So, does the introduction of MQA change/alter your plans going forward?

[audio.bill]

I firmly believe what is needed for MQA to have a true market impact, after the initial hype and market buzz that is currently going on, is for the release of an add on unit allowing for MQA to be added to our current DACs without having to replace our units. Most people, such as myself, cannot either afford to purchase an ultra expensive unit or are willing to compromise our listening to other digital files we already have purchased (over 250 albums for me personally).

An add on unit allowing for our current DACs to continue being used with our current files and the add on to be engaged when a MQA file is detected. This is how MQA will have a true chance of having long term market impact in my opinion.

MQA hardware decoding takes into account specific attributes of the DAC being used, hence unless they change that requirement of MQA such a universal add-on box to be used with any DAC is not a viable possibility. Of course as the saying goes, never say never.

 

[Rhapsody]

Are you PLAYING MQA files via the Tidal desktop app, or are you simply using the app to favorite the albums so that they can be located in the Aurender app and played via the Aurender transport? Because here's the thing...

Played from Aurender + MQA DAC = MQA decoding (GOOD!)

***Requires "Exclusive Mode" to be selected
Played from Tidal desktop app + passthrough + MQA DAC = MQA decoding (GOOD!)
Played from Tidal desktop app + software decoding (no passthrough) + DAC (doesn't matter what kind) = MQA decoding (GOOD!)

Played from Aurender + non-MQA DAC = MQA file, but no decoding (BAD!)

Selecting "Exclusive Mode" or "Passthrough MQA" in the Tidal app will have no impact on the decoding if you are using Aurender for playback.

The same applies to ROON in it's current build. It will pass the 24/44.1 or 24/48 file bit perfect to the DAC, but without software decoding you aren't getting any benefit (and you may actually get worse sound quality, as reported by a friend of mine using ROON).

For those using Lumin - your experience is the same as mine when I try to send a Master album (favorited in the desktop app) to my Chromecast via BubbleUPnP - Tidal substitues the Redbook version for the MQA encoded file (16/44.1).

There still seems to be a ton of confusion as to exactly how to extract MQA, and I fear a great deal of placebo effect from users who THINK they're getting the MQA experience, but are actually not. I KNOW I'm getting MQA, and in my system in my room it sounds damn fine.

Here is what I am doing. I am going to the Tidal app and favoriting the albums that I want to play. Then I am going to the Aurender app and closing it down and then bringing it up again. It now has the Masters favorites that I just selected on the Tidal app desktop. I then play that file and btw, there is nothing in the Aurender app that shows you at this time, it's coming, that the file is mqa sw decoded. Then if you look at the display, in my case the MSB non MQA dac (mqa module arriving soon) it shows 24/48. There is sw decoding going on or the dac would not show this and not sound the way it does. It sounds like vinyl....seriously.

Nothing is selected in the desktop dac (exclusive mode etc) because I am NOT playing to an device connected to the pc.

Have you tried this or are you going by "what you think"?

 

[Rhapsody]

What I have been asking right along.... I have to belief that comparing the CD quality Tidal streams versus the MQA Tidal streams, the improvements should be there and worthy for those who enjoy streaming through Tidal.

However the question I have been asking is MQA versus high res downloads for those of us that are not into streaming. The reason I ask this is I have read and heard for a while now that in essence MQA is a transport system to allow high res PCM files to be streamed without the bandwidth over head that those high res files would normally incur.

Here is a quote of a users who has done precisely this comparison from another forum:
"I have been playing a bit with my Chord Hugo and Meridian Explorer 2 DAC's, with a normal PCM high res file the Chord is way better, with a downloaded MQA file the performance of the two DAC's get's closer. (but still prefer the Chord)."

Then I read Rapsody's comments about MQA sounding more analog. This aspect would be interesting to me. I also read in several forums that eventual software decoding will help and certainly will allow streaming of high res files to sound better, but to get the real advantage in download use of a MQA certified DAC would be required.

So far these are either far too expensive and out of the reach for 99.9% of the market (Meridian high end units, etc.), or do not allow for top use with other formats (Brooklyn, Explorer 2, etc.). I firmly believe what is needed for MQA to have a true market impact, after the initial hype and market buzz that is currently going on, is for the release of an add on unit allowing for MQA to be added to our current DACs without having to replace our units. Most people, such as myself, cannot either afford to purchase an ultra expensive unit or are willing to compromise our listening to other digital files we already have purchased (over 250 albums for me personally).

An add on unit allowing for our current DACs to continue being used with our current files and the add on to be engaged when a MQA file is detected. This is how MQA will have a true chance of having long term market impact in my opinion.

Randy, why not just get a 60 day trial to Tidal and use the desktop app, which will give you Tidal streaming sw MQA decoded to your existing dac. Then you could hear what the sw mqa decoding does. Personally I would happy with just the sw decoding but that is before I've heard, which I have not yet, the hw dac mqa decoding. But the sw mqa decoding that Tidal does in the app is pretty darn pleasing.

 

[joeinid]

EXACTLY,

I already experience an improvement. An MQA capable dac will be icing on the cake. Bring it on.

Randy, why not just get a 60 day trial to Tidal and use the desktop app, which will give you Tidal streaming sw MQA decoded to your existing dac. Then you could hear what the sw mqa decoding does. Personally I would happy with just the sw decoding but that is before I've heard, which I have not yet, the hw dac mqa decoding. But the sw mqa decoding that Tidal does in the app is pretty darn pleasing.

 

[audiophil]

Here is what I am doing. I am going to the Tidal app and favoriting the albums that I want to play. Then I am going to the Aurender app and closing it down and then bringing it up again. It now has the Masters favorites that I just selected on the Tidal app desktop. I then play that file and btw, there is nothing in the Aurender app that shows you at this time, it's coming, that the file is mqa sw decoded. Then if you look at the display, in my case the MSB non MQA dac (mqa module arriving soon) it shows 24/48. There is sw decoding going on or the dac would not show this and not sound the way it does. It sounds like vinyl....seriously.

Nothing is selected in the desktop dac (exclusive mode etc) because I am NOT playing to an device connected to the pc.

Have you tried this or are you going by "what you think"?

This is exactly what I alluded to in my previous post...you're sending the MQA file to your DAC, but there's no decoding going on. Aurender doesn't decode, nor does your DAC. I'm not disputing what you say you are hearing - I'm not there and I obviously don't have your ears - I'm simply trying to underscore what is OBJECTIVELY happening in your playback chain.

And you might say "Wait - how could the file even play if I'm not doing any decoding???"

Don't forget that MQA is backward compatible with non-MQA DACs. If you were decoding, you'd be playing back at 88.2 or 96k sample rate. Every Master file I've played back so far has been at one of the two sample rates. If you're playing a Master file and only getting 44.1 or 48k, you're not decoding MQA. If you're not playing directly from the Tidal app, unless you have an MQA DAC, you're not getting MQA.

Let me answer your last question by posing one of my own - have you tried connecting your computer directly to your DAC and playing from the desktop app? Sound quality aside, have you tried to see if you can get higher sample rates using the playback chain I've described?

 

[Rhapsody]

This is exactly what I alluded to in my previous post...you're sending the MQA file to your DAC, but there's no decoding going on. Aurender doesn't decode, nor does your DAC. I'm not disputing what you say you are hearing - I'm not there and I obviously don't have your ears - I'm simply trying to underscore what is OBJECTIVELY happening in your playback chain.

And you might say "Wait - how could the file even play if I'm not doing any decoding???"

Don't forget that MQA is backward compatible with non-MQA DACs. If you were decoding, you'd be playing back at 88.2 or 96k sample rate. Every Master file I've played back so far has been at one of the two sample rates. If you're playing a Master file and only getting 44.1 or 48k, you're not decoding MQA. If you're not playing directly from the Tidal app, unless you have an MQA DAC, you're not getting MQA.

Let me answer your last question by posing one of my own - have you tried connecting your computer directly to your DAC and playing from the desktop app? Sound quality aside, have you tried to see if you can get higher sample rates using the playback chain I've described?

Interesting. If you are 100% sure that if the file when played from the Masters list/mqa sw on Tidal decoding and then fav'd on the Aurender and played through the dac, which show 24/48 and it only shows 16/44.1 for the same non mqa/masters album is not mqa, then what exactly has bumped it from 16/44.1 to 24/48?

I will connect my laptop directly to the dac and see what the dac shows and what I hear.

Love all this....something exciting!!!

 

[audiophil]

Maybe it helps to frame things in a different manner - here's a poll:

If you are playing Tidal Masters using something OTHER than the desktop app, please explain your setup and where exactly the MQA decoding (software or hardware) is taking place.

 

[audiophil]

Interesting. If you are 100% sure that if the file when played from the Masters list/mqa sw on Tidal decoding and then fav'd on the Aurender and played through the dac, which show 24/48 and it only shows 16/44.1 for the same non mqa/masters album is not mqa, then what exactly has bumped it from 16/44.1 to 24/48?

I will connect my laptop directly to the dac and see what the dac shows and what I hear.

Love all this....something exciting!!!

The difference between the 16/44.1 file and the 24/48 file is the 24/48 file is MQA - and nobody is disputing Aurender (or ROON) ability to PASS the file to the DAC.

What is missing from your playback chain is the DECODING of the MQA-specific information that allows for, at bare minimum, playback of the file at it's full bit-depth and sample rate (typically 96k for files encoded at 48k). Does that make sense?

I am 99.999999% confident that when you connect your laptop directly to the DAC and enable playback with "Exclusive Mode" selected and "Passthrough MQA" DEselected, you're going to get a higer bitrate (and hopefully even better sound quality - but that's subjective).

FWIW - if you were to leave "Passthrough MQA" selected, you'd essentially get the same result as you would using your Aurender. The MQA file would be sent to the DAC undecoded, with the assumption you have an MQA compatible DAC.

 

[joeinid]

I absolutely love and appreciate everyone's feedback, help, tips/tricks and opinion regarding all this MQA stuff. I know it helps those who are either still on the fence or are slowly dipping their toes in this new technology. I wish Tidal and the MQA association had concurrently put out a press release of bullet points regarding what to expect and how to get the most out of the new MQA files.

Keep it up guys. I am enjoying my bump in sound quality and can not wait for a full on hardware solution.

Thank you!!!

 

[CPP]

The difference between the 16/44.1 file and the 24/48 file is the 24/48 file is MQA - and nobody is disputing Aurender (or ROON) ability to PASS the file to the DAC.

What is missing from your playback chain is the DECODING of the MQA-specific information that allows for, at bare minimum, playback of the file at it's full bit-depth and sample rate (typically 96k for files encoded at 48k). Does that make sense?

I am 99.999999% confident that when you connect your laptop directly to the DAC and enable playback with "Exclusive Mode" selected and "Passthrough MQA" DEselected, you're going to get a higer bitrate (and hopefully even better sound quality - but that's subjective).

FWIW - if you were to leave "Passthrough MQA" selected, you'd essentially get the same result as you would using your Aurender. The MQA file would be sent to the DAC undecoded, with the assumption you have an MQA compatible DAC.

So which Aurender are you using ? and what DAC do you have it connected to. The A10 is the only MQA component they have that is certified that I know of. Are you saying the Aurender software is doing full MQA or are you only getting the non-MQA DAC 24/96 MQA music file which still sounds better than some non MQA files..

 

[audiophil]

I absolutely love and appreciate everyone's feedback, help, tips/tricks and opinion regarding all this MQA stuff. I know it helps those who are either still on the fence or are slowly dipping their toes in this new technology. I wish Tidal and the MQA association had concurrently put out a press release of bullet points regarding what to expect and how to get the most out of the new MQA files.

Keep it up guys. I am enjoying my bump in sound quality and can not wait for a full on hardware solution.

Thank you!!!

Joe - I agree, and think Tidal (and MQA) could have done a better job explaining the different scenarios people could encounter and exactly what they are getting.

I think one of the biggest sources of confusion is that Tidal Masters are, on the surface "hi-rez" files. That, combined with the fact that even if someone bypasses software decoding they are able to get playback on a non MQA DAC is leading many to believe that they are experiencing MQA, when in reality they are not. There would be ZERO confusion (I think) if, when someone attempted to play MQA on a non-MQA DAC without going through software decoding (a la Tidal Desktop) they got an error message or distortion.

Think of it this way - if you try to play DSD on a non-DSD DAC without first transcoding to PCM, you're either going to get distortion or nothing at all. It's black and white, while MQA has 50 shades of grey...er, 48 shades, or is it 96 shades, or...:dunno:

 

[CPP]

Joe - I agree, and think Tidal (and MQA) could have done a better job explaining the different scenarios people could encounter and exactly what they are getting.

I think one of the biggest sources of confusion is that Tidal Masters are, on the surface "hi-rez" files. That, combined with the fact that even if someone bypasses software decoding they are able to get playback on a non MQA DAC is leading many to believe that they are experiencing MQA, when in reality they are not. There would be ZERO confusion (I think) if, when someone attempted to play MQA on a non-MQA DAC without going through software decoding (a la Tidal Desktop) they got an error message or distortion.

Think of it this way - if you try to play DSD on a non-DSD DAC without first transcoding to PCM, you're either going to get distortion or nothing at all. It's black and white, while MQA has 50 shades of grey...er, 48 shades, or is it 96 shades, or...:dunno:

You need to read this.

 

[audiophil]

So which Aurender are you using ? and what DAC do you have it connected to. The A10 is the only MQA component they have that is certified that I know of. Are you saying the Aurender software is doing full MQA or are you only getting the non-MQA DAC 24/96 MQA music file which still sounds better than some non MQA files..

I'm not using an Aurender - I have my laptop connected directly to my DAC. I use a Light Harmonic/LH Labs Geek Pulse Sfi.

The A10 is a server/DAC, so I assume it would perform hardware decoding of the MQA data.

What I'm saying is that, AFAIK, Aurender software does not DECODE MQA data, it will simply pass the MQA file downstream for something else (your DAC) to decode. If your DAC is not MQA-compatible, you get no MQA benefits. No different than playing any other 24/48 file. If it IS compatible, you are hardware decoding, and end up with a higher bitrate + all of the other MQA benefits that have been outlined in other places.

My playback chain looks like this: Laptop running Tidal Desktop > Exclusive Mode > USB > Geek Pulse Sfi > W4S STP-SE > First Watt F6 > Focal 816W

***Edit - Chris (CPP), I think you may be confusing me with Rhapsody (name?)

 

[Randy Myers]

MQA hardware decoding takes into account specific attributes of the DAC being used, hence unless they change that requirement of MQA such a universal add-on box to be used with any DAC is not a viable possibility. Of course as the saying goes, never say never.

In my thoughts the MQA decoder would go inline after the current DAC... in theory the MQA elements would/could be passed through untouched and be picked up by the MQA add on unit and pick up the work from there.

 

[still-one]

Interesting. If you are 100% sure that if the file when played from the Masters list/mqa sw on Tidal decoding and then fav'd on the Aurender and played through the dac, which show 24/48 and it only shows 16/44.1 for the same non mqa/masters album is not mqa, then what exactly has bumped it from 16/44.1 to 24/48?

I will connect my laptop directly to the dac and see what the dac shows and what I hear.

Love all this....something exciting!!!

Not quite true. There are some MQA files. (i.e. Richard Hawley's Hollow Moon) that are 24/44. That is what is displayed with MQA in the display. Now my DAC upsamples those before playing but my display show what the original file was.

 

[audiophil]

In my thoughts the MQA decoder would go inline after the current DAC... in theory the MQA elements would/could be passed through untouched and be picked up by the MQA add on unit and pick up the work from there.

This would require an add'l ADA stage - otherwise how would the corrections (including time domain) be accomplished? How would the MQA data be passed to the decoder AFTER DA conversion?

If anything, a standalone MQA decoder would have to be in the digital domain and be inserted between your playback software and the DAC. You're just moving the decoding from the playback software, and you're not going to get the same benefits as it being a part of the DAC hardware.

 

[still-one]

I was surprised at RMAF when I was corrected by the MQA rep that a unfolded MQA file can be passed digitally to a DAC.

 

[audiophil]

Not quite true. There are some MQA files. (i.e. Richard Hawley's Hollow Moon) that are 24/44. That is what is displayed with MQA in the display. Now my DAC upsamples those before playing but my display show what the original file was.

Very interesting - I'm going to favorite this one right now and test it out when I get home. It would be the first I've seen that didn't move to a higher sample rate when decoded.

So much to explore!

***Edit - I think you mean Hollow Meadows

 

[Rhapsody]

The difference between the 16/44.1 file and the 24/48 file is the 24/48 file is MQA - and nobody is disputing Aurender (or ROON) ability to PASS the file to the DAC.

What is missing from your playback chain is the DECODING of the MQA-specific information that allows for, at bare minimum, playback of the file at it's full bit-depth and sample rate (typically 96k for files encoded at 48k). Does that make sense?

I am 99.999999% confident that when you connect your laptop directly to the DAC and enable playback with "Exclusive Mode" selected and "Passthrough MQA" DEselected, you're going to get a higer bitrate (and hopefully even better sound quality - but that's subjective).

FWIW - if you were to leave "Passthrough MQA" selected, you'd essentially get the same result as you would using your Aurender. The MQA file would be sent to the DAC undecoded, with the assumption you have an MQA compatible DAC.

Hi Phil, funny but when I connect my pc to my msb dac and connect with a usb cable I can't get the tidal app to recognize the msb. I'm messing with it, but it will play the files from the desktop and it shows 16/44.1.

I understand that 24/48 is not the optimum, but it's pretty darn good, when passing through the Aurdender....actually very, very good.

I will get the pc to work with the tidal desktop app....back to it.

Phil, I still think that playing the file through the Aurender that shows 24/48 on the dac has been SW encoded in the Tidal app and you ARE getting a MQA file, just not the same as if a MQA dac will decode it in hw.

 

[audiophil]

I was surprised at RMAF when I was corrected by the MQA rep that a unfolded MQA file can be passed digitally to a DAC.

I think you mean a folded​ MQA file - in my mind unfolded = larger = decoded.