[Left Channel]

 

Tidal has had "lossless" Hi-Fi in their mobile app for years. Spotify is only just now rolling out a copycat feature. We don't yet know how well it will be implemented, or whether it will be priced competitively over the long run, especially if Tidal reacts with a price drop. Tidal is still working on desktop MQA features, and has plenty of time to watch Spotify and respond in other ways while waiting for MQA to make sense on mobile. Since most phones and tablets don't yet have internal DACs that can do over 44.1/16, they can't do any MQA "unfolding", so it doesn't make much business sense for either company to offer an MQA mobile feature just yet.

Edit: to take that thought a little further...having the mobile app tell people to use an external DAC as you suggest will just confuse or anger most users, and result in even more bad app reviews. The market for mobile MQA is simply not large enough to be worth the cost and effort right now, but in consumer electronics and software a year is a lifetime, two years is an eternity, and I have hope we'll see what we want "soon".

You do realize Apple no longer has a built in dac/amp or headphone jack, so people have to buy their own. I'm sure other brands will follow suit to keep up with the thin war. So internal DACs are no longer as much of a consideration as they used to be, plus mqa states when it's playing that way and not.

Well like I said above, in the consumer electronics and software biz a year is a lifetime, two years is an eternity, and it will be interesting to see if that happens.
 
You and I would benefit from that. But until MQA is much more common, it will be dangerous territory to get into with average users. Most people expect an app to just work. They don't even want to think about what's in their accessories or what all these initialisms like DAC and MQA stand for. IMHO, the market isn't ready for this yet, and Tidal doesn't need yet another headache.

[Once again, I've edited a post than once, dagnabbit. When I looked again I realized I'd started answering while thinking about other phones entirely in fact. Better to distill this down to my main point, which is that the solution is quite simple: time.]

 

[SpiderNhan]

The first MQA CD is going into production now. CD quality sound on conventional CD players and MQA decoding with the proper DAC. Time smearing corrections are present with a decoder present or not and this comes at no additional cost to the listener. Win-win?

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-encoded-cds-yes#QyTMFW7bhM36XXKV.97

 

[L8MDL]

"Finally, I was confident that MQA-CD will usher in a new era of CD."

Better start saving to buy everything again...

 

[castleofargh]

The first MQA CD is going into production now. CD quality sound on conventional CD players and MQA decoding with the proper DAC. Time smearing corrections are present with a decoder present or not and this comes at no additional cost to the listener. Win-win?

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-encoded-cds-yes#QyTMFW7bhM36XXKV.97

 
my comments to the stereophile quotes in blue
 

Is the master file 16/44.1 with MQA or higher resolution?
This Ottava MQA CD starts from a 176/24 master(resolution of the PCM master they started with, not the resolution of the signal on the MQA CD!). The Origami process is used to fold the audio into a 44.1kHz file which can be post-processed to provide a 16-bit MQA file(don't misinterpret that they put 176/24 content into 16/44 files, because they cannot).
FYI, an MQA CD can be made starting from masters at 44.1, 88.2, 176.4 or 352.8kHz.(yeah and I can make a 128kbps mp3 starting from masters a 352.8khz)

An MQA CD is a Red Book CD and is 100% compatible with any existing CD player(meaning it's effectively a 16/44 file and most of it is a classic PCM signal encoded in PCM, which leaves very little storage available to contain the extra sample resolution). The audio on the disc is MQA-encoded PCM, and will play back happily without a decoder. In this case, the sound quality is slightly better than a typical CD, because the audio is already de-blurred in the studio.(what a load of crap, the undecoded signal will be at a resolution of something like 11/44 or 13/44 which is not even as good as CD resolution. and the "de-blurred" audio at such resolution can only mean treble roll off. of course that doesn't sound as nice as "de-blurred", but that's what it is. I'll need a lot of imagination to think that a rolled off and inferior resolution signal is "slightly better". even from a subjective point of view). However. if the bitstream is passed to an MQA decoder, it is unfolded to 176kHz (in this case) and rendered to the DAC at 24-bit.(means that the DAC will be set to 24bit, like I usually do to enjoy using digital volume control on my computer without discarding the LSB of my 16bit albums. of course it does not mean that the signal will have 24bit resolution!!!!!!! even with noise shaping it won't even have 16bit of the original 176/24 master).

 
 
 
look mama I'm "de-blurring" all my CDs with this amazing tool called EQ. take this ringing at 20khz!

(if it's true is this still a troll?)

 

[SpiderNhan]

I thought the whole point of this hobby is to maximize our enjoyment of music. Whatever MQA is in most cases the Tidal Masters sound better than their Hifi equivalents. My DAC is not capable of decoding MQA, but even the software decoding yields a noticable difference. If it's simply an EQ and a way of tricking my DAC into thinking it's playing a high-res file, I'll take it because the improvements (or different EQ-ing if you will) is more enjoyable to listen to.

It's funny all the time spent rolling cables and tubes and op amps to reach a desired sound, not to mention headphone signatures, open/closed, in-ear/over-ear etc., but when it comes to tweaking the source file for optimum fidelity there's such backlash. Now not liking the way MQA affects sound, or thinking their claims are bogus I understand. But to my ears it sounds better. I can't deny that. And it's not like MQA is trying to become the new industry standard, and even if it did there is no mandate that one has to buy into it. It works with all current DACs and CD players without additional hardware. Maybe that's because it's really just a 16/44 file with EQ. Given a choice, I'll take it.

 

[headfry]

Agreed SpiderNhan, thanks for your considered reply -
sums up my position on Tidal Masters/MQA on this forum too. The explanation of MQA may have inconsistencies and scientifically it appears to some as a marketing scam - yet to thousands of us, including Bob Ludwig, John Darko, Steven Stone - expert esteemed audio reviewers - hear much better sound than the non MQA masters.

It's not the science, it's the much better soundstage, much more accurate imaging - blacker background, more realistic instrument and vocal reproduction; in short significantly more of the emotion and artistic expression - what hifi has been pursuing from the beginning. Top end DAC makers including Brinkmann, Cary Audio, Aurender, Mytek and others are supporting MQA.

The concensus seems to be that MQA gives similar musical quality to conventional hires - many feel it may be even better - while allowing a much smaller streaming size.

My point is this - if a competing format could give similar musical quality without MQA and in a similar small file size - then MQA wouldn't likey survive longterm despite the aggressive marketing.

I love the SQ and musicality of most of the MQA albums I've heard, and so do many professional and seasoned reviewers, such as at WhatHIFI. We're not all deluded, nor do we have faulty hearing, nor are we all sighted-biased. We know what our perceptions tell us regarding the SQ of MQA . Those who are biased against MQA because they find inconsistencies in the theory may also have expectation bias - believing it's a laughable fraud may condition them so that they don't allow themselves to hear any improvement.

Just my opinion - and let's not assume that theories explain everything in the audiophile realm. The ear is much more discriminating in the time realm - for example - than today's instruments are.

 

[Baldr]

The first MQA CD is going into production now. CD quality sound on conventional CD players and MQA decoding with the proper DAC. Time smearing corrections are present with a decoder present or not and this comes at no additional cost to the listener. Win-win?

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-encoded-cds-yes#QyTMFW7bhM36XXKV.97

It is a pleasure to see new recordings coming available for the progressive audiophile.
Brings to mind the plaintive recordings of the Dhung Clup, one indigenous Amazonian tribe whose mournful recordings were spatially recorded in the wild and made available exclusively on DVD audio multichannel format. The fact that the Dhung Clups communicate only in clicks and grunts make for such a thrilling recording of total empathy. It is well worth searching out DVD Audio players which have not been made in 20 years.
A similar thrilling moment was the men's chorus of the Latvian men's sex offender's prison chorus singing Steven Foster Songs for children, spectacularly recorded in HDCD. A HDCD player was offered on eBay less than a year ago, and well worth the wait.
Finally we have the Poems of Ecstasy live recording by Shepherds in the wilds of the northern Scottish Orkney Islands. The shephards are clad in kilts, so there are no annoying zipper sounds destroying the ambience of the happily bleating sheep. The best news is that this DSD recording at 32X DSD is only a 150 Gigabyte file. Since DSD is still only on deathwatch, it is still reasonably easy to find a suitable decoder.

 

[jwbrent]

I thought the whole point of this hobby is to maximize our enjoyment of music. Whatever MQA is in most cases the Tidal Masters sound better than their Hifi equivalents. My DAC is not capable of decoding MQA, but even the software decoding yields a noticable difference. If it's simply an EQ and a way of tricking my DAC into thinking it's playing a high-res file, I'll take it because the improvements (or different EQ-ing if you will) is more enjoyable to listen to.

It's funny all the time spent rolling cables and tubes and op amps to reach a desired sound, not to mention headphone signatures, open/closed, in-ear/over-ear etc., but when it comes to tweaking the source file for optimum fidelity there's such backlash. Now not liking the way MQA affects sound, or thinking their claims are bogus I understand. But to my ears it sounds better. I can't deny that. And it's not like MQA is trying to become the new industry standard, and even if it did there is no mandate that one has to buy into it. It works with all current DACs and CD players without additional hardware. Maybe that's because it's really just a 16/44 file with EQ. Given a choice, I'll take it.

Agreed.

 

[saddleup]

  It is a pleasure to see new recordings coming available for the progressive audiophile.
Brings to mind the plaintive recordings of the Dhung Clup, one indigenous Amazonian tribe whose mournful recordings were spatially recorded in the wild and made available exclusively on DVD audio multichannel format. The fact that the Dhung Clups communicate only in clicks and grunts make for such a thrilling recording of total empathy. It is well worth searching out DVD Audio players which have not been made in 20 years.
A similar thrilling moment was the men's chorus of the Latvian men's sex offender's prison chorus singing Steven Foster Songs for children, spectacularly recorded in HDCD. A HDCD player was offered on eBay less than a year ago, and well worth the wait.
Finally we have the Poems of Ecstasy live recording by Shepherds in the wilds of the northern Scottish Orkney Islands. The shephards are clad in kilts, so there are no annoying zipper sounds destroying the ambience of the happily bleating sheep. The best news is that this DSD recording at 32X DSD is only a 150 Gigabyte file. Since DSD is still only on deathwatch, it is still reasonably easy to find a suitable decoder.

Now that is funny. 

 

[erich6]

   
my comments to the stereophile quotes in blue
 
 
 
 
look mama I'm "de-blurring" all my CDs with this amazing tool called EQ. take this ringing at 20khz!

(if it's true is this still a troll?)

​While the MQA de-blurring may have the side effect of a tonal roll-off at 20kHz I don't think it is right to suggest that an EQ roll-off will result in de-blurring so that's misleading.  Also, for some ears, the de-blurring benefits will outweigh the high-frequency tonal roll-off.  Judging by the subjective impressions I've seen on this thread and on other sites I think most people will prefer it.
 
I agree with the rest of your clarifications of the Stereophile article. 

 

[rkw]

I agree. I'll be moving to Spotify the minute they go lossless. Much preferred the UI they had. Even MQA on TIDAL probably wouldn't be enough to keep me around especially if Spotify ends up charging $15 a month

 
I'm guessing that many Tidal HiFi subscribers originally come from Spotify, who wanted a higher quality stream. With Spotify adding lossless, Tidal will lose that source of new HiFi subscribers, and they will lose some current subscribers who defect back to Spotify. In this business, size counts and paid subscriptions is a zero sum game. IMO, Tidal is already in trouble and won't survive.
http://fortune.com/2017/01/21/tidal-subscriber-number-inflation/

 

[Left Channel]

 

I agree. I'll be moving to Spotify the minute they go lossless. Much preferred the UI they had. Even MQA on TIDAL probably wouldn't be enough to keep me around especially if Spotify ends up charging $15 a month

 
I'm guessing that many Tidal HiFi subscribers originally come from Spotify, who wanted a higher quality stream. With Spotify adding lossless, Tidal will lose that source of new HiFi subscribers, and they will lose some current subscribers who defect back to Spotify. In this business, size counts and paid subscriptions is a zero sum game. IMO, Tidal is already in trouble and won't survive.
http://fortune.com/2017/01/21/tidal-subscriber-number-inflation/

Could be. I imagine I'll hang around Tidal at least a bit longer out of curiosity about MQA as more albums are processed. But so far I really can't hear a difference at 1x unfolding.
 
I haven't listened extensively, just picked out a few random albums I've always liked. Those happen to already be high-quality remastered releases, so any difference is likely to be small, and on my desktop rig I just can't hear it.

 

[castleofargh]

 

   
my comments to the stereophile quotes in blue
 
 
 
 
look mama I'm "de-blurring" all my CDs with this amazing tool called EQ. take this ringing at 20khz!

(if it's true is this still a troll?)

​While the MQA de-blurring may have the side effect of a tonal roll-off at 20kHz I don't think it is right to suggest that an EQ roll-off will result in de-blurring so that's misleading.  Also, for some ears, the de-blurring benefits will outweigh the high-frequency tonal roll-off.  Judging by the subjective impressions I've seen on this thread and on other sites I think most people will prefer it.
 
I agree with the rest of your clarifications of the Stereophile article. 

well I hope I'm not as misleading as all the doublespeak in the article at least ^_^.
 
here is my DIY lowfi1337 example:

if I apply this EQ, which is kind of hard but not even as hard as what can be typically applied when down converting to 44.1khz(usually very hard filter for minimum aliazing),


I get this in my crappy loop

 
 
 
 
 
now if I use a gentler EQ

 
I get this

QED. 
I use the same misleading reliance on impulse response to convince all the people who don't understand impulse response that looking at one with the naked eye is relevant and that I have "improved" time.
but to be clear, unlike Meridian, I think my first example has superior fidelity and is preferable for 16/44. I don't get why I should find altered sound in the audible range to be preferable to more ringing at an inaudible frequency. I don't own a dog.

 

[jwbrent]

What I find interesting in the debate about MQA are those who assert there is no difference in sound quality tend to berate those who find value in MQA. I've seen this same stance taken by some who feel Hi Res recordings are a rip off.

Music listening is a subjective experience. I think we can all agree on the fact that any emotional experience comes from its subjective interpretation.

When I listen to many of the MQA recordings on TIDAL, I feel more connected to the music, my head starts bopping, my feet start tapping, and I feel just great. Spending $20 a month for this experience is of value to me, especially since the $600+ I typically have spent each year on music is no longer required. In this sense, TIDAL affords me the opportunity to save money, plus, I get greater enjoyment from my favorite hobby.

In my humble opinion, of course.

 

[OldRoadToad]

What I find interesting in the debate about MQA are those who assert there is no difference in sound quality tend to berate those who find value in MQA. I've seen this same stance taken by some who feel Hi Res recordings are a rip off.

Music listening is a subjective experience. I think we can all agree on the fact that any emotional experience comes from its subjective interpretation.

When I listen to many of the MQA recordings on TIDAL, I feel more connected to the music, my head starts bopping, my feet start tapping, and I feel just great. Spending $20 a month for this experience is of value to me, especially since the $600+ I typically have spent each year on music is no longer required. In this sense, TIDAL affords me the opportunity to save money, plus, I get greater enjoyment from my favorite hobby.

In my humble opinion, of course.

​What I find disgusting is this -  If you want MQA's hands up the dress of every DAC and music producer and in doing so, force those who do not want this tripe to have to pay for it all the same, then to Hades with that.  Follow the money.  Your opinion is valid for you, not I.  It does not give MQA license to take my hard earned money by forcing every one to pay for some thing that the truth of the matter is none can hear in a genuine double-bind test. 
 
You "feel more connected to the music"?  Really.  No offence (and I was not offended) but just what does this mean?  I can hear a song on an AM radio and if it has meaning to me, i.e., it brings forth a memory or memories associated with a period of time in my life, I do not need some DSP for that.  I do not need "deblurring" or "unfolding" of either the memories or music.  My feelings toward a particular song do not require a light coming on to tell me that the Turtles "Happy Together" makes me think back to when I was a child and all that entails. 
 
Did the light tell you MQA  was on?  Can you double blind and pick it out every time?  Or are you caught up in the hype of the tailors of MQA and now repeat their buzzwords as rote?  "Deblurring" and "unfolding" are two biggies for these thieves and are so far exclusive to the MQA "experience".  MQA has become the newest variation on the theme of the frAudiophile's Scientology.  
 
"Bigger, grander soundstage"!  "Instruments floating in air but still positioned with laser like accuracy!"  "Transparency so clear I could see and hear right through it !"  And more.  These people are full of themselves.  They berate those that speak the truth with such retorts as "You're deaf"  or "Did you critically listen to the wire, cable, M&Ms on the tops of the speakers", etc.
 
ORT
.