[erich6]

  So do these Master Quality files sound better than Hi-Res music (24/96 & 24/192) or just better than the regular CD FLAC versions of the same albums? 

​The "sound better" depends on whether you like the original master better than the sound that comes through after digitization and any other manipulation the producers make to distribute the music (CD or High-Res).  MQA is NOT about the resolution you get out (although it does help preserve high resolution music)--it's about getting rid of "artifacts" introduced by the processing chain from master all the way through your DAC.
 
So far, I've seen some albums benefit greatly as they were victims of the "loudness wars."  MQA encoded tracks seem to have a better dynamic range.

 

[erich6]

  Here is an interesting read concerning MQA:  http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/

And a quote from the article concerning lossyness:

​Yes, you lose data in the encoding.  But, if done right this is supposed to be BAD data (artifacts introduced in the processing chain).  I don't know why anyone would care to have highly sampled (e.g., 192kHz) of bad data in the first place.  The high-res sampling does not necessarily mean better.  It all depends on what was sampled.  MQA promises to only sample what's important (the actual music as originally intended).

 

[erich6]

  so with a quick wiki, I found that the mqa codec is actually lossy.... it can be put under the a flac container though I guess. I dunu but I'd rather stream normal content encoded as a flac if I were to use tidal

​Sure, you can do that by simply selecting "Passthrough MQA" and not use an MQA-enabled DAC.  But why do that? Give it a try and see if you like it or not.  Just because music was sampled at high rate (e.g. 192kHz) it doesn't mean what you are getting is any better (in fact it could be worse if it was processed to hell after the original master was created).

 

[erich6]

  THX, I have been wondering about hte quality impact since it is no true lossless and uses something similar to superscaling/upscaling at least looks that way, want to hear it fist. Though in my opinion this is more useful for streaming to save bandwidth, after all stoage is cheap and I would imagine more people would rather use true lossless. But even in they'r own material the say mqa is a  lossy compression so there's that...

 
While there's definitely hype around MQA right now there's also a lot of hype around "true lossless."  I've downloaded plenty of high-res FLACs that sound terrible because either the original master was bad or because the way the music was produced for distribution butchered it.  So you get a lossless version of a bad track
 
The intent of MQA is to go back to the original master, the way the artists and producers intended it to be heard, and do the best at reproducing that.  They means getting rid of artifacts and such. 
 
Everyone should try comparing MQA files to high res versions and see if they can tell any difference before reaching conclusions.

 

[Krutsch]

Mm...so with the MQA-enabled Tidap app, you get better than CD quality or better than Tidal hifi but not hi-res? For hi-res, you need MQA-enabled software and MQA-enabled DAC, DAP or other hardware????

With an MQA software decoder (again, today, only in the native TIDAL app), 96/24 *is* high-res and it sounds really, really great, in my experience.
 
If you have an MQA-enabled DAC (e.g. Meridian, Mytek), you will be able to full decode to whatever resolution is available.

 

[Krutsch]

 
​The MQA encoding is embedded in the FLAC file.  If you don't have an decoder the file will play like a normal 24bit/44kHz file.  The new Tidal app can decode the MQA information and stream up to 24bit/96kHz.

 
It will look like a 24/48 file, but the least-significant bits in the file really contain "noise", so it will play like a Redbook file. There is a lot of debate about whether or not one can hear the noise without a decoder, which has been raging for the last year. Look at the posts from Jussi Laako on the Roon Community forum for a lot of detail on this topic.

 

[abrxx]

I doubt MQA is changing the level of the bass drum.  They probably went back to the original master and encoded it.  The HIFI version was probably a digital distribution master that probably had its dynamic range compressed.

Its more than removal of DRC. Eq is different. And individual instruments seem to havw different levels. Seems like a different master.

 

[discape]

Its more than removal of DRC. Eq is different. And individual instruments seem to havw different levels. Seems like a different master.

It's probably just lack of dynamic compression that was added to the CD mix of the master. It's clear now after seeing these Masters on Tidal this was happening to CD's long ago before modern loudness wars.

 

[HesNot]

Only just tested the MQA on my Macbook Air (mid 2012) using it's internals - listened to Fleetwood Mac Rumours and to my ears at least it sounds rather amazing - tested with Bose OE2 and NOCS NS-800 and it seems really open and detailed.  I'll do some A/B with the regular HIFI stream on my XDP-100R to see if the difference is as noticeable as it seems just on a first listen.  Makes me wonder what a USB DAC with the Macbook would sound like... 

 

[jonstatt]

   
While there's definitely hype around MQA right now there's also a lot of hype around "true lossless."  I've downloaded plenty of high-res FLACs that sound terrible because either the original master was bad or because the way the music was produced for distribution butchered it.  So you get a lossless version of a bad track
 
The intent of MQA is to go back to the original master, the way the artists and producers intended it to be heard, and do the best at reproducing that.  They means getting rid of artifacts and such. 
 
Everyone should try comparing MQA files to high res versions and see if they can tell any difference before reaching conclusions.

"The Original Master". That deserves a topic in it's own right. Many assume that the dynamic range compression is part of a specific CD mastering process. Sometimes it is like this but more often than not, it is actually "The Original Master" that has the DRC applied. How can we know this? Some titles have both a CD and a Hi-Res download. Sometimes the Hi-Res download has no better dynamic range than the CD yet is specifically sold as "The Original Master". It's actually the vinyl record that often takes a totally different path through the chain, and the mastering is different and the dynamic range is also different (quite often better). You will rarely hear what was recorded on the original analogue tapes for example. Those are the real masters. What is sold as the Studio Master, is a post production set of decisions that modify what was on those tapes or recorded digitally etc. There will be instances where the MQA version comes from a master that does have better dynamic range, and you will also find a bunch that still have loudness wars DRC on them, by intention and decision....even if we don't like it or regard it as audiophile.
 
When SACD came out, with a corresponding CD layer, people articulated how much better the SACD sounded, only then to find out it was a different mastering and they were not comparing like for like. MQA has some definite positives, but it will always be hard to ascertain what is a mastering change, and what is an MQA benefit.

 

[revand]

I just checked on my Bluesound Node 2, and MQA through TIDAL Masters works perfectly glowing a blue sign at side of the MQA logo!
I sent a message to Bluesound asking to make it possible to reach Masters folder on TIDAL in their BlueOS as I can reach it in the desktop app, otherwise it is a pain to find all the MQA albums...
So far my listening experience shows that the sound quality of TIDAL Masters is sensational.
Just check Edgar Meyer's Bass & Mandolin, Pictures of an exhibition with Sir Simon Rattles, Green Day's American idiot, or Avishai Cohen Trio's From Darkness and you will enjoy an unprecedented digital music quality!
An interesting test in TIDAL's desktop app.:
Go to Settings - HIFI/Master - and switch between System Default (software decoding of MQA file up to 24/96) 
and external DAC attached to the notebook (in my case an at the moment not MQA compatible Dragonfly Red - which will be compatible soon).
The otherwise excellent Red suffering here being a bit harsh and intrusive compared with the System Default (software decoding by TIDAL app)
Very interesting direct comparison of what an achievement is MQA 

 

 

[Krutsch]

  Only just tested the MQA on my Macbook Air (mid 2012) using it's internals - listened to Fleetwood Mac Rumours and to my ears at least it sounds rather amazing - tested with Bose OE2 and NOCS NS-800 and it seems really open and detailed.  I'll do some A/B with the regular HIFI stream on my XDP-100R to see if the difference is as noticeable as it seems just on a first listen.  Makes me wonder what a USB DAC with the Macbook would sound like... 

 
I was really impressed, using my playback chain of MacBook Pro + Native TIDAL app + Bel Canto REFLink + DAC 2.5.

 

[pkcpga]

In the article forgot to mention that bluesound has played MQA for months now and offers a reasonable priced dac streamer and powered one with headphone amp.

 

[Stillhart]

  Yet we can't choose HiFi anymore, if the album is in Masters, you have to listen to it in Masters. Suspicious, no? Why not give option to choose?

 
 

 
Why not? Doesn't checking pass through jus remove Master setting?

 
Yup, this.
 

  How hard is it for DAC makers to implement support for MQA on an existing product?

 
MQA is a proprietary format owned by a company who would like to make money.  Therefore, if you want to put it in your DAC, you have to pay for the privilege.  Accordingly, many DAC manufacturers don't want to bother until it's determined whether it's a passing fad or not.  I suspect the response to Tidal's implementation should go a long way to determining that.
 

 
​The "sound better" depends on whether you like the original master better than the sound that comes through after digitization and any other manipulation the producers make to distribute the music (CD or High-Res).  MQA is NOT about the resolution you get out (although it does help preserve high resolution music)--it's about getting rid of "artifacts" introduced by the processing chain from master all the way through your DAC.
 
So far, I've seen some albums benefit greatly as they were victims of the "loudness wars."  MQA encoded tracks seem to have a better dynamic range.

 
Yeah, and there's another point that people are missing here.  It's something that I learned when I started researching hi-res audio in general:  all of these files are remasters.  That means that they're going to sound different whether or not you're using MQA.  It's important to distinguish whether the improvements we hear are from the remaster or from the MQA or some of both.  I haven't had an opportunity to test this yet, but I plan on it.

 

[pkcpga]

With MQA there are about 1,800 tracks originally recorded in MQA format so far so not all are remastered and remastered high res are usually from original higher res recordings unless it's an older track that's been remastered than it's not always better.