[searchy]

  Hmm well I am a Tidal subscriber, have a Pioneer XDP-100R and a Macbook Air (mid 2012) - any ideas on how to connect the XDP to the macbook to then stream the MQA files from the laptop app?

Impossible. One drawback of the Onkyo/Pioneer players is that they do not support PC passthrough. Fortunately, the Onkyo and Pioneer devices support MQA natively so when MQA is enabled for the mobile Tidal app, you'll be able to enjoy the high quality automatically!

 

[Wadia171i]

I have a resolution audio cantata in MQA the exp2 beats the cantata easily sounds like master tape. I'm floored this is the sound they promised us 30 years ago. Now with hi res music or flac the cantata is definitely better. But what would Meridians more expensive dac sound like. I know for now resolution audio is not going to license MQA

 

[jwbrent]

Just signed up for the 60 day free trial and I'm loving what I hear.

I have a MacBook Air connected to a Mojo to listen to the MQA files.

 

[jwbrent]

I posted this on the Mojo thread:


I've been playing with TIDAL quite a bit and so far am really happy with the service. One thing you can do is compare 16/44.1 CD quality versus 24/96 MQA, and the difference is apparent.

Go into the TIDAL desktop app settings under the Streaming header, and first, make sure your Mojo is set for Exclusive Mode by clicking on the gear icon that pops up when you hover your cursor over Mojo. Then go back to the previous screen and adjust the quality from High to HiFi/Master. The change happens on the next song. I've set up a quick menu shortcut on the Mac app so I can just hit the back arrow and the current song repeats. Going back and forth between High (red ball on Mojo) and HiFi/Master (yellow/green ball) should give you a good idea between the sound quality differences. You can also compare the Normal setting which I presume is 320kbs lossy, the format used when you sign up for the $9.99 tier.

I should add this comparison between High and HiFi/Master only works playing MQA files which can only be accessed when using the PC/Mac app. In its help section, TIDAL mentions that MQA access for portable devices is forthcoming.

I have a feeling we're going to see a $29.99 tier for access to the Master files later on when there are more albums uploaded.

 

[Stillhart]

I posted this on the Mojo thread:


I've been playing with TIDAL quite a bit and so far am really happy with the service. One thing you can do is compare 16/44.1 CD quality versus 24/96 MQA, and the difference is apparent.

Go into the TIDAL desktop app settings under the Streaming header, and first, make sure your Mojo is set for Exclusive Mode by clicking on the gear icon that pops up when you hover your cursor over Mojo. Then go back to the previous screen and adjust the quality from High to HiFi/Master. The change happens on the next song. I've set up a quick menu shortcut on the Mac app so I can just hit the back arrow and the current song repeats. Going back and forth between High (red ball on Mojo) and HiFi/Master (yellow/green ball) should give you a good idea between the sound quality differences. You can also compare the Normal setting which I presume is 320kbs lossy, the format used when you sign up for the $9.99 tier.

I should add this comparison between High and HiFi/Master only works playing MQA files which can only be accessed when using the PC/Mac app. In its help section, TIDAL mentions that MQA access for portable devices is forthcoming.

I have a feeling we're going to see a $29.99 tier for access to the Master files later on when there are more albums uploaded.

 
I've done the same test and noticed some subtle improvements in dynamics and imaging (probably stemming from lower noise floor).  I wonder if what @Currawong said about the MQA being interpreted as noise when it's playing at 16/44 is what's causing the relatively cleaner background in 24/96.

 

[revand]

Yesterday I tried the MOJO connected with a Bluesound Node 2 as streamer with an optical cable and checked the new TIDAL Masters albums on my Meze 99 Classics headphones.
The MQA files on TIDAL Masters brought a clear improvement in sound quality.
For me it was strange, that I could see the yellow and green colours on the MOJO and could enjoy High-Res content.
I thought that a DAC is making the MQA decoding, and if I connect a non-MQA compatible DAC to the Node 2 it would not work, but fortunately it works! Any suggestion how come?

 

[Currawong]

  I've done the same test and noticed some subtle improvements in dynamics and imaging (probably stemming from lower noise floor).  I wonder if what @Currawong said about the MQA being interpreted as noise when it's playing at 16/44 is what's causing the relatively cleaner background in 24/96.

 
I don't think it is that. The un-decoded MQA "noise" is above 16 kHz. I was comparing a 24/96 version of a track that I have versus a TIDAL app MQA track that was being decoded to 24/96. It sounded like the track had been remastered to be much better-sounding.

 

[Soundizer]

I posted this on the Mojo thread:


I've been playing with TIDAL quite a bit and so far am really happy with the service. One thing you can do is compare 16/44.1 CD quality versus 24/96 MQA, and the difference is apparent.

Go into the TIDAL desktop app settings under the Streaming header, and first, make sure your Mojo is set for Exclusive Mode by clicking on the gear icon that pops up when you hover your cursor over Mojo. Then go back to the previous screen and adjust the quality from High to HiFi/Master. The change happens on the next song. I've set up a quick menu shortcut on the Mac app so I can just hit the back arrow and the current song repeats. Going back and forth between High (red ball on Mojo) and HiFi/Master (yellow/green ball) should give you a good idea between the sound quality differences. You can also compare the Normal setting which I presume is 320kbs lossy, the format used when you sign up for the $9.99 tier.

I should add this comparison between High and HiFi/Master only works playing MQA files which can only be accessed when using the PC/Mac app. In its help section, TIDAL mentions that MQA access for portable devices is forthcoming.

I have a feeling we're going to see a $29.99 tier for access to the Master files later on when there are more albums uploaded.

I did an AB test into MOJO by simply playing Master Albums vs HIFI albums. More air in the Master tracks.

 

[headfry]

I'm finding that the Tidal software decoded MQA/Master files sound amazing through Mojo -
as if a toxic digital/glassy sheen/graininess is now gone....until I heard its removal with Masters,
I wasn't aware of the extent of this contamination.The soundstage, layering and 3D nature of the presentation
benefit hugely, as do fine details.
 
There is an expressiveness, beautiful detail allied with natural smoothness to the music
that for me proves very addicting...very analogue sounding to me.
 
The naysayers can feel and say what they want, for me, the Tidal-decoded MQA
experience is generally an immense improvement.....it may sound similar in quality
to good DSD or HiRes files......good enough for me - having a large streamable library
in HiRes SQ.

 

[TokenGesture]

   
This is what I've been saying, both about MQA and HDTracks.  It's good to see someone who obviously knows what they're doing agree with me.  There's no denying the Tidal tracks sound good, but I suspect most of that improvement is from the remaster just like on HDtracks.

Could this 'remastering" not in fact be the MQA process applied at the file source, which they claim compensated for original timing error made by the a/d converter?

 

[waveSounds]

If I get a chance over the weekend I'll run some comparisons of MQA albums between the less expensive Explorer 2, but with full MQA decoding, and the MoJo using Tidal's software decoding.
 
Anyone interested in this comparison?

 

[maxh22]

If I get a chance over the weekend I'll run some comparisons of MQA albums between the less expensive Explorer 2, but with full MQA decoding, and the MoJo using Tidal's software decoding.

Anyone interested in this comparison?

Yes very interested. I predict Mojo will still end up on top even though it cannot decode the full MQA signal.

 

[headfry]

  If I get a chance over the weekend I'll run some comparisons of MQA albums between the less expensive Explorer 2, but with full MQA decoding, and the MoJo using Tidal's software decoding.
 
Anyone interested in this comparison?

Although I have no interest in investing in an MQA capable DAC - just bought the fantastic
Mojo a few months ago - this is a comparison I've been waiting for!
 
 
...looking forward to your impressions! I also predict that the Mojo/Tidal-decoded MQA will win,
but even if not....what a great sounding combination!

 

[Soundizer]

 
If I get a chance over the weekend I'll run some comparisons of MQA albums between the less expensive Explorer 2, but with full MQA decoding, and the MoJo using Tidal's software decoding.

Anyone interested in this comparison?

Although I have no interest in investing in an MQA capable DAC - just bought the fantastic
Mojo a few months ago - this is a comparison I've been waiting for!


...looking forward to your impressions! I also predict that the Mojo/Tidal-decoded MQA will win,
but even if not....what a great sounding combination!

I am also very interested in this comparison.

 

[Stillhart]

   
I don't think it is that. The un-decoded MQA "noise" is above 16 kHz. I was comparing a 24/96 version of a track that I have versus a TIDAL app MQA track that was being decoded to 24/96. It sounded like the track had been remastered to be much better-sounding.

 
Yeah but those are different masters.  MQA tracks have to be different masters because they have to remaster the track to encode it properly with MQA.  I was trying it with the same "master" just the 16/44 wrapped version vs the 24/96 unwrapped version.  That should be a closer comparison.
 

I did an AB test into MOJO by simply playing Master Albums vs HIFI albums. More air in the Master tracks.

 
See above, this could easily be attributable to the remaster.  I'm not saying it's not, but it's important in a discussion about MQA to determine how much of the benefit is actually due to MQA vs other factors.
 

  Could this 'remastering" not in fact be the MQA process applied at the file source, which they claim compensated for original timing error made by the a/d converter?

 
They are re-encoding the song from the original master so by definition it's a remaster and may sound different regardless of whether they used MQA or not.  Certainly it's possible that their marketing pitch is 100% true and the improvements are 100% because of MQA and nothing else.  In my opinion, it's not probable, but I grant that it is possible.  
 
I thought MQA was simply a method of encoding hi resolution files into a smaller size for easier streaming.  If they're doing to magic with timing corrections too, that could account for some of the differences.