Today MQA Audio

Are you sure there is no software decoding going on in the Tidal APP?

It seems to my ears there is....

It isn't the sound of "wow" but rather the sound of something rather annoying of 16 bit CD going away on a normal DAC, and more music coming through.

and from the computer audiophile forum

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

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

simes_pep posted:

Please remember, that unless you have a MQA certified DAC that unfolds the Hi-Res content and plays the full resolution, and playing the Tidal MQA enabled stream directed through this DAC, you are not listening to the full MQA content.

At present, there is no software decoding of the MQA content nor digital out via USB of the MQA decoded stream, therefore the playback route without a certified DAC, will only see the content at best in a 24/48 bucket - please check out my earlier posting re. the 24/192 Roberta Flack track, that Roon is only playing at 24/48 and the Naim app is only at 16/44.1

I think confusion comes from the fact that the list of MASTER recording on Tidal, can only be viewed in the Desktop App, this hasn't been pushed to any of the Tidal integrations nor the Browser based versions.
So what you have to do, is in the Desktop app, tag the MASTER recordings you want as Favorites, so they then appear in either Roon or the Naim integration.

Many of the Roon forum are experiencing full MQA playback with a series of certified MQA DACs - if you care to visit https://community.roonlabs.com

If it is worth anything - I conducted a A/B comparison between the following:

1. Buena Vista Social club MQA album - on my NDS/555DR fronted system, in the non-MQA decode mode of 24/48 vs the DVD-A rip version at 24/96 - DVD-A version won.

2. Same tracks from Buena Vista Social club MQA album in my local dealer, on a Bluesound node thas MQA decoding (Devialet bi-amps, B&W 803d3 speakers etc.) and the MQA won over both the non-MQA decoded version at 24/48 and the DVD-A rip. There was significant difference once there was MQA decoding in place.

Simon.

A big question, however, is the original mastering and recording of the album. Was the ADC used during the original recording outputting an MQA encoded digital stream, later reencoded to 24/96 for the DVD, or was it recorded in 24/96 then reencoded to MQA, or were two DAC used providing simultaneous outputs, mixed and mastered identically and so differing only in the digital format? If not the latter, comparisons may be picking up the effect of transcoding, highlighted differently by  differences in the different decoding processes and DACs used.

analogmusic posted:

Are you sure there is no software decoding going on in the Tidal APP?

It seems to my ears there is....

It isn't the sound of "wow" but rather the sound of something rather annoying of 16 bit CD going away on a normal DAC, and more music coming through.

What you are potentially noticing is that without MQA decoding, you are listening to the MQA encoded version in a 24/48 format but without the Hi-Res information of full MQA decoded version at 24/192m being 'unfolded' and added back in. So this potentially should be better than the 16/44.1 version.

Plus if the MQA process has been followed correctly, as initially intended, then the studio would gone right back to the Master recording and converted from there with the MQA encoding process, effectively remastering the recording.
This is why, they are seeing the opportunity to re-sell their back catalogue to everyone, all over again.
You bought it on Vinyl, re-bought it on CD, and now will buy it all again on MQA, or are going to pay more for a high-quality streamed version.

However, anything that improves the quality of the playback, and gets away from MP3 or ACC formats, and those 256k streamed offerings from Spotify and Apple Music, has to be better, and we maybe we can better the technology limited Red Book standard from 1984. 

Simon.

It's clear that the Tidal Desktop app is decoding MQA files. It's also clear that in the not to distant future both Roon and Audirvana will do the same. Roon already seems to be able to access the tracks, so perhaps MQA decoding will come soon with 1.3.

What I am unclear on regarding MQA software decoding is the downstream influence of a non MQA DAC.

For example. Using a simple scenario of a MacBook, the Tidal desktop app and headphones directly plugged in. Tidal is unpacking the additional MQA information in software and sends it to the MacBook's internal DAC for analog conversion.

If the DAC is not aware of MQA how does it know not to touch the output? DACs use a series of filters in the conversion process, which as we all know can have a significant influence of the resulting sound. So without a MQA aware DAC how is it that the software decoded MQA stream is not really a MQA stream which has been further processes/filtered by the MacBook's internal DAC. Is there a generic flag/state somewhere that all DAC respect which says don't further process the input, just output it directly?

It's my understanding that qualified MQA hardware DACs have such a flag i.e. if they detect MQA source material it's converted with MQA. If it detects standard Redbook material then it processes with it's normal filters.

analogmusic posted:

and from the computer audiophile forum

 

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

Ali - this last point is  wrong if you are using a MQA decoder. A key aspect of full MQA ( i.e. with a hardware decoder) is that reconstruction filters in the mastering encoder and decoder are complimentary - to my way of thinking that is the biggest benefit and a shortcoming with current digital audio - i.e. the lack of alignment between encoder and decoder reconstructions. The DACs we use are not matched with the ADC encoders (remember ADC and DAC is a lossy process) - but you minimise the losses and distortions by matching the filters - this is what MQA does with a hardware decoder and its hardware mastering encoder. If you just use a software decoder then you are by definition using the default reconstruction filter of the DAC driven by the software decoder - this is going to break the MQA master authenticity model - i.e. you will be no better off in this regard over regular DAC playback - albeit you will have still the benefits of the lossy high definition encodings.

Simon, I agree with you, but the filter part of MQA seems to have been forgotten

Audioquest are enabling their dragonfly DAC to be MQA capable through software update, and they use ESS DACs. I am not sure they use custom filters.

I think maybe Meridian's own DAC would have the kind of capability you talk about.

I note that the number of Master albums has been growing today...when I first looked this morning circa 100 now over 300. 

been MUSEing this afternoon

analogmusic posted:

Simon, I agree with you, but the filter part of MQA seems to have been forgotten

Audioquest are enabling their dragonfly DAC to be MQA capable through software update, and they use ESS DACs. I am not sure they use custom filters.

I think maybe Meridian's own DAC would have the kind of capability you talk about.

It might be an effort to increase the appeal to kick start it..

lets face it - hands up for those who have head of 'high definition'? ok .. now hands up for those who heard of  'matched encoding and decoding reconstruction filters'? ... any one?

S

as I said somewhere on the forum, it isn't the only game in town.

Mark Levinson - has a software called Masterclass on his Daniel Hertz website that does something similar.

Chord does something similar (and to my ears a lot better)

But good to see this effort from recording labels. Much to be applauded here.

New to me (just now) is being offered 96/24 HD streaming options from Tidal (The Division Bell) via the 'Other Albums By' when I'm selecting from my NAS library in the Naim app.

G

GregW posted:

It's clear that the Tidal Desktop app is decoding MQA files. It's also clear that in the not to distant future both Roon and Audirvana will do the same. Roon already seems to be able to access the tracks, so perhaps MQA decoding will come soon with 1.3.

What I am unclear on regarding MQA software decoding is the downstream influence of a non MQA DAC.

For example. Using a simple scenario of a MacBook, the Tidal desktop app and headphones directly plugged in. Tidal is unpacking the additional MQA information in software and sends it to the MacBook's internal DAC for analog conversion.

If the DAC is not aware of MQA how does it know not to touch the output? DACs use a series of filters in the conversion process, which as we all know can have a significant influence of the resulting sound. So without a MQA aware DAC how is it that the software decoded MQA stream is not really a MQA stream which has been further processes/filtered by the MacBook's internal DAC. Is there a generic flag/state somewhere that all DAC respect which says don't further process the input, just output it directly?

It's my understanding that qualified MQA hardware DACs have such a flag i.e. if they detect MQA source material it's converted with MQA. If it detects standard Redbook material then it processes with it's normal filters.

Again, please remember, that unless you have a MQA certified DAC that unfolds the Hi-Res content and plays the full resolution, and playing the Tidal MQA enabled stream directed through this DAC, you are not listening to the full MQA content.

Therefore any played via the Tidal Desktop App via a Computer's DAC is not the full MQA content, it is the content without the Hi-Res unpacked and folded back into the stream - please see the Roberta Flack example in my previous post, where Roon (Desktop App playing through Laptop speakers using software decoding) was only able to play at 24/48 instead of the fully decoded 24/192 stream those with MQA certified DACs are able to achieve.

Only the certified MQA DACs can unpack the additional HiRes information and fold it into the stream.
Non-certified MQA DACs (i.e. all Naim products) will only be able to play the non-MQA decoded version.

Thanks, Simon.

Yes, it is offered from Tidal, but that doesn't mean it is streaming at the 24/96, as there is no certified MQA DAC in the playback chain.

see below

Division Bell offered as 24/96 HD version

BUT playing at 44.1kHz, the same as all other Tidal content via the Naim integration and lack of MQA decoding channel.

Yes, I see that now. Thanks.

G

Pono? Whatever happened to it? Is MQA this week's Pono?

simes_pep posted:

 

What you are potentially noticing is that without MQA decoding, you are listening to the MQA encoded version in a 24/48 format but without the Hi-Res information of full MQA decoded version at 24/192m being 'unfolded' and added back in. So this potentially should be better than the 16/44.1 version.

Plus if the MQA process has been followed correctly, as initially intended, then the studio would gone right back to the Master recording and converted from there with the MQA encoding process, effectively remastering the recording.
This is why, they are seeing the opportunity to re-sell their back catalogue to everyone, all over again.
You bought it on Vinyl, re-bought it on CD, and now will buy it all again on MQA, or are going to pay more for a high-quality streamed version.

However, anything that improves the quality of the playback, and gets away from MP3 or ACC formats, and those 256k streamed offerings from Spotify and Apple Music, has to be better, and we maybe we can better the technology limited Red Book standard from 1984. 

Simon.

 

Are you certain?   If you're relying on what Roon is telling you, are you sure Roon is telling you the truth - it might be that Roon needs an update.

This is what the Tidal FAQ says ....

>>What is the difference between HiFi quality and Master quality sound?

HiFi audio is a superior sound, but is still limited in its resolution — 44.1 kHz/16 bit.

Yet TIDAL has partnered with MQA to deliver something infinitely better: an authenticated and unbroken version (typically 96 kHz/24 bit) with the highest possible resolution — as flawless as it sounded in the mastering suite. And exactly as the artist intended it to sound. <<

It sounds to me like there must be some decoding going on here, unless they are just streaming 24/96 (or whatever) files - but then they don't need MQA for that, do they?

I don't see why software apps can't unpack and reconstruct MQA files in principle (accepting what SiS says about the benefits of decoding within the DAC.

MQA seems to offer 96/24 quality but at same size as 44.1/16 bit streams. 

Well - my first impressions - which admittedly are entirely subjective - is that the sound is an improvement.  That Roberta Flack track highlighted earlier is a good example that I thought was noticeably improved.

My standard set-up is to use the Tidal desktop app which I feed to a Naim Dac via a Mutec reclocker, so this new service, at no extra cost is absolutely perfect for me.  Even the albums they have made available are largely the sort of music I like.  So I am a very happy user.

MartinCA posted:

simes_pep posted:

 

What you are potentially noticing is that without MQA decoding, you are listening to the MQA encoded version in a 24/48 format but without the Hi-Res information of full MQA decoded version at 24/192m being 'unfolded' and added back in. So this potentially should be better than the 16/44.1 version.

Plus if the MQA process has been followed correctly, as initially intended, then the studio would gone right back to the Master recording and converted from there with the MQA encoding process, effectively remastering the recording.
This is why, they are seeing the opportunity to re-sell their back catalogue to everyone, all over again.
You bought it on Vinyl, re-bought it on CD, and now will buy it all again on MQA, or are going to pay more for a high-quality streamed version.

However, anything that improves the quality of the playback, and gets away from MP3 or ACC formats, and those 256k streamed offerings from Spotify and Apple Music, has to be better, and we maybe we can better the technology limited Red Book standard from 1984. 

Simon.

 

Are you certain?   If you're relying on what Roon is telling you, are you sure Roon is telling you the truth - it might be that Roon needs an update.

This is what the Tidal FAQ says ....

>>What is the difference between HiFi quality and Master quality sound?

HiFi audio is a superior sound, but is still limited in its resolution — 44.1 kHz/16 bit.

Yet TIDAL has partnered with MQA to deliver something infinitely better: an authenticated and unbroken version (typically 96 kHz/24 bit) with the highest possible resolution — as flawless as it sounded in the mastering suite. And exactly as the artist intended it to sound. <<

It sounds to me like there must be some decoding going on here, unless they are just streaming 24/96 (or whatever) files - but then they don't need MQA for that, do they?

I don't see why software apps can't unpack and reconstruct MQA files in principle (accepting what SiS says about the benefits of decoding within the DAC.

Becuase the original Licensing model was for certified hardware MQA decoding only, and not software decoding.

If you view the posts in the Roon forum, which identifies the source material, as MQA format, and then when MQA enabled playback is possible (i.e. there is a certified MQA DAC in the chain) and also there are additional LEDs on the DAC to indicated MQA unpacking and playback.

In another recent, it is announced that software decoding of MQA is coming to Roon, just no announcements on timelines.

TIDAL has partnered with MQA to provide MQA to those who have the certified DAC support, and for non-certified DACs there is some improvement over the current 16/44.1 CD quality, given the carrier bucket is 24/48.
They aren't getting deep into the detail, as they want to position the additional value of the MASTER recordings, as part of the Premium subscription level.

It all stands well, if Naim is able to become a Roon Endpoint, with MQA decoding in the Roon Core. Hopefully this is easier than becoming a certified MQA DAC provider.

Of course, if Roon is able to perform the MQA decoding then other software engines can also, in time, but Roon seems to be close to MQA and Tidal, at present.

Simon.

MartinCA posted:

simes_pep posted:

 

What you are potentially noticing is that without MQA decoding, you are listening to the MQA encoded version in a 24/48 format but without the Hi-Res information of full MQA decoded version at 24/192m being 'unfolded' and added back in. So this potentially should be better than the 16/44.1 version.

Plus if the MQA process has been followed correctly, as initially intended, then the studio would gone right back to the Master recording and converted from there with the MQA encoding process, effectively remastering the recording.
This is why, they are seeing the opportunity to re-sell their back catalogue to everyone, all over again.
You bought it on Vinyl, re-bought it on CD, and now will buy it all again on MQA, or are going to pay more for a high-quality streamed version.

However, anything that improves the quality of the playback, and gets away from MP3 or ACC formats, and those 256k streamed offerings from Spotify and Apple Music, has to be better, and we maybe we can better the technology limited Red Book standard from 1984. 

Simon.

 

Are you certain?   If you're relying on what Roon is telling you, are you sure Roon is telling you the truth - it might be that Roon needs an update.

This is what the Tidal FAQ says ....

>>What is the difference between HiFi quality and Master quality sound?

HiFi audio is a superior sound, but is still limited in its resolution — 44.1 kHz/16 bit.

Yet TIDAL has partnered with MQA to deliver something infinitely better: an authenticated and unbroken version (typically 96 kHz/24 bit) with the highest possible resolution — as flawless as it sounded in the mastering suite. And exactly as the artist intended it to sound. <<

It sounds to me like there must be some decoding going on here, unless they are just streaming 24/96 (or whatever) files - but then they don't need MQA for that, do they?

I don't see why software apps can't unpack and reconstruct MQA files in principle (accepting what SiS says about the benefits of decoding within the DAC.

One must parse the words carefully.  Tidal "delivers" something that your hardware cannot take advantage of.  That's the easy part.

Then they go on to add all sorts of irrelevant hyperbole such as "authenticated," "unbroken," and "exactly as the artist intended it to sound."  As we all know, the artist was probably stoned out of his or her gourd and could not possibly tell anyone how he/she "intended" it to sound.

simes_pep posted:

GregW posted:

It's clear that the Tidal Desktop app is decoding MQA files. It's also clear that in the not to distant future both Roon and Audirvana will do the same. Roon already seems to be able to access the tracks, so perhaps MQA decoding will come soon with 1.3.

What I am unclear on regarding MQA software decoding is the downstream influence of a non MQA DAC.

For example. Using a simple scenario of a MacBook, the Tidal desktop app and headphones directly plugged in. Tidal is unpacking the additional MQA information in software and sends it to the MacBook's internal DAC for analog conversion.

If the DAC is not aware of MQA how does it know not to touch the output? DACs use a series of filters in the conversion process, which as we all know can have a significant influence of the resulting sound. So without a MQA aware DAC how is it that the software decoded MQA stream is not really a MQA stream which has been further processes/filtered by the MacBook's internal DAC. Is there a generic flag/state somewhere that all DAC respect which says don't further process the input, just output it directly?

It's my understanding that qualified MQA hardware DACs have such a flag i.e. if they detect MQA source material it's converted with MQA. If it detects standard Redbook material then it processes with it's normal filters.

Again, please remember, that unless you have a MQA certified DAC that unfolds the Hi-Res content and plays the full resolution, and playing the Tidal MQA enabled stream directed through this DAC, you are not listening to the full MQA content.

 

I've now established that when a software MQA decoder finds an unknown DAC it uses a generic decoder/profile. Tidal's software MQA encoder is unfolding the full resolution; at least to 96 kHz, in the case of a MacBook. Based on the following from Bob Stuart on interesting question emerges.

We already have software decoders for a number of hardware, portable and mobile platforms.

Does MQA have decoders for the known DACs in MacBook Pro? Or, does Tidal default to using a generic MQA decoder? 

I've tried to read back over some of the Q&A stuff from Bob Stuart as well as look at some of the feedback regarding Tidal software decoding.

- Software decoding was always planned, but limited to mobile devices due to record company objections related to piracy etc. That's changed with Tidal, Audirvana and Roon.

- There's been some discussion about a 96 kHz sample rate cap for computer based software decoding using Tidal Desktop. Nothing is confirmed, it's just speculation at this point. Part of the confusion stems from a 96 kHz sample rate limit on macOS devices. I've checked a current 5K iMac and the new 13" and 15" MacBook Pros. The limit is still 96 kHz on the 'Built-in Output'.

- Answering my earlier question about non MQA DACs connected to MQA software decoders. If MQA doesn't know the DAC it will use a Generic MQA decoder. What does seem to come through though is that while all the information will be unfolded it's only with a hardware MQA that we will get the best results. At least that was the case in April 2016.

- It's now confirmed AudioQuest will have a firmware update for the DragonFly DAC/Amp activating MQA playback latter this month. I assume the 24-bit / 96kHz limit doesn't change.

From the Decoders section on the Computer Audiophile Q&A with Bob Stuart in April 2016 come more useful information.

Q42. I'd like to ask about MQA decoding.
a. Does it require hardware, software or both?
b. Will there be a Linux software decoder library which will be able to be incorporated into the existing Linux audio ecosystem (perhaps something similar to how Nvidia provides proprietary graphics drivers for its video cards to the Linux community)?
c. Can you indicate what sort of licensing fee, if any, might be required for the enthusiast running their own Linux music playback system for personal use who would like to be able to decode MQA? Many thanks for any enlightenment.

A42.
a. MQA decoding does not require hardware, it can be performed on a number of different platforms. But the decoder normally runs in the context of paired DAC(s).
b. Currently we license decoder builds for Windows, OSX, Linux, Android, iOS, XMOS, some custom platforms, with several more coming.
c. We are rolling out the decoder platform licensing in stages and no decision has been taken yet about this type of application. But we will in due course so please stay in touch.

Q43. Soft decoding:
a. Will software decoding be allowed (and when)?
b. Will software decoding get the complete benefit that will be possible with hardware MQA DACs? If not what will the differences be?
c. Will a MQA decode software module be available for integration into third party music players that run on generic PCs and Macs?

A43.
a. We already have software decoders for a number of hardware, portable and mobile platforms. In these three cases the decoder has the benefit of precise knowledge of the DAC and associated hardware.
b. See A42, there is no inherent quality difference between MQA decoders unless they are operating in designated power-saving modes. However, it is inevitable that a properly designed hardware product, incorporating the decoder and DAC will give the better result. The performance level that MQA enables, allows hardware makers an even better environment on which to stretch their skills. For the audiophile, this should be very exciting.
c. We do anticipate a program to enable such applications, but the requirement for tight DAC coupling and the obligation to match the previewed audio (in the studio) means that several combinations and options are still being explored with both DAC makers and creators of software players. We will make announcements in due course.

_{Source: http://www.computeraudiophile....-q-mqa-s-bob-stuart/}

From Googling around other sites, there is much confusion and contradiction about this whole Tidal announcement.  I put in a support request to Tidal asking them for clarification.  If they tell me something helpful I will relay that on to you.  

But the most useful thing I found was on the computer audiophile forum, and I have cut and pasted it below.  Of course it is no more definitive than any forum posting is, but it does sound authoritive and feels right (it's part of a good discussion in the thread 

http://www.computeraudiophile....al-27528/index3.html  

This is my understanding of the MQA process (there are variants depending on the master source, this is an example:

-1- High-resolution master (say 24/192) is modified to remove time-smearing

-2- Result of '1' is encoded into a 24/48 FLAC file - this is the "folding" - this is done by taking:
a- The information below 48KHz sample rate, with a resolution of 16 bits
b- The information above 48KHz sample rate, with a lower resolution and removal of some stuff you "cannot hear", and encoding this in 8 bit resolution and a sample rate of 48KHz. A special 'MQA' recipe is used to do this
c- a+b produce the 24bit/48KHz file you get

-3- Decoding of the higher frequency component is done by reversing the steps in '2', rendering a 24/192 file that is NOT identical to the 24/192 file produced in '1', but the differences "cannot be heard"

-4- The decoded stream from '3' is further modified based on a DAC profile and converted to analog

In hardware decoding in an MQA DAC you get 1-4. In software decoding you get 1-3  

If you do not decode at all and just play the file as a regular FLAC with resolution of 24bit/48KHz, you will effectively be playing a file with resolution of 16bit/48KHz since the 8 least significant bits look like noise if not decoded. So if you do not decode you basically get 1-2a.

The software decoding is fine, and it will decide (marketing speak 'unfold') the lossy hidef signal and potentially create a hidef PCM stream... this can be fed to a DAC, streamer, you name it  if that software decoder allows it. This will give many benefits, but not the Mastering Authenticity part of MQA. For that to occur, and to me this is the best part of MQA, as its benefits could be massive on Red Book as well ... is matching the encoding and decoding reconstruction sync filters (think filter algorithm and 'taps') between the ADC master and the DAC decoder encoding and creating the ANALOGUE signal at each end of the system chain.

In conventional digital encodings ADC and DACs are not matched and so there is a limit on the accuracy and naturalness to the recreated signal... no matter how good or expensive the DAC. Match the ADC to the DAC and you can take naturalness and accuracy massively forward.. and you don't even need 'hidef'

Interestingly others are looking at this now such as Rob Watts with out tieing themselves up in marketing and licensing knots.... and from what I read Red Book is the targets sights first for a step forward in quality.

So back to MQA, with a software decoder, you are simply expanding the compressed hidef... sure it will be a benefit and could sound 'better' for the majority.. don't knock it... but in my book without matched reconstruction filters (which is at the hardware level)  is is not true hifi and won't get you closer to the music and true high definition as defined by some in the AES.

Anyone else have problems with this playing via a Hugo? Set mine up last night, and every time a new track played, it played at half-speed. Toggling the controls within the Tidal app got it back to normal speed (occasionally double-speed) but selecting a new album or next track saw the problem return. Any ideas??