[Stillhart]

  After reading how can non-MQA DACs be used to enjoy TIDAL Masters something came to my mind:
Isn't it possible to manufacture a small "magic" box with only one function? This function would be the second unfold of an MQA file coming from TIDAL Masters.
This box should be installed between a PC/Notebook/MAC and a non-MQA DAC connecting it with a USB cable. After the first unfolding by the desktop app up to 24bit/96kHz the "magic" box is making the second unfolding to reach the resolution of the original master (up to 32bit/384kHz). The same process would apply if someone has an MQA capable device, like me having the Bluesound Node 2, which makes the first unfolding up to 24bit/96kHz. Installing the "magic" box (let us call it MQA hardware decode) between the Bluesound Node 2 (using an optical cable) and an external non-MQA DAC (e.g. Chord 2Qute or Schiit Bifros Multibit, using an USB cable).
This way those having a non-MQA DAC already or intend to buy one with considering it's quality (some of them won't ever incorporating MQA technology like Schiit stated earlier) and not just whether it is MQA capable or not, could enjoy the full potential of MQA technology, not paying a fortune buying a new MQA capable DAC .
This "magic" box's front panel should only have a display with five characters. Two for the bits (16/24/32) and three for the kHz (88/96/192/384) and two leds, one green (for MQA) and one blue (for MQA Studio, authenticated content)
What do you think? Is it possible? If yes I do hope a manufacturer is also reading 

Quit possible that this solution would be good for the customers, but not as good for the inventors of MQA...

 
This is essentially what the Schiit Loki was for DSD.  I see no reason someone couldn't do that for MQA too.

 

[jwbrent]

What I wonder about is whether the typical music lover will care about anything beyond 24/96 resolution, especially when it comes to popular music.
 
Right now, 24/96 comes with the TIDAL experience. It will cost money to get 24/192 or better because a new DAC will be necessary. Will an inexpensive MQA compatible DAC reveal the purported advantages of 24/192 resolution? Likely not, which means a greater expense will have to be considered.
 
Time will tell ...

 

[Arnav Agharwal]

My understanding is that correctly down-sampled, high-res music should sound no different from CD quality (44kHz), and there are off-the-shelf softwares that can do that. ABX tests have confirmed this (sourced from multiple online forums). Doing so to the Master recordings should eliminate the need for MQA... What did I miss?

 

[Stillhart]

  My understanding is that correctly down-sampled, high-res music should sound no different from CD quality (44kHz), and there are off-the-shelf softwares that can do that. ABX tests have confirmed this (sourced from multiple online forums). Doing so to the Master recordings should eliminate the need for MQA... What did I miss?

 
There are many people who agree with this, which is why so many people are talking about mastering vs MQA.  The bigger picture here is that companies like Meridian and Tidal operate for profit and thus have no motivation to provide correctly down-sampled hi-res music that sounds no different.

 

[Krutsch]

   
This is essentially what the Schiit Loki was for DSD.  I see no reason someone couldn't do that for MQA too.

 
It wouldn't be allowed by the terms of licensing, so no one will be able to make such a device.
 
But more importantly, MQA makes a point of needing specific knowledge of the DAC that will do the final digital-to-analog conversion to perform the full version of decoding. That's sort-of the whole point.

 

[Stillhart]

   
It wouldn't be allowed by the terms of licensing, so no one will be able to make such a device.
 
But more importantly, MQA makes a point of needing specific knowledge of the DAC that will do the final digital-to-analog conversion to perform the full version of decoding. That's sort-of the whole point.

 
Those aren't technological limitations, though, they're just limitations enforced my Meridian.  If someone reverse engineered the tech, they could make such a box no problem.  
 
Granted, there's no guarantee it would sound as good without Meridian's requirements, no guarantee the reverse engineering would be correct, and it would certainly be illegal most places besides China.  But that won't stop people from buying it if and when it happens.

 

[Arnav Agharwal]

   
There are many people who agree with this, which is why so many people are talking about mastering vs MQA.  The bigger picture here is that companies like Meridian and Tidal operate for profit and thus have no motivation to provide correctly down-sampled hi-res music that sounds no different.

Ah, that helps clear the air. All this while, I've been wondering, "Is it just me or does this sound like a billion dollar scam?" 

 

[Stillhart]

  Ah, that helps clear the air. All this while, I've been wondering, "Is it just me or does this sound like a billion dollar scam?" 

 
Well those are your words, not mine.  I've been starting to think of things a little differently after reading through this thread.
 
It seems to me that the MQA format has two parts:  Part 1 is using nifty tech to fit a hi-res file into a CD-quality FLAC.  Part 2 is that the file has to be ripped from the original master using specific methods to achieve higher standards of SQ.  I've been thinking of part 1 as "MQA" and part 2 as "Mastering".  I think there's a problem with that kind of thinking because the Mastering process is part of the MQA process.  So I'm going to start calling it "Codec" and "Mastering".  
 
Now understanding that MQA consists of both of these parts makes it harder to think of it as a scam.  In fact, just the opposite, I appreciate it MORE now because of it.  
 
As I said before, the codec part of MQA (putting the newly mastered track into a hi-res file that's been "folded" into a CD quality file) is of questionable value to a some people.  But the vast majority of us do seem to hear a difference in the mastering.  It doesn't take extensive blind ABX testing to hear the difference between the "MASTER" album on Tidal and the "HI-FI" album and I think the general consensus has been that they're almost all improvements.
 
Since mastering is part of the MQA process, we can conclude that MQA is not a scam and indeed is providing us with better versions of the music we know and love.  Without MQA, we wouldn't have these new higher quality masters of these albums.  Whether you believe in the "codec" side of things or not, MQA is an improvement in many cases.
 
So I'm not thinking "this is all a big scam".  My take-away is if you don't believe in the benefits of hi-res music, don't waste money on a DAC that can unfold MQA.

 

[pdickerson]

So I'm not thinking "this is all a big scam".  My take-away is if you don't believe in the benefits of hi-res music, don't waste money on a DAC that can unfold MQA.

Isn't the Tidal app unfolding the MQA with software and passing the 88/24 96/24 streams to the DAC. I am seeing yggy show those boy streams.

 

[jwbrent]

Isn't the Tidal app unfolding the MQA with software and passing the 88/24 96/24 streams to the DAC. I am seeing yggy show those boy streams.

Yes.

 

[Stillhart]

Isn't the Tidal app unfolding the MQA with software and passing the 88/24 96/24 streams to the DAC. I am seeing yggy show those boy streams.

 
Yes, but if you have an MQA capable DAC you can unfold them to higher sample rates (someone posted a pic of their DAC showing 24/308 or something like that).

 

[pdickerson]

Help GARBLED at TImes
I am hearing some glitches at times maybe someone else hasn't experienced the same problem??

When I stream MQA master, my yggy DAC identifies whether it is a 44/24 or 88/24 stream but sometimes the track will start out garbled. I can fix it most times by stopping the track and restarting or starting another one in the album. Sometimes it only take one time other times 3 or more attempts. Once it is working for the album it works all the way through.

From the albums I have listened to so far I am unable to get past the garbled stream for Chicago 17. Is this perhaps a higher than 88/24?

 

[Arnav Agharwal]

  It seems to me that the MQA format has two parts:  Part 1 is using nifty tech to fit a hi-res file into a CD-quality FLAC.  Part 2 is that the file has to be ripped from the original master using specific methods to achieve higher standards of SQ.  I've been thinking of part 1 as "MQA" and part 2 as "Mastering".  I think there's a problem with that kind of thinking because the Mastering process is part of the MQA process.  So I'm going to start calling it "Codec" and "Mastering".

Very interesting perspective! And I cannot deny that the "Master" versions of tracks (software-unfolded) sound better than their "Hi-Fi" counterparts on TIDAL.
 
What I understand from your description is that MQA is part of the A2D chain, rather than simply a method to "package" existing FLAC files. However, this encoding may be decoded to FLAC and is ultimately input DACs in the same format. Did I get it right?
 
From an engineering perspective, the intent seems to be to keep MQA transparent to the end-users, while providing a superior digital mastering technology. So it is a bit confusing to see it implemented in a way that forces purchase of licensed DACs to reap the full benefits. I would've thought that this technology would be used to sell/stream "premium" high-res FLACs, which would be a convenient option for consumers, and a profitable option for the creators in the long-run.
 
The troublesome part is the refusal to allow AB comparisons of MQA against CD quality FLAC mastered from the same analog source (from a statement by Jason (?) from Schiit Audio, probably linked to somewhere earlier in this thread). I can't see what they might have to lose, unless the benefits are only incremental, at best. Please excuse my skepticism 

 

 

[ThomasHK]

Guys... if the MASTER sounds better than the HIFI, it's simply because it's a better mastered version. Nothing to do with the format it's stored in. MQA or Meridian has nothing to do with that. 

 

[jwbrent]

Guys... if the MASTER sounds better than the HIFI, it's simply because it's a better mastered version. Nothing to do with the format it's stored in. MQA or Meridian has nothing to do with that. 

Strong statement. Do you have evidence of this or are you stating your opinion?