[Basshead Paul]

I'm listening to Tidal's Master tracks with a Dragonfly Red, which now has MQA support after the firmware update, and I definitely hear an improvement in audio quality over the regular HiFi tracks on Tidal.

Here's how I know it's real: I wasn't aware that I was listening to MQA on my desktop PC only. It's just regular HiFi on my Android phone, because Tidal only offers the master tab on the desktop software. I heard a big difference in quality between my desktop and Android phone and it's been driving me crazy because I couldn't figure out why the quality is so much better on my desktop . I have been using the same Dragonfly Red for both.

To me, the difference is huge. This is the best sound quality I have ever heard in my life.

 

[castleofargh]

I'm listening to Tidal's Master tracks with a Dragonfly Red, which now has MQA support after the firmware update, and I definitely hear an improvement in audio quality over the regular HiFi tracks on Tidal.

Here's how I know it's real: I wasn't aware that I was listening to MQA on my desktop PC only. It's just regular HiFi on my Android phone, because Tidal only offers the master tab on the desktop software. I heard a big difference in quality between my desktop and Android phone and it's been driving me crazy because I couldn't figure out why the quality is so much better on my desktop . I have been using the same Dragonfly Red for both.

To me, the difference is huge. This is the best sound quality I have ever heard in my life.

so 2 different sources feeding a usb powered DAC/amp. can I just suggest that one being a battery powered cellphone might be a tiny bit significant?

 

[goodvibes]

Bits are bits, LOL. Joking.

I hope it dies and it probably will. All it does is confuse people with false promises. It's the new HDCD except it's lossy.

 

[swspiers]

I thought this was an appreciation thread, but the Group Think is derailing it. Tempted to try MQA just to go against the grain...

 

[DSNORD]

I have spent the last 3 hours on Tidal A/B playing Master versions of various albums with and without MQA using Audirvana in exclusive/hog mode for the first unfold to my Schiit Yggy/Rag/KEF LS50 setup fed via AOIP from Dante/Mac Mini. These were also compared to my personal versions of each album stored as FLAC 16/44.1 on my NAS drive feeding the same set up.

I can detect ZERO significant differences among the three options with just a very slight edge leaning towards my personal storage approach.

So unless I'm major league missing something here, MQA is a bust to me and I can quit worrying about it at least in its present concoction. The MQA sonic ejaculation being rammed by the likes of the major mags just isn't there for me anymore than their DSD version wasn't there either. 16/44.1 through Yggy still hasn't been beat to these ears. I've got no bone in the fight. Audirvana can decode it or not for the same cost to me. In my set up there is no perceptible difference. I'm hard pressed to believe that an MQA approved DAC would magically add something with the next unfold if I perceive no benefit from the first.

Thoughts?

 

[Left Channel]

I have spent the last 3 hours on Tidal A/B playing Master versions of various albums with and without MQA using Audirvana in exclusive/hog mode for the first unfold to my Schiit Yggy/Rag/KEF LS50 setup fed via AOIP from Dante/Mac Mini. These were also compared to my personal versions of each album stored as FLAC 16/44.1 on my NAS drive feeding the same set up.

I can detect ZERO significant differences among the three options with just a very slight edge leaning towards my personal storage approach.

So unless I'm major league missing something here, MQA is a bust to me and I can quit worrying about it at least in its present concoction. The MQA sonic ejaculation being rammed by the likes of the major mags just isn't there for me anymore than their DSD version wasn't there either. 16/44.1 through Yggy still hasn't been beat to these ears. I've got no bone in the fight. Audirvana can decode it or not for the same cost to me. In my set up there is no perceptible difference. I'm hard pressed to believe that an MQA approved DAC would magically add something with the next unfold if I perceive no benefit from the first.

Thoughts?

I have had a similar experience but am keeping an open mind until I've had a chance to hear 4x unfolding. The only time I can hear a difference in 1x software decoding is if the non-MQA file I'm comparing is of low quality. I've learned of a forthcoming reasonably priced MQA-capable DAC that would make a nice drop-in replacement for my modest Schiit stack, and will report back if and when I manage to purchase one.

 

[captblaze]

I have spent the last 3 hours on Tidal A/B playing Master versions of various albums with and without MQA using Audirvana in exclusive/hog mode for the first unfold to my Schiit Yggy/Rag/KEF LS50 setup fed via AOIP from Dante/Mac Mini. These were also compared to my personal versions of each album stored as FLAC 16/44.1 on my NAS drive feeding the same set up.

I can detect ZERO significant differences among the three options with just a very slight edge leaning towards my personal storage approach.

Thoughts?

most seem to be focusing on absolute sound quality and my thought is what savings does MQA provide in terms of bandwidth while streaming? MQA is supposed to stuff 10 lbs. of music into a 5 lbs. sack and then unfold it and playback in hi res. does anyone have any facts pertaining to that? what percent is the decrease in bandwidth usage compared to the original file that was given the MQA treatment? Is it significant enough, or is it a marginal reduction that doesn't justify the additional cost?

Just wondering...

 

[goodvibes]

He answered that for you. Tidal MQA streams compressed higher def files at about the 16/44 FLAC bitrate he was comparing it to.

 

[captblaze]

He answered that for you. Tidal MQA streams compressed higher def files at about the 16/44 FLAC bitrate he was comparing it to.

I'm interested in the savings in terms of network load, not what a 16 bit 44.1k file sounds like compared to a 24 bit 96k file. MQA is supposed to reduce bandwidth usage to allow higher resolution files to move in a smaller package than the original. then it is "unfolded" to reveal the higher resolution file.

So in reality, my interest is in something other than what it sounds like

 

[castleofargh]

look at MQA as a change in resolution instead of a compression format. the compression level is actually nothing special(mostly because about 2/3 of the signal is uncompressed PCM). what makes it hard to estimate is that container and music signal aren't at the same resolution. a 16/48 MQA isn't 16bit and isn't 48khz, 16/48 is only the container and tells you about the bandwidth. but the actual resolution of the music might be something like 12/96 which makes it hard to readily compare with flac or mp3 in terms of music resolution per kbit. we end up trying to compare apples and oranges. if you take the original PCM, then MQA simply discarded several bits. of course it's lighter that way because it's not the same.

 

[captblaze]

look at MQA as a change in resolution instead of a compression format. the compression level is actually nothing special(mostly because about 2/3 of the signal is uncompressed PCM). what makes it hard to estimate is that container and music signal aren't at the same resolution. a 16/48 MQA isn't 16bit and isn't 48khz, 16/48 is only the container and tells you about the bandwidth. but the actual resolution of the music might be something like 12/96 which makes it hard to readily compare with flac or mp3 in terms of music resolution per kbit. we end up trying to compare apples and oranges. if you take the original PCM, then MQA simply discarded several bits. of course it's lighter that way because it's not the same.

thank you... I was thinking since FLAC has a variable it isn't easy to measure the actual change in bandwidth when comparing an MQA FLAC to a non MQA one

 

[castleofargh]

I don't think we can make any global estimate, a comparison would need to be about a specific song, and would be somehow biased one way or the other. you won't have the option for something like 18/192 flac, and if you go for 24/192 flac, then you won't have 24/192 MQA (no matter the container because the lower bits of information are discarded by MQA). there is no way to do a fair 1 to 1 comparison.
IMO, if you think higher sample rate is the secret to better sound, then MQA seems like an OK compromise.
if you're about saving bandwidth, 16/44 PCM will be a little smaller than 16/48 mqa files. they don't contain the same signal but in terms of pure data rate, smaller container takes less space. so 16/44 is smaller and flac even more and aac even more.
last, if you really are into getting the highest fidelity, then MQA isn't it as there is a systematical loss compared to the original PCM master. maybe sometimes the low pass filter sounds different, maybe as they claim it subjectively feels better, but the fact is, from a PCM file to a mqa file, some data is discarded. getting the original master in PCM is the way to get the highest fidelity. but that of course will never be bandwidth savvy.

in the end just like with any other format or codec, the user has to make some choices. we can't get the best of all worlds.

 

[Sanlitun]

I had found that MQA tracks on Tidal were pretty much indistinguishable from their HD Tracks counterparts when listening through the NAD M51 and the unfolding done by the Tidal player.

Listening through the Brooklyn is a bit of a different story, and I would say the tracks sound "nice" and how I would have expected DSD to sound before I actually heard it and was disappointed by it.

Some MQA tracks are certainly much better than others, and when MQA is good there certainly seems to be a subjective effect.

For me it's all been great, as I had Tidal anyways and their enabling of MQA has been a bonus. I don't think I would go out and buy expensive equipment just for MQA, that money may be better spent elsewhere in your audio chain.

 

[peterinvan]

STUTTERING ON MASTER

Over the past few months I have been experiencing an intermittent stuttering problem streaming Tidal MASTERs (and occasionally HIFI). Tidal support suggested changing my DNS settings to the Google global DNS. This made no difference.

So I was pleased to find that today, most of the stuttering issue seems to have died down.

No changes to my setup: 15Mb/s Ethernet/IP connection > Windows Tidal App on PC > iPurifier > iUSB > Kef LS50W
Windows Tidal Version: 2.1.10.314 (W: 2.3.6--8) (NP: 2.4.2)

Tested the following MASTER albums with no stuttering problem:

• Mark Knofler Shangri-La
• Grateful Dead American Beauty
• Joni Mitchell Blue (one short skip)
• Patricia Barber A Distortion of Love (hung on second and eighth tracks)
• Ben Webster (...Meets Oscar Peterson)

Rats...

• Madeleine Peyroux (Hello Babe) STUTTERING AGAIN

When it stutters or hangs, I have to click fast-forward. Apart from these issues, I am enjoying sweet sound!

Note: no stuttering problems at all using the MacOS Tidal app.

 

[Basshead Paul]

For those saying MQA is lossy:

You are technically correct, but the only difference is an improvement in sound quality. Let me explain. For every MQA album released, information about the original recording equipment is stored in the file. They do this so they can correct known problems with the equipment when it's processed through an MQA enabled dac. That means the resulting file will technically not be the same as the originally recorded and released song. That technically means it's lossy, by definition, but it's not lossy in the way most people understand the term.

It's wonderful how much it improves the sound quality, especially for older albums. But, you've got to have an MQA enabled dac to really hear an improvement. Otherwise, it'll sound the same as the hd counterpart file with a smaller file size (which is a good thing)