Tidal High Res (MQA) news...

[Audio_ELF]

Can't see this discussed anywhere else...

Tidal to launch hi-res audio streaming in 2016 | What Hi-Fi?

[jtm]

Here:

 

 

Tidal + MQA = Hi-Res Streaming in 2016? | AudioStream

[jiminlogansquare]

Interesting. Anyone know whether you would have to replace your DAC to utilize the MQA streaming service? Or will some variety of adapter or converter be made available?

[Yoga]

Interesting. Anyone know whether you would have to replace your DAC to utilize the MQA streaming service? Or will some variety of adapter or converter be made available?

 

That will be brand/firmware/license dependant.

[maelob]

great idea some type of usb-usb/spidif conversion would be great i just bought a new DAC

[jiminlogansquare]

I just spent $250 upgrading my Schiit Bifrost DAC to the Multibit version, which I am enjoying immensely. I really and truly am not in the market for a new, MQA licensed DAC. Plus, I already can stream hires files from another service (Naxos's ClassicsOnline HD*LL) without MQA. Sure, I might like to hear TIDAL files at higher than CD resolution, but not at that expense. That said, this new service might attract some new adopters to upgrade or purchase their first real DAC in order to access TIDAL with MQA. I just do not see myself as part of that cohort. I might purchase an inexpensive MQA converter that I could stick inline with my current DAC, though.

[maelob]

whomever comes up with a nice little adapter will make a lot of money.

[crenca]

Can't see this discussed anywhere else...

Tidal to launch hi-res audio streaming in 2016 | What Hi-Fi?

 

Well, I have a few questions. Does this mean that Tidal is abandoning it's current "hi res" or "hi fi" offering of 16/44 Flac (with some DMR protection of course) service? Do they REALLY expect all of us to get into yet another DAC/hardware situation when all of us have spent significant time and $ on our current rigs? Is MQA truly loss less, or is it yet another lossy format, and can anyone really even answer that question with any real conviction at this point? For those of us who don't jump on the MQA bandwagon, does this mean we are shifted to Tidal's "normal" lossy level service?

 

I see myself looking for another streaming service in the future...

[audio.bill]

From what I've read once TIDAL's Hi-Fi service includes MQA encoding, if your software or hardware doesn't support MQA decoding then you will continue to receive the standard CD resolution data as you currently do (not lossy or compressed.)

[crenca]

From what I've read once TIDAL's Hi-Fi service includes MQA encoding, if your software or hardware doesn't support MQA decoding then you will continue to receive the standard CD resolution data as you currently do (not lossy or compressed.)

 

Sooooooo, you select "MQA" as you would today select "Hi-Fi" (which is their name for their 16/44 flac stream) in the software. Except, according to the "What Hi-Fi" article they are dropping that service and going pure MQA.

 

That can not be correct, because that assumes a critical mass of MQA hardware owners as a customer base...

[jiminlogansquare]

I do believe from what I heard last spring that MQA is invisible to non-MQA hardware and would just play as normal CD quality.

[jhwalker]

Sooooooo, you select "MQA" as you would today select "Hi-Fi" (which is their name for their 16/44 flac stream) in the software. Except, according to the "What Hi-Fi" article they are dropping that service and going pure MQA.

 

That can not be correct, because that assumes a critical mass of MQA hardware owners as a customer base...

 

No. Non MQA-capable DACs will "see" only a normal 16/44 stream and play it just like normal Redbook.

 

Really, there is no downside to this - it's a *good* thing.

[jiminlogansquare]

Deleted

[firedog]

No. Non MQA-capable DACs will "see" only a normal 16/44 stream and play it just like normal Redbook.

 

Really, there is no downside to this - it's a *good* thing.

 

+1

 

AFAIR, there will also be MQA capable software. I think this means that there will be software that will decode MQA for playback on "regular" DACs.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

[crenca]

No. Non MQA-capable DACs will "see" only a normal 16/44 stream and play it just like normal Redbook.

 

Really, there is no downside to this - it's a *good* thing.

 

Soooo, an MQA stream "contains" both a 16/44 stream AND a parallel hi-res content (for example a 24/96 content) that is encoded in such a way that only MQA enabled software/hardware can "see" the hi-res content in said stream?

 

Also, I am old enough to know that when someone says "there is no downside to this" that it's time to break out the guns and run for the hills...

[crenca]

Also, the math is way over my head, but has anyone actually independently verified these claims, which appear to essentially be a claim of new "lossless compression"?

[wappinghigh]

Who cares? Tidal sucks anyway. No decent social networking side and smarts aren't as clever or as cool as Spotify or even Pandora. I can live without Tidal. To much Rap! Lol.

 

It's all about the smarts people. !!

[Axiom05]

Not directly related to the Tidal service, but in order to get the full benefit of MQA it must be incorporated into the recording process itself, i.e., the AD converter must have MQA encoding capability. So how will this affect downloads? If an album is recorded at 24/192 using MQA, the only way to get that 24/192 is to have a DAC with MQA decoding capability, otherwise you will only hear 16/44 (or is it 24/48?). So here we are again having to purchase yet another DAC or separate decoder in order to get the content we paid for. Remember HDCD? How many people are enjoying the benefits of HDCD from their CD rips? 15 years down the line when MQA has faded away, what happens to our MQA music files or will this be yet another niche market? Does anyone really see the major labels adopting MQA into their recording process with the associated license fees? Off the top of my head I can't think of a single encoding/decoding process that has been successful for the "general" public. They are either pro-level (Dolby) or market-specific (DTS). I suppose the download sites could offer pre-decoded versions of the music files. Anyone have a better insight into this than I do? Do I have this all wrong?

[firedog]

Not directly related to the Tidal service, but in order to get the full benefit of MQA it must be incorporated into the recording process itself, i.e., the AD converter must have MQA encoding capability. So how will this affect downloads? If an album is recorded at 24/192 using MQA, the only way to get that 24/192 is to have a DAC with MQA decoding capability, otherwise you will only hear 16/44 (or is it 24/48?). So here we are again having to purchase yet another DAC or separate decoder in order to get the content we paid for. Remember HDCD? How many people are enjoying the benefits of HDCD from their CD rips? 15 years down the line when MQA has faded away, what happens to our MQA music files or will this be yet another niche market? Does anyone really see the major labels adopting MQA into their recording process with the associated license fees? Off the top of my head I can't think of a single encoding/decoding process that has been successful for the "general" public. They are either pro-level (Dolby) or market-specific (DTS). I suppose the download sites could offer pre-decoded versions of the music files. Anyone have a better insight into this than I do? Do I have this all wrong?

 

But nobody "has" to get the benefits of MQA. It seems to me mostly a benefit for streaming-streaming hi-res files in a more efficient manner.

 

Are you happy with the sound of Redbook quality Tidal? I am. So I can keep listening to Tidal Redbook quality and haven't lost anything - I just haven't gained the benefits of MQA in my streaming. If I want something better SQ wise than Tidal Redbook I listen to music I "own".

 

I doubt we are going to see a big turn to recording and distribution of files in MQA format. So unless one listens mostly to Tidal streaming, why would you get another DAC just for MQA?

 

The difference between MQA and some of these earlier technologies you mentioned is that if you don't have the setup for it you can still playback the MQA files - you just don't get the highest quality version available.

 

Additionally, my understanding is that there will be MQA playback software - so you won't actually have to have the hardware to benefit from it. Supposedly Roon is going to incorporate it into Roon. So you could use Roon to listen to Tidal (or anything else) and still get the benefit of MQA.

[ChrisG]

I suspect that Roon will be supporting MQA, but I don't think they've officially commented on it in a while https://community.roonlabs.com/t/mqa-support-by-roon/88 BTW, the second post on this thread from Danny confirms that MQA is invisible to DACs that don't have it, so it's a bunch of worry over nothing.

[crenca]

I suspect that Roon will be supporting MQA, but I don't think they've officially commented on it in a while https://community.roonlabs.com/t/mqa-support-by-roon/88 BTW, the second post on this thread from Danny confirms that MQA is invisible to DACs that don't have it, so it's a bunch of worry over nothing.

 

Well, to worry a bit

 

Danny says that "MQA plays at CD quality if you don't have a decoder.". Ok, but I could link all sorts of stuff where people CLAIM all sorts of things, like for example that there is no SQ difference between 320 mp3 & 16/44, or 16/44 & 24/96. Now, many of these people sincerely believe such things, and of course others don't.

 

So, when Danny says "MQA plays at CD quality if you don't have a decoder.", what exactly is the basis for such a claim? Is it based on his personal listening (and thus preference)? Is it a based on knowledge of the inner workings of MQA (essentially, the math) and thus an understanding that it is a bit for bit delivery of an 16/44 file?

 

I see lot's of folks repeating this claim, but what does it rest on? As far as I can tell, right now it simply is a pre-release claim of an untested product - nothing more, and nothing less. In any case, I hope it is true as a Tidal customer who has no plans to be an MQA "first adopter"...

[crenca]

I found this informative video in a link-to-a-link in what ChrisG posted above:

 

 

At about 16:20 he admits that some "lossy compression" IS applied in MQA encoding, though only on information 48k and above. However, he also argues that the trade-off is less time smearing, so it in the end is a good thing. So it appears MQA is NOT a pure lossless compresion codec after all, though everyone so far is convinced this is a good thing.

 

Also, earlier in the video the presenter explains that the MQA A to D encoding is "superior" to what is currently used (using a graph). At about 18:05 he claims that if you play an MQA file through a regular DAC it "will see a normal 24/48 file". However, he does not really back that up and so one has to ask questions, for example "yes, but does the MQA A to D process result in any digital artifacts in this "normal" 24/48 space?" The assertion is clearly no, but for now I only see a product assertion unverified.

 

Starting about 19:30, he goes through a detailed explanation of the MQA demo he attended, including limitations of the demo and what he thought MQA did well (which was eliminate pre echo time smearing).

 

As he clearly says, "MQA is a sophisticated and multi-faceted codec" and "the jury is still out" and "audiophiles will have to make an evaluation UNDER KNOWN CONDITIONS to make a final judgement".

 

Seems to me we can then do away with the somewhat simplistic "MQA = 16/44" assertion that many are saying now, because it does not appear to be true. Now, MQA just might be the greatest thing to hit audio for a long time, and be a significant advancement over current 16/44 and I for one sincerely hope so. Still, we do not know that, and similarly we do not know that an MQA file played back through a standard DAC will have the same SQ as a "traditional" 16/44 file...

[bmoura]

Interesting. Anyone know whether you would have to replace your DAC to utilize the MQA streaming service? Or will some variety of adapter or converter be made available?

 

If you want both parts of the MQA decoding (software + DAC), Yes.

[bmoura]

Well, to worry a bit

 

Danny says that "MQA plays at CD quality if you don't have a decoder.". Ok, but I could link all sorts of stuff where people CLAIM all sorts of things, like for example that there is no SQ difference between 320 mp3 & 16/44, or 16/44 & 24/96. Now, many of these people sincerely believe such things, and of course others don't.

 

At the end of the day you do have to listen to MQA and make a decision.

 

Unfortunately the MQA demos to date have all been with MQA encoded and decoded music. So I don't know of anyone who has heard MQA encoded music without both MQA software decoding and MQA DAC decoding. That makes it hard to evaluate claims that undecoded MQA sounds as good as CD Quality.

 

As for decoded MQA music, I have heard a Meridian demo of that on some very high end Meridian gear. To my ears, the un-MQA processed FLAC and DSD editions of those tracks are superior to MQA processed and decoded versions.

 

But for streaming services, MQA's reduction in file size may be quite handy. Time will tell.

[firedog]

.

 

Seems to me we can then do away with the somewhat simplistic "MQA = 16/44" assertion that many are saying now, because it does not appear to be true. Now, MQA just might be the greatest thing to hit audio for a long time, and be a significant advancement over current 16/44 and I for one sincerely hope so. Still, we do not know that, and similarly we do not know that an MQA file played back through a standard DAC will have the same SQ as a "traditional" 16/44 file...

 

Actually everything we actually know about MQA is the opposite: that the 16/44 stream in fact remains intact. That's how the function has been explained by the people involved.

 

You seem to be extremely suspicious that somehow you are getting lied to - and I don't understand why. The MQA people have little reason to lie about such a thing, because if they lie, the lie will be found out and it will hurt their business tremendously.

 

You are right that for now it is only a product assertion, but your claim that it "appears not to be true" has no basis in any fact I'm aware of.

 

At this point, I'd believe the people behind MQA - several of whom are longstanding and well respected leaders in the audio world- than speculation by the not well informed on the Net.