Apple too and she likes pop music. But $30 vs $15 for high res family plan has won out. Even at that price I’m considering switching back to tidal.


----------



## jlemaster1957

peterinvan said:


> I see Tidal responding to the threat from new lossless service from Spotify, Apple, and Qobuz.See Darko’s latest post on his website.  He touches on the issue of Tidal not being transparant with us users.  Is Tidal storing (and streaming) the original FLAC files or are they storing only the batch processed MQA tracks (and “white glove” masters processed, then throttling the MQA files down to serve the HiFi user?  The only benefit of MQA, is that for smart phone users cellular data usage and offline storage benefit from the slightly smaller MQA file sizes.
> one good announcement is that Tidal appears to be improving the revenue to the artists.
> BTW… my downloaded Tidal playlists seem to be available ”forever” whereas downloaded albums need to be ”refreshed” before going off line, by starting the album before you leave WiFi.


I have found the same, plus availability of the playlists in Roon and USB Audio Player Pro. Can anyone suggest a site to purchase/download  MQA files if one wants to have them "forever" and put them wherever one wants, as one would a FLAC, DSD or other hi-res file?


----------



## hmscott (Nov 22, 2021)

hmscott said:


> Bestbuy sells the Tidal Family Plan at a discount:
> *TIDAL - HiFi Family Music, 12-Month Subscription starting at purchase, Auto-renews at $179.99 per year [Digital] - $14.99/mo*
> https://www.bestbuy.com/site/tidal-...9-99-per-year-digital/6431968.p?skuId=6431968
> 
> ...


BestBuy posted their Black Friday Tidal Subscription deals - this year only on the 3-month subscriptions, *but they are only $1.00 each *

Usually, you need to be logged in to see the discounted pricing, but right now the Black Friday discount is visible without logging in to your Bestbuy account.  You do need a Bestbuy account to manage the Tidal subscription, so I'd recommend creating a Bestbuy account and logging in before buying the subscription.


----------



## TubeStack

boxster233 said:


> I agree, I switched to Apple six months ago and it just pushes pop music and doesn’t give me the indie genres or similar that I like. My wife keeps complaining about Apple too and she likes pop music. But $30 vs $15 for high res family plan has won out. Even at that price I’m considering switching back to tidal.


I’m not concerned with whatever Apple is “pushing.”  I look for what I want and it’s there.


----------



## rozel

Hi

New user to Tidal and have a question please: -

Using the Tidal Desktop App on my Windows PC, how do I find the exact resolution of tracks/albums that I wish to stream or are streaming?  I am streaming in Master quality, when available but want to know the exact resolutions.  I have used UAPP integrated with Tidal and it shows the information when playing.

Cheers


----------



## rlw6534

rozel said:


> Hi
> 
> New user to Tidal and have a question please: -
> 
> ...



Here is a list of Tidal MQA albums that is updated regularly and has sample rates. I don't know of a way to check within the Tidal app:

https://www.meridianunplugged.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=268318#Post268318


----------



## rozel

rlw6534 said:


> Here is a list of Tidal MQA albums that is updated regularly and has sample rates. I don't know of a way to check within the Tidal app:
> 
> https://www.meridianunplugged.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=268318#Post268318



Thank you!  Thought I was going mad   That file is extremely useful - just need to brush up on my Excel skills to sort.  Cheers


----------



## ozz007

Hello guys, So, I order 2 Zen Dacs V2, I loaded one for my work PC and One for my gaming pc, I also used their news driver 5.1.2 and I also try their 3.2.0. 

so this is the problem, I have when I select the pass to unload MQA to the DAC, it only reports 44100 or 4800. now when I played the same song and album on my Fiio M15
I can see 96k 24bit etc. 

this happens with either driver, and all the other settings to master and the 3 options selected. Is this an IFI issue?


----------



## alsorkin

Taz777 said:


> TIDAL works for me too. I have Qobuz as well. The TIDAL desktop app does everything I need to discover great new music. I have Roon to play music around the house, but I prefer TIDAL for music discovery (yes, even compared to Roon Radio). I can control the direction of music discovery better with TIDAL - e.g. Track Radio, Masters Track Radio, Suggested Tracks, Artist Radio, etc.
> 
> The Producers and Songwriters mixes are a fantastic part of TIDAL exploration and discovery. All the apps are stable and easy to use. The offline playlists work perfectly on DAPs when I'm out and about. TIDAL isn't perfect, but it does most of everything that I need it to do.
> 
> Oh, and it's all about the music!


For discovery: I like using Radio Paradise streaming in MQA on Blusound devices (like Node -2021) and when you discover an artist or album that is of interest you have the ability to click on a Tidal link they provide to directly open up that artist/album on the Tidal app. Appears to be only when Radio Paradise is playing from a Blusound device


----------



## hash70

has there been any confirmed response bck from ifi regarding removal of mqa decoding on the new firmware,are they going to pay the license?it's not a issue if you only use roon as it does the mqa decoding but for people who bought it for tidal connect and dnla then thats a big problem,before with tidal connect via spidf I would get 24/96 but now I only get 24/48 because theve removed mqa,extremely pissed theve done this,thats what I bought the device for and its definitely false marketing


----------



## boxster233

hash70 said:


> has there been any confirmed response bck from ifi regarding removal of mqa decoding on the new firmware,are they going to pay the license?it's not a issue if you only use roon as it does the mqa decoding but for people who bought it for tidal connect and dnla then thats a big problem,before with tidal connect via spidf I would get 24/96 but now I only get 24/48 because theve removed mqa,extremely pissed theve done this,thats what I bought the device for and its definitely false marketing


Where did ifi remove MQA? As far as I know, they offer firmwares that do both MQA or non-MQA. 

Copying in @Sebastien Chiu @iFi audio for awareness.


----------



## hash70

Its on the zen stream with latest firmware they. Removed mqa decoding because they didn't pay the license


----------



## jlemaster1957

ozz007 said:


> Hello guys, So, I order 2 Zen Dacs V2, I loaded one for my work PC and One for my gaming pc, I also used their news driver 5.1.2 and I also try their 3.2.0.
> 
> so this is the problem, I have when I select the pass to unload MQA to the DAC, it only reports 44100 or 4800. now when I played the same song and album on my Fiio M15
> I can see 96k 24bit etc.
> ...


What is your source- if you are using an iOS device, are you sending the signal via an Apple Lightning to USG OTG camera connector? IFi recommends that BUT there is a problem for MQA files - i have never been able to get any DAC to unfold MQA from an iPhone even using the OTG connector. If you are using Android it should work. It does work from MacOS. You need to set the quality inside Tidal settings for streaming (wifi and cellular) and download to Masters.


----------



## hash70

The issue is ifi have removed mqa decoding when using tidal connect and dnla,before I would get the 24 /96  to my non mqa dac but now I only get 24/48 because theve removed decoding,not a problem for roon users as roon will decode but people who specifically spend $400 on the zen stream which is advertising 100%. Mqa compatible to use it with tidal connect is misleading and false marketing,myself and most others on roon forums are really angry ifi have done this and most are now unable to return theres for a refund,ifi need to confirm what's happened here to stop all the confusion,are they going to pay the license or what


----------



## MrWalkman (Dec 1, 2021)

hash70 said:


> has there been any confirmed response bck from ifi regarding removal of mqa decoding on the new firmware,are they going to pay the license?it's not a issue if you only use roon as it does the mqa decoding but for people who bought it for tidal connect and dnla then thats a big problem,before with tidal connect via spidf I would get 24/96 but now I only get 24/48 because theve removed mqa,extremely pissed theve done this,thats what I bought the device for and its definitely false marketing



From what I understand from the thread, they didn't meant to add MQA support for this device in the first place. Basically, they didn't pay a license fee so this device can have MQA support, so now they're only rectifying this with a firmware update.



Sebastien Chiu said:


> There was a small bug in previous firmware that had a side effect of performing some unintended MQA action, now this bug (among others) has been fixed.





hash70 said:


> The issue is ifi have removed mqa decoding when using tidal connect and dnla,before I would get the 24 /96  to my non mqa dac but now I only get 24/48 because theve removed decoding,not a problem for roon users as roon will decode but people who specifically spend $400 on the zen stream which is advertising 100%. Mqa compatible to use it with tidal connect is misleading and false marketing,myself and most others on roon forums are really angry ifi have done this and most are now unable to return theres for a refund,ifi need to confirm what's happened here to stop all the confusion,are they going to pay the license or what



If you'd use Tidal directly (with MQA Passthrough off), then Tidal itself would do the first unfold, and that's basically the same as what the ZEN Stream did (does?) before the mentioned (upcoming?) firmware update.


----------



## rlw6534

jlemaster1957 said:


> What is your source- if you are using an iOS device, are you sending the signal via an Apple Lightning to USG OTG camera connector? IFi recommends that BUT there is a problem for MQA files - i have never been able to get any DAC to unfold MQA from an iPhone even using the OTG connector. If you are using Android it should work. It does work from MacOS. You need to set the quality inside Tidal settings for streaming (wifi and cellular) and download to Masters.



I have been getting MQA from both my iPhone and iPad via lightning to USB with no issues.  I have used the CCK as well as lightning to USB OTG cables.


----------



## hash70

it's not working with tidal connect,its only passing 24/48 instead of 24/96,before they removed it the zen worked the same as my node 2 where it would decode to 24/96 via optical/coax,alot of people bought into this specifically for this and who are now unable to return it,so you can understand why some people are angry


----------



## MrWalkman (Dec 1, 2021)

hash70 said:


> it's not working with tidal connect,its only passing 24/48 instead of 24/96,before they removed it the zen worked the same as my node 2 where it would decode to 24/96 via optical/coax,alot of people bought into this specifically for this and who are now unable to return it,so you can understand why some people are angry



Tidal itself does the first unfold if you don't have "Passthrough MQA" enabled, *if* the song was actually at 96 kHz or more before being packed into MQA.






Something like Roon, for example, may not have MQA unfolding capabilities, so if you'd use Roon, the first unfold would not be done by Roon.


----------



## rlw6534 (Dec 1, 2021)

MrWalkman said:


> Tidal itself does the first unfold if you don't have "Passthrough MQA" enabled, *if* the song was actually at 96 kHz or more before being packed into MQA.
> 
> 
> 
> Something like Roon, for example, may not have MQA unfolding capabilities, so if you'd use Roon, the first unfold would not be done by Roon.



Tidal connect on the Zen was doing the first unfold until iFi removed that capability with the latest firmware.  We aren't talking about the Tidal app on a phone via USB but Tidal Connect for streaming via network.  The player is actually running on the Zen and controlled remotely.

Also, Roon definitely does the first MQA unfold at the core unless you have specifically disabled it in the settings.


----------



## MrWalkman

rlw6534 said:


> Tidal connect on the Zen was doing the first unfold until iFi removed that capability with the latest firmware.  We aren't talking about the Tidal app on a phone via USB but Tidal Connect for streaming via network.
> 
> Also, Roon definitely does the first MQA unfold at the core unless you have specifically disabled it in the settings.



Got it, I am not entirely familiar with the ZEN Stream. It seems it's not the same thing as the Tidal app on Windows, for example.


----------



## rlw6534 (Dec 1, 2021)

MrWalkman said:


> Got it, I am not entirely familiar with the ZEN Stream. It seems it's not the same thing as the Tidal app on Windows, for example.



Yeah, Tidal Connect is basically a Tidal player on the Zen without a UI, that you can control from another device.  It's very similar to Spotify Connect in that the stream is sent directly to the Zen, not through the controlling device...


----------



## ozz007

jlemaster1957 said:


> What is your source- if you are using an iOS device, are you sending the signal via an Apple Lightning to USG OTG camera connector? IFi recommends that BUT there is a problem for MQA files - i have never been able to get any DAC to unfold MQA from an iPhone even using the OTG connector. If you are using Android it should work. It does work from MacOS. You need to set the quality inside Tidal settings for streaming (wifi and cellular) and download to Masters



PC computers


----------



## hash70

I've jst opened a ticket to ifi support asking them to confirm why they did this and more importantly if there going to pay for a mqa licence and restore the decoding on the zen,as I pointed out alot of people bought it for this purpose and are not unable to return for a refund and told them they should change there website about the zen being 100% mqa compatible as that is now clearly a lie


----------



## ozz007

hash70 said:


> it's not working with tidal connect,its only passing 24/48 instead of 24/96,before they removed it the zen worked the same as my node 2 where it would decode to 24/96 via optical/coax,alot of people bought into this specifically for this and who are now unable to return it,so you can understand why some people are angry


I agree, non of my ifi products are working rigt now with tidal. Which is the main reason I bought them.


----------



## hash70 (Dec 1, 2021)

,


----------



## hash70

hash70 said:


> I can hear a class action law suit coming about this,people are pissed,ive emailed ifi asking them to confirm what's happening  and to change there website as it clearly not 100% mqa compatible like they claim,ive really lost trust with this company first was the ipower fiasco,every body who bought the zen stream were under the impression that a ipower psu was included but ifi silently withdrew the ipower and shipped a cheap generic psu instead,when I asked why they said the ipower was only for the first 1000 customers,that wouldn't have a been a problem if they had stated this anywhere but they didnt,and now they remove one of most important features that people bought for,ive lost total faith in this company and I actually feel like I've been scammed


----------



## rlw6534

ozz007 said:


> I agree, non of my ifi products are working rigt now with tidal. Which is the main reason I bought them.



I'm not sure what devices you have but iFi DACs that are MQA decoders and renderers work fine with MQA.  The Zen Stream is not a DAC, it is a player.  If you have a MQA full decoder DAC, it will work with MQA.  Now, iFi did remove the core unfold capabilities of the Tidal Connect player installed on the ZEN which means non-MQA DACs or renderers no longer work with MQA features.  Apparently that is due to licensing issues, which doesn't make a lot of sense when Tidal's free app does the same thing.  MQA seems to want a license not only on DACs but also on players.  I suppose that makes it easier to understand why UAPP and Hiby charge extra for MQA add-ons for their respective players.

I do think that iFi's marketing information where they claim the ZEN is fully-compatible with MQA is just wrong at this point.


----------



## hash70

Dec 1, 2021 at 7:55 PMPost #1,441 of 1,441
H
hash70​New Head-Fier​JoinedNov 11, 2021Posts32Likes9Locationuk


rlw6534 said:


> I'm not sure what devices you have but iFi DACs that are MQA decoders and renderers work fine with MQA.  The Zen Stream is not a DAC, it is a player.  If you have a MQA full decoder DAC, it will work with MQA.  Now, iFi did remove the core unfold capabilities of the Tidal Connect player installed on the ZEN which means non-MQA DACs or renderers no longer work with MQA features.  Apparently that is due to licensing issues, which doesn't make a lot of sense when Tidal's free app does the same thing.  MQA seems to want a license not only on DACs but also on players.  I suppose that makes it easier to understand why UAPP and Hiby charge extra for MQA add-ons for their respective players.
> 
> I do think that iFi's marketing information where they claim the ZEN is fully-compatible with MQA is just wrong at this point.


my dac is non mqa,,because they advertised it's 100% mqa compatible and could decode to 24/96 via spidf like my  node 2 does was one of the reasons I bought it,also bought it like everyone else thìnkin you get a ipower adapter but they removed that aswell,like I said I've lost total trust with them,what else will they remove


----------



## ozz007 (Dec 1, 2021)

rlw6534 said:


> I'm not sure what devices you have but iFi DACs that are MQA decoders and renderers work fine with MQA.  The Zen Stream is not a DAC, it is a player.  If you have a MQA full decoder DAC, it will work with MQA.  Now, iFi did remove the core unfold capabilities of the Tidal Connect player installed on the ZEN which means non-MQA DACs or renderers no longer work with MQA features.  Apparently that is due to licensing issues, which doesn't make a lot of sense when Tidal's free app does the same thing.  MQA seems to want a license not only on DACs but also on players.  I suppose that makes it easier to understand why UAPP and Hiby charge extra for MQA add-ons for their respective players.
> 
> I do think that iFi's marketing information where they claim the ZEN is fully-compatible with MQA is just wrong at this point.


Did you read my earlier post?

No they don't work ok with tidal. They only shows 44100 and 48000 instead my flip M15 shows
24bit 96000

Zen dac V2 2 of them they say the are 100%mqa.also  a Hip-dac V2 and almost pull tne trigger on the griphon.

Tidal is not working as intended on this dacs. They are not doing the unfold.

Im going to return the Zen dacs V2 I'm stuck with the Hip-dac v2 and the Go Blu.

Not getting the griphon because of this reason.

https://ifi-audio.com/products/zen-dac-v2/

https://ifi-audio.com/products/hip-dac2/

As you can read they advertise them as MQA decoder.


----------



## rlw6534 (Dec 1, 2021)

ozz007 said:


> Did you read my earlier post?
> 
> No they don't work ok with tidal. They only shows 44100 and 48000 instead my flip M15 shows
> 24bit 96000
> ...



Yes, I read your post and respectfully disagree with your blanket statement that MQA doesn't work on iFi DACs.  If you would like, we could try to figure out what your issue is and potentially resolve it.   It would help to know what devices and players you are using upstream of the USB DAC.  If you want to investigate, it's up to you.  I can assure you that my Zen DAC Signature is working perfectly with MQA.


----------



## ozz007 (Dec 1, 2021)

rlw6534 said:


> Yes, I read your post and respectfully disagree with your blanket statement that MQA doesn't work on iFi DACs.  If you would like, we could try to figure out what your issue is and potentially resolve it.   It would help to know what devices and players you are using upstream of the USB DAC.  If you want to investigate, it's up to you.  I can assure you that my Zen DAC Signature is working perfectly with MQA.


Thanks for the reply. I send them back already. I just keep the hipdac v2 for travel.

I waisted too much time on this product alreay trying to make it work as intended.

All I know is that I get 9600 with my Focal Arche and letting the tidal app do the decoding.

Same process with the Zendac V2 and Hip-dac v2 and only get 44100 and 48000, no changes if I select let the dacs do all of the work.

Yes they work but not as they are suppose to.


----------



## hash70

they should get there website changed pronto aswell as it's now false advertising as the zen stream isn't 100% compatible to non mqa dacs,it was until they removed it 🤬


----------



## iFi audio

MrWalkman said:


> they didn't meant to add MQA support for this device in the first place



That's correct, we didn't want MQA on ZEN Stream and GO blu, but many our DACs have that feature.


----------



## hash70 (Dec 2, 2021)

iFi audio said:


> That's correct, we didn't want MQA on ZEN Stream and GO blu, but many our DACs have that feature.


does that mean that mqa decoding will definitely not be enabled again on the zen stream?like the node 2 does via coax to external dac non mqa,this is the way I use the zen to my dac with the zen stream decoding mqa to 24/96 but now that's been removed I'm only getting 24/48,id like to know for sure so I can return it for a refund


----------



## ozz007

hash70 said:


> does that mean that mqa decoding will definitely not be enabled again on the zen stream?like the node 2 does via coax to external dac non mqa,this is the way I use the zen to my dac with the zen stream decoding mqa to 24/96 but now that's been removed I'm only getting 24/48,id like to know for sure so I can return it for a refund


I return both of my zen dacs v2 for tha reason.


----------



## hash70

I've lost trust with this company,there handling of this device has been a fiasco from the start,theve hindered the device from the start by using a extremely old volumio kernel,the old kernels were terrible with tidal intergration and thats why volumio have totaly rewritten there software cause the problems were that bad they couldn’t be fixed so they have had to rewrite everything,then there was ipower psu balls up and now theve removed mqa decoding saying it was a mistake and shouldn’t have been enabled in the first place and this is all after they sent them out to reviewers who confirmed it supported mqa,even on there website it’s brags the zen stream is 100% 'mqa compatible which is a total lie and false marketing,im OK as I can still return mine but there is thousands of people who can’t as theve had it to long and specifically bought it to use this way,ifi should be ashamed


----------



## iFi audio

hash70 said:


> does that mean that mqa decoding will definitely not be enabled again on the zen stream?



MQA wasn't supposed to be available on ZEN Stream in the first place, so there are no plans for that.


----------



## hash70 (Dec 2, 2021)

iFi audio said:


> MQA wasn't supposed to be available on ZEN Stream in the first place, so there are no plans for that.


Well atleast we all know now,brilliant ifi bloody  brilliant thx for scamming your customers 💩💩


----------



## Brava210

My Zen DAC V2 works perfectly connected to a Rasperry Pi streaming Tidal


----------



## hash70 (Dec 2, 2021)

Brava210 said:


> My Zen DAC V2 works perfectly connected to a Rasperry Pi streaming Tidal


buddy were not even talking about the zen dac so ur comment is useless, now that ifi replied bck and confirmed that theve removed mqa and have no intention of paying for a mqa licence,theve basically scammed there customers,there saying mqa wasn’t supposed to be enabled,but this device was released way bck in June and we’re now in December and this is them jst realising that mqa was mistakenly enabled on there device?even though the reviewers who were sent the zen stream to review mentioned in there review that mqa decoding was working and there is loads of discussion about mqa decoding on this device on there forums going bck months but theve suddenly jst realised ?this whole thing stinks,thousands of people bought this device for jst this feature and can’t return it,ifi you should be ashamed,if my information isn't correct then plz correct me ifi


----------



## Brava210 (Dec 2, 2021)

hash70 said:


> buddy were not even talking about the zen dac so ur comment is useless, now that ifi replied bck and confirmed that theve removed mqa and have no intention of paying for a mqa licence,theve basically scammed there customers,there saying mqa wasn’t supposed to be enabled,but this device was released way bck in June and we’re now in December and this is them jst realising that mqa was mistakenly enabled on there device?even though the reviewers who were sent the zen stream to review mentioned in there review that mqa decoding was working and there is loads of discussion about mqa decoding on this device on there forums going bck months but theve suddenly jst realised ?this whole thing stinks,thousands of people bought this device for jst this feature and can’t return it,ifi you should be ashamed,if my information isn't correct then plz correct me if


Calm down.....BUDDY

Send it back then?


----------



## Brava210 (Dec 2, 2021)

ozz007 said:


> I return both of my zen dacs v2 for tha reason.


I was simply replying to this, as the thread is regarding Tidal Not Zen Stream


----------



## hash70 (Dec 2, 2021)

Brava210 said:


> I was simply replying to this, as the thread is regarding Tidal Not Zen Stream


if I came across rude then I apologise buddy,jst extremely pissed at ifi and there handling of this device,yes I am still able to return it, jst my time and postage charge that's been wasted but thousands of people can't because theve had this device since June and specifically bought this device for specifically this feature ,if I was of those people I would be more than pissed I'd be livid


----------



## rlw6534

iFi audio said:


> MQA wasn't supposed to be available on ZEN Stream in the first place, so there are no plans for that.



Are you going to continue to claim "MQA-fully compatible" on your product page?   Any player that plays Tidal and claims that should be able to do the core unfold or it's simply wrong and misleading.


----------



## hash70

rlw6534 said:


> Are you going to continue to claim "MQA-fully compatible" on your product page?   Any player that plays Tidal and claims that should be able to do the core unfold or it's simply wrong and misleading.


exactly ive also emailed them telling them they should now remove the 100% mqa compatible as it's clearly false and definitely misleading as some other potential customer will make the same mistake of purchasing this streamer,if they had realised this mqa mistake shortly after the launch way bck in may/June then I wouldn't have had a problem as mistakes happen all the time on newly released products,but they didnt,ifi continued to send the device to reviewers up until the last few weeks where they confirmed mqa decoding and I'm sure ifi read what there reviewers say about there products,so theve been aware of the mqa decoding for a long tìme and there own forums is full of discussions of this feature so to suddenly come out in December and say it's a mistake is ridiculous to say the least


----------



## jlemaster1957 (Dec 2, 2021)

rlw6534 said:


> I have been getting MQA from both my iPhone and iPad via lightning to USB with no issues.  I have used the CCK as well as lightning to USB OTG cables.


Noted- I have read many iPhone users are getting MQA streamed to rendering or decoding DACS. I have a 12 Pro Max but it’s a T-mobile phone and I have suspicion the carrier is part of the problem. I gave up on this and just use my IFi devices with other sources now for streaming TIDAL. I put in a trouble ticket with IFi re my inability to stream MQA from the iPhone but they insist ‘it’s not our device that’s the problem’. Not worth an argument with them IMO as the devices work fine for my present use- case; however I have decided not to update IFi firmware, as TIDAL streams MQA to both Zen Dac V2 and IFi micro iDSD signature a) directly from Windows and MacOs b) via Roon and C) via UAPP on my Hiby R8.


----------



## hash70

ozz007 said:


> I agree, non of my ifi products are working rigt now with tidal. Which is the main reason I bought them.


Read my post,it explains the problem is with the old kernel that ifi are using..
Great hardware but let down with terrible software and tech support,I really luved my zen stream but yes no company should be allowed to remove functionality after customers have purchased something from them,the way ifi has handled the whole launch and promotions of the stream is wrong and misleading,from saying on there website that its 100% mqa compatible to roon ready which gives a impression it roon certifyed when it still isn't months now after the launch,aswell as the promised chromecast support,the ipower psu fiasco where they silently withdrew them and started shipping cheap psu instead and then they came out and said because people complained that it was for the first 1000 customers only,wouldn't have been a problem if they stated this before but they didnt,I contacted them and they said they would send a ipower to me but one of there tech support asked me not tell anyone on here cause they only give out ipowers if someone contacts them like I did and ask for one that is shady if you ask me,now they remove a specific functionality that people bought the device for and now can't return it for a refund,theve also hindered the device from the start with using a very old kernel from volumio,this kernel has terrible tidal intergration and thats why volumio have ditched it and are totaly rewritten there software as we speak because it has so many problem it can't be fixed and this why alot of customers have been have trouble in the last few months,I honestly think they thought they could do this silently like they did with the ipowers and people wouldn't be upset,im lucky than most though as I can still return mine for a return but thousands of people can't and are now stuck at the mercy of ifi unless they sell it on but would lose money doing so as ifi has removed a big functionality,I mean you couldn't make this up and theve now really damaged there reputation over this device

Last edited: 9 minutes ago
Share 

Quote Reply
Report Edit

Prev 

1
…
170
171
172

Remove formattingBoldItalicFont sizeText colorMore options…
ListAlignment

Align left
Align center
Align right
Justify text
Paragraph format
Insert linkInsert imageSmiliesMediaQuoteInsert tableMore options…
UndoRedoToggle BB codeDrafts
Preview

Font familyStrike-throughUnderlineInline codeInline spoiler
Insert horizontal lineSpoilerCode

Write your reply...
 Post reply
Attach


----------



## Brava210

hash70 said:


> if I came across rude then I apologise buddy,jst extremely pissed at ifi and there handling of this device,yes I am still able to return it, jst my time and postage charge that's been wasted but thousands of people can't because theve had this device since June and specifically bought this device for specifically this feature ,if I was of those people I would be more than pissed I'd be livid


I see your point, hopefully if anyone has purchased through credit card, they can claim the money back.
I've done this on a couple of occasions

Good luck, it just goes to show the ridiculous nature of MQA in the first place.


----------



## MrWalkman

Brava210 said:


> it just goes to show the ridiculous nature of MQA in the first place.



It's just another format, that can be used on devices based on a license. They should've just not mistakenly included MQA support on this device if they didn't actually have the license to do so.


----------



## Brava210

But is it not the only format that's a charge is incurred for license?


----------



## MrWalkman

Brava210 said:


> But is it not the only format that's a charge is incurred for license?



Maybe, but still, let's say I create a format, and I require payment from manufacturers if they want to use it. It's their choice if they want to pay me to use it or not.

My point is that I don't see MQA as being the "culprit" in this situation. It's just unfortunate that MQA support was mistakenly included for the device in question.


----------



## hash70 (Dec 3, 2021)

personally ive not got a problem with mistakes being made on new products  it happens all the time,but I have a problem with this cause this device was released way bck in june  and they didn't correct the mqa bug until December,no way do I belive that ifi weren't aware of this until now,there is discussions on there forum about mqa decoding on  this device going bck to June,so they knew but continued to sell this product and still claiming on there website right now that it's 100% mqa compatible but  like I said the whole thing stinks and there is more to this that ifi is not letting on but one thing is sure il never touch any of there products again and theve seriously damaged there reputation over there handling of this device


----------



## Brava210

hash70 said:


> personally ive not got a problem with mistakes being made on new products  it happens all the time,but I have a problem with this cause this device was released way bck in june  and they didn't correct the mqa bug until December,no way do I belive that ifi weren't aware of this until now,there is discussions on there forum about mqa decoding on  this device going bck to June,so they knew but continued to sell this product and still claiming on there website right now that it's 100% mqa compatible but  like I said the whole thing stinks and there is more to this that ifi is not letting on but one thing is sure il never touch any of there products again and theve seriously damaged there reputation over there handling of this device


Is there no way of rolling back the firmware?


----------



## hash70 (Dec 3, 2021)

Brava210 said:


> Is there no way of rolling back the firmware?


I believe you can roll bck the firmware but then what do you do never update it again when theve still to release fw updates for chromecast support and roon certify


----------



## Brava210

hash70 said:


> I believe you can roll bck the firmware but then what do you do never update it again when theve still to release fw updates for chromecast support and roon certify


That's true although isn't Chromecast a bit pointless.


----------



## rkw

Brava210 said:


> That's true although isn't Chromecast a bit pointless.


Not pointless if you use Chromecast.


----------



## hash70

Brava210 said:


> That's true although isn't Chromecast a bit pointless.


A few of us have jst discovered ifi have now removed the promised chromecast support from there webpage,some people want this feature and was one of the reasons they bought so to now remove it after a customer has spent 400 bucks is a law suit waiting to happen


----------



## Brava210

rkw said:


> Not pointless if you use Chromecast.


I just meant it's limited on Hi-Res Support and no Gapless playback


----------



## iFi audio

rlw6534 said:


> Are you going to continue to claim "MQA-fully compatible" on your product page?



We'll have that removed shortly just to not cause any further confusion. Thanks for noting!


----------



## rlw6534

iFi audio said:


> We'll have that removed shortly just to not cause any further confusion. Thanks for noting!



Maybe just say that it supports MQA pass-through only.


----------



## hash70

there probaly holding off to change there website if there trying to get a mqa licence cause Sebastian said there in talks with meridian


----------



## iFi audio

hash70 said:


> there probaly holding off to change there website if there trying to get a mqa licence cause Sebastian said there in talks with meridian



Indeed, we're looking into what can be done with that matter. Those things don't happen overnight, but we should have some info shortly.


----------



## Bernard23

Apologies I'm being lazy here - trying to catch up. Golden Ears, is he right, or is MQA the sunny uplands? I know the answers are in the last 98 pages, but......


----------



## hash70

Bernard23 said:


> Apologies I'm being lazy here - trying to catch up. Golden Ears, is he right, or is MQA the sunny uplands? I know the answers are in the last 98 pages, but......


yes they disabled mqa decoding but mqa passthrough to a mqa dac still works from what I'm told,this is mostly affecting people with non mqa dacs who were using the zen stream to do the first unfold of mqa


----------



## hash70

iFi audio said:


> Indeed, we're looking into what can be done with that matter. Those things don't happen overnight, but we should have some info shortly.


thought that might be the case but I really hope you get a licence and get the other issues fixed ASAP with regards to chromecast and roon certification and your customers have been waiting for these since June now and we're not happy at all with ifi


----------



## Bernard23

hash70 said:


> yes they disabled mqa decoding but mqa passthrough to a mqa dac still works from what I'm told,this is mostly affecting people with non mqa dacs who were using the zen stream to do the first unfold of mqa


who disabled mqa decoding?


----------



## rkw

Bernard23 said:


> Apologies I'm being lazy here - trying to catch up. Golden Ears, is he right, or is MQA the sunny uplands? I know the answers are in the last 98 pages, but......


I presume you meant @GoldenOne (not @Golden Ears, who has never posted in this thread). Many (although not all) agree with his conclusions.


Bernard23 said:


> who disabled mqa decoding?


That discussion is about iFi disabling MQA decoding in the latest firmware update to their ZEN Stream product. The topic is completely unrelated to your question about @GoldenOne. The reply given was a misunderstanding about your question.


----------



## hiplytragic (Dec 5, 2021)

iFi audio said:


> We'll have that removed shortly just to not cause any further confusion. Thanks for noting!


To confirm my understanding of this thread:

A) ifi is taking away MQA capabilities from the Zen Stream and it won't return it in the next or other future firmware updates
B) Chromecast will never be supported despite promises at launch and on the box, website, etc.

If the above are true, I hate to say it but what kind of company is ifi to screw over your customers like this?

Up until this last update I was able to enjoy MQA decoding with my Zen DAC using tidal connect and was looking forward to Chromecast. These are 2 important use cases to me that motivated my purchase of the Zen streamer.

Lacking this, I am 100% motivated to return this to ifi for a full refund and would actually never buy another ifi product. Great way to cause mistrust in a brand.

Please confirm my understanding so I can act accordingly.


----------



## hash70 (Dec 5, 2021)

hiplytragic said:


> To confirm my understanding of this thread:
> 
> A) ifi is taking away MQA capabilities from the Zen Stream and it won't return it in the next or other future firmware updates
> B) Chromecast will never be supported despite promises at launch and on the box, website, etc.
> ...


ifi responded in another thread saying there now in talks with meridian to buy a mqa licence for the zen stream but How long this will take nobody knows yet,I asked them about the situation with chromecast update after I became còncerned after they removed all mention of chromecast coming soon from there website but they did respond saying chromecast support is still on the way,also a temporary fix for you would be to reset ur zen  to the original fw and mqa decoding will work again


----------



## hiplytragic

hash70 said:


> ifi responded in another thread saying there now in talks with meridian to buy a mqa licence for the zen stream but How long this will take nobody knows yet,I asked them about the situation with chromecast update after I became còncerned after they removed all mention of chromecast coming soon from there website but they did respond saying chromecast support is still on the way,also a temporary fix for you would be to reset ur zen  to the original fw and mqa decoding will work again



Thanks, I appreciate the updates - they are pretty much what I understood. 

I would love to have a definitive response from ifi on this also.

FWIW I did go back to original firmware to make sure I wasn't dreaming that I had MQA decoding capability in my set up but I don't see that as a long term approach. 

I can live with the current firmware knowing/hoping this and Chromecast will be fixed in the next few weeks.

Fingers crossed 🤞.


----------



## hash70

like most people I wish mqa would die a quick death ASAP,its nothing more than a way for meridian to make money,there has been measurements took to show there is alot of digital noise in mqa


----------



## bagwell359

iFi will say nothing clear until the path is clear.  They are obviously upset they have walked into this wall.

Still, I don't understand how the two final MQA unfolds will occur in the Zen.  Wouldn't that require a DAC?  I'm interested in the Zen because I want to use my own DAC.


----------



## hash70

I can keep mines until the 20th Dec, any later than that I can't send it bck for refund, I think they will get it sorted but ive got a feeling that this is going to drag into atleast February but im takin no chances,if I've not had a positive response bck before the 20th then bck it goes


----------



## MrWalkman (Dec 6, 2021)

hash70 said:


> like most people I wish mqa would die a quick death ASAP,its nothing more than a way for meridian to make money,there has been measurements took to show there is alot of digital noise in mqa



Nobody forces manufacturers to include it in their devices, as nobody forces people to use MQA from Tidal, so I really don't understand the hate.

I used MQA with a Dragonfly Cobalt, and now I'm using it with a Sony WM1A, and it sounds great in both cases.

Choosing to trust your ears could be more beneficial than a bit too much about measurements and stuff. MQA is made to sound good, even if it may not measure good, and that's good enough for me. I enjoy MQA as much as I do a DSD or Hi-Res PCM recording.

I prefer spending time enjoying audio instead of measuring it.


----------



## hiplytragic

bagwell359 said:


> iFi will say nothing clear until the path is clear.  They are obviously upset they have walked into this wall.
> 
> Still, I don't understand how the two final MQA unfolds will occur in the Zen.  Wouldn't that require a DAC?  I'm interested in the Zen because I want to use my own DAC.


In my case I only need the decoding portion of the MQA process to  happen on the stream. The rest (rendering) happens on the zen dac (v1). 

This is essentially what happens when I connect my zen dac to a PC or a Mac running the native Tidal app. 

As I understand the issue, if you have a DAC that can handle both decoding and rendering of the MQA stream, such as the zen dac V2 (i believe based on the marketing) you won't have this issue. 

So yes, depends heavily on what your dac can do. I have not had experience or expectation that the stream could handle the full MQA process.


----------



## Brava210

I agree the MQA thing is a pain, but I also like the sound


----------



## hiplytragic

Brava210 said:


> I agree the MQA thing is a pain, but I also like the sound


Same here. In fact, it was my ears first that noticed MQA wasn't happening which was then visually confirmed via the amber led color on my zen dac instead of the expected purple.


----------



## jlemaster1957

hiplytragic said:


> Same here. In fact, it was my ears first that noticed MQA wasn't happening which was then visually confirmed via the amber led color on my zen dac instead of the expected purple.


I am hopeful on Zen Dac V2 that if we just don’t update fw it will continue to unfold MQA- since Zen stream was the issue not Zen Dac V2, correct? Or has IFi stopped all MQA support for all devices?


----------



## ozz007

jlemaster1957 said:


> I am hopeful on Zen Dac V2 that if we just don’t update fw it will continue to unfold MQA- since Zen stream was the issue not Zen Dac V2, correct? Or has IFi stopped all MQA support for all devices?


Zen dac V2 will not work correctly. I sent both of mine back for that reason.


----------



## iFi audio (Dec 7, 2021)

bagwell359 said:


> iFi will say nothing clear until the path is clear. They are obviously upset they have walked into this wall.



It's all good really. If anything, MQA on ZEN Stream caused some confusion that we're now working on to clear and we should have an update on the subject soon. That's all there is to it.



MrWalkman said:


> Nobody forces manufacturers to include it in their devices, as nobody forces people to use MQA from Tidal, so I really don't understand the hate.



Indeed. As for MQA playback in this context, it doesn't affect any other audio format and is not forced.



jlemaster1957 said:


> Or has IFi stopped all MQA support for all devices?



We didn't


----------



## rlw6534

ozz007 said:


> Zen dac V2 will not work correctly. I sent both of mine back for that reason.



That's odd.  The Zen DAC V2 should work as it is a full MQA decoder (and should remain so with future updates).  I don't own one so I can't test.


----------



## iFi audio

rlw6534 said:


> That's odd. The Zen DAC V2 should work as it is a full MQA decoder (and should remain so with future updates). I don't own one so I can't test.



For ZEN DAC V2 to decode MQA it hs to receive it first, so a transport for it also has to be capable of sending MQA.


----------



## rlw6534

iFi audio said:


> For ZEN DAC V2 to decode MQA it hs to receive it first, so a transport for it also has to be capable of sending MQA.



I thought the Zen Stream supported MQA passthrough (i.e. bitperfect stream).


----------



## hash70

bagwell359 said:


> iFi will say nothing clear until the path is clear.  They are obviously upset they have walked into this wall.
> 
> Still, I don't understand how the two final MQA unfolds will occur in the Zen.  Wouldn't that require a DAC?  I'm interested in the Zen because I want to use my own DAC.


its only 1 unfold the zen stream was previously doj g


----------



## ozz007

iFi audio said:


> For ZEN DAC V2 to decode MQA it hs to receive it first, so a transport for it also has to be capable of sending MQA.


Which it does, when you used it in conjunction with the Tidal App, with passthrough or let the tidal app do the first unfold. But for me, trying both ways, it never got past 44100 or 48000, when I just try the same setup with another dac. let's say Focal Arche, with the same song and album, Focal arche will show 96000.


----------



## jlemaster1957

iFi audio said:


> For ZEN DAC V2 to decode MQA it hs to receive it first, so a transport for it also has to be capable of sending MQA.


I also have IFi micro iDSD Signature and it is unfolding as it should be from all sources but my T-Mobile iPhone 12 Max Pro (it is an MQA renderer) - but that device doesn’t send MQA for whatever reason, I’ve never been able to ascertain.


----------



## KaiFi (Dec 18, 2021)

I have nothing against MQA--if it sounds good I like it and it does and I do. But I just got the xDSD Gryphon so I re-subscribed to Tidal and I was disappointed to find that hi-res albums that aren't available in MQA are only available in 44/16 on Tidal. That seems crappy to me. On Qobuz these same albums are available in 96/24 or even higher sometimes. Tidal seems to be "MQA or nothing" and that's unfortunate. Not that 44/16 is "nothing" and plenty of albums are not available in anything higher anyway. But I feel like if something is available in hi-res on Qobuz it should be on Tidal as well. I don't see the excuse for not offering non-MQA 96/24 playback if for some reason MQA isn't available on these albums.


----------



## MrWalkman

KaiFi said:


> I have nothing against MQA--if it sounds good I like it and it does and I do. But I just got the xDSD Gryphon so I re-subscribed to Tidal and I was disappointed to find that hi-res albums that aren't available in MQA are only available in 44/16 on Tidal. That seems crappy to me. On Qobuz these same albums are available in 96/24 or even higher sometimes. Tidal seems to be "MQA or nothing" and that's unfortunate. Not that 44/16 is "nothing" and plenty of albums are not available in anything higher anyway. But I feel like if something is available in hi-res on Qobuz it should be on Tidal as well. I don't see the excuse for not offering non-MQA 96/24 playback.



Well, this is mostly about how Tidal chose to function. It's not like before MQA they were offering hi-res albums, and since MQA was created they stopped doing that.


----------



## KaiFi

Yeah, I guess it had been a while since I was subscribed to Tidal and I didn't remember there were never any non-MQA hi-res offerings. I'm just not sure whether I want Qobuz instead. It's half the price and offers more hi-res albums, but I've noticed Tidal has some albums Qobuz doesn't when it comes to popular music (both seem to be about equal for classical, which is much of what I listen to). Also part of why I bought the xDSD Gryphon is _because_ it's an MQA decoder. But for now I'm just going to listen and see what I think.


----------



## iFi audio

KaiFi said:


> Also part of why I bought the xDSD Gryphon is _because_ it's an MQA decoder. But for now I'm just going to listen and see what I think.



Thanks for giving xDSD Gryphon a chance. Please feel free to let us know how you like it once you're used to it a bit


----------



## Brava210

I use my Zen Dac V2 with a Raspberry pi supplying the Data


----------



## iFi audio

Brava210 said:


> I use my Zen Dac V2 with a Raspberry pi supplying the Data



If I may ask, how does it work for you?


----------



## Brava210

iFi audio said:


> If I may ask, how does it work for you?


Flawless with Volumio.


----------



## Dannemand (Dec 28, 2021)

I realize the recent discussion was about the iFi, but I thought it relevant to elaborate on Raspberry Pi in the context of this thread.

Raspberry Pi is an excellent music source for less than $100. It's basically what is inside many of the high priced streamers from various brands.

I use an RPi 4B 4GB with Moode (https://moodeaudio.org/) to feed a Gustard A18 DAC (->USB) which in turn feeds a Bryston power amp (->XLR). 2GB is actually plenty large for music streaming, saves a few bucks, and runs a little cooler.

I started out with Volumio, and also tested RuneAudio along the way. Volumio is amazingly easy, but a tad limited unless you buy their commercial version. It also ran quite hot for me, including when idle. Moode is incredibly feature rich, free and open source. I would recommend a voluntary donation for those who end up using it. But of course that's just my opinion.

I put most of our music library on the SD card. I had it on a USB flash drive at first, which is simpler when you update, but my wife said SQ was better when playing from the SD card. In theory it shouldn't shouldn't make a difference, particularly not on the newer RPi 4 models which have a redesigned USB bus. But I trust her ears. My own hearing has deteriorated due to a nerve disease.

We also use the RPi for internet radio. I gathered a collection of classical stations, and my life listens to radio from our home country of Denmark.

But we use it as destination for streaming Tidal more than anything else, with mConnect on our phones pulling the Tidal stream and casting to Moode through uPnP. It works perfectly: Moode has no active MQA support (and profess they never will) but supports MQA passthrough to the DAC. Works with all MQA tracks I have tested, including the 384 kHz albums from 2L as well as the infamous 16/44kHz albums from Warner, and everything in between.

If you're willing to pay, Volumio has Tidal streaming in their paid tier, and lets you can stream directly on the RPi. I don't know if they support MQA, I was too cheap to try their paid tier. But everything Volumio is super easy, and what I'd recommend to get started with RPi (https://volumio.com).


----------



## amarkabove

ozz007 said:


> Which it does, when you used it in conjunction with the Tidal App, with passthrough or let the tidal app do the first unfold. But for me, trying both ways, it never got past 44100 or 48000, when I just try the same setup with another dac. let's say Focal Arche, with the same song and album, Focal arche will show 96000.


You positive the Focal isn't upsampling things to 96K? Many, MANY of the MQA files are 44.1 or 48K, because that's what they were recorded at and certified at. Was the LED on the Zen DAC showing up yellow or green/blue?


----------



## amarkabove

amarkabove said:


> You positive the Focal isn't upsampling things to 96K? Many, MANY of the MQA files are 44.1 or 48K, because that's what they were recorded at and certified at. Was the LED on the Zen DAC showing up yellow or green/blue?


And by that I mean, only about 6% of the MQA library isn't either 44.1 or 48K


----------



## rkw

Dannemand said:


> If you're willing to pay, Volumio has Tidal streaming in their paid tier, and lets you can stream directly on the RPi. I don't know if they support MQA, I was too cheap to try their paid tier. But everything Volumio is super easy, and what I'd recommend to get started with RPi (https://volumio.com).


Another feature of Volumio (paid tier) is that it supports Tidal Connect, which allows you to use the regular Tidal app (desktop or mobile) for playing on the RPi (it's like Spotify Connect if you are familiar with it). It gives you the full interface of the Tidal app rather than the basic functionality using UPnP or Volumio's own Tidal interface.


----------



## Brava210

Volumios latest Manifest UI is very nice.


----------



## bagwell359 (Mar 10, 2022)

Question: I have TIDAL high res, LG v40, do single unpack, USB to no MQA DAC.  On paper what is the most depth I can get?

It seems that the answer is more than what I can get using an iFi streamer with the connection to TIDAL connect in place of the v40.

Anyone use both?

Thanks

EDIT ADD: Given the lack of response it looks like the iFI Zen Streamer does not unfold MQA.

Also, my alternate choice - QOBUZ can only go HiRes via Roon.  Did I mention I spent 25+ years on PC, Linux with every major variant software (outside of Roon) and want nothing more to do with any of that.

So, I am looking at a immature product.  Time to get a used v50.


----------



## edisonwu

A quick question guys, is the HIFI setting in Tidal a true normal FLAC data or it's just the WAV data from MQA edcoded FLAC? I kind of feel the MQA encoding is lacking transparency and have been trying to avoid it. Thanks in advance.


----------



## rkw

edisonwu said:


> A quick question guys, is the HIFI setting in Tidal a true normal FLAC data or it's just the WAV data from MQA edcoded FLAC?


The prevailing opinion I've seen online is that the HiFi and Masters settings use the same MQA encoded FLAC, just that HiFi doesn't apply MQA decoding to produce a higher rate stream.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

edisonwu said:


> A quick question guys, is the HIFI setting in Tidal a true normal FLAC data or it's just the WAV data from MQA edcoded FLAC? I kind of feel the MQA encoding is lacking transparency and have been trying to avoid it. Thanks in advance.


I don't understand the question. There is 0 digital difference between WAV and FLAC of the same file, they're just different encodings/wrappers. I can take a WAV, transcode to FLAC and transcode the FLAC back to WAV and the original and new WAV are bit for bit identical.

MQA is high res but lossy. On my systems (I have several MQA DACs but even the desktop app decoding is extremely good) and to my ears, MQA sounds great in general. Without knowing that you have identical masters, there is no basis for comparison between the MQA and non-MQA versions of anything, and this is troublesome.

Take a listen to Elton John's Captain Fantastic album and see what you think. I bought this album when it came out and listened to it hundreds if not thousands of times over the years. To me, the MQA version sounds analog, a beautiful recording. If you have to pick one song, listen to the title track, or Writing.


----------



## edisonwu

rkw said:


> The prevailing opinion I've seen online is that the HiFi and Masters settings use the same MQA encoded FLAC, just that HiFi doesn't apply MQA decoding to produce a higher rate stream.


I have read the same thing too. Below article I have just found the author was able to compare Tidal and Qobuz's redbook and non-MQA files. So I guess in some case the HIFI and Masters settings are different 16 bit 44.1khz files??
https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/62527-testing-mqa-is-it-worse-than-flac/


----------



## GoldenOne (May 6, 2022)

edisonwu said:


> A quick question guys, is the HIFI setting in Tidal a true normal FLAC data or it's just the WAV data from MQA edcoded FLAC? I kind of feel the MQA encoding is lacking transparency and have been trying to avoid it. Thanks in advance.


All Tidal content is encoded in FLAC, though as to whether it's lossless or not it depends.

For any track/album marked with the 'MASTER' badge, you will get served the MQA version, even if you're on the Hifi tier or select the Hifi quality setting. It just disables MQA core decoding and removes MQA Signalling so that your DAC does not recognise it as MQA.

For any track that does not carry the 'MASTER' badge, you will be served genuine lossless FLAC


More info here: https://goldensound.audio/2021/11/29/tidal-hifi-is-not-lossless/


----------



## edisonwu

GoldenOne said:


> All Tidal content is encoded in FLAC, though as to whether it's lossless or not it depends.
> 
> For any track/album marked with the 'MASTER' badge, you will get served the MQA version, even if you're on the Hifi tier or select the Hifi quality setting. It just disables MQA core decoding and removes MQA Signalling so that your DAC does not recognise it as MQA.
> 
> ...


Thanks. That totally makes sense now. I thought it was just my imagination. Most of the Tidal MQA album sounds worse than my CD rips files even though after been switched off Master to HIFI.


----------



## GoldenOne

edisonwu said:


> Thanks. That totally makes sense now. I thought it was just my imagination. Most of the Tidal MQA album sounds worse than my CD rips files even though after been switched off Master to HIFI.


Yep it's frustrating unfortunately.
TIDAL would be pretty much a no-compromises streaming solution if they hadn't done this and actually offered proper lossless on all tracks.

But for some reason they've chosen not to, so my Qobuz sub is staying for now :/

Honestly it seems that a lot of the music streaming services are making weird decisions that prevent any of them from being an easy no-compromises recommendation.

*Qobuz:* Library isn't as big as Tidal/Spotify/Deezer (though it is improving quite quickly), and is something they're working on.

*Tidal:* Lots of tracks you can't stream lossless, only MQA

*Deezer:* Offers lossless....but no exclusive mode/bitperfect output and no roon support. So no way to actually PLAY the lossless tracks bitperfect

*Spotify:* Indefinitely postponed their lossless offering

*Amazon HD:* UI is garbage and player does not automatically change sample rate, so to play stuff bitperfect you have to manually adjust your DAC sample rate all the time

*Apple Music:* No Lossless playback support on non-apple devices


----------



## old tech

gimmeheadroom said:


> I don't understand the question. There is 0 digital difference between WAV and FLAC of the same file, they're just different encodings/wrappers. I can take a WAV, transcode to FLAC and transcode the FLAC back to WAV and the original and new WAV are bit for bit identical.
> 
> MQA is high res but lossy. On my systems (I have several MQA DACs but even the desktop app decoding is extremely good) and to my ears, MQA sounds great in general. Without knowing that you have identical masters, there is no basis for comparison between the MQA and non-MQA versions of anything, and this is troublesome.
> 
> Take a listen to Elton John's Captain Fantastic album and see what you think. I bought this album when it came out and listened to it hundreds if not thousands of times over the years. *To me, the MQA version sounds analog*, a beautiful recording. If you have to pick one song, listen to the title track, or Writing.


That's hardly a compliment when analog is distinctly lower fidelity.  But then, MQA is lossy, like analog recordings/media.


----------



## old tech

gimmeheadroom said:


> I don't understand the question. There is 0 digital difference between WAV and FLAC of the same file, they're just different encodings/wrappers. I can take a WAV, transcode to FLAC and transcode the FLAC back to WAV and the original and new WAV are bit for bit identical.
> 
> MQA is high res but lossy. On my systems (I have several MQA DACs but even the desktop app decoding is extremely good) and to my ears, MQA sounds great in general. Without knowing that you have identical masters, there is no basis for comparison between the MQA and non-MQA versions of anything, and this is troublesome.
> 
> Take a listen to Elton John's Captain Fantastic album and see what you think. I bought this album when it came out and listened to it hundreds if not thousands of times over the years. *To me, the MQA version sounds analog*, a beautiful recording. If you have to pick one song, listen to the title track, or Writing.


That's hardly a compliment when analog is distinctly lower fidelity.  But then, MQA is lossy, like analog recordings/media.


----------



## MrWalkman (May 6, 2022)

Maybe it would be a good idea to focus on what you hear rather than thinking "ooh, MQA is lossy, etc., etc.". This will most likely lead to someone being biased, which will already lead to the impression that the sound is not as good as X or Y.

I have to agree with @gimmeheadroom, MQA sounds great, and I don't feel like I'm missing something in comparison with lossless FLAC.

Yeah, it would be nice if Meridian would be more precise/transparent about their MQA encoding process, but I think that some people are missing out on great audio experiences just because of focusing too much (sometimes) on some technical aspects.


----------



## old tech

Well I don't think all Flac files sound better than MQA or vice versa as every master is different and what sounds best is purely subjective to any individual. If anyone does believe that all MQA files or FLAC files (or indeed analog recordings, sigh) sounds the best then that really is mind over reality. I've listened to many MQA tracks and they really are no different to having a slightly different mastering of the same album - some may sound better to some ears while others would not. But for accuracy, well certainly no classical or full orchestral enthusiast would be interested in MQA.


----------



## rlw6534

GoldenOne said:


> Yep it's frustrating unfortunately.
> TIDAL would be pretty much a no-compromises streaming solution if they hadn't done this and actually offered proper lossless on all tracks.
> 
> But for some reason they've chosen not to, so my Qobuz sub is staying for now :/
> ...



FYI, Amazon Music plays all tracks at 192 kHz on my high-res capable Android DAPs, upsampling lower bitrate tracks.

Also, Apple Music plays lossless and high-res bit-perfect with no issues, again on capable (recent) Android DAPs.


----------



## PortableMusic

Dear All:

i've been enjoying Tidal MQA and my full hardware unfolding audio equipment for around 2 years now, and overall, i'm happy that i went with Tidal.

thinking about this recently, it seems to me that with bandwidth no longer really an issue for the vast majority of us, if not all of us, when will the need for MQA no longer exist?

if the need for MQA no longer exists, will Tidal still be around to compete with, say, Spotify?

if and when that time comes, would most Tidal folks migrate over to Spotify?  or...?

look forward to hearing your thoughts.  thank you.


----------



## amarkabove

PortableMusic said:


> Dear All:
> 
> i've been enjoying Tidal MQA and my full hardware unfolding audio equipment for around 2 years now, and overall, i'm happy that i went with Tidal.
> 
> ...


I certainly hope not. I'm not on Tidal because of MQA. I'm on Tidal because it actually cares about artists unlike Spotify.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

PortableMusic said:


> Dear All:
> 
> i've been enjoying Tidal MQA and my full hardware unfolding audio equipment for around 2 years now, and overall, i'm happy that i went with Tidal.
> 
> ...


Compression is dumb, MQA was a great idea in 1971. In 2020, not so much. I do like the sound quality and Tidal Hifi Plus is cheap here. If we get another bit perfect streaming service here (Qobuz is not available) I would just add it rather than leave Tidal.


----------



## battermoose11

edisonwu said:


> A quick question guys, is the HIFI setting in Tidal a true normal FLAC data or it's just the WAV data from MQA edcoded FLAC? I kind of feel the MQA encoding is lacking transparency and have been trying to avoid it. Thanks in advance.


How do you define "Transparency"? I have been a Tidal listener for about 4 years and although I do not have a dac that is MQA unfolder, I find that listening from computer thru Modi to a Vali 2 to my Hifiman HE400i to be excellent sounding. That being said, I can say there is far less fatigue listening for longer periods of time. I have my settings for Tidal set for MQA on the app.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

old tech said:


> That's hardly a compliment when analog is distinctly lower fidelity.  But then, MQA is lossy, like analog recordings/media.


That's delusion, srsly. Music *is* analog. Digital "music" is an approximation of music; it is not music.


----------



## GoldenOne (May 6, 2022)

rlw6534 said:


> FYI, Amazon Music plays all tracks at 192 kHz on my high-res capable Android DAPs, upsampling lower bitrate tracks.
> 
> Also, Apple Music plays lossless and high-res bit-perfect with no issues, again on capable (recent) Android DAPs.


On android currently afaik the only app that is bitperfect stock is actually TIDAL (though that has the MQA instead of lossless issue).

However using USB Audio Player Pro you can use local files or Qobuz bitperfect

I'm not actually sure about apple music, particularly with 44.1khz stuff (which has historically been the challenge on android due to it requiring 48khz output or higher).
But on windows you definitely can't even stream the lossless files at all


----------



## GoldenOne

PortableMusic said:


> Dear All:
> 
> i've been enjoying Tidal MQA and my full hardware unfolding audio equipment for around 2 years now, and overall, i'm happy that i went with Tidal.
> 
> ...


MQA was never about saving space.
It was about collecting license revenue.

So long as people continue to demand/buy MQA-enabled products, it'll likely stick around.
That is, as long as they don't continue to lose several million pounds per year and go bankrupt, which is looking more the case currently


----------



## rlw6534

GoldenOne said:


> On android currently afaik the only app that is bitperfect stock is actually TIDAL (though that has the MQA instead of lossless issue).
> 
> However using USB Audio Player Pro you can use local files or Qobuz bitperfect
> 
> ...



Tidal, Qobuz and Apple Music apps all play bitperfect on my recent FiiO, Hiby and Shanling DAPs (Android) at the correct sample rates.  The only one that doesn't is my older FiiO X7ii.   This is without UAPP.   Again Amazon Music always plays at 192 kHz regardless of source sample rate.  My observations are based on the sample rate display of the DAPs (status bar) which I have have no reason to doubt.    Of course these DAPS all have forced Android SRC bypass and MQA capabilities.   This wasn't true a couple of years ago, but it seems the apps have finally caught up with the DAP's audio technology.  Sony Android DAPS only play at 32/192 (high res streaming "on") but UAPP fixes this for Tidal and Qobuz.  I'm also pretty sure recent iBasso DAPs play bitperfect with these apps as well (I don't own any so not first hand).


----------



## GoldenOne

rlw6534 said:


> Tidal, Qobuz and Apple Music apps all play bitperfect on my recent FiiO, Hiby and Shanling DAPs (Android) at the correct sample rates.  The only one that doesn't is my older FiiO X7ii.   This is without UAPP.   Again Amazon Music always plays at 192 kHz regardless of source sample rate.  My observations are based on the sample rate display of the DAPs (status bar) which I have have no reason to doubt.    Of course these DAPS all have forced Android SRC bypass and MQA capabilities.   This wasn't true a couple of years ago, but it seems the apps have finally caught up with the DAP's audio technology.  Sony Android DAPS only play at 32/192 (high res streaming "on") but UAPP fixes this for Tidal and Qobuz.  I'm also pretty sure recent iBasso DAPs play bitperfect with these apps as well (I don't own any so not first hand).


DAPs are a bit of a different scenario cause some manufacturers modify the audio stack in different ways.
Some of them afaik have gotten it so that everything is bitperfect. Some are bitperfect but only with their own player app, and some are bitperfect but only for 48khz and above (44.1khz content gets resampled to 48khz)


----------



## rlw6534

GoldenOne said:


> DAPs are a bit of a different scenario cause some manufacturers modify the audio stack in different ways.
> Some of them afaik have gotten it so that everything is bitperfect. Some are bitperfect but only with their own player app, and some are bitperfect but only for 48khz and above (44.1khz content gets resampled to 48khz)



Yes, Android has traditionally been a bit of a mess with respect to audio.   Later Android versions (9 and up) are much better in this area with OS level high-resolution support (up to 192 kHz).  Also agree that recent DAPS with SRC bypass (and capable DACs) have helped as well.


----------



## PortableMusic

GoldenOne said:


> MQA was never about saving space.
> It was about collecting license revenue.
> 
> So long as people continue to demand/buy MQA-enabled products, it'll likely stick around.
> That is, as long as they don't *continue to lose several million pounds per year and go bankrupt*, which is looking more the case currently



@GoldenOne:  considering that Dorsey bought Tidal not long ago, one would think he's ready to either make improvements or changes so that it is a meaningful ongoing concern, right?

he wouldn't have bought it only to let it go bankrupt in a year or two!


----------



## hash70

Why did ifi promote a 2 month roon trial when myself and others fail to get any reply bck from ifi?filled the stupid forum in 3 times last week and still no reply bck from ifi,obviously I checked  my spam,typical support that we've All came to expect


----------



## GoldenOne

PortableMusic said:


> @GoldenOne:  considering that Dorsey bought Tidal not long ago, one would think he's ready to either make improvements or changes so that it is a meaningful ongoing concern, right?
> 
> he wouldn't have bought it only to let it go bankrupt in a year or two!


I was referring to MQA not Tidal. 
Tidal afaik is doing fine financially.

MQA not so much. 
Financial filings are public record and can be viewed on companies house. 

Their most recent filing shows a £4.4 million loss for the year.


----------



## hash70

Only reason I use tidal instead of quboz is I only pay £1 a morth for tidal with a vpn,if it wasn't for that I'd be using quboz,mqa is total **** up,one minute it's working then a fw update breaks it,don't have any problems like that with flac,mqa might have been a good idea 20y ago but not now,Internet speeds are more than fast enough plus it's been proven to have loads of digital  noise


----------



## MrWalkman

hash70 said:


> mqa is total **** up,one minute it's working then a fw update breaks it



Sounds like a firmware issue, not a MQA issue per se.


----------



## old tech

gimmeheadroom said:


> That's delusion, srsly. Music *is* analog. Digital "music" is an approximation of music; it is not music.


No music is acoustic not analogue. Anyway that's a misinformed understanding of digital information. We are talking about an electrical signal not a live event and it is trivially easy to prove that analogue equipment however sophisticated, can never match the fidelity of any DAC. Omg, what were they thinking by closing down analogue telephony or television broadcasting and replacing it with an approximation of voice or picture? 

NASA, the medical industry to name just two must have been mad to replace their analogue equipment with digital equipment over half a century ago. But acurately reproducing an electrical signal when it comes to music must be a lot more complex than finding gravity waves millions of light years away in space, right? I suppose then that all those audio purists in the classical genre were misguided fools to drive the development of digital audio and never looking back once CDs were released?


----------



## rlw6534 (May 6, 2022)

old tech said:


> No music is acoustic not analogue. Anyway that's a misinformed understanding of digital information. We are talking about an electrical signal not a live event and it is trivially easy to prove that analogue equipment however sophisticated, can never match the fidelity of any DAC. Omg, what were they thinking by closing down analogue telephony or television broadcasting and replacing it with an approximation of voice or picture?
> 
> NASA, the medical industry to name just two must have been mad to replace their analogue equipment with digital equipment over half a century ago. But acurately reproducing an electrical signal when it comes to music must be a lot more complex than finding gravity waves millions of light years away in space, right? I suppose then that all those audio purists in the classical genre were misguided fools to drive the development of digital audio and never looking back once CDs were released?



The first time I heard a CD (Flim and the BBs-Tricycle - DDD) I was completely blown away with the dynamics and lack of noise.  Totally amazing compared to LPs and cassettes (or older 8 Tracks).  This was, no doubt, the biggest leap of improvement in my lifetime with respect to audio.


----------



## old tech

rlw6534 said:


> The first time I heard a CD (Flim and the BBs-Tricycle - DDD) I was completely blown away with the dynamics and lack of noise.  Totally amazing compared to LPs and cassettes (or older 8 Tracks).  This was, no doubt, the biggest leap of improvement in my lifetime with respect to audio.


Same here. That's not to say that every CD or digital file sounds great because a lot can get screwed up by humans between AD to DA music production, like the loudness wars or poor mixing/mastering or even a poor recording to begin with which is more obvious with digital transparency. But when some music is described as 'analog sounding' it either mistakenly describes a good production or correctly a preference for less fidelity.


----------



## peterinvan

*TIDAL ASKING FOR ACCESS TO MY CAMERA!*
I am running Tidal 2.30.1.505 under the latest Windows 11.

For the first time, today, I got a warning from Norton that Tidal is asking for permisssion to access my camera.  I denied access.

Anyone have this experience?
Why would Tidal want access to my PC camera?


----------



## gimmeheadroom

peterinvan said:


> *TIDAL ASKING FOR ACCESS TO MY CAMERA!*
> I am running Tidal 2.30.1.505 under the latest Windows 11.
> 
> For the first time, today, I got a warning from Norton that Tidal is asking for permisssion to access my camera.  I denied access.
> ...


I don't know but I solve the problem by using PCs without any cam or mic 

Anyway, Windows should warn you without Norton. Not sure what's going on there.


----------



## jsmiller58

peterinvan said:


> *TIDAL ASKING FOR ACCESS TO MY CAMERA!*
> I am running Tidal 2.30.1.505 under the latest Windows 11.
> 
> For the first time, today, I got a warning from Norton that Tidal is asking for permisssion to access my camera.  I denied access.
> ...


----------



## KaiFi

I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but the Tidal app is now Apple Silicon ready. I have an M1 Max MBP and I didn't know it had been updated. You have to download the new Apple Silicon version from Tidal's website. If you have the Intel version, it won't automatically update to the Apple Silicon version.

Time to catch up, Qobuz. (I actually prefer Qobuz ultimately, at least for classical music, but their app is still Intel only so it's stuttery and slow on M1 Macs).


----------



## rkw

KaiFi said:


> I actually prefer Qobuz ultimately, at least for classical music, but their app is still Intel only so it's stuttery and slow on M1 Macs


Qobuz performance is also poor on Intel Macs (and Windows as well). If it's any consolation, it has actually improved and was much worse a few years ago.


----------



## KaiFi

rkw said:


> Qobuz performance is also poor on Intel Macs (and Windows as well). If it's any consolation, it has actually improved and was much worse a few years ago.



Aw well I use either through Roon, though Roon is not Apple Silicon ready! (Yet. Last I heard it is coming at some point...)


----------



## priest331

hello..
has anybody experienced this?

the tidal app in my Hiby R8 could download playlist, track radio, and album files faster, when i clear the cache via the file manager app (built in R8 app), and when i also delete the files in the artwork subfolder (also via the file manager app).

it's quite a tedious task to do, especially when you have forgotten to manually update your playlists, and to delete the said cache and artwork files before going to work so you can listen to tidal offline.

secondly, i also have to manually update my downloaded playlists and track radio / master radio playlist files from time to time. and the download process becomes very slow and annoying if i have not deleted the cache files and the album artwork files. is there an auto update (of downloaded playlists) function which i may have missed?
or there's just none?

i hope that there would be a future software update that could resolve this issue, as my tidal listening experience becomes more annoying than relaxing..


----------



## The1Signature

priest331 said:


> i hope that there would be a future software update that could resolve this issue, as my tidal listening experience becomes more annoying than relaxing..


the question is where should the update come from? hiby itself with its adapted firmware or is it an tidal app issue?

from my experience, any dap has a relatively weak processor and wlan module. so i never expect performance like a high-end smartphone.


----------



## priest331

from my experience, the issue is in the app, as all other music apps (which i can download offline music) that i have installed seem to work fine without any difficulty in downloading music files.


----------



## DataTutashxia

Question on TIDAL - if I go for HiFi plan, do I actually lose access to all "Master"  content as such, or only lose the ability to get this content in "Master" quality?


----------



## Brain Damage (Jun 8, 2022)

DataTutashxia said:


> Question on TIDAL - if I go for HiFi plan, do I actually lose access to all "Master"  content as such, or only lose the ability to get this content in "Master" quality?


You will get access to the same music content with HiFi as with HiFi Plus; however, you will only be able to stream music at CD quality (44.1/48 16bit compressed (folded) MQA flac files). With HiFi Plus you can stream Master quality (MQA flac files as per HiFi but these can be unfolded firstly to 88.2/96 24bit by Tidal native app/UAPP/Audirvana/Roon). If you have a dac capable of rendering or fully decoding MQA files then the 2nd unfold to 176.4/192 24bit of these Master files can be completed by the dac/renderer on the HiFi plus tier.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

I don't get how this is supposed to work. If they serve MQA, then full MQA DACs should be able to do all the unfolds.

Is it just that the 1st Tidal tier doesn't unfold at all via the desktop app?


----------



## rkw

gimmeheadroom said:


> I don't get how this is supposed to work. If they serve MQA, then full MQA DACs should be able to do all the unfolds.
> 
> Is it just that the 1st Tidal tier doesn't unfold at all via the desktop app?


They deliver the same MQA encoded file, but the HiFi tier streaming turns off the MQA flag so that a decoder (hardware or software) won't do unfolding.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

rkw said:


> They deliver the same MQA encoded file, but the HiFi tier streaming turns off the MQA flag so that a decoder (hardware or software) won't do unfolding.


I wish I could test that but I have the plus tier. Where is the MQA flag?


----------



## rkw

gimmeheadroom said:


> I wish I could test that but I have the plus tier. Where is the MQA flag?


MQA would not want it to be easily bypassed and it would be encoded.

People try to deduce how it works from available information and looking at the bit streams, but the reality is that nobody knows for sure because MQA does not reveal details of the format and encoding. Here is a discussion about the HiFi tier (search for others around the web): https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/mqa.1021429/page-25#post-26780779


----------



## gimmeheadroom

rkw said:


> MQA would not want it to be easily bypassed and it would be encoded.
> 
> People try to deduce how it works from available information and looking at the bit streams, but the reality is that nobody knows for sure because MQA does not reveal details of the format and encoding. Here is a discussion about the HiFi tier (search for others around the web): https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/mqa.1021429/page-25#post-26780779


Thanks, I'll look at that thread.

I know there is at least a header variable that tells certain dumb devices like my Oppo 205 whether the file is MQA or not. You can use command line tools to set that. I tested an MQA file without the header setting, the Oppo didn't know it was MQA; I used the tool and set the variable and Oppo decoded it correctly. And this works for PCM or FLAC.

But I have other gear that can start playing MQA in the middle of a file and so it seems (but I'm not sure) that it doesn't need that header variable. That suggests either good MQA decoders don't need any help from flags, or that the flag is carried in each block.


----------



## GoldenOne (Jun 14, 2022)

gimmeheadroom said:


> Thanks, I'll look at that thread.
> 
> I know there is at least a header variable that tells certain dumb devices like my Oppo 205 whether the file is MQA or not. You can use command line tools to set that. I tested an MQA file without the header setting, the Oppo didn't know it was MQA; I used the tool and set the variable and Oppo decoded it correctly. And this works for PCM or FLAC.
> 
> But I have other gear that can start playing MQA in the middle of a file and so it seems (but I'm not sure) that it doesn't need that header variable. That suggests either good MQA decoders don't need any help from flags, or that the flag is carried in each block.


MQA uses a couple different methods of telling a DAC that a file is MQA. And it depends on whether it is passing MQA through to the DAC itself, or if it is doing the first decode and then instructing the DAC do use the MQA filter for the 2nd/3rd unfold (which don't actually work in the same way as the first unfold and is effectively just a specific upsampling filter).
Often it uses more than one method just to ensure compatibility.

File metadata is one and this can be added manually or via some command line tools, but information within the audio itself is also used to tell a DAC that the stream is MQA, so that it can still work in situations where the player or DAC cannot be directly told that the file is MQA (or as you mentioned resuming playback from a file halfway through).

How this works is not public of course, but thanks to MQA using XMOS chips and the nature of running things on there it's possible to reverse engineer what is going on. For fun, here is a version of 'Nyan Cat' which your DAC should pick up as MQA as I've applied this signalling to it. (Your player may not though as players seem to sometimes rely ONLY on file metadata for detection). (I'm on my phone atm so this might be the wrong file actually but I think it's correct).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IBYFikcWtrIZgf0PRc7YRWmVTsS5Ta_F/view?usp=drivesdk

This signalling within the audio is also what allows software like roon to do EQ on MQA files and still have the DAC recognise it as MQA.
It does the first unfold, applies EQ, and then adds the MQA signalling back on top so that the DAC continues to recognise it as MQA. (I've not looked into how much adding EQ 'breaks' MQA processing actually but it could be interesting to look at)

The interesting thing with this signalling method is that it can cause issues with gapless playback due to not being instantly recognised, because the DAC will use its standard PCM processing/oversampling, suddenly detect that it's MQA and swap to the MQA oversampling filter, and when this happens during a track transition it can cause pauses/clicks/pops or other interruptions.
As a result of this, MQA has 'strongly encouraged' various manufacturers to use the MQA oversampling filter 100% of the time regardless of whether the audio being played is MQA or not. As this solves the gapless issue (but means you're not using a proper reconstruction filter for most content which is not great).
Lots of different devices from desktop stuff like the Topping D90 MQA to portable players like some of the Hiby ones all do this.


----------



## The1Signature

GoldenOne said:


> MQA uses a couple different methods of telling a DAC that a file is MQA. And it depends on whether it is passing MQA through to the DAC itself, or if it is doing the first decode and then instructing the DAC do use the MQA filter for the 2nd/3rd unfold (which don't actually work in the same way as the first unfold and is effectively just a specific upsampling filter).
> Often it uses more than one method just to ensure compatibility.
> 
> File metadata is one and this can be added manually or via some command line tools, but information within the audio itself is also used to tell a DAC that the stream is MQA, so that it can still work in situations where the player or DAC cannot be directly told that the file is MQA (or as you mentioned resuming playback from a file halfway through).
> ...


i don't know why but this and many other insights from mqa gives be a better feeling when streaming / downloading / buying albums from qobuz, where it is just a clean flac, done.


----------



## headfry (Jul 1, 2022)

...wow, so many posts here!

When I started this thread about 5 1/2 years ago I was really excited for MQA and enjoyed it a lot. In the past 6 months
I've switched to Apple Music as it now has hires and to my ears sounds about as good as Tidal, at much less cost.

AM does have Apple Spatial Audio using Dolby Atmos and while the Atmos catalogue is somewhat limited there
are some great albums, including classical (which I've been really getting into since procuring a Mojo 2 in Feb. !).
For me Apple Spatial Audio is a really interesting option! On the whole I listen to whatever music I like, whether it's Atmos
or not (most of it isn't but much of it in lossless quality), and I'm very happy with the service so far. This from a very particular audiophile.

Glad this thread has provided a lot of interest but at this point MQA is no longer relevant to me,
those still active here have fun!


----------



## Left Channel (Jul 2, 2022)

I'm still subscribing to Tidal and Qobuz, endlessly comparing. I've no interest in the other on-demand music streaming services.

Have to admit though, I mostly just listen to four CD-quality FLAC streams from internet radio station Radio Paradise. They support MQA only for BlueOS at this time.

Also Soma FM just launched an HLS test version of one of their thirty-eight internet radio streams in lossless FLAC.


----------



## Brain Damage

Left Channel said:


> I'm still subscribing to Tidal and Qobuz, endlessly comparing. I've no interest in the other on-demand music streaming services.
> 
> Have to admit though, I mostly just listen to four CD-quality FLAC streams from internet radio station Radio Paradise. They support MQA only for BlueOS at this time.
> 
> Also Soma FM just launched an HLS test version of one of their thirty-eight internet radio streams in lossless FLAC.


I also subscribe to both Qobuz and Tidal with no interest in any other streaming service. I always fluctuate between the two. I still can't say which I prefer - there are some Tidal Masters I think sound better than the Hi-Res Qobuz counterpart: equally, vice-versa applies in other circumstances. It is purely for this reason I keep both streaming services despite the miser in me wanting to cut my streaming outgoings. This is a hobby though and if music and audio quality mean that much, why not. Jury is still out on MQA. Keep loving the music folks 👍


----------



## PortableMusic

i've subscribed to Tidal for the last 2 years and i love it.  i have little basis for comparison because i am looking for the best sound with the largest music selection, including a robust classical selection (and of course the usual popular and jazz music selections).

like some here, i also use the BlueOS via the Node 2i.  i didn't see the need or benefits (for me) to upgrade to the newer version of the Node 2i.

even though i'm a huge fan of Tidal, i do question the future viability of MQA.  as bandwidth considerations are passé currently, what is the need going forward for MQA, i wonder?

i'm also concerned about whether or not Tidal can remain a profitable enterprise and stay in business.  it's a good thing, i suppose, that Dorsey bought Tidal as he has deep pockets, but still, will he be ok with it losing money for many more years?

i'm not inclined to switch to another service UNLESS it has equally good sound quality AND depth of musical selections.  i am not entirely happy with Tidal's classical selections, nor am i happy with Tidal's amateurish way of searching for classical music, artists, orchestras, etc.  Still, all in all, it's enjoyable for me to use.

of course, i hope someone comes in and presents another superior option, but thus far, i see little reason for someone like me to switch.


----------



## Maxpain

Good morning,

I am reading all the way back of this thread...and I don't get if the zen stream supports first unfold through tidal connect anymore? Providing that someone has an mqa renderer dac like the zen dac signature (v.1)....if not...then the only way to get the first unfold with that gear is to use soon or tidal desktop app?

I also have found that tidal offers lots of mqa albums in 2 versions...one is mqa studio and other is mqa certified...with my gear (zen stream, zen dac) in almost all of the cases...the mqa certified sound quality was superior to the mqa studio..more open and clear...has anyone else had the same results?


----------



## gimmeheadroom

For a long while whenever the MQA version came out the Redbook version disappeared. But for the last year it seems the trend has reversed and now there are often multiple versions of the album as @Maxpain said. To me it is great to have a choice.


----------



## Maxpain

I know that some albums are offered in both Flac and mqa versions. What I don't understand is how can an album in mqa certified version sounds far better than the same album in mqa studio version. If its a different master version...shouldn't be stated? I think that Tidal should also state the sample rate on the album...roon does it..why not tidal app too?


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Maxpain said:


> I know that some albums are offered in both Flac and mqa versions.



Hi, FLAC is just a container- everything on Tidal is PCM and the container doesn't matter.



Maxpain said:


> What I don't understand is how can an album in mqa certified version sounds far better than the same album in mqa studio version. If its a different master version...shouldn't be stated? I think that Tidal should also state the sample rate on the album...roon does it..why not tidal app too?



According to this https://bobtalks.co.uk/blog/mqa-philosophy/mqa-authentication-and-quality/ the Studio version is what should sound better. I have not compared green and blue versions, when there are multiple versions I usually choose which one I play based on whether it's an expanded album or not (I prefer the originals).

The page also implies that indeed, Studio and green are most likely different masters.



Maxpain said:


> I think that Tidal should also state the sample rate on the album...roon does it..why not tidal app too?



Well, I agree that it would be nice to show the sample rate and bit depth, but whether Roon does it or not is completely irrelevant.

I get the information from hardware, so I can see exactly what Tidal desktop or API is sending, and what it expands to.

We have asked in Bluesound forums for this info but Bluesound has ignored us for at least two years on this feature.


----------



## Maxpain

gimmeheadroom said:


> Hi, FLAC is just a container- everything on Tidal is PCM and the container doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What I mean is that there are both Flac (16/44) and mqa (24/96 etc) versions of the same album which is expected. There are also often 2 mqa versions of the same album. One mqa studio(blue) and one mqa certified (green). Now my gear (zen stream and zen dac signature version1) is not capable to fully decode mqa files with tidal connect.

I will give an example with an album Aretha Franklin "young, gifted and black''...there are 2 mqa versions....to my system...mqa green version sounds way better than the mqa studio...tidal does not have any indication that we are talking about different masters. In that case the studio version sounds noticeably worse...what I am trying to understand is this...

does this occurs cause my gear is not mqa capable so there is no point for me to be paying tidal master tier? or sometimes some albums studio versions are worse? As for the sample rate information...I don't use room cause it was too expensive for the use I intended to do...and ifi dac does not have any sample rate indication. I never had any blue sound device so far...in fact zen stream was my first streamer!


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Maxpain said:


> What I mean is that there are both Flac (16/44) and mqa (24/96 etc) versions of the same album which is expected. There are also often 2 mqa versions of the same album. One mqa studio(blue) and one mqa certified (green). Now my gear (zen stream and zen dac signature version1) is not capable to fully decode mqa files with tidal connect.
> 
> I will give an example with an album Aretha Franklin "young, gifted and black''...there are 2 mqa versions....to my system...mqa green version sounds way better than the mqa studio...tidal does not have any indication that we are talking about different masters. In that case the studio version sounds noticeably worse...what I am trying to understand is this...
> 
> does this occurs cause my gear is not mqa capable so there is no point for me to be paying tidal master tier? or sometimes some albums studio versions are worse? As for the sample rate information...I don't use room cause it was too expensive for the use I intended to do...and ifi dac does not have any sample rate indication. I never had any blue sound device so far...in fact zen stream was my first streamer!



You mean there are Redbook and MQA versions. You cannot know if something on Tidal or any service is FLAC or not, and by the way, MQA can also be compressed with FLAC.

I cannot know why you hear a difference between Blue (Studio) and Green (MQA, but not studio) on your gear but the easiest explanation is that the two masters are different, and this is what the page I linked suggests. There is no other reason for multiple MQA versions. I don't think it has anything to do with your gear, perhaps you just like what you like. I think ifi has pointed out how you can get some tech. info from the LED colors, you could check upthread or contact ifi with your questions.

We have seen that Tidal content varies across regions, the last time we checked some Metallica albums, the guys in America had very few Masters and we had only Masters. 

Agreed that Tidal and all streaming services should show the master information clearly. This does not seem to happen.


----------



## peterinvan

gimmeheadroom said:


> Agreed that Tidal and all streaming services should show the master information clearly. This does not seem to happen.



I would really like Tidal to include the provenance and sample rate of all the Masters albums (under the "info" button?).   This should clearly inform us of the original source material (before "Masterizing").


----------



## Maxpain

I think that Tidal has a lot to benefit from giving info about the origin of the master of the album that's being streamed. It makes the user feeling closer to the music...like when you buy a cd or a digital copy. Room took advantage of that and did good. 

For my situation..I care more about if my gear is capable (after the firmware update on the zen stream) to completely or partially decode mqa. I asked that ifi in another thread too but never got an answer as far as I remember.

So if someone from ifi keeps an eye on this thread I would appreciate an answer...


----------



## EMINENT (Jul 17, 2022)

I have just started trialing Qobuz as my Tidal yearly sub is coming to an end in Oct.

So, I have noticed differences for sure. For those that say you can't hear a difference, it's important to disclose what you are listening/comparing with. Maybe what you are using isn't capable of exposing differences or the song isn't good at exposing, if you are using headphones or not, etc. So many variables.

So far a lot of breakbeat content I would like to have is missing on Qobuz which is a shame. On the flip side, I am not pleased with the inability to play standard, non MQA Flac on Tidal. The sonic differences could come down to preferences but for now content is winning as much as I don't like the deception.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

You can't compare Tidal to Qobuz because you don't know what recordings you're hearing. This has nothing to do with Tidal or Qobuz, as far as I know that's true of every streaming service. And it is another variable, the most important one.

People know they're getting MQA when they sign up for Tidal. It's hard to understand the hysteria, complaints, and unrighteous indignation regarding MQA. Nobodys holding a gun to your heads, fellas. If you don't like it, move along. Yes compression is dumb, yes it's lossy, yes it's high res, yes it sounds good.

Where I live Qobuz is not available, Tidal Hifi Plus is cheap. I have Deezer Hifi for fills and Redbook albums that might not be on Tidal. There is no other Redbook streaming available here, and not even Deezer Hifi desktop is bitperfect. So I use a streamer to get bitperfect from Deezer.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Maxpain said:


> I think that Tidal has a lot to benefit from giving info about the origin of the master of the album that's being streamed. It makes the user feeling closer to the music...like when you buy a cd or a digital copy. Room took advantage of that and did good.
> 
> For my situation..I care more about if my gear is capable (after the firmware update on the zen stream) to completely or partially decode mqa. I asked that ifi in another thread too but never got an answer as far as I remember.
> 
> So if someone from ifi keeps an eye on this thread I would appreciate an answer...


@iFi audio


----------



## Maxpain

I get that tidal is doing business with mqa and its marketing is directing the efforts on the mqa products..but....what I don't get and to be honest I don't really like...is that they don't offer a non mqa version of every album so someone can choose. 

Having said that its not that mqa sounds bad to me but they should offer a choice. I also live in a country where qobuz is not available and I doubt it will ever be...and I do appreciate what tidal has to offer but there is always room to be better..why choose to disappoint those who don't like mqa? Why not offer both? Bandwidth costs? They offer 2 or more mqa versions of an album as we said earlier...

I believe that Tidal must not be an mqa only service...


----------



## peterinvan

EMINENT said:


> "I am not pleased with the inability to play standard, non MQA Flac on Tidal. The sonic differences could come down to preferences but for now content is winning as much as I don't like the deception."


Using Windows 11 Tidal app.   

If I set my Tidal streaming audio quality to "HiFi"  is Tidal streaming the non-Masterized file or a throttled version of the Master they have on file?


----------



## gimmeheadroom

There is no throttling. MQA tracks play just fine without being expanded.


----------



## Maxpain

peterinvan said:


> Using Windows 11 Tidal app.
> 
> If I set my Tidal streaming audio quality to "HiFi"  is Tidal streaming the non-Masterized file or a throttled version of the Master they have on file?


It plays the mqa file without the unfolding process. The only way to get the Flac file is to play an album with no mqa label. Now I don't know how much different is the mqa file from the Flac file of the same master of the same album...I can hear a difference with my system.


----------



## rkw

Maxpain said:


> what I don't get and to be honest I don't really like...is that they don't offer a non mqa version of every album so someone can choose.


The record labels own the music and they decide which version they want to publish on Tidal. Some major conglomerates such as Warner and Sony have chosen to replace their albums on Tidal with MQA versions. It is possible that Tidal encourages the practice, but it is under the control of each record label.


----------



## Brain Damage

gimmeheadroom said:


> You can't compare Tidal to Qobuz because you don't know what recordings you're hearing. This has nothing to do with Tidal or Qobuz, as far as I know that's true of every streaming service. And it is another variable, the most important one.
> 
> People know they're getting MQA when they sign up for Tidal. It's hard to understand the hysteria, complaints, and unrighteous indignation regarding MQA. Nobodys holding a gun to your heads, fellas. If you don't like it, move along. Yes compression is dumb, yes it's lossy, yes it's high res, yes it sounds good.
> 
> Where I live Qobuz is not available, Tidal Hifi Plus is cheap. I have Deezer Hifi for fills and Redbook albums that might not be on Tidal. There is no other Redbook streaming available here, and not even Deezer Hifi desktop is bitperfect. So I use a streamer to get bitperfect from Deezer.


Having been a Qobuz & Tidal user for 2 years, I think you can compare both. Qobuz and Tidal obviously select the Masters they think is best for their platform (Tidal who then from this create their MQA remaster: compared to Qobuz who select the best hi-res version to stream). Purely, from this you can compare. It's pointless doing this from the angle of 'what master did they use?' as you'll never know.

I have a couple of MQA renderers (dragonfly black and Ztella) and full MQA decoders (LG V30 & V40) and I can honestly say, IMO, some Tidal Masters sound better than their Qobuz counterpart and vice-versa. 

Not everyone signed up to Tidal for MQA based on the different streaming tiers and this left customers a choice between listening to MQA and/or redbook versions of albums. However, Tidal is now guilty of either forcing people (who don't have renderers and/or decoders) to listen to the non fully unfolded MQA version as, in the case of Pink Floyd's and Coldplay's catalogue, their redbook albums were completely replaced with the MQA remasters. You cannot listen to any redbook version of a single Pink Floyd album.

This is fitting in with MQA's marketing strategy. I have nothing against MQA - some albums soubd really good; however, I am not liking the way they are forcing themselves within tidal, taking away Tidal's original redbook files. At 19.99 a month, which is close to double a monthly Qobuz subscription, customers should have a choice. Also more and more albums are being rattled out in MQA at such a rate, you question whether provenance is really a thing (MQA must have millions of staff to check back on what ADCs were used, etc.). Coupled with this, there are more and more MQA releases that are OK, but not superior. I tend to find its only some 70s recordings that have been remastered in MQA that sound better (possibly because the provenance checks - as mentioned above - have been done). Who knows though and who ever will?

I have now left Tidal and sticking purely to Qobuz as for the reasons and pricing mentioned above, I cannot justify having both. I have purchased MQA studio albuns of those I like (from High Res Audio - MQA sudio label). Sorted.


----------



## peterinvan (Jul 18, 2022)

Brain Damage said:


> ... you question whether provenance is really a thing (MQA must have millions of staff to check back on what ADCs were used, etc.).


When I suggested that Tidal include the provanance information for "Master" tracks, I was assuming that they have this info in a database, else how do they certify the MQA level (studio, artist approved, etc).  I know, making assumptions makes ....

Tidal and MQA's policy about being obscure about the whole MQA process is a turn off for many (see multiple threads all over the web).

I wish we had Qobuz here in Canada so I could compare for myself.


----------



## gimmeheadroom (Jul 18, 2022)

peterinvan said:


> When I suggested that Tidal include the provanance information for "Master" tracks, I was assuming that they have this info in a database, else how do they certify the MQA level (studio, artist approved, etc).  I know, making assumptions makes ....
> 
> Tidal and MQA's policy about being obscure about the whole MQA process is a turn off for many (see multiple threads all over the web).
> 
> I wish we had Qobuz here in Canada so I could compare for myself.


As was said, no streaming service provides this. And as was also said, Tidal doesn't certify anything, the music companies do.

This thread is about enjoying various Tidal masters. Instead, disguntled people with nothing better to do, most of whom don't even have Tidal, spend their valuable time thread-crapping and bashing Tidal and MQA. It's amazing this site tolerates it. But, you all go into my ignore list. Your pointless whining is not worth reading.


----------



## Bret Halford (Jul 18, 2022)

One of the things I quite enjoy about Tidal is that they seem to unlock new releases on GMT, compared to Qobuz which I think is local midnight... there were a few electronic albums released this spring, that I ended up listening to first on MQA because of this. They are both upconversions as far as I can tell (the qobuz version is 44 kHz, vs. 88 kHz on renderer/UAPP), but I quite enjoy them:

https://tidal.com/browse/track/221536151

https://tidal.com/browse/track/222402210


----------



## rkw

Brain Damage said:


> Qobuz and Tidal obviously select the Masters they think is best for their platform


Qobuz and Tidal have no choice. They publish whatever the record label gives to them.


----------



## gimmeheadroom (Jul 19, 2022)

Bret Halford said:


> One of the things I quite enjoy about Tidal is that they seem to unlock new releases on GMT, compared to Qobuz which I think is local midnight... there were a few electronic albums released this spring, that I ended up listening to first on MQA because of this. They are both upconversions as far as I can tell (the qobuz version is 44 kHz, vs. 88 kHz on renderer/UAPP), but I quite enjoy them:



That's cool, I never noticed that about the release schedule! I'm usually listening to recordings made at least before 1980 



rkw said:


> Qobuz and Tidal have no choice. They publish whatever the record label gives to them.



I remember you have posted many helpful and interesting things about Tidal and the music biz. Many thanks for the info!


----------



## Maxpain (Jul 19, 2022)

rkw said:


> The record labels own the music and they decide which version they want to publish on Tidal. Some major conglomerates such as Warner and Sony have chosen to replace their albums on Tidal with MQA versions. It is possible that Tidal encourages the practice, but it is under the control of each record label.


Are you sure that's true? I was under the impression that the album is encoded to mqa (directly from the master tape according to the marketing) and then is streamed to tidal...I mean I was under the impression that tidal decides. Maybe I don't know how it works. In any case it would be nice to have at least information about what master are we listen to.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Maxpain said:


> In any case it would be nice to have at least information about what master are we listen to.



We have all agreed to that a few times already but no streaming service offers it afaik


----------



## Brain Damage

gimmeheadroom said:


> We have all agreed to that a few times already but no streaming service offers it afaik


Qobuz does.


----------



## The1Signature

Brain Damage said:


> I have a couple of MQA renderers (dragonfly black and Ztella) and full MQA decoders (LG V30 & V40) and I can honestly say, IMO, some Tidal Masters sound better than their Qobuz counterpart and vice-versa.


i have tidal and qobuz for around 2 years, too.

i see the issue exactly like you.


----------



## Double C

I rejoined Tidal this year and now have Apple Music and Tidal as my streaming services. I think both sound great and I really like the way both Atmos and MQA sound to my ears but for me the biggest standout for Tidal was the CREDITS section. I can now know what monster bassist, trumpet/sax, singer, etc is killing it on a track, which helps me to discover more sounds.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Double C said:


> I rejoined Tidal this year and now have Apple Music and Tidal as my streaming services. I think both sound great and I really like the way both Atmos and MQA sound to my ears but for me the biggest standout for Tidal was the CREDITS section. I can now know what monster bassist, trumpet/sax, singer, etc is killing it on a track, which helps me to discover more sounds.


That's a good point. I also enjoy seeing the lineup on great albums.


----------



## Brain Damage (Jul 20, 2022)

This may be of interest- I managed to do a quick bit of research before my subscription to Tidal ends:

This first image is the metadata for Tidal's MQA version of The Who's 'Who's Next' album streamed through UAPP.

The second image shows the metadata for Qobuz's Hi-Res version of The Who's 'Who's Next' album streamed through UAPP. You'll note that this is a 2014 remaster of the original 1971 recording - Geffen Records.
​


----------



## rkw

Maxpain said:


> I was under the impression that the album is encoded to mqa (directly from the master tape according to the marketing) and then is streamed to tidal...I mean I was under the impression that tidal decides.


The music label is in control and decides what they want to give to consumers. Tidal is only a middleman delivery service.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 25, 2022)

Maxpain said:


> I was under the impression that the album is encoded to mqa (directly from the master tape according to the marketing) and then is streamed to tidal...I mean I was under the impression that tidal decides.


Nope. The record label owns the recording rights, tidal and other distributors pay for a licence to distribute whatever they’ve negotiated with the label/s but they will never have direct access to the master recordings, only to whatever copies in whatever format have been negotiated. Don’t believe the marketing!


Brain Damage said:


> You'll note that this is a 2014 remaster of the original 1971 recording - Geffen Records.


Incidentally, Olympic Studios was one of the world’s great recording studios for many years. Then in the late 1980’s it was taken over and the new studio manager hired a bunch of skips and simply dumped their huge collection of master recording tapes. Entire albums by Hendrix, Queen, Led Zepplin, Deep Purple, Ella Fitzgerald, Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Moody Blues, Pink Floyd, The Eagles, Bowie, Clapton and numerous others, along with all the original film music master recordings done there, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, The Italian Job, Life of Brian and others. There were thousands of master tapes covering around 25 years, among them were 3 albums by The Who, including “Who’s Next”, all just dumped!

However, the skips were left unsecured outside the building for a week or so and  obviously someone noticed and did a bit of “dumpster diving”, some of the salvaged master tapes were converted into “bootlegs” but most were thrown away again, as they’d been too weather damaged. So there’s a slight possibility the original recordings of “Who’s Next” still exist but most likely they ended up with the vast majority of others, taken away 35 years ago and either incinerated or put in a land fill somewhere. Again, I’d take the marketing with a pinch of salt.

G


----------



## wwyjoe

Folks, i'm streaming Tidal and Apple Music lossless via bluetooth LDAC to my portable dac amp. 

For Tidal MQA, the files will be downsampled to 16bit/ 44.1? 

For Apple Music, are files which are higher than 16bit/ 44.1 (e.g. 24bit/ 44.1, 24bit/ 96, 24bit/ 192) also downsampled? 

Technically speaking, which of the above would stream at the highest quality via bluetooth LDAC? 

Thanks


----------



## chef8489

wwyjoe said:


> Folks, i'm streaming Tidal and Apple Music lossless via bluetooth LDAC to my portable dac amp.
> 
> For Tidal MQA, the files will be downsampled to 16bit/ 44.1?
> 
> ...


Well if you are streaming via Bluetooth you are not getting true lossless anyhow.


----------



## rlw6534

wwyjoe said:


> Folks, i'm streaming Tidal and Apple Music lossless via bluetooth LDAC to my portable dac amp.
> 
> For Tidal MQA, the files will be downsampled to 16bit/ 44.1?
> 
> ...


This is a quote from the Q5K app that implies that 44.1 source is best for LDAC quality, by avoiding resampling:

Sony LDAC supports the sample rate up to 96KHz. Typically, most source audio is 44.1KHz, and YouTube Audio streaming is 44.1KHz as well. Android automatically selects the highest LDAC sample rate, 96KHz, and it upsamples the source audio to 96KHz for the LDAC encoder. For a 44.1KHz source, encoding 44.1KHz @ 909kbps would provide slightly better sound quality than encoding 96KHz(Oversampled) @ 990kbps. You can opt-out the supported LDAC frequencies and fix the LDAC sample rate to 44.1KHz. If you usually listen to 44.1KHz sources, fixing the LDAC sample rate at 44.1KHz, as is, would provide the best sound quality as well as slightly longer battery time.


----------



## peterinvan

*EQ for Tidal via HiBy Music.*

I just discovered that HiBy Music 4.1 includes a link to my Tidal account.
It's great to apply the EQ on my Tidal tracks.  

My 70+ ears need some treble boost, and with EQ I can now listen at lower volumes.  Double plus.

However the HiBy GUI for the Tidal app is lacking some key functionality, like the ability to sort Albums, Artists, Playlists.

I still have to use Tidal to see recommendations based on my years of usage.


----------



## ProteinFromTheSea (Oct 23, 2022)

I love their sound, _however_, this is out of necessity. Not to be conspiratorial, but considering that Tidal's 16-bit 44kHz FLACs are mysteriously worse than any other 16-bit 44kHz FLACs, I would not be surprised if Tidal sabotages the quality of their hifi option, in order to make MQA sound better by comparison. They still sound brilliant. Listen to Raha ja rakkaus by Leevi and the Leavings, This is Happening by LCD Soundsystem and Primal Heart by Kimbra, three solid albums that sound great with MQA.


----------



## peterinvan

Playing Tidal from HiBy music​I was excited to try Tidal from my Hiby Music App (Android on FiiO M11Pro).

I was able to use the excellent Hiby EQ functions playing my Tidal tracks. The Tidal UI is lacking functionality, but EQ is great.

HOWEVER… the link to Tidal seems to time out after I exit the Hiby app. I can’t find a way to re-establish the link to Tidal.

I have had to delete the Hiby app, re-install it, and log into Tidal again.

Any suggestions?


----------

