I truly understand that, but I doubt if you had 20 people listen to the 2 (software vs. hardware decode) you would get a 50% correct in a truly blind test. do I have proof of this, no... I just have a lifetime of real world experience and that experience has shown me that a very small sample of humans have keen enough hearing for it to matter. I own a + and I use it for a full decode of MQA. that doesn't mean when I do a software decode into my Woo WA-8 the sound it produces is any less enjoyable than through the +
It's not a question of software vs hardware decode, it's a question of
- nothing at all; vs
- software only decode (first unfold only); vs
- software decode coupled with, at the DAC, the final two levels of unfold.
MQA (website) claims with the second and third unfoldings
at the compatible DAC, the improvement is greatest; perhaps 80% of the improvement is heard from the second and third unfolds.
MQA claims one can get a better result with just one unfold, compared to listening without MQA at all. Maybe this isn't a big deal; maybe only a few people can tell the difference, maybe it is a slight improvement (as they claim), maybe any noticeable improvement depends heavily on whether you are listening on your personal audio system or budget home system or high-end home system.
Without having assembled my system yet, I'd surmise (so, draw a tentative conclusion using one's brain, but without having done significant and formal research):
- If you have a portable player for jogging with $5 or $50 earbuds, the first unfold might not make a hill of beans difference.
- If the educated and diligent
audiophile has a tolerable portable player - plus the reasonably priced MQA compatible Dragonfly Black (so, the listener now gets the benefit of all three unfolds) - and some quality earbuds, AND before their jog they are quietly sitting on the park bench (look both ways for Aqualung), I'll surmise they could probably hear the difference if their only goal at the time is... to see whether or not they could hear the difference.
-
During their jog, maybe the particular listener would have only the comfort of "knowing" they are sending "good" audio to their ears - but couldn't actually tell the difference.
Surmising for home systems:
- Budget equipment, no power conditioning or interconnects or improved room acoustics - and one vs zero unfolds - maybe no one can tell
anything with
any consistency.
- How about streaming with
all three unfolds with a high-end system under somewhat optimized conditions? Based on current information and not (yet) trying it myself: Respected reviewers of the best equipment available, since the advent of the Linn Sondek turntable, to the advent of crappy CDs, through to the pretty good digital reconstitution we have today... say they can always hear an improvement with MQA.
Maybe they are mistaken during NOT blind testing. Maybe they are lying. Maybe they are just shills for The Man: the people who advertise with their publications.
I'm saying:
- Most people who post on the internet that MQA doesn't work have never heard three unfolds on any system, quality or not.
- I find it hard to believe well-respected audio journalists are just lying in order to sell us an outright bill of goods.
Since I will be doing a lot of hopefully high-end listening (dedicated electrical circuit, HE-1000 headphones, tube amp, etc) via the Tidal stream, the big deal to me with the Tidal Masters selections is not whether MQA works a little, a lot, or not at all. The selling point for me is: I "believe" I am at least listening to a hand-picked hopefully "best" recording of whichever song or album I'm listening to - as opposed to who knows what cheap reissue or remaster, whose engineer's purpose was to mix something that sounded good on earbuds and in teenagers' cars.
Oh darn, I came here in order to ask a question elsewhere. Sorry for the rant.