MQA or non-MQA DAC upgrade?

[Audiophiliac]

That's the whole idea: choose a good dac for being a good dac - not for having or not having MQA.

MQA feature will quickly become irrelevant as Tidal will start to phase out MQA Masters with Flac Masters.
In my humble opinion as soon as Tidal has enough of it's library in hi-res Flac it will drop MQA completely. It makes no sense to support two formats, especially when one is going into bankruptcy. But even if it won't stop supporting MQA, it will definitely stop adding new music in MQA format. Hence my original idea, it's just a matter of time till MQA chip in your dac will become irrelevant.

Do not buy an MQA dac. It is false higher res, and the extra chip is degrading.
Tidal is getting rid of it, and should have the original higher res files, they've just been serving MQA copies at 44.1. I got Qobuz also, now. The sound quality of higher res tracks is immediately better than Tidal's, both in Audirvana. The default player for Qobuz sounds better that Tidal's, too, who were the least bad streaming player so far. Qobuz's playlist recommendations suck, though. I'll be keeping Tidal 44.1 for now, for the 8 different playlists, and probably drop Qobuz when Tidal is officially streaming original higher res tracks.

 

[aurimasma]

I have nothing against Qobuz, but it provides service to less countries than Tidal. Hence some of us have no choice but to use Tidal Hifi plan (CD quality).
So Tidal phasing out MQA in favor of FLAC is wonderful news. Soon Tidal Master plan will start to make sense.

 

[Audiophiliac]

I have nothing against Qobuz, but it provides service to less countries than Tidal. Hence some of us have no choice but to use Tidal Hifi plan (CD quality).
So Tidal phasing out MQA in favor of FLAC is wonderful news. Soon Tidal Master plan will start to make sense.

I had the same problem until 2 months ago, no Qobuz available, but Tidal's default player didn't sound as bad as Amazon's, and more importantly, Tidal also worked in Audirvana. Finally, Qobuz came, and the default player is the least worst streaming player, and more importantly, Qobuz also works in Audirvana, the best sounding serious player. It seems that the player playing the audio makes the biggest difference. Audirvana seems to be the best sounding one so far, and they have incorporated Tidal and Qobuz. Anyways, right away after starting a higher res track on Qobuz, I could hear what I was not getting with Tidal's MQA. More frequent updates on what things sound like, which is digital's problem in the first place. It sounds much smoother, higher res.
MQA has gone bankrupt, which must be because it's a false plan. Tidal has yet to actually talk about just streaming the original higher res files, which they can't prove they have original copies of until they do stream them. I would prefer to see Tidal admit that MQA didn't actually work like they promised. They are using shady business tactics with MQA. Now, they are going to have to find an excuse for people not to have needed a dac with a chip for everything to pass through in case it's Tidal's MQA that needs 'unfolding', which they promise is a clever way to compress your files transparently. They aren't making the MQA codec available to people to further compress all our higher resolution FLAC tracks to the same size as 44.1 FLAC's. MQA is a scam designed to promise audio streamers that they won't have to stream more than simple 44.1kbps. Tidal is the only one that uses it, and they are also the only ones that charge double for higher res. 44.1 audio is like the smallest type of file after text files. Netflix streams 42 times as much data for it's 4k plan as 192kbps uncompressed files would take. Audio is puny, and Tidal is charging more than Netflix, while at the same time using only 44.1kbps streams. Streaming audio is NOT going to be a big factor in how much profit streamers make, compared to video. Tidal seems to be the only one's concerned about bandwidth eating into their profits, though, so instead of offering you the highest bitrate copy for one low price, they charge double for higher res capability, and find a way not to use more bandwidth, either. There should be a lawsuit against Tidal for people who have paid double.
But yes, if Tidal does phase out MQA and simply plays the originals, Tidal will begin making sense, even though they charge double for the higher res capability, which nobody else does. Original higher res does sound like the better captured recording, all other factors being equal, though.
Aurimasma, have you tried Audirvana yet? I find it's the best sounding audio player there is so far, and it will work with whichever Tidal plan you have. (I kept my lower cost hifi plan, also, even after getting Qobuz).

 

[aurimasma]

I had the same problem until 2 months ago, no Qobuz available, but Tidal's default player didn't sound as bad as Amazon's, and more importantly, Tidal also worked in Audirvana. Finally, Qobuz came, and the default player is the least worst streaming player, and more importantly, Qobuz also works in Audirvana, the best sounding serious player. It seems that the player playing the audio makes the biggest difference. Audirvana seems to be the best sounding one so far, and they have incorporated Tidal and Qobuz. Anyways, right away after starting a higher res track on Qobuz, I could hear what I was not getting with Tidal's MQA. More frequent updates on what things sound like, which is digital's problem in the first place. It sounds much smoother, higher res.
MQA has gone bankrupt, which must be because it's a false plan. Tidal has yet to actually talk about just streaming the original higher res files, which they can't prove they have original copies of until they do stream them. I would prefer to see Tidal admit that MQA didn't actually work like they promised. They are using shady business tactics with MQA. Now, they are going to have to find an excuse for people not to have needed a dac with a chip for everything to pass through in case it's Tidal's MQA that needs 'unfolding', which they promise is a clever way to compress your files transparently. They aren't making the MQA codec available to people to further compress all our higher resolution FLAC tracks to the same size as 44.1 FLAC's. MQA is a scam designed to promise audio streamers that they won't have to stream more than simple 44.1kbps. Tidal is the only one that uses it, and they are also the only ones that charge double for higher res. 44.1 audio is like the smallest type of file after text files. Netflix streams 42 times as much data for it's 4k plan as 192kbps uncompressed files would take. Audio is puny, and Tidal is charging more than Netflix, while at the same time using only 44.1kbps streams. Streaming audio is NOT going to be a big factor in how much profit streamers make, compared to video. Tidal seems to be the only one's concerned about bandwidth eating into their profits, though, so instead of offering you the highest bitrate copy for one low price, they charge double for higher res capability, and find a way not to use more bandwidth, either. There should be a lawsuit against Tidal for people who have paid double.
But yes, if Tidal does phase out MQA and simply plays the originals, Tidal will begin making sense, even though they charge double for the higher res capability, which nobody else does. Original higher res does sound like the better captured recording, all other factors being equal, though.
Aurimasma, have you tried Audirvana yet? I find it's the best sounding audio player there is so far, and it will work with whichever Tidal plan you have. (I kept my lower cost hifi plan, also, even after getting Qobuz).

I have about 4-5 years ago and didn't like it.
Maybe it's time to give it a second try.

 

[Audiophiliac]

If you want to get critical about listening, default WASAPI bypasses the windows mixer that default sound uses, but Kernel Streaming plays the tracks from the first little 4k info that windows loads, before it loads everything else. It sounds by far the most natural, everything else is unlistenable, even ASIO is still too much like WASAPI. Playing after software loads makes your audio sound unnatural. I was picky about how to make things sound right, and now unless I'm playing uncompressed wav's read off of a low-powered thumb drive through Audirvana, something sounds wrong. It's my reference. But while it is playing like that, my system sounds crazy good. Right now, I'm streaming from Tidal, and it's a tiny bit noisy playing flac, and internet streaming is not silent, but much better than radio was. My cheap CAT 7 cable improved things over the CAT 5, and I would like to get a proper audio network cable, but I'm afraid my upgrade to CAT 7 took some life out of that upgrade. We'll see. I like that I can stream into my expensive dac, too, without having to buy a separate good tuner just for foreign introductions.

 

[aurimasma]

I use Roon. Which uses whatever source you're playing (MQA included) to Roon Advanced Audio Transport to ASIO to DAC.
From what I understand, if there is no EQ (or unfolding the first fold of MQA) Roon Advanced Audio Transport is a direct stream to ASIO.
But I will try Audirvana. Maybe I'll get a better. I'm just curious to try.

 

[Audiophiliac]

I use Roon. Which uses whatever source you're playing (MQA included) to Roon Advanced Audio Transport to ASIO to DAC.
From what I understand, if there is no EQ (or unfolding the first fold of MQA) Roon Advanced Audio Transport is a direct stream to ASIO.
But I will try Audirvana. Maybe I'll get a better. I'm just curious to try.

I tried Roon, it seemed like it was focusing on usability over sound quality. Someone said there is a way to make it use the HQplayer engine to playback the music. HQplayer is the 2nd best player, after Audirvana, I've found. Most people would probably prefer the usability of Roon over sound quality, though. Audirvana is not so good for browsing, it's been showing me mostly the same options for a year. The default player shows me more new stuff, not that it's usually any good.
Audirvana should have a free month trial, you can't lose. Audirvana is an audiophile player first, it's unrivalled, except for HQplayer in second place. Just don't expect to be having an easy time moving stuff around in your playlists, and stuff. When Audirvana first came out, it was NOT user friendly at all, I had a hard time even playing tracks. But HQplayer only works in WASAPI, it lacks kernel streaming, which is more natural. However, the player is more important than the output type, as HQplayer still beats my longtime favorite, Foobar2000, even while f2k has kernel streaming.
If you find you prefer Roon for some reason, look up how to make it work with the trial version of HQplayer's engine. I found the default Roon sound to be unimpressive, but HQplayer, yeah, is second best. Then, if you think it sounds better, you can just buy HQplayer and let Roon use it.

 

[aurimasma]

I think I'll give Audirvana a try first. I'm curious to see if I can hear any difference in sound quality (Roon vs Audirvana).
The main thing I like about Roon is that it's more like media server for all the devices at home. Audirvana, on the other hand, is just a PC player with a mobile phone remote app.

 

[Audiophiliac]

I think I'll give Audirvana a try first. I'm curious to see if I can hear any difference in sound quality (Roon vs Audirvana).
The main thing I like about Roon is that it's more like media server for all the devices at home. Audirvana, on the other hand, is just a PC player with a mobile phone remote app.

Yes, Roon is a multi-room user friendly media server. Audirvana is a serious audiophile player first, so they have to keep it simple, being user friendly takes a back seat. It's a miracle that they incorporated Tidal and Qobuz. In fact, if you want to buy Audirvana, you can only buy the file-player only version, the streaming integration costs a $9.99/month subscription for them to keep up to date. The phone app helps a lot, I can sit on the couch.

 

[aurimasma]

So I gave a listen to Audirvana yesterday. UI is still lacking. Audio quality is on par or better than Roon (didn't have enough time delve really deep into it).
Audirvana has no EQ built-in (EQ plugins must be purchased separately from 3rd parties). And for those who care, Audirvana has no ability to EQ MQA (while Roon definitely does). Also kind of annoying, but Audirvana Studio (streaming services enabled version) only has a subscription model availiable.

 

[Audiophiliac]

So I gave a listen to Audirvana yesterday. UI is still lacking. Audio quality is on par or better than Roon (didn't have enough time delve really deep into it).
Audirvana has no EQ built-in (EQ plugins must be purchased separately from 3rd parties). And for those who care, Audirvana has no ability to EQ MQA (while Roon definitely does). Also kind of annoying, but Audirvana Studio (streaming services enabled version) only has a subscription model availiable.

Yes, Audirvana has a terrible UI. It was designed by someone who thought that playing the tracks properly was the most important thing. I'm actually surprised that the best sounding audio-file player is not just a command line only one-file-at-a-time audiophile miracle. HQPlayer is second best, to me, and it's UI is even worse than Audirvana's. Don't even suggest a command-line only option to these people, because it's true, it would be the most transparent way to play a track.
Roon was designed to be the player that plays music for everyone in the world in each room that they're in, with big album cover's to look at, and all the write up's there have ever been about each band. People who start off going for that don't usually think player's sound too different from each other, they say they all just play the file, so there can't be anything wrong with that. Their plan is to win the player wars by having the most features while playing audio.
I'm currently using Sonarworks Systemwide output in Audirvana to EQ my headphones better than anyone could by ear. Hey, you're great for complaining that there's no way to EQ with Audirvana; I just tried using the vst plugin version instead of system-wide, and it's auto-changing my dac's resolution, to match what the track is recorded at! The system-wide driver stays at whatever you set it to. Now I'm totally happy with my EQ software. Anyways, you can have EQ'd playback in Audirvana with either a system-wide virtual device, or using a VST plugin. I know Sonarworks was 99 Euro's, you'd prefer something free. ToneBooster's Morphit is another one with headphone presets, and is only 39 Euro's. I should try comparing it to Sonarworks, because one will be better. I'll pay another 39 Euro's for something better, if it comes along. I don't think anyone will be getting a good average headphone profile measurement selection for free, unfortunately. If you're streaming MQA from Tidal, it will still EQ that also, no problem. Too bad MQA is a scam. You can prove it by having Qobuz also, and comparing two supposedly higher resolution copies from each streaming service.
Yeah, Audirvana's streaming services version is subscription-only. That's the way stuff with online components' creators prefer it, because they have to make adjustments to the programs to keep them up to date with what's online. I would have bought the local-file player only version anyhow, but if I can get the same program to play my steaming service, that's too good to be true. Except that it works, and it is true. (That's why self-control is important, for when 'too good to be true' actually is true!).
My only interest in a player is getting the best sound. The players that streaming services have been offering so far have been junk compared to the standalone players. Tidal's was the least bad, until Qobuz came to my country. Their player is actually not too embarrassing, and supports the non-exclusive WASAPI playback that programmers are catching on to as being possible, so I can get music playback during gaming if I want it. The launcher for one game has a makes a ding bug while I'm kernel streaming, so it's probably just a matter of time until ks doesn't lock up your audio device, also. I'm waiting for the programmers at Microsoft to understand that all audio could be kernel-streamed, and that could keep consumers from having a reason to prefer Linux or Mac. Hopefully they'll realize it soon. I submitted the suggestion to Microsoft the way they let you, on their site, but who knows who reads those suggestions? Most people aren't audiophiles, they think if the tracks play, it's working perfectly.
But seriously, don't talk about command-line-only, 1 track at a time playback. Someone can make the best sounding player that way. If you are looking for a multi-room multi-user friendly, feature rich program, you probably won't like the best sounding players.

 

[Tenashus1]

I'm gonna miss MQA, but spatial audio is fantastic for me on Apple Music.

 

[Audiophiliac]

I'm gonna miss MQA, but spatial audio is fantastic for me on Apple Music.

You must have bought a better dac with the chip so that you can't tell the difference with.
They're saying some tracks are available in proper higher res. The 8 different rotating playlists is the best that the steaming services has to offer. I'm going to go back from Qobuz to Tidal even though Tidal costs more, for the playlists. Qobuz has no MQA problem, and actually their default player sounds nicely the least bad, but their weekly personal playlist is awful, and they hardly offer any browsing, so I can't find new music there. Audirvana, however, has primo playback, if you care about sounding the least wrong. It's a strange way to put it, but it has to be true.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

I doubt they'll dump all the MQA albums but who knows. It is good to have choices, and I enjoy MQA

 

[Tenashus1]

So, do you all think that Audirvana will somehow retain MQA even though Tidal appears done with it? I have loved MQA.