MQA and Naim

Thanks Graham, 

I have no experience of the Sonore UPnP Bridge, and I have no intention of using room. I'll be using the Sonore microRendu (running Bubble UPnP for access to Tidal)  into the Mytek Brooklyn+ (if I purchase it). I have been impressed by the Hugo which I used at first with an ND5XS and then with the microRendu, and so the Chord Qutest might be the natural DAC for me to audition. However, a number of people have commented that the latest version of the Brooklyn which was released in October 2017 (the Brooklyn Plus) might be even better than the Hugo, hence my interest. The ability to experiment with MQA using the Brooklyn Plus will be an added bonus if I go down this route. 

I've been playing a lot of MQA via Roon to my Atom only getting the first unfold. I have still been impressed with it how it sounds even  if it's only 96/24. I have preferred them over the same exact album at 192/24 I own and streamed from Qobuz. Not all are great mind it really depends on the source, some I have preferred the cd version but overall it's a win for me as it costs no more to get the first unfold from my Tidal Hifi account.

Hmack posted:

Thanks Graham, 

I have no experience of the Sonore UPnP Bridge, and I have no intention of using room. I'll be using the Sonore microRendu (running Bubble UPnP for access to Tidal)  into the Mytek Brooklyn+ (if I purchase it). I have been impressed by the Hugo which I used at first with an ND5XS and then with the microRendu, and so the Chord Qutest might be the natural DAC for me to audition. However, a number of people have commented that the latest version of the Brooklyn which was released in October 2017 (the Brooklyn Plus) might be even better than the Hugo, hence my interest. The ability to experiment with MQA using the Brooklyn Plus will be an added bonus if I go down this route. 

Good luck and enjoy whichever route you take. I think the reality is that we are all comparing  excellent products and any of them give fantastic listening experiences. We are lucky to have so much available to us to have the problem of choice! 

SimonPeterArnold posted:

I've been playing a lot of MQA via Roon to my Atom only getting the first unfold. I have still been impressed with it how it sounds even  if it's only 96/24. I have preferred them over the same exact album at 192/24 I own and streamed from Qobuz. Not all are great mind it really depends on the source, some I have preferred the cd version but overall it's a win for me as it costs no more to get the first unfold from my Tidal Hifi account.

Personally, I am almost desperate to find MQA superior as the idea of conveniently streaming scores of music I like in hi res is very enticing. I just wish my ears were up to spotting the difference. I will continue over the coming months and see if they get more in tune but I am encouraged that you can tell the clear improvements subject to the source material. 

Graham in Sussex posted:

Personally, I am almost desperate to find MQA superior as the idea of conveniently streaming scores of music I like in hi res is very enticing. I just wish my ears were up to spotting the difference. I will continue over the coming months and see if they get more in tune but I am encouraged that you can tell the clear improvements subject to the source material. 

Most people don’t need MQA to sound good to enable hi res online streaming - it is only a potential help if  you are in a poorly served location with a very low internet speed that is only just enough for 16/44 streaming. And as internet speeds improve the numbers of people that affects is likely to decrease. It is simply down to the online streaming suppliers supplying hi res in the conventional format, and does not need a lossy compression that only gives the full resolution with a limited number of DACs and may suffer from reconstruction artefacts. There is one benefit of MQA in that where the supplier is charged for internet bandwidth that need be less with MQA, so with MQA their cost of streaming hi res is no greater - but, though this is only a guess, the cost of the extra bandwidth per customer streaming is likely to be trivial so they could simply pass that on as a slightly higher subscription cost for people subscribing to hi res streaming.

Otherwise of course it may be that any audible effect of the reconstruction artefacts that are said to exist could be perceived by some listeners as beneficial in some way even if they mean the music is not a perfect exact copy of the original file, reminiscent perhaps of how the effects of RF interference in a DAC can produce a perception of a ‘brighter’ sound which apparently some people may consider to be a beneficial effect. Unless what is important to you is absolute fidelity that of course is not necessarily a bad thing.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Graham in Sussex posted:

Personally, I am almost desperate to find MQA superior as the idea of conveniently streaming scores of music I like in hi res is very enticing. I just wish my ears were up to spotting the difference. I will continue over the coming months and see if they get more in tune but I am encouraged that you can tell the clear improvements subject to the source material. 

Most people don’t need MQA to sound good to enable hi res online streaming - it is only a potential help if  you are in a poorly served location with a very low internet speed that is only just enough for 16/44 streaming. And as internet speeds improve the numbers of people that affects is likely to decrease. It is simply down to the online streaming suppliers supplying hi res in the conventional format, and does not need a lossy compression that only gives the full resolution with a limited number of DACs and may suffer from reconstruction artefacts. There is one benefit of MQA in that where the supplier is charged for internet bandwidth that need be less with MQA, so with MQA their cost of streaming hi res is no greater - but, though this is only a guess, the cost of the extra bandwidth per customer streaming is likely to be trivial so they could simply pass that on as a slightly higher subscription cost for people subscribing to hi res streaming.

Otherwise of course it may be that any audible effect of the reconstruction artefacts that are said to exist could be perceived by some listeners as beneficial in some way even if they mean the music is not a perfect exact copy of the original file, reminiscent perhaps of how the effects of RF interference in a DAC can produce a perception of a ‘brighter’ sound which apparently some people may consider to be a beneficial effect. Unless what is important to you is absolute fidelity that of course is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

All valid points but  I was limiting supplying details to my own personal listening experience to the thread topic of MQA. I struggle to hear the difference or superiority in any hi res file (and golly, have i tried) no matter what the source. I still find myself tempted by the hi res option if purchasing any music but I always end up wondering if the extra cost was really worth it. That is just me though and I can't say it really bothers me. I am very happy with CD quality downloads and rips and love listening to them. What seems to me to matter most is the quality of the music production in the first place and not the bit rate etc of the file I download. Admittedly the most I have tried is 24/192 and maybe there is a level above that which will create a eureka moment. That would be nice. 

Graham in Sussex posted:

 

All valid points but  I was limiting supplying details to my own personal listening experience to the thread topic of MQA. I struggle to hear the difference or superiority in any hi res file (and golly, have i tried) no matter what the source. I still find myself tempted by the hi res option if purchasing any music but I always end up wondering if the extra cost was really worth it. That is just me though and I can't say it really bothers me. I am very happy with CD quality downloads and rips and love listening to them. What seems to me to matter most is the quality of the music production in the first place and not the bit rate etc of the file I download. Admittedly the most I have tried is 24/192 and maybe there is a level above that which will create a eureka moment. That would be nice. 

And I was responding to the implication in your previous post that you thought MQA might be the answer to convenient streaming of hi res.  My response was clarifying that MQA is only necessary for online hi res streaming where a provider e.g. Tidal) chooses to only supply via that medium. Meanwhile it doesn’t really make it any more convenient (indeed quite the reverse for others who don’t have a suitable DAC to complete the process.)        

As for hi res sounding better, or not, my own experience likewise doesn’t convince that it necessarily does, indeed some 16/44 sounds better than some hi res. The trouble is it seems that the mastering often is or may be different, negating the validity of comparison. For a full picture comparing both hi res vs standard, and the benefit or otherwise (to one’s own ears) of MQA, which your post suggests you are doing, it seems to me that it is necessary to find a few recordings available for online streaming of the original hi res as a s, and online streaming of an MQA encoded version, also available for download at original hi res and for download of an MQA version, together with a downsampled copy available for download at 16/44 plus online streaming availability of that same 16/44. Of course, that would only define it in absolute terms, but might not help much with the practical reality of not knowing whether available files have been differently mastered - and you have hit the nail on the head saying that what matters most is the quality of the music production in the first place (which if course includes the mastering) - and sadly that is not always as good as it could be.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Graham in Sussex posted:

 

All valid points but  I was limiting supplying details to my own personal listening experience to the thread topic of MQA. I struggle to hear the difference or superiority in any hi res file (and golly, have i tried) no matter what the source. I still find myself tempted by the hi res option if purchasing any music but I always end up wondering if the extra cost was really worth it. That is just me though and I can't say it really bothers me. I am very happy with CD quality downloads and rips and love listening to them. What seems to me to matter most is the quality of the music production in the first place and not the bit rate etc of the file I download. Admittedly the most I have tried is 24/192 and maybe there is a level above that which will create a eureka moment. That would be nice. 

And I was responding to the implication in your previous post that you thought MQA might be the answer to convenient streaming of hi res.  My response was clarifying that MQA is only necessary for online hi res streaming where a provider e.g. Tidal) chooses to only supply via that medium. Meanwhile it doesn’t really make it any more convenient (indeed quite the reverse for others who don’t have a suitable DAC to complete the process.)        

As for hi res sounding better, or not, my own experience likewise doesn’t convince that it necessarily does, indeed some 16/44 sounds better than some hi res. The trouble is it seems that the mastering often is or may be different, negating the validity of comparison. For a full picture comparing both hi res vs standard, and the benefit or otherwise (to one’s own ears) of MQA, which your post suggests you are doing, it seems to me that it is necessary to find a few recordings available for online streaming of the original hi res as a s, and online streaming of an MQA encoded version, also available for download at original hi res and for download of an MQA version, together with a downsampled copy available for download at 16/44 plus online streaming availability of that same 16/44. Of course, that would only define it in absolute terms, but might not help much with the practical reality of not knowing whether available files have been differently mastered - and you have hit the nail on the head saying that what matters most is the quality of the music production in the first place (which if course includes the mastering) - and sadly that is not always as good as it could be.

I agree. My original post was to the effect that I don’t have the technical knowledge to know whether the truly technical experts are right or wrong on this. Indeed, extremely knowledge people seem to hold sincere but differing views on the evidence. Your comments on comparing like for like would of course be the way to go for a true comparison but the odds of me being bothered to do that are pretty slim. 

That leaves someone like me judging what the music service providers choose to present to me based purely on what I hear. Yes, the MQA or other hi res version might not the same production as the cd version but that doesn’t overly concern me if I think it sounds better. And that is my issue. Irrespective of the technicalities or the comparators used, I just can’t hear the difference. And I am not a cynical, paranoid, sceptic (well not on this topic anyway) but I just can’t tell any difference. A good CD sounds pretty amazing to me. 

Innocent Bystander posted:

Graham in Sussex posted:

 

All valid points but  I was limiting supplying details to my own personal listening experience to the thread topic of MQA. I struggle to hear the difference or superiority in any hi res file (and golly, have i tried) no matter what the source. I still find myself tempted by the hi res option if purchasing any music but I always end up wondering if the extra cost was really worth it. That is just me though and I can't say it really bothers me. I am very happy with CD quality downloads and rips and love listening to them. What seems to me to matter most is the quality of the music production in the first place and not the bit rate etc of the file I download. Admittedly the most I have tried is 24/192 and maybe there is a level above that which will create a eureka moment. That would be nice. 

And I was responding to the implication in your previous post that you thought MQA might be the answer to convenient streaming of hi res.  My response was clarifying that MQA is only necessary for online hi res streaming where a provider e.g. Tidal) chooses to only supply via that medium. Meanwhile it doesn’t really make it any more convenient (indeed quite the reverse for others who don’t have a suitable DAC to complete the process.)        

As for hi res sounding better, or not, my own experience likewise doesn’t convince that it necessarily does, indeed some 16/44 sounds better than some hi res. The trouble is it seems that the mastering often is or may be different, negating the validity of comparison. For a full picture comparing both hi res vs standard, and the benefit or otherwise (to one’s own ears) of MQA, which your post suggests you are doing, it seems to me that it is necessary to find a few recordings available for online streaming of the original hi res as a s, and online streaming of an MQA encoded version, also available for download at original hi res and for download of an MQA version, together with a downsampled copy available for download at 16/44 plus online streaming availability of that same 16/44. Of course, that would only define it in absolute terms, but might not help much with the practical reality of not knowing whether available files have been differently mastered - and you have hit the nail on the head saying that what matters most is the quality of the music production in the first place (which if course includes the mastering) - and sadly that is not always as good as it could be.

A good example to use is Etta James At Last. The same recording is available on Qobuz at 192/24 and on Tidal as 192/24 MQA. I found the MQA better for my ears even though I only get first unfold on the Atom to 96/24 the pcm version sounds harsh. I also own the 192/24 pcm and still prefer the MQA to it 

I just got a Bluesound Node 2 for my 2nd system so I might compare the full MQA on that to the PCM and see which I prefer.

SimonPeterArnold posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Graham in Sussex posted:

 

All valid points but  I was limiting supplying details to my own personal listening experience to the thread topic of MQA. I struggle to hear the difference or superiority in any hi res file (and golly, have i tried) no matter what the source. I still find myself tempted by the hi res option if purchasing any music but I always end up wondering if the extra cost was really worth it. That is just me though and I can't say it really bothers me. I am very happy with CD quality downloads and rips and love listening to them. What seems to me to matter most is the quality of the music production in the first place and not the bit rate etc of the file I download. Admittedly the most I have tried is 24/192 and maybe there is a level above that which will create a eureka moment. That would be nice. 

And I was responding to the implication in your previous post that you thought MQA might be the answer to convenient streaming of hi res.  My response was clarifying that MQA is only necessary for online hi res streaming where a provider e.g. Tidal) chooses to only supply via that medium. Meanwhile it doesn’t really make it any more convenient (indeed quite the reverse for others who don’t have a suitable DAC to complete the process.)        

As for hi res sounding better, or not, my own experience likewise doesn’t convince that it necessarily does, indeed some 16/44 sounds better than some hi res. The trouble is it seems that the mastering often is or may be different, negating the validity of comparison. For a full picture comparing both hi res vs standard, and the benefit or otherwise (to one’s own ears) of MQA, which your post suggests you are doing, it seems to me that it is necessary to find a few recordings available for online streaming of the original hi res as a s, and online streaming of an MQA encoded version, also available for download at original hi res and for download of an MQA version, together with a downsampled copy available for download at 16/44 plus online streaming availability of that same 16/44. Of course, that would only define it in absolute terms, but might not help much with the practical reality of not knowing whether available files have been differently mastered - and you have hit the nail on the head saying that what matters most is the quality of the music production in the first place (which if course includes the mastering) - and sadly that is not always as good as it could be.

A good example to use is Etta James At Last. The same recording is available on Qobuz at 192/24 and on Tidal as 192/24 MQA. I found the MQA better for my ears even though I only get first unfold on the Atom to 96/24 the pcm version sounds harsh. I also own the 192/24 pcm and still prefer the MQA to it 

I just got a Bluesound Node 2 for my 2nd system so I might compare the full MQA on that to the PCM and see which I prefer.

Thanks for the recommendation, I will try that out. It might be the case that you have better ears than me but it is good to have a recommendation from someone who can hear a discernible difference in two formats of the same piece. 

I am tempted by the Bluesound Node 2 as well and would be interested to hear your views on that. 

Incidentally, what are you using to feed the MQA files to your Atom? I have no idea whether the methodology of doing so would have any impact on perceived sound quality. 

I use Roon which has integrated Tidal for all my streaming needs. So this takes care of the first unfold on the server and serves up 96/24 to the Atom.

Bluesound is the easiest bit of kit I've had to setup just plugged it in and it worked with Roon instantly. I haven't had time yet to fully evaluate it but it sounds good as a second system. I'm using the analogue outs into my bookshelf qacoustics actives. I was using an Allo USBridge and Arcam irDac ii before. This I would say had an edge over the Bluesound on first listen which is no surprise as the DAC is very good. But I found the combo too unstable and wanted to simplify the setup for more WAF. Not much in it but will let you know when I have had more time with it. 

theirs probably more talk and write about about mqa  than listen to it

SimonPeterArnold posted:

I use Roon which has integrated Tidal for all my streaming needs. So this takes care of the first unfold on the server and serves up 96/24 to the Atom.

Bluesound is the easiest bit of kit I've had to setup just plugged it in and it worked with Roon instantly. I haven't had time yet to fully evaluate it but it sounds good as a second system. I'm using the analogue outs into my bookshelf qacoustics actives. I was using an Allo USBridge and Arcam irDac ii before. This I would say had an edge over the Bluesound on first listen which is no surprise as the DAC is very good. But I found the combo too unstable and wanted to simplify the setup for more WAF. Not much in it but will let you know when I have had more time with it. 

Thanks Simon. I will be keen to know how the Bluesound fairs. So far I have been Roonifying my system by using the Mytek Brooklyn + via a Mac Mini to my 282 (all hard wired) or trying the Sonore Upnp Bridge to my NDX. Neither solution really does it for me but I do like the Roon experience and integration with Tidal etc. Do I bite the bullet and upgrade to an NDX2 or try some other slightly more convenient method, such as the Bluesound? Decisions, decisions. 

audio1946 posted:

theirs probably more talk and write about about mqa  than listen to it

I suspect you are right. It certainly has ignited differing views. Why is it though, that if I listen through Roon and am presented with a choice of CD Quality or MQA, I always choose to listen to the MQA version even though my experience is that, generally, I can't tell the difference? The psychology of marketing perhaps? 

Graham in Sussex posted:

SimonPeterArnold posted:

I use Roon which has integrated Tidal for all my streaming needs. So this takes care of the first unfold on the server and serves up 96/24 to the Atom.

Bluesound is the easiest bit of kit I've had to setup just plugged it in and it worked with Roon instantly. I haven't had time yet to fully evaluate it but it sounds good as a second system. I'm using the analogue outs into my bookshelf qacoustics actives. I was using an Allo USBridge and Arcam irDac ii before. This I would say had an edge over the Bluesound on first listen which is no surprise as the DAC is very good. But I found the combo too unstable and wanted to simplify the setup for more WAF. Not much in it but will let you know when I have had more time with it. 

Thanks Simon. I will be keen to know how the Bluesound fairs. So far I have been Roonifying my system by using the Mytek Brooklyn + via a Mac Mini to my 282 (all hard wired) or trying the Sonore Upnp Bridge to my NDX. Neither solution really does it for me but I do like the Roon experience and integration with Tidal etc. Do I bite the bullet and upgrade to an NDX2 or try some other slightly more convenient method, such as the Bluesound? Decisions, decisions. 

What is it you dont like about your current setup the sound or having more kit to use it?

I love my current set up and enjoy listening to it tremendously. I also really like the Roon experience of browsing and would like to be able to do that through my NDX. I think the Bluesound has a digital out which I could use to the NDX for that purpose.

Yes it has Coaxial out. Had a good listen last night. I like the unit. I am however using the internal DAC not the digital outs so cannot comment on that side of things as it feeds direct into some Active speakers by phono. I would say its pretty neutral, bass is clear and not muddy some may call it flat I guess it will depend on what you pair it with. I found the Allo USBridge I used before a bit brighter but its hard to compare as I was using my Arcam DAC. I could still use the Arcam  and feed the BS into it digitally but I am after simplicity and low box count. Overall happy so far. 

SimonPeterArnold posted:

Yes it has Coaxial out. Had a good listen last night. I like the unit. I am however using the internal DAC not the digital outs so cannot comment on that side of things as it feeds direct into some Active speakers by phono. I would say its pretty neutral, bass is clear and not muddy some may call it flat I guess it will depend on what you pair it with. I found the Allo USBridge I used before a bit brighter but its hard to compare as I was using my Arcam DAC. I could still use the Arcam  and feed the BS into it digitally but I am after simplicity and low box count. Overall happy so far. 

Sounds good Simon. i am not keen on bass being over powering so clear but not muddy is my preference. I have reverted back to just my NDX and it is sounding excellent. i will stick with that for a while yet. Happy listening!

Graham in Sussex posted:

SimonPeterArnold posted:

Yes it has Coaxial out. Had a good listen last night. I like the unit. I am however using the internal DAC not the digital outs so cannot comment on that side of things as it feeds direct into some Active speakers by phono. I would say its pretty neutral, bass is clear and not muddy some may call it flat I guess it will depend on what you pair it with. I found the Allo USBridge I used before a bit brighter but its hard to compare as I was using my Arcam DAC. I could still use the Arcam  and feed the BS into it digitally but I am after simplicity and low box count. Overall happy so far. 

Sounds good Simon. i am not keen on bass being over powering so clear but not muddy is my preference. I have reverted back to just my NDX and it is sounding excellent. i will stick with that for a while yet. Happy listening!

I decided to try the node with my Arcam DAC to see if it sounded better or different using its coaxial out. I really struggled to hear any difference so the BS has definitely a good DAC, which is a bonus and I prefer it over the Allo. YMMV of course.

Well I now have a Mytek Brooklyyn+ DAC with external linear power supply which has replaced my Chord Hugo and Gustard U12 (USB to SPdif) in my second system.  

I am using this in conjunction with a Sonore microRendu streamer/renderer (running bubbleUPnP server to give access to TIDAL), and my local music source is a Synology NAS running minimserver. I have managed to get the setup up and running (after a few software upgrades and a bit of 'fiddling'), and I am able to stream music successfully from Tidal HiFi (CD quality) or from my NAS in both CD quality and hi-res using either Lumin or mconnect apps on my iPad.

However, I simply cannot find a way to stream MQA files (in a simple 'pass-through' way) to my DAC via the microRendu from either Tidal Masters or from a selection of 2L files I have downloaded to my NAS. When streamed, the files do play perfectly well on the Brooklyn +, but are not recognised as MQA files and so are not 'unfolded' by the DAC. Extremely frustrating!

I have tested that the DAC's MQA processing does work by connecting my laptop directly to the DAC over USB and by feeding it with an MQA file from the Tidal app on my laptop. The DAC recognises the MQA format and carries out a full MQA unfold. However, this would never be a viable solution for me.    

Not sure where to go from here - maybe just forget about MQA, but that would be a bit of a shame.

I was aware that Sonore had an MQA update for the Sonore family of streamers, which would have enabled the streamers to carry out the first MQA unfold) and which was apparently ready for release in the spring of this year. However, it appears that the release was pulled primarily because of the controversy surrounding the MQA format. I am guessing (from the snippets of information I have come across) that quite a bit of pressure was put on Sonore not to go ahead with the update, and quite understandably they succumbed to that pressure.  

However, I had hoped that a simple pass-through of MQA files would still be possible, and I have just received this response form Sonore Support to my question:

"MQA should pass right through and play on your DAC. The signal just needs to un altered from point A to point B. So no signal processing or digital volume control anyplace in between"

So it appears that it should work, and I just have to find out what might be altering the files. I have a horrible feeling the answer is bubbleUPnP which is installed on the microRendu and on which I rely to get access to Tidal for this system.

Have you got transcoding enabled on bubble?

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't have transcoding enabled on bubble. I had also switched off FLAC to WAV transcoding on minimserver on my NAS, although this would obviously not have affected Tidal on this setup. 

I notice that on the Tidal audio settings on bubble, the only options are 'AAC 320' or 'FLAC 16 bits/44.1 kHz' and I obviously have this set to 'FLAC 16 bits/44.1. The Qobuz drop down on the other hand offers audio settings up to 24 bits/192 kHz.

However, to bubble I guess the MQA files would appear to be 16bits/44.1, or is this possibly where the problem lies? 

I don't think BubbleUpnp will pass through mqa yet. MQA is wrapped as 44.1/24 or 48/24 so it won't work with current 44.1/16 of BubbleUpnp. I believe that MConnect is supposed to pass it though and maybe Lumin App.

Hi Simon,

That is what I feared, but are you talking about the bubbleUPnP server or the bubbleUPnP app? I am using bubbleUPnP server on the microRendu to set up an OpenHome renderer that can be used to access Tidal or Qobuz, but I am not using the app as a control point for my music selection.  

I have tried both MConnect and Lumin apps as the control point for my music selection, but I don't really understand how either app could resolve my problem. The Tidal Master MQA files are obtained via bubbleUPnP which is why I have this installed on my microRendu, and so surely the 'damage' to the files has happened prior to them getting anywhere near the apps?

From looking at a number of threads it seems that both Sonore and the developers of bubbleUPnP had developed and were about to release MQA related updates at the beginning of summer. It appears they have decided to hold off (possibly indefinitely) from releasing the updates because of vocal opposition to MQA from some influential quarters of their product communities.     

So I may be stuck. It's a pity.