[Currawong]

That's a long way of saying that, much of the time, it isn't lossless. 3 bits of the 16-bit encoded file are not lossless -- it's in the patent.
 
Anyhow: INXS. I went and had a listen to the HIFI vs. Master of Never Tear Us Apart and the MQA has a major change in pitch.  This seems to be the major confusion: People are hearing a difference, but are confusing a fundamental change in the actual recording with the fact that it is encoded as MQA.  They could re-master it and output it as a regular, non-MQA track and we'd get almost all the sonic benefits.

 

[rkw]

 
Anyhow: INXS. I went and had a listen to the HIFI vs. Master of Never Tear Us Apart and the MQA has a major change in pitch.  This seems to be the major confusion: People are hearing a difference, but are confusing a fundamental change in the actual recording with the fact that it is encoded as MQA.  They could re-master it and output it as a regular, non-MQA track and we'd get almost all the sonic benefits.

 
Here's how you can compare between HIFI and Master of the same track. If you play Tidal on the web browser, the track will play as HIFI (16/44 undecoded). The Tidal Mac/PC app will play the same track as Master with MQA unfolding applied.
 
When I've tried this comparison, I find that Master plays at a louder level than HIFI. You have to try to match the levels for a proper comparison. Member manpowre has also observed Master playing at a louder level:
 

 
It sounds different on appropriate equipment, I hear a noticeable difference for sure. Also I suspect some people forget to change their windows driver settings to 24/96 listening to Master version of the albums in Windows. Also some of the Master albums Ive heard, and measured with ADC is louder, up to 3-5db sometimes. 

 

[Currawong]

 

 
Anyhow: INXS. I went and had a listen to the HIFI vs. Master of Never Tear Us Apart and the MQA has a major change in pitch.  This seems to be the major confusion: People are hearing a difference, but are confusing a fundamental change in the actual recording with the fact that it is encoded as MQA.  They could re-master it and output it as a regular, non-MQA track and we'd get almost all the sonic benefits.

 
Here's how you can compare between HIFI and Master of the same track. If you play Tidal on the web browser, the track will play as HIFI (16/44 undecoded). The Tidal Mac/PC app will play the same track as Master with MQA unfolding applied.
 
When I've tried this comparison, I find that Master plays at a louder level than HIFI. You have to try to match the levels for a proper comparison. Member manpowre has also observed Master playing at a louder level:
 

 
It sounds different on appropriate equipment, I hear a noticeable difference for sure. Also I suspect some people forget to change their windows driver settings to 24/96 listening to Master version of the albums in Windows. Also some of the Master albums Ive heard, and measured with ADC is louder, up to 3-5db sometimes. 

 
Someone else wrote about this. I can't help wondering why. From a logical point of view, the louder level means more bits there to encode the music itself, but it makes comparisons much harder, and might be seen by someone as MQA trying to fool people into thinking their version sounds better because it is louder.

 

[castleofargh]

they might just remove extra headroom from some tracks that have any before converting to MQA. given how many bits they are left with after MQA encoding, it could make sense to use all the dynamic range left for signal instead of keeping digital headroom.
 
another possibility might simply be that they apply something like loudness normalization but only for playing the files a given way, or maybe it's pre-applied on usual files but not on MQA files(because they can't do it before the file is uncompressed or that would kill the data).
 
or maybe they do make one louder as a marketing trick. let's not forget that tidal already fooled people with the online audio test where an EQ was applied on bass and trebles to make lossy files sound clearly different.

 
but of course before considering such possibilities, we'd first need to know for sure that differences don't originate from using a different playback method, or simply from 2 different masters being played, or from bad testing method.

 

[manpowre]

   
Someone else wrote about this. I can't help wondering why. From a logical point of view, the louder level means more bits there to encode the music itself, but it makes comparisons much harder, and might be seen by someone as MQA trying to fool people into thinking their version sounds better because it is louder.

Or, it means that noise floor has been lifted upwards to give bit-headroom for the different unfolding mechanisms.. Who knows what it means. Im working these days with a blog to show this, just working on the test methods for me and everyone else to fully understand it.

 

[Steve Buck]

TIdal updated on IOS but not Android
25th april..
 
 
Still no mqa/masters support but IOS gets a new GUI 
 
Eagerly awaiting something for android.

 

[Steve Buck]

However... Glitches on offline saved to sd card seem to have been cured.

1 album down and all good so far..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Steve Buck]

TIdal updated on IOS and Android 25th april..
 
 
Still no mqa/masters support on either platform
 
IOS gets a new GUI android..just bug fixes..
 
 
Dissapointed

Sorry false alarm...ios only..
Android not updated.
( but glitches gone from my pioneer ??)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[erich6]

Good rundown. But Tidal now seems to be marking the Tidal Masters with an M logo. What's odd is that when I play them I'm still showing HIFI. That's in the lower right directly to the left of the volume control. The only indication it's a Master is that M logo (it's an M in a square) up top in the tittle section.

Glad my post was helpful.

Yes, Tidal added the "M in a square" feature after I posted my rundown. It's a very helpful designator when sorting through a large grid of album covers. I see you figured out the desktop app works for MASTER quality. Enjoy!

 

[oscarp]

Is MQA on Onkyo a stand alone App or does it use Tidal's MQA unfolding App, I understand the MQA decoder on Explorer 2 is a hardware solution ?? So if Tidal settings for MQA is bypassed, the stand alone app would do the decoding to it's maximum resolution ? Also the bit I have read on Tidal ,(44 pages too much it affects my eye sight ) no one seems to mention that the file is smaller than normal decoding. Hope all of this has not been mentioned before.

 

[canthearyou]

Deleted.

 

[JeremyLaurenson]

Is MQA on Onkyo a stand alone App or does it use Tidal's MQA unfolding App, I understand the MQA decoder on Explorer 2 is a hardware solution ??.

Its built into the Onkyo Music App on the Onkyo.
I have downloaded and tested a few songs, "demos".
Unfortunately in the U.S. despite the relentless marketing theres really nothing to buy in MQA.

 

[waveSounds]

Apart from the greatly reduced file size, you mean.

 

[headfry]

agree with this article!


http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/07/dont-worry-usb-happy-reprise/


....Still loving Steve Earle's album "So You Want to Be An Outlaw:" on Masters!

 

[gimmeheadroom]

I think I have a decent enough setup, and should be able to hear a difference in Tidal 1x unfolding. But so far I've only found a few examples of what seem to be albums of the same provenance, in both HiFi and MQA, and I cannot hear any difference between them. Maybe I just need to find the right albums? I have a nice little Schitt stack with a range of cans, IEMs, and speakers. I have looked at the Brooklyn DAC and other MQA boxes above and below that price point, but I need to be convinced it will be worth time and money.

It should not be so difficult to find tracks to compare. Mostly I've found MQA files processed from a higher-quality quality masters than the reproductions that were already on Tidal. Those are not useful comparisons. I do believe that I've found a few Jethro Tull albums that are a match: the Steve Wilson mixes in both HiFi and MQA. But although I hear a clear step-up in quality from older versions to the Wilson remixes, I hear no difference between the HiFi and MQA Wilsons.

Maybe jazz would be a better choice for my ears. The way Tidal is organized I can't easily find albums to compare, but even armed with the Google Sheet of MQA albums on Tidal, I'm not finding useful matches. For example, the Modern Jazz Quartet is listed as having albums in both formats, like European Concert Vols. 1 & 2, and Lonely Woman. But those are clearly of different provenance, with tracks of different lengths, and even different album art. This is getting tedious, and I have better things to do with my time.

Can anyone suggest albums for me to compare on Tidal? Albums you know are from the same source? Maybe some jazz? I know about the free downloads on the 2L Test Bench page, but for now this needs to all happen on Tidal here.

A bit late but listen to Elton John's Captain Fantastic if you haven't already. The MQA version sounds like vinyl, especially the cut called Writing. Superb!