MQA Discussion

rbbert said:
I can't remember which of the MQA threads at Computer Audiophile had the post, but there was a brief review from a listening session with several people comparing SACD, hi-res download and Tidal MQA of the same recording, using an MQA DAC. At that listening session, everyone seemed to prefer the MQA version.
Click to expand...

It is comparing of implementations only. We even don't know exactly there was single master record or separate for each format.

Even if there was single master, it was converted. And we compare converters, not formats, again.

When we compare DSD and MQA/PCM we compare different audio ways even in single DAC (if it support all formats).

If there used different DAC, we compare the DACs, not formats.

Comparing formats possibly in single form, as example normalized to WAV. Example: WAV1 > DSD > WAV2 or WAV1 > MQA > WAV2

We can compare WAV1 and WAV2 only.

But result may depend on quality conversion between formats.
 
still-one said:
There are over 1400 MQA albums currently available. The ~500 on the Tidal Master list plus another ~940 identified in the list maintained on the Roon site.
Click to expand...

Hey Jim, Thx for reminding to look at the updated spreadsheet, just found 3 new Miles Davis albums that have been added and I was amazed at the sound of the Association greatest hits, which was also on the new list.
 
Randy Myers said:
wow.... I just read an article from John Siau from Benchmark. You can definitely put them on the side of non-MQA supporters. He goes deep into the technical aspects of MQA and pretty much poo poos on the whole thing...

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa
Click to expand...

I love reading the articles/comments from companies or individuals that are not MQA supporters and all of their reasons while I am listening to an MQA album that is screaming good. It's makes you wonder if they have actually heard a finely tuned system with a great recording that has then been MQA'd???

BIG disconnect from what I am hearing (and only MQA SW decoded at the moment) and they are saying.
 
Rhapsody said:
I love reading the articles/comments from companies or individuals that are not MQA supporters and all of their reasons while I am listening to an MQA album that is screaming good. It's makes you wonder if they have actually heard a finely tuned system with a great recording that has then been MQA'd???

BIG disconnect from what I am hearing (and only MQA SW decoded at the moment) and they are saying.
Click to expand...

I completely agree.
 
Rhapsody said:
I love reading the articles/comments from companies or individuals that are not MQA supporters and all of their reasons while I am listening to an MQA album that is screaming good. It's makes you wonder if they have actually heard a finely tuned system with a great recording that has then been MQA'd???

BIG disconnect from what I am hearing (and only MQA SW decoded at the moment) and they are saying.
Click to expand...

You must remember even though your DAC has not yet been updated to handle MQA it is still the best DAC I have ever heard playing PCM. No wonder you are happy with or without MQA. :D Unfortunately I am not in the market for a DAC in that price range. Other than that, I agree with your post.
 
I think what we witnessed was a chicken & egg situation. Manufacturers wanted to see the beef, MQA was hand tied by Tidal ("throw the switch!!") and consumers sat around for two years wondering if it would ever happen. Even now, the list of products that can play MQA are few and far between. My HUNCH is that the Aurender A10 ($5500) will be THE MQA product to have under $10k or even more. It has a great sounding DAC capable of handling PCM, DSD, MQA, essentially an N100H built into it (with USB out), 4TB of storage, great app, and even volume control for those not needing/wanting a preamp. Fingers crossed that the A10 is MQA certified sooner rather than later.

http://www.audiostream.com/content/aurender-a10-server-mqa#RT4ScvO0Psa6RGTh.97
 
still-one said:
You must remember even though your DAC has not yet been updated to handle MQA it is still the best DAC I have ever heard playing PCM. No wonder you are happy with or without MQA. :D Unfortunately I am not in the market for a DAC in that price range. Other than that, I agree with your post.
Click to expand...

I completely agree the Select makes pretty much anything you stick into it sound really good. Adding a little MQA flavor, even the SW decoded only and even through the Aurender at 24/48, takes it up a notch. Will be interesting to hear the new usb/mqa module that I am waiting for.....should be da' bomb.

The Select has a LOT to do with why, as you said, I am happy with the regular streaming pcm. If you run a cd through the dac it sounds better, if you listen to DSD it sounds better, BUT when you just play regular Tidal it sounds so good, you don't feel the need for it to "sound better". Especially when you factor in the music variety that you get with the regular Tidal streaming.
 
Rhapsody said:
I love reading the articles/comments from companies or individuals that are not MQA supporters and all of their reasons while I am listening to an MQA album that is screaming good. It's makes you wonder if they have actually heard a finely tuned system with a great recording that has then been MQA'd???

BIG disconnect from what I am hearing (and only MQA SW decoded at the moment) and they are saying.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I get the impression these other non-MQA companies are just sorry they didn't think of the idea.
 
What do you mean by "SW decoded"? I thought there aren't any SW decoders, rather you're just getting an "unfolded" FLAC.

I think I have a case that may be "SW decoded" but I'm not sure what's gong on. When I play an Depeche Mode "A Broken Frame" via the Tidal Program (on my CAPS PIPELINE which is connected to my DCS Debussy over USB), it unfolds as 24/96. But, when I use Roon and play back the same album (I made sure it was the same album by adding it to my favorites and the only other copy they have shows as 16/44) it unfolds as 24/48. Can someone explain?

Rhapsody said:
I completely agree the Select makes pretty much anything you stick into it sound really good. Adding a little MQA flavor, even the SW decoded only and even through the Aurender at 24/48, takes it up a notch. Will be interesting to hear the new usb/mqa module that I am waiting for.....should be da' bomb.

The Select has a LOT to do with why, as you said, I am happy with the regular streaming pcm. If you run a cd through the dac it sounds better, if you listen to DSD it sounds better, BUT when you just play regular Tidal it sounds so good, you don't feel the need for it to "sound better". Especially when you factor in the music variety that you get with the regular Tidal streaming.
Click to expand...
 
radioactive said:
What do you mean by "SW decoded"? I thought there aren't any SW decoders, rather you're just getting an "unfolded" FLAC.

I think I have a case that may be "SW decoded" but I'm not sure what's gong on. When I play an Depeche Mode "A Broken Frame" via the Tidal Program (on my CAPS PIPELINE which is connected to my DCS Debussy over USB), it unfolds as 24/96. But, when I use Roon and play back the same album (I made sure it was the same album by adding it to my favorites and the only other copy they have shows as 16/44) it unfolds as 24/48. Can someone explain?
Click to expand...

My perception is that if you do NOT have an MQA DAC that but you play a MQA file from Tidal through any 24/96 DAC you are getting a file that was unfolded or SW decoded by Tidal. I use the terms unfolded or SW decoded interchangeably vs HW decoded by a HW decoded DAC. That's just the way I think about it, right or wrong the "labeling" of SW decoded or unfolded are the same to me.

If you play a MQA file from the Tidal Desktop app on a pc or a mac and connect to any 24/96 DAC you will get 24/96, which I believe is the second "unfolding" VS if you play the MQA file through a Lumin, Aurender, Roon or ANY other device vs. the desktop Tidal app, then you only get the first "unfold" which plays back at 24/48.
 
Interesting. That helps.

Also, FWIW, I went back and played those tracks and found the volume/compression issue was not present with the latest version of the Tidal desktop program. I'm thinking the listening I did with a buddy and his DAC need to be redone since it was on the older SW.

Rhapsody said:
My perception is that if you do NOT have an MQA DAC that but you play a MQA file from Tidal through any 24/96 DAC you are getting a file that was unfolded or SW decoded by Tidal. I use the terms unfolded or SW decoded interchangeably vs HW decoded by a HW decoded DAC. That's just the way I think about it, right or wrong the "labeling" of SW decoded or unfolded are the same to me.

If you play a MQA file from the Tidal Desktop app on a pc or a mac and connect to any 24/96 DAC you will get 24/96, which I believe is the second "unfolding" VS if you play the MQA file through a Lumin, Aurender, Roon or ANY other device vs. the desktop Tidal app, then you only get the first "unfold" which plays back at 24/48.
Click to expand...
 
WOW. Sounds like Tidal needs to better organize. Perhaps that's their intent (to not list all the MQA titles in one place)? Maybe they want everyone looking for Easter Eggs :)

still-one said:
There are over 1400 MQA albums currently available. The ~500 on the Tidal Master list plus another ~940 identified in the list maintained on the Roon site.
Click to expand...
 
radioactive said:
Interesting. That helps.

Also, FWIW, I went back and played those tracks and found the volume/compression issue was not present with the latest version of the Tidal desktop program. I'm thinking the listening I did with a buddy and his DAC need to be redone since it was on the older SW.
Click to expand...

I think if someone is not getting really great sound from even the first unfold/24/48 then something is going on with their system/connections/SW versions/???. When everything is set up properly MQA streaming Tidal sounds very good, even at 24/48 through an Aurender/Lumin etc. 24/96 is a pretty big jump up from that and then HW decoding with an MQA DAC is "the berries".
 
radioactive said:
WOW. Sounds like Tidal needs to better organize. Perhaps that's their intent (to not list all the MQA titles in one place)? Maybe they want everyone looking for Easter Eggs :)
Click to expand...

I just think they are overwhelmed. The "roll-out" could have been a LOT better, BUT it's a whole lot better than not having done it, even the way they did.

I don't even think about native DSD any longer because the selection from native DSD was so obscure (for me) that even the 1400 MQA titles that exist in Tidal today blows away the native DSD available titles.
 
"MQA is not a lossy format, but that’s not the point, it’s about timing. Taking a “studio to user” approach to maintain perfect clocking and jitter reduction or in this case elimination."

Mike said:
https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2017/03/05/mqa-a-canvas-of-the-future/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Sorry for my English, may be I wrong understand. But how audio data format can impact to clocking?

Clocking and jitter defined inside DAC only (except rare case of external synchronization). All previous stages can cause gaps in data stream only.
 
YuriKorzunov said:
Sorry for my English, may be I wrong understand. But how audio data format can impact to clocking?

Clocking and jitter defined inside DAC only (except rare case of external synchronization). All previous stages can cause gaps in data stream only.
Click to expand...

First, I'm not an MQA proponent. What MQA claims is that in order for a DAC to be MQA certified means it can take proprietary information encoded in the non-audio parts of the MQA digital file and use that to (essentially) mimic the timing and phase characteristics of the original ADC
 
rbbert said:
use that to (essentially) mimic the timing and phase characteristics of the original ADC
Click to expand...

1. Why need mimic ADC characteristics?

2. What does you mean as timing?

3. May be somethere being technical details of this process for better understanding?
 
The U.S patent application for MQA is online at the US Patent Office website. Sorry I do not have a link, and it's not filed under "MQA". You will have to search for Robert Stuart under authors. Briefly, though, the philosophy underpinning MQA is that if the timing and phase characteristics of the original ADC can be mimiced in the DAC, the resulting sound will be "better" than if they are not. So far, almost every audio reviewer who has expressed an opinion agrees that the sound is better than with other digital formats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top