POLL: Which MQA Decoding Do You Use With TIDAL?

To fix the poll it would help to replace the last option with none.

The last option isn't possible. @Erik Tracy is correct. MQA is two steps.
1.) Unfold to about 17/96 in a 24/96 container where 48~96k is an approximation then;
2.) Apply "secret" filters.

29/192 is only possible from MQA as an upsample so the poll option is borderline meaningless.

Option 1.) Is not MQA. It doesn't have the filters and there is no unfold.

 

I mean, there are 24/192 albums on Tidal (Slayer's Reign in Blood is one). But, just playing through Tidal can only give you up to 24/96 without an MQA DAC, so therefore I think the third option is valid.

 

MQA band passes the input file to 24/96. It's listed in their patent. There is nothing higher than 96k sample rate for the end user of an MQA file.

The numbers shown on the display of the DAC represent the resolution of the source file before MQA does its magic. The displayed resolution has nothing to do with the resolution being processed by the end user's DAC.

 

Yes. The 3rd option is valid because it requires an MQA DAC.

 

I’m not understanding you here. Are you saying that there aren’t 24/192 albums that MQA decodes with an MQA DAC? Because I thought it went like this (with an album that is in 24/192 like Reign in Blood):



Because AudioStream states that if a 24/192 file is encoded with MQA and you play it back with an MQA capable DAC, you’ll get, give or take, 24/192 quality.

 

Yes, that is what I'm saying. If 192 happens it is an over sample at the DAC. There is no file content above 96k. There can't be because the 1st step of encoding is to band pass the input file to 96k per the patent.

There is only one fold. And there is only one unfold. The second part is an application of a set of pre-chosen filters that really anyone could apply if they thought it sounded better.

 

On none of my DACs I was able to distinguish 24/96 from 24/192 of the same recording. I am not saying there are no difference, but I just could not hear it. I used probably 7-8 different DACs, Sometimes I feel I can hear the difference, sometimes I do not.. Sometimes I feel 96 sounds better.. I finally stopped playing this headache-inducing game even before MQA jumped on board.

 

Yup, this is basically how it works.

While the poll has 3 choices, there are actually 4 possible options...

1. Straight 24/44.1 or 24/48 playback of MQA-encoded lossless file to non-MQA DAC.

2. Software decoded 44.1/48 --> 88.2/96kHz audio "first (and only) unfold" to non-MQA DAC. No further upsampling/"rendering". Remember that the frequencies above 22.05/24kHz consist of reconstituted lossy data, and it's not true 24-bit resolution (more like 16-18 bits).

3. Software decoded 44.1/48 --> 88.2/96kHz audio "first unfold". Sent to a MQA "rendering" DAC like Audioquest Dragonfly which does not have adequate processing speed to "unfold". The DAC internally upsamples to 176.5/192 with the pre-determined low-tap-length filter (as described here). The MQA-enabled DACs can also perform the "rendering" step when they detect software-decoded 88.2/96kHz MQA data (eg. Mytek Brooklyn can, Oppo cannot).

4. Full hardware "unfold" and "render". Basically the player software sends the original lossless 24/44.1 or 48kHz MQA-encoded file to the DAC. The DAC hardware (actually the DAC's internal processor running MQA firmware) detects and does the first unfold followed by upsampling to 176.4/192/352.8/384 (Mytek, Oppo, dCS, Meridian, etc...).

Then there are the 16/44.1 MQA-CD's and files. Which in no way should be considered "hi-res"; and in fact reduces the full 16-bit resolution.

As you can see, this can be a bit convoluted/complicated for the general consumer.

 

No MQA for me.

For those using software unfolding but without a capable MQA DAC, you could set your software to upsample with a slow roll off minimum phase filter and get somewhat close to what a MQA DAC offers.

 

Please see sig.

Regardless of the MQA debate, this setup sounds sublime.

 

I'm using my Audioquest Dragonfly red with an iPhone USB adapter plugged directly into my bedroom system. Its not pretty and only goes up to 24/96, but it is working. I already had the Dragonfly and spent $41.00 for the adapter so not too much invested.

 

I use Roon, and am currently streaming both Tidal and Qobuz. I have had dCS Vivaldi stack for several years, and am grateful to the folks at dCS for providing amazing (usually) free upgrades, including an extremely well-executed free upgrade for MQA playback a number of months ago. When playing non-MQA files (items 2 and 3 below), I upsample to DXD (24/352.8 or 24/384); I cannot upsample MQA files but the dCS Upsampler and DAC do both unfolds and apply the "secret sauce."

After a lot of listening, I would prioritize sound quality of streamed files (same mastering) on my system in the following order:
1. Tidal MQA Studio hirez (24/48 to 24/192, depending on the file)
2. Qobuz hirez (24/48 to 24/192, depending on the file)
3. Tidal or Qobuz redbook (a tie -- I can't hear a difference)

Differences in mastering can outweigh differences in format.

If the Tidal file is MQA but not MQA Studio, it is a bit of a wildcard. Some are on par with MQA Studio, and some are wonky. (Why in the world is the Beatles While Album MQA but not MQA Studio?)

 

I’m immensely enjoying this 24/96 experience!

 

Keep in mind MQA files with full rendering can have varying sample rates and many don’t go up to the highest rate the format supports. Maybe y’all already know that!

 

I am fully aware.

 

MQA is limited to 96k sampling rate, packed into a 45k bucket. That is as high as the format can possibly support. Most DACs are capable of playing this these days. They may up sample to 192k to help with filtering within the DAC but there is no original file content between 96k and 192k to be played back.
Rates displayed by the DAC do not represent the rates being played by the DAC. They represent the original rate of the (re)master file that was supplied to MQA.

 

I just purchased a Node 2i, I will chime in on this after a week of tests.

 

Sorry, I knew you probably did know, my message was general for everyone hence the “y’all may already know that.”

 

24/192 no MQA sounds best. By far.

 

I'm just letting audirvana/tidal unfold it. It really sounds fine to me. If i'm streaming its usually just background filler anyway.

 

First unfold in Roon, then into a Brooklyn Bridge for the rest.

 

There's the 1999 remaster available in Tidal at 16/44 and an MQA encoded version of the 2018 remaster streaming at 24/196 (though I don't know if that's actually what you're getting with MQA, 24/196) if you're doing local decoding, at least according to the USB Audio Player Pro software on my phone with the MQA decoder plug in.

 

I have the Master Quality subscription of Tidal.
I've never seen anywhere that mentions option for bitrate or any mention of MQA.
Where do you access this?

 

Albums tagged "Master" quality on Tidal HiFi are MQA encoded -- there will be a "Master" button that lights up, instead of a "HiFi" button when you play them back, also there will be an "M" near the album icon when you're searching and scrolling. If you're using the Tidal desktop app, and you got to Settings>Streaming>Sound Output and select "More settings" next to the chosen Sound Output device, you can enable the first unfold to be done by Tidal (you can also bypass the Windows audio controls, if you're using a Windows computer, by using "Exclusive Mode."

I think you'll have to use some DAC or third-party software to see any indication of the sample rate though. On my phone I uses USB Audio Player Pro to play back material from Tidal and I have the MQA plug in for that software, and it shows bit and sample rate at playback.

 

I’m going to answer 24/48 which is where I stand today, to bump this thread and get some more input. After a couple of days with Tidal, I’m looking for a device that will do the full unfold portably (thanks audiomixer). Even at 24/48 I’m hearing more physical dimension and presence in the Master recordings I’ve heard. It’s a profound difference to my 14/16 lossless rips. I’m really excited to hear 24/96! Just want to make sure I can find an affordable device that gives me the full results of MQA. I’ve been reading all of the MQA articles over the past few years, and my ears are telling me my own truth on the matter. As long as I’m getting better sound, that’s my goal. If it’s “magic” or placebo I’m ok with the result.