Tidal/MQA

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that you have to stream it using Tidal's desktop app., and that it has then to be processed through an MQA enabled Dac, no the answer is 'no' for now.

Thanks. So are we hoping that Naim will offer a firmware update for their streamer/DACs as well as Tidal to offer MQA for their IOS and native Tidal in the Naim app.

I think a lot of water has to flow under many bridges before that kind of an outcome - Tidal it certainly is!

You cannot do it through the 272 via nstream.

I am listening to MQA today via the Tidal Destop client through my Hugo. Just moved my Notebook->Hugo to the SN2 and the sound from MQA tracks are clearly better.

There's a lot more on the recent Today MQA Audio thread

I wasn't aware that Hugo does mqa decode?

It does not,whoever is using a Hugo is probably decoding it in the desktop app(software),but apparently this still sounds better than regular Tidal high-fi.

jon honeyball posted:

I wasn't aware that Hugo does mqa decode?

Indeed it doesn't .....

David O'Higgins posted:

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that you have to stream it using Tidal's desktop app., and that it has then to be processed through an MQA enabled Dac, no the answer is 'no' for now.

Not quite, the Tidal app can operate in MQA pass through or decode mode... in pass through it send the MQA encoding onto a seperate MQA enabled DAC ... in decode mode, the Tidal app sends a 96 kHz or 88.2 kHz sample rate signal to a standard non MQA enabled DAC such as a Naim DAC or Hugo.

Note:  In pass through mode, a regular DAC can still play back the audio in a tecognizable format but it is somewhat compromised (so called legacy mode)

Simon, does using decode mode give the same result as passthrough to an MQA enabled DAC?

David, I would imagine so - but as I haven't a MQA enabled DAC so I cant confirm. I think also the hardware/DAC decoding can oversample further (unfold further)

S

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

David, I would imagine so - but as I haven't a MQA enabled DAC so I cant confirm. I think also the hardware/DAC decoding can oversample further (unfold further)

S

Exactly.

Software decoding in general can decode/unfold 1 layer of MQA encoding. Hardware decoding can decode up to 4 layers. Hence you'll need an MQA enabled DAC to get the full 'benefit'. 

there is a way to stream hi-fi masters to your 272 or NDS NDAC or NDX

I use a laptop with the tidal app, it can software decode the MQA Master file

I then send this to my Chord DAC, and it does show 96 KHZ.

I have compared this to the HI FI version 44.1/16 and the Master version is audibly superior, really sounds like analogue to me, spacious....

So you would use a USB to SPDIF device from your laptop to your Naim machine.

The audiophilleo one is nice.... it is the same one that Naim use in their DAC V1.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

David, I would imagine so - but as I haven't a MQA enabled DAC so I cant confirm. I think also the hardware/DAC decoding can oversample further (unfold further)

S

Come listen to my meridian dac. Has all the timing of a sherry trifle. 

hmmm this is a case where initial good impressions are eroded by careful listening.

After comparing "stairway to heaven"  - Led Zeppelin on Master MQA to normal 44.1, the MQA version sounds softer (but not necessarily in a good way) than Hi-fi version. Maybe it needs the full hardware decoding.

What I mean it that it plays fine, but the transients in the MQA (the guitar/drums) don't have the same impact as the normal 16 bit version decoded by the Chord DAC.

so I guess Rob Watts was right, MQA process has changed the transients and well to hear that properly, maybe one needs the hardware decoding.

In which case, I am out of the MQA bandwagon and not at all interested as I am heavily invested in my digital rig already.

I can certainly understand why quite a few hi-fi companies aren't either.

Keen to hear if anyone thinks the same of this track.

To be clear. There is *no point* listening to mqa unless you are actually decoding the mqa data

i know meridian are playing fast and loose with mqa decode and definitions but that's their grave. 

I agree. In any case I hope the Chord ADC comes out soon, and record companies  realise MQA is redundant.

And if you aren't impressed with the full MQA decoding, then .... 

let's just hope they don't take away the normal non MQA files.

analogmusic posted:

hmmm this is a case where initial good impressions are eroded by careful listening.

After comparing "stairway to heaven"  - Led Zeppelin on Master MQA to normal 44.1, the MQA version sounds softer (but not necessarily in a good way) than Hi-fi version. Maybe it needs the full hardware decoding.

What I mean it that it plays fine, but the transients in the MQA (the guitar/drums) don't have the same impact as the normal 16 bit version decoded by the Chord DAC.

so I guess Rob Watts was right, MQA process has changed the transients and well to hear that properly, maybe one needs the hardware decoding.

In which case, I am out of the MQA bandwagon and not at all interested as I am heavily invested in my digital rig already.

I can certainly understand why quite a few hi-fi companies aren't either.

Keen to hear if anyone thinks the same of this track.

 

 

I have no interest in Tidal so hevn't been tempted to try, merely following developments with potential interest in case there is any benefit for mainstream (though I doubt it). But out of interest, what software decoder did you use?

the only one that is available, in the tidal desktop app.

I do wonder with Bob Stuart was thinking/drinking/eating when he released MQA to the world, knowing it needs full hardware decoding to work properly.

Rob Watts did explain there are no timing errors in the ADC side, provided if decimated properly.

So which timing errors did MQA hope to fix?

The timing errors are on the DAC side, due to the sinc filter function.... 

Anyway, forget about Dave for the moment, the Chord Mojo does a great job of replaying digital music and I could easily live with it if it was the last DAC I ever purchased.

Using the Tidal desktop app and plugging my Grado SR 80 headphones into the headphone jack. I compare with both Tidal and either 16 bit or 24 bit versions in iTunes (whatever I posses).

Comparing the 'Masters' to ripped cd's or 24 bit files in iTunes:

The Masters versions all sound a little more relaxed, less harsh, less tight, less direct, more spacious. But the Masters versions on Tidal also add something distinctly artificial to the sound. Especially the accoustics are sounding very fake on the border of annoying me. Instruments (especially anything with a string) sound better. Most obvious, bass notes sound far more 'airy' and less compressed and boxed.

But if I compare it to the 24 bits versions I own, that artificial soundstage disappears, but at the cost of being less spacious. It is not that the 'true' 24 bit version sounds better on all accounts to the (MQA) Masters file. I think they are indeed (partially?) remastered. Or maybe the trick of MQA mastering is adding more spatial separation by some clever trick.

That acoustical 'trick' they apply (or something that translates in my ears to be something altering the acoustical space in which the music seems to sound) is putting me off in a mayor way. The separation of instruments and voices is different and I don't like it, although the music is much clearer. It reminds me of that SRS WoW effect popular with sound cards in PC's in the 90s (for lack of better description). 

It is different than comparing 24 bit PCM to DSD bitstream. The acoustical space (the 'relaxed' sounding) of DSD is also different than the PCM version, but at the bitstream recordings I have heard (all classical) the acoustic space is natural (harmonious?).

So, yes, even without the hardware decoding MQA sounds distinctly different from 44.1 KHZ 16 bit and 24 bit 96 Khz files. Maybe you need the right hardware to make it shine, but that artificial 'plastic' flavor on the music really should disappear to convince me.

Perhaps you are hearing the decimated aliasesed frequencies... it seems an assumption with MQA where decimation and subsequent oversampling or in MQA-speak 'unfolding' is used that people won't be sensitive to this, but from what I can see it is an intrinsic side effect of the compression process used by MQA.

Simon

MQA is just a whim,it will pass.IT seems sony will offer dsd files to the masses in the near future, if they are cheap then that will be good, TIDAL  will offer their catalogue with a hike in   monthly fees   .  just read that  chord is releasing ADC which  Is a interesting direction on producing audio files  .

MQA simple and understandable info

by audiostream:

by digitalaudioreview:

AudioQuest have confirmed that the 96kHz ceiling introduced by the DragonFly’s receiver chip does not affect MQA content arriving as 24bit/48kHz or 24bit/44.1kHz because the MQA unfold takes place inside the DAC. The DragonFly Red and Black will therefore decode any sample rate dictated by the MQA studio master: 88.2kHz, 96kHz, 176.4kHz, 192kHz, 352.8kHz etc.

Oh sorry, supplement needed

MQA Core (which comes out of the soft decoder or digital outputs) carries the additional information necessary for an MQA Renderer (eg Dragonfly) or a full Decoder (eg MSB, Brinkman, Mytek, Meridian) to 'finish the job downstream'.

audio1946 posted:

MQA is just a whim,it will pass.IT seems sony will offer dsd files to the masses in the near future, if they are cheap then that will be good, TIDAL  will offer their catalogue with a hike in   monthly fees   .  just read that  chord is releasing ADC which  Is a interesting direction on producing audio files  .

I think you are possibly right... however one consideration is that there appear several elements to MQA and I wonder to what extent they can be decoupled from each other. I like the concept of matched ADC and DAC performance... a flaw in my opinion with current digital music production and replay... and other designers are looking at this issue now such as Rob Watts.. however the 'lossy' decimation and oversampling and filtering .. (i.e. what MQA calls Unfolding) although clever and possibly a real boost for relatively low bandwidth streaming ..adds many aliased artefacts into the decoded audio.. and relies on most people not being sensitive or noticing them.. and that to me is a big Archilles Heel... as I think it will turn off the higher end audio replay enthusiast.