[Left Channel]

  The problem is that for full decoding you would need a new device, software decoding is only available on tidal app so far. so unless you spend money on a device with support you are stuck with 16/48 question is are they any better than whats already out there?

 

As I understood it MQA is like a zip or like flac that your dac (if it has the right firmware) can decode. how can a decoded file sound better than the original unpacked 24 bit master file? A flac file ((of a 16 bit original) also can´t sound "better" than the original 16 bit file, or am I wrong here? It´s just packed and the DAC decodes the file before playing it. hmm, but maybe you know more about that?

 

There's more to MQA than just making a Hi Res album able to stream. Part of the MQA experience is remastering and using a deblurring circuit to eliminate pre ringing innate in digital recordings, according to Meridian. I attribute the better sound of MQA to this deblurring process. 

 
With MQA software decoding, we get MQA 1x "unfolding" and up to 24/88.2 or 24/96.

With an MQA DAC doing hardware decoding, we would get 4x unfolding and up to 24/192.

Here's more on how MQA works:
* MQA Decoding Explained | AudioStream
* MQA Playback | Bob Talks

I haven't heard anything at 4x. Remastering may be the only reason the 1x Tidal Masters sound better to me than the same tracks in Tidal HiFi, as is often case with hi-res tracks of any kind. I think I've got the facts straight, but can't form an opinion on quality without hearing 4x decoding side by side with the files from the same source material in other formats. 
 

 

[jude]

  With MQA software decoding, we get MQA 1x "unfolding" and up to 24/88.2 or 24/96.

With an MQA DAC doing hardware decoding, we would get 4x unfolding and up to 24/192.

Here's more on how MQA works:
* MQA Decoding Explained | AudioStream
* MQA Playback | Bob Talks

I haven't heard anything at 4x. Remastering may be the only reason the 1x Tidal Masters sound better to me than the same tracks in Tidal HiFi, as is often case with hi-res tracks of any kind. I think I've got the facts straight, but can't form an opinion on quality without hearing 4x decoding side by side with the files from the same source material in other formats. 

 
If you're interested in reading up on MQA, I think one of the biggest must-reads is Chris Connaker's comprehensive Q&A with MQA's Bob Stuart. This was perhaps the single most comprehensive, easy-to-digest reading I've found about MQA, in which Bob welcomed any and all questions from the ComputerAudiophile community, and then answered them.
 
I've spent hours talking to Bob about MQA over the last two years, and I still learned most of what I know about MQA from this Q&A. (Kudos to Chris Connaker for getting that together.)
 
As I've said to Bob and his team countless times: Explaining MQA might be greatly served by some well-executed infographics.
 

A Comprehensive Q&A With MQA's Bob Stuart​

 

[Left Channel]

 
If you're interested in reading up on MQA, 

Can you check that link please? I think it's pointing back to this thread at the moment. 

I've read that interview, but as you say graphics make a big difference which is why I started sharing the links in my previous post. Your link dives deep and IMHO is best left until the first two articles have been absorbed.  

 

[jude]

  Can you check that link please? I think it's pointing back to this thread at the moment. 

I've read that interview, but as you say graphics make a big difference which is why I started sharing the links in my previous post. Your link dives deep and IMHO is best left until the first two articles have been absorbed.  

 
Linked fixed (thanks for the heads-up).
 
You make good points on the order of reading.

 

[Yamantaka]

Here is a very recent practical explanation of MQA, including a few graphs, by Chris Connaker of Computer Audiophile:
 
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/748-mqa-civilians/

 

[Groot Geluid]

when it is originally mastered MQA afterwards does not improve anything but perhaps the bit rate reduction. For producers of audio it only adds to extra costs and for consumers there is little to win.

 

[lantian]

Explanation is not what I am looking for and probably most are not either ( It has been done enough times). What I want to know if there are nay benefits from using MQA over normal flacs and as far a I can see the only benefits there are because of MQA remastering and then not guaranteed to be there in all cases

 

[Trerit]

  and also that they start to categorize their mqa content via genre, artist, etc.
like c'mon Tidal,...can't be all that difficult to do.
i've emailed them on this (plus a request for an EQ app)
support@tidal.com
more people should just send them an email, requesting such, too.
 
i'm also sometimes getting buffering/stuttering upon
using mqa on tidal..have to turn it on then off again.
anyone else?

Last time i saw someone have buffering/stuttering issues they had to crap internet/connection. Check your network load. try changing to wired instead of wireless.
My tidal peaked at 95Mbit/s once i first pressed play on George Benson - Affirmation (MQA version) then went on to doing 40Mbit/s in bursts around every 25th second.
just by throwing a quick glance it seems like it doesnt use any bandwidth 3/4 the time meaning 10Mbit internet connection should give you just enough for that song but it might give you stuttering. I would advice against having a slower internet connection than 20Mbit/s.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AiTQgspGNYdg9yS759A8_AJnW7XH (this is the graph if any one wants to take a look.)

 

[Trerit]

 
I'm using the TIDAL app for my observations between MQA and Hi Res FLAC. Generally, MQA sounds better, in my view.

Comparing a tidal MQA remaster against a different remaster Hi Res FLAC  aint realy fair. They will sound different and not because of the MQA part. When comparing you should compare against the same remaster.

 

[canali]

 
Last time i saw someone have buffering/stuttering issues they had to crap internet/connection. Check your network load. try changing to wired instead of wireless.
My tidal peaked at 95Mbit/s once i first pressed play on George Benson - Affirmation (MQA version) then went on to doing 40Mbit/s in bursts around every 25th second.
just by throwing a quick glance it seems like it doesnt use any bandwidth 3/4 the time meaning 10Mbit internet connection should give you just enough for that song but it might give you stuttering. I would advice against having a slower internet connection than 20Mbit/s.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AiTQgspGNYdg9yS759A8_AJnW7XH (this is the graph if any one wants to take a look.)

 
yes i'll have to get an ethernet connection for my microrendu/lps 1 hookup
..but it does seem there IS a legit stuttering issue both audioquest and tidal are aware of.
 
per their reply to me.
TIDAL Support [DanielON] (TIDAL)
Feb 16, 9:28 PM EST

Hello again

We are currently working on an update to address some of the stuttering
issues you are seeing, and hope to have the update available in the upcoming days.

The audio should only switch to the system default if the dragonfly disappears,
or temporarily gets access by another App in exclusive mode.

Please check to see if any other App is using the Dragonfly exclusively as audio output.

 

[Trerit]

   
yes i'll have to get an ethernet connection for my microrendu/lps 1 hookup
..but it does seem there IS a legit stuttering issue both audioquest and tidal are aware of.
 
per their reply to me.
TIDAL Support [DanielON] (TIDAL)
Feb 16, 9:28 PM EST

Hello again

We are currently working on an update to address some of the stuttering
issues you are seeing, and hope to have the update available in the upcoming days.

The audio should only switch to the system default if the dragonfly disappears,
or temporarily gets access by another App in exclusive mode.

Please check to see if any other App is using the Dragonfly exclusively as audio output.

Forgot to mention that the graph is in Megabytes, whilst regular internet connections are measured in Megabits.
1Megabyte = 8Megabits.

 

[bigro]

   
 
 
With MQA software decoding, we get MQA 1x "unfolding" and up to 24/88.2 or 24/96.

With an MQA DAC doing hardware decoding, we would get 4x unfolding and up to 24/192.

Here's more on how MQA works:
* MQA Decoding Explained | AudioStream
* MQA Playback | Bob Talks

I haven't heard anything at 4x. Remastering may be the only reason the 1x Tidal Masters sound better to me than the same tracks in Tidal HiFi, as is often case with hi-res tracks of any kind. I think I've got the facts straight, but can't form an opinion on quality without hearing 4x decoding side by side with the files from the same source material in other formats. 
 

There is No ReMastering from everything I have read. There seems to be some processing possibly simialar to a DSP as pointed out by jwbrent but it is another Way of packing or as Meridian says "Folding" Files Similar to ALAC or Flac. The End Result is Still a PCM output. There is no special MQA dac chip. According to this
 http://www.stereophile.com/content/meridian-explorer-usb-da-processorheadphone-amplifier#JV1p2Rbl6zeaqcU9.97
The Explorer 2 which is MQA capable Uses a TI PCM5102 which looks to me to be a standard D/S DAC chip which decodes PCM. Which means MQA Unfolded in all its Glory is still a PCM File. Just like FLAC and ALAC. If The 1X Unpacking can be done VIA Software on Tidal, I see No reason why it cannot be unpacked entirely via Tidal. Cough Cough $$$. 
  
Here is a Interesting and slightly Technical Read from Benchmark. Which States that the filter used introduces jitter which has been an issue known to degrade sound quality in Digital audio since forever and ever Ok well probably since the early 80's. And also States that You get no more that 17 Bits even if fully unpacked. So Slightly better than CD's at which 16 Bit. Everything else aside if this is in fact the case I personally do not see it as being better Technically than FLAC as it does not do the same to files.  
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa
 
I am not opposed to new files types and tech but my opinion is those behind the Tech should be forthcoming about these things. I am all for better streaming quality with lower bandwidth as many people listen to music like in that fashion. And that is probably the biggest strength to MQA.  Unless I missed it,( please post if you have some) Outside of the people saying It sounds better or it sounds worst there does not seem to be any hard evide which concur with the claims. I Gave the Tidal Masters a run (using theTidal Based Decoding) and compared To the Flac (16/44.1) Tidal Hi fi Version and the MQA version. To my Ears the MQA file lacked dynamics compared to the others. It did not sound bad in fact sounded far better than Many MP3's but it was not an improvement over the Standard Red book resolution. The other thing I noticed right away was I found the sound stage closed in a bit. The Flac FIle and the Tidal Hifi sounded practically the same. I was Curious about what it sounded like with MQA enabled DAC but There was nothing there that made me want to experiment further with a MQA enabled DAC especially after reading the benchmark piece on the topic. 

 

[ThomasHK]

There is No ReMastering from everything I have read. There seems to be some processing possibly simialar to a DSP as pointed out by jwbrent but it is another Way of packing or as Meridian says "Folding" Files Similar to ALAC or Flac. The End Result is Still a PCM output. There is no special MQA dac chip. According to this
 http://www.stereophile.com/content/meridian-explorer-usb-da-processorheadphone-amplifier#JV1p2Rbl6zeaqcU9.97
The Explorer 2 which is MQA capable Uses a TI PCM5102 which looks to me to be a standard D/S DAC chip which decodes PCM. Which means MQA Unfolded in all its Glory is still a PCM File. Just like FLAC and ALAC. If The 1X Unpacking can be done VIA Software on Tidal, I see No reason why it cannot be unpacked entirely via Tidal. Cough Cough $$$. 
  
Here is a Interesting and slightly Technical Read from Benchmark. Which States that the filter used introduces jitter which has been an issue known to degrade sound quality in Digital audio since forever and ever Ok well probably since the early 80's. And also States that You get no more that 17 Bits even if fully unpacked. So Slightly better than CD's at which 16 Bit. Everything else aside if this is in fact the case I personally do not see it as being better Technically than FLAC as it does not do the same to files.  
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa

I am not opposed to new files types and tech but my opinion is those behind the Tech should be forthcoming about these things. I am all for better streaming quality with lower bandwidth as many people listen to music like in that fashion. And that is probably the biggest strength to MQA.  Unless I missed it,( please post if you have some) Outside of the people saying It sounds better or it sounds worst there does not seem to be any hard evide which concur with the claims. I Gave the Tidal Masters a run (using theTidal Based Decoding) and compared To the Flac (16/44.1) Tidal Hi fi Version and the MQA version. To my Ears the MQA file lacked dynamics compared to the others. It did not sound bad in fact sounded far better than Many MP3's but it was not an improvement over the Standard Red book resolution. The other thing I noticed right away was I found the sound stage closed in a bit. The Flac FIle and the Tidal Hifi sounded practically the same. I was Curious about what it sounded like with MQA enabled DAC but There was nothing there that made me want to experiment further with a MQA enabled DAC especially after reading the benchmark piece on the topic. 

That Benchmark blog post is awesome. Full agree with all of it. As long as the claim that pre-ringing (or time smearing as the Meridians call it) is bad is not proven, this whole MQA story is very fluffy.

 

[bigro]

  Here is a very recent practical explanation of MQA, including a few graphs, by Chris Connaker of Computer Audiophile:
 
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/748-mqa-civilians/

Ha Graphs. I was very Excited but there is no Specifics of the source of these graphs. HMMM

 

[Left Channel]

Originally Posted by bigro /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
There is No ReMastering from everything I have read. 
 
<snip>

 
All good points. I don't know how experts define remastering, but The Bob claims that in the first phase they are starting with original tapes, researching the original equipment, and working with the original engineers and artists. That's all good. However, his long-term goal is to put everything into MQA regardless of source quality, and "break the back" of the resistance. That's where it becomes completely smoke-and-mirrors for me, but I'm not sure the first phase is entirely above-board either.

The source of hi-res music is often not specified, so it can be very hard to do any real listening comparison. MQA doubles down on that kind of obfuscation. The first "Tidal Masters" I stumbled upon included the "Steve Wilson Mix & Master" of Jethro Tull's Aqualung. Sure, it sounds better than the "Tidal HiFi" version of Aqualung, but so what? Is the difference I'm hearing MQA? How would I know? Why doesn't Meridian or MQA or whoever offer 1-to-1 comparisons of the same source? Like maybe Jazz at the Pawnshop in MQA and FLAC, at the same native resolution from the same original tapes. Or is it to be "Don't look at the man behind the curtain!!!"? This is getting very frustrating, Toto. Sometimes I wish my feet weren't too big for the ruby slippers. 

In another thread Jason Stoddard of Schiit Audio pointed us to some actual analysis on the following site, where I found objective measurements and discussions of both Tidal/software decoding and Mytek/hardware decoding. It's worth a look:
* COMPARISON: TIDAL / MQA stream & high-resolution downloads; impressions & thoughts... | Archimago's Musings
* COMPARISON: Hardware-Decoded MQA (using Mytek Brooklyn DAC) | Archimago's Musings