witchdoctor Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I changed my setting to Exclusive Mode and now I get the blue light with passthrough checked or unchecked. Now to test if there is a difference using software to decode MQA or the Explorer2 Please post on the comparison, thanks Link to comment
witchdoctor Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I'm also playing the TIDAL master files through an Explorer², and I'm consistently getting the blue light indicating MQA studio quality. The DAC is also indicating a variety of 44.1/96/192 kHz sampling rates. I find it VERY interesting that every album I already own in hi-res FLAC has exactly the same sampling rate on TIDAL, not to mention the fact that almost every album in the master section has already been released in hi-res. I would bet a shiny nickel that all of the MQA files on TIDAL were just converted from the same hi-res masters that are already available. On the plus side, when A-Bing the TIDAL master files with my hi-res files played with Audirvana, they sound more or less identical. Tidal is owned by artists, I'll bet they start recording natively in MQA in 2017 and doing new releases natively recorded. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Tidal is owned by artists, I'll bet they start recording natively in MQA in 2017 and doing new releases natively recorded. MQA is a post-recording DSP process. There's no such thing "recording natively in MQA". Link to comment
abrxx Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 So who has been A/B ing the MQA albums? The redbook albums are still on Tidal so for now its a rare chance to A/B. Its clear that some of the albums have a new master, or at least have dynamic range and EQ differences. Compare to the two versions of Tigerlily (Natalie Merchant). With a cheap pair of headphones I could easily detect large differences for each track. Link to comment
4est Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 As a non Tidal user, I'd love to hear impressions of the sonics. So who has been A/B ing the MQA albums? The redbook albums are still on Tidal so for now its a rare chance to A/B. Its clear that some of the albums have a new master, or at least have dynamic range and EQ differences. Compare to the two versions of Tigerlily (Natalie Merchant). With a cheap pair of headphones I could easily detect large differences for each track. Forrest: Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP> Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz Link to comment
crenca Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 So who has been A/B ing the MQA albums? The redbook albums are still on Tidal so for now its a rare chance to A/B. Its clear that some of the albums have a new master, or at least have dynamic range and EQ differences. Compare to the two versions of Tigerlily (Natalie Merchant). With a cheap pair of headphones I could easily detect large differences for each track. THIS! I am going to start a new thread but I am reluctant to use "better" with this album, but rather "different master"... Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 THIS! I am going to start a new thread but I am reluctant to use "better" with this album, but rather "different master"... I have been A/B-ing HDTracks hirez (presumably the input source of the MQA process) with Tidal desktop app MQA decoding. So far, meh. Link to comment
new_media Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I have been A/B-ing HDTracks hirez (presumably the input source of the MQA process) with Tidal desktop app MQA decoding. So far, meh. Same here. I don't notice any improvement, but I can't really complain about a streaming option that's essentially on par with hi-res FLAC. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Same here. I don't notice any improvement, but I can't really complain about a streaming option that's essentially on par with hi-res FLAC. +1 Link to comment
mav52 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Please post on the comparison, thanks Which thread is that ? The Truth Is Out There Link to comment
crenca Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Which thread is that ? Here is a single track comparison from myself: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/mqa-friend-devil-sonic-evaluation-31182/ Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
oneway23 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 At the risk of exposing myself as as uninformed, I've gotta pop in here and clarify a bit of my confusion here. I am/was(?) under the impression that MQA required authentication throughout the entire downstream chain (MQA files->certified player software->MQA qualified DAC) in order to receive the full sonic benefit of the files. I presumed that the output of MQA files sent to a non-MQA DAC was previously limited to 16-48. Am I correct in assuming that the Tidal-based software decoding is still not presenting the full MQA file to the non-MQA DAC? If it is, I'm perplexed. Was this not the sole means by which MQA was set to generate revenue? Sorry if these are basic questions that have been answered further up the thread. I took a quick break from working and it was on my mind...Thanks! Link to comment
crenca Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 At the risk of exposing myself as as uninformed, I've gotta pop in here and clarify a bit of my confusion here. I am/was(?) under the impression that MQA required authentication throughout the entire downstream chain (MQA files->certified player software->MQA qualified DAC) in order to receive the full sonic benefit of the files. I presumed that the output of MQA files sent to a non-MQA DAC was previously limited to 16-48. I am correct in assuming that the Tidal-based software decoding is still not presenting the full MQA file to the non-MQA DAC? If it is, I'm perplexed. Was this not the sole means by which MQA was set to generate revenue? Sorry if these are basic questions that have been answered further up the thread. I took a quick break from working and it was on my mind...Thanks! There is no "correct" answer to your questions because the answers have changed along the way. Bob has said that yes, software decoding is not a full MQA experience and last year at this time they said they were not going to do it. However, after he put his wet finger in the air and figured out which way the (market) winds were blowing, MQA is now a fully MQA through software decode and what Bob calls your "legacy" DAC. So, we are now in MQA v 1.1, with plenty more to come. Speculating, sometime around V 2 or 3 is when the consumer will start to feel the effects of strong(er) DRM and the those of us who dare discuss the "cons" of MQA will be explicating our Big Fat I Told You So's...but by then many of you will have acclimated yourself to the DRM experience and won't care... Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
blownsi Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 There is no "correct" answer to your questions because the answers have changed along the way. Bob has said that yes, software decoding is not a full MQA experience and last year at this time they said they were not going to do it. However, after he put his wet finger in the air and figured out which way the (market) winds were blowing, MQA is now a fully MQA through software decode and what Bob calls your "legacy" DAC. So, we are now in MQA v 1.1, with plenty more to come. Speculating, sometime around V 2 or 3 is when the consumer will start to feel the effects of strong(er) DRM and the those of us who dare discuss the "cons" of MQA will be explicating our Big Fat I Told You So's...but by then many of you will have acclimated yourself to the DRM experience and won't care... Please forgive my ignorance but is this DRM the same sort of copy protection which used to be associated itunes files? Link to comment
oneway23 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Eh, look. Philosophically, I get your consternation, Crenca. I genuinely do; I'm not being patronizing there. In reality? The modern world uses Netflix, Spotify, and Steam. I could shake my trembling fist in the air all I like, but, the fact is, we currently live in a rent to consume world, and we're not putting the toothpaste back in that tube. All I could suggest to allay your concerns is to support places like HDTracks and 7Digital by downloading your files to own. This is what I do, and yet, I'm also fully supportive of the MQA plan as well. Why? Well, again, I'm no fan of the obfuscation thus far on display, however, EVERY other business entertainment model is protecting their content and their revenue model behind some form of DRM. Why should the music business be expected to conduct themselves any differently? They're arguably the most greedy of all! The truth is that the download to own model is on borrowed time, IMO. Best to at least have the big wigs shooting for better sound quality as a priority (albeit one with questionable ulterior motives, granted), even with the potential risk involved. Anyone consciously concerned with these issues can continue to purchase CDs as though nothing has happened. Link to comment
crenca Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Please forgive my ignorance but is this DRM the same sort of copy protection which used to be associated itunes files? No, DRM is not limited to "copy protection" any more than all dogs are limited to being chihuahuas. The essence of what DRM is in found in the words "Digital"..."Rights"..."Management"... It is about "managing" the end user (i.e. his "rights") and how he uses the software (in this case, an MQA encoded file). MQA in its current form is DRM already because you can not hear the "hi-res" portion of the file unless you behave a certain way (legally purchase a license directly or through a third party such as Tidal). Thus by listening to MQA in its current form I am being "managed", "digitally". In the above quote, I am speculating that MQA will change through time based on the whims and desires of "the industry" to the detriment of the consumer (they reserve this right when they sell you the license to "lease" the software - you don't own it), perhaps to the point of one day including the dreaded "copy protection" that most folks think of when they think of DRM... Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
austinpop Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I changed my setting to Exclusive Mode and now I get the blue light with passthrough checked or unchecked. Now to test if there is a difference using software to decode MQA or the Explorer2 So to clarify - when you set the Tidal app to Exclusive mode, but the MQA Passthrough is unchecked, you still get the blue light - correct? If so, that confirms that the Tidal app is doing MQA decoding (unfolding) in SW. The reason I ask is because AURALiC are claiming that the Tidal Master stream is simply an upsampled, but unfolded stream. That sounds incorrect, since if it were the case, you wouldn't be seeing the blue light. A lot of misinformation is floating around. I might just wait a few days for the dust to settle. The big question is going to be if MQA will license their MQA SW decoding to other HW vendors like Aurender, Auralic, etc. My Audio Setup Link to comment
crenca Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Eh, look. Philosophically, I get your consternation, Crenca. I genuinely do; I'm not being patronizing there. In reality? The modern world uses Netflix, Spotify, and Steam. I could shake my trembling fist in the air all I like, but, the fact is, we currently live in a rent to consume world, and we're not putting the toothpaste back in that tube. All I could suggest to allay your concerns is to support places like HDTracks and 7Digital by downloading your files to own. This is what I do, and yet, I'm also fully supportive of the MQA plan as well. Why? Well, again, I'm no fan of the obfuscation thus far on display, however, EVERY other business entertainment model is protecting their content and their revenue model behind some form of DRM. Why should the music business be expected to conduct themselves any differently? They're arguably the most greedy of all! The truth is that the download to own model is on borrowed time, IMO. Best to at least have the big wigs shooting for better sound quality as a priority (albeit one with questionable ulterior motives, granted), even with the potential risk involved. Anyone consciously concerned with these issues can continue to purchase CDs as though nothing has happened. I think you are absolutely right oneway23 in that the the trends/industry is what it is and things are heading in this direction. I agree with your recommend course of action (purchasing non-DRM downloads and CD's), I just want to make it clear what is happening (via MQA and streaming) and why those very non-DRM downloads and CD's will be changing over to DRM based software files (downloads and physical) in the future and that as consumers we don't have to blindly $support$ the market forces that enables all this - our leverage is small but it is not non-existent... Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
cgiammona Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 So to clarify - when you set the Tidal app to Exclusive mode, but the MQA Passthrough is unchecked, you still get the blue light - correct? If so, that confirms that the Tidal app is doing MQA decoding (unfolding) in SW. The reason I ask is because AURALiC are claiming that the Tidal Master stream is simply an upsampled, but unfolded stream. That sounds incorrect, since if it were the case, you wouldn't be seeing the blue light. A lot of misinformation is floating around. I might just wait a few days for the dust to settle. The big question is going to be if MQA will license their MQA SW decoding to other HW vendors like Aurender, Auralic, etc. Correct, I am getting the blue light with either MQA passthrough checked or unchecked. Headphones: ZMF Atrium Closed, ZMF Bokeh, Audeze LCD-X, Meze 109 Pro, Focal Clear Mg, Noble Katana IEMs, Dan Clark Aeon 2 Closed Amp/DAC: Decware MKIII Tube Amp, ZMF Homage, Schiit Bifrost 2/64, Woo Audio WA8, Burston Playmate 2, Mytek DSD192 DAC, Cayin RU7, Chord Mojo, Fiio M11 Plus DAP Cables: Promitheus XLR Interconnects, WyWired red cables, Meze Silver, ZMF 6.35 ofc and 4 pin xlr stock, Arctic Cable, Audio Envy Cable balanced, balanced Silver Interconnects Other: Aurender N100H, Macbook Pro (2023) running Audirvana Studio Link to comment
abrxx Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Correct, I am getting the blue light with either MQA passthrough checked or unchecked. This confirms that Tidal is passing through the MQA stream when passthrough is enabled, and doing a *partial MQA unfold* when the passthrough is disabled. The partial unfold takes the MQA stream and does one level of unfolding, up to 88.2 or 96Khz. The resulting partially decoded MQA stream is then sent to the output device. We know this because of the blue light, indicating a MQA stream. Otherwise if Tidal were doing a full decode to 96/24 PCM stream, the blue light would not come on. Link to comment
oneway23 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 This confirms that Tidal is passing through the MQA stream when passthrough is enabled, and doing a *partial MQA unfold* when the passthrough is disabled. The partial unfold takes the MQA stream and does one level of unfolding, up to 88.2 or 96Khz. The resulting partially decoded MQA stream is then sent to the output device. We know this because of the blue light, indicating a MQA stream. Otherwise if Tidal were doing a full decode to 96/24 PCM stream, the blue light would not come on. Egads! Enough to make a head spin, really. Wish they would just tell a brother (or sis), in a clear fashion, exactly what is needed to conjure up the fully-cooked MQA mojo.... So, Tidal is only partially responsible for the magic voodoo soup...Is a new DAC needed, despite what was being bandied about yesterday? Link to comment
abrxx Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Egads! Enough to make a head spin, really. Wish they would just tell a brother (or sis), in a clear fashion, exactly what is needed to conjure up the fully-cooked MQA mojo.... So, Tidal is only partially responsible for the magic voodoo soup...Is a new DAC needed, despite what was being bandied about yesterday? Software decode is a compromise, but in the opinion of most of us, a very necessary one. If every DAC out there had MQA embedded, it wouldn't be needed. Since that chances of that happening are zero, a necessary compromise is software decoding. The software decode in MQA is limited to 96/24. That's their own limitation, in order to keep alive the MQA DAC thing. So if you want to listen to a 2L track at 372Khz or whatever it is, you will need MQA hardware: a MQA DAC that supports that sample rate (not all DACs do). In addition, there is some final magic that the MQA process can do if you have a MQA DAC. You don't get this magic with software decoding. On the other hand, the vast majority of studio masters are probably no higher resolution than 96/24. That is my gut feeling. So you get a lot of the MQA good stuff with software decoding. Perhaps the final 10% of the magic is missing. For that, get a MQA DAC. Simples! Link to comment
CPP Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 This confirms that Tidal is passing through the MQA stream when passthrough is enabled, and doing a *partial MQA unfold* when the passthrough is disabled. The partial unfold takes the MQA stream and does one level of unfolding, up to 88.2 or 96Khz. The resulting partially decoded MQA stream is then sent to the output device. We know this because of the blue light, indicating a MQA stream. Otherwise if Tidal were doing a full decode to 96/24 PCM stream, the blue light would not come on. So when that area Pass though is UNCHECKED, its doing what ?? vs checked , thanks in advance Link to comment
abrxx Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 So when that area Pass though is UNCHECKED, its doing what ?? vs checked , thanks in advance See post 120. Makes sense? Link to comment
oneway23 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Software decode is a compromise, but in the opinion of most of us, a very necessary one. If every DAC out there had MQA embedded, it wouldn't be needed. Since that chances of that happening are zero, a necessary compromise is software decoding. The software decode in MQA is limited to 96/24. That's their own limitation, in order to keep alive the MQA DAC thing. So if you want to listen to a 2L track at 372Khz or whatever it is, you will need MQA hardware: a MQA DAC that supports that sample rate (not all DACs do). In addition, there is some final magic that the MQA process can do if you have a MQA DAC. You don't get this magic with software decoding. On the other hand, the vast majority of studio masters are probably no higher resolution than 96/24. That is my gut feeling. So you get a lot of the MQA good stuff with software decoding. Perhaps the final 10% of the magic is missing. For that, get a MQA DAC. Simples! Huh....So, I'd agree with you about the realistic likelihood of 24/96 being a viable ceiling in terms of audible benefit with most modern recording/mastering. I know others will disagree, but, 24/96 has been my "sweet spot" in my personal experience with hi-res files. Where I begin to take issue is with my prior assumption that all of the MQA magic with regard to "time smearing" and such, resides in that "final 10%", as you say, which would require a new DAC. Was this not the main thrust of the MQA sales pitch? Don't get me wrong, streaming albums in 24/96 for no additional cost (as of right now, anyway) is an amazing achievement, particularly when most every hi-res album, prior to yesterday, routinely cost me $17 a pop, but, the bottom line is that I still need new hardware in order to benefit from everything MQA has to offer. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now