Bluesound 2, Tidal, MQA, and non-MQA DAC--for Dummies?


If this inquiry has been directly addressed elsewhere without talk about making the components work, whether MQA is better or DOA or crap or a sign of the imminent death of music as an artistic expression, and tech beyond lizard brain understanding, can someone point me there?  Seems there are enough users of similar setups that maybe I'm not the only one who wonders....

Recently acquired a Bluesound 2 and have had Tidal Hifi.  MQA was just a potential bonus.  So, listening to MQA from Tidal Hifi through a Bluesound 2 into a non-MQA DAC.  Right now, the Doors.  Maybe it is a function of a recent remaster, but it sounds great and some songs better than the same ripped from older CDs to the Vault 2.  Curious, looked at the DAC.  I believe it is hitting the DAC at 24/96.

Wading through over-my-head tech talk, debate about MQA, and talk about simply how to get MQA, seems it is something like this:

--MQA is supposed to provide some eq'ing and other magic to address some nasties inherent in the stream/conversion from the masters to the actual media and also functions as some sort of super-flac type thing to get hi-res in a smaller package but requires some various amount of "unfolding" to ultimately get to 24/192 or even potentially higher.  That "unfolding" is supposed to be done in a manner that doesn't add other nasties.  But, there is a software and a hardware method to making it work.

--The Bluesound is supposed to be able to do the full "unfolding" on its own (don't know whether it's hardware/software or some combination), if using the internal DAC and running its analog out.

--BUT, if using an external, non-MQA DAC, the Bluesound can somehow do just one "unfold" before the signal is output digitally...so something like MQA-lite.

--If using an MQA-DAC, the Bluesound can output the coded MQA signal digitally to the MQA-DAC, so that DAC can do the full "unfolding."

--BUT, again, going higher than "MQA-lite" otherwise requires that the original MQA file have additional "folds," which may or may not be the case.


I don't know any of that is correct or even makes sense. It's just what I think I read.  But, I am really curious about what is actually happening--in terms a dummy can understand.

Is this real 24/96?  Or some weird hybrid bastardization to pump up the number to fool ignorant audiophiles and sell/re-sell Tidal and music folks already have or had on vinyl, tape, cd, and/or alternate hi-res.

In the end, I guess it doesn't matter except for determining whether there is optimization to be had or yet another upgrade path to potentially follow.  The ears are judging, and, so far, some indeed sound better, even with MQA-lite....



stfoth

Showing 12 responses by stfoth

lalitk:  thanks.  that much I understand, i think.  it's this middle-ground with the Bluesound with MQA Tidal to a non-mqa DAC and, quite frankly, what MQA is ultimately supposed to do.

i'm enjoying the Tidal MQA into the non-MQA DAC, though.  Some things sound better.  Some, I can't really tell a difference.  But, I haven't yet heard anything Tidal MQA that sounds noticeably worse.  Unless I'm missing something from Tidal Masters, the selection is disappointingly light, though.

But, absolutely agree.  Waiting for the dust to settle.  MQA was really just a bonus since I already had Tidal Hifi and got a Bluesound.  THIS, from a fella with maybe 100 SACDs and SACD player that probably cost much more than that media.
Thanks, lalitk.  Helpful, it explains, I suppose, what the DAC is saying, but I have to admit that I still don't quite understand it all. 
@kalali.  Thanks.  We keep seeing each other, so I think we're at a similar stage with this Bluesound/Tidal/MQA/DAC thing.  What external DAC did you end up going with?  Which do you prefer--"full" MQA out of the Bluesound or semi-MQA with the DAC (assuming you went with a non-MQA separate DAC)?


@lalitk. Thanks.  I saw this article--a little out of context, but seems to be a follow-up to the link you posted.  Thought it was helpful, too.

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/05/mqa-bowie-headphones/


I was half-considering an upgrade to the DAC in the "primary" system.  It's the DAC portion of a Cary 306PV SACD.  It sounds good to me, but, after just acquiring a Denafrips Ares for a different setup, was considering going with R2R in the primary--maybe a Holo, Yggy, or up the Denafrips line.  BUT, maybe will wait until the MQA thing settles a bit and figure out whether a better streamer would be, alternatively or in combination, worthwhile before pulling the trigger there.
https://support.bluesound.com/hc/en-us/articles/115006191908-Why-Isn-t-My-External-DAC-Playing-MQA-

seems that is to fully bypass any MQA stuff in the Bluesound so an outboard MQA DAC can do it all.  but, doesn't that re-raise a question of whether this "rendering" is conversely done in the Bluesound when using a non-MQA DAC and checking the "No" on the Bluesound?  Thought that was the MQA piece that would be missing--"apply its custom, pre-corrective filter."

Ugh.
cycles2--not at all. I appreciate any advice and most sincere criticism. So far, I’ve only used the Bluesound DAC temporarily and for a limited amount of comparison. It’s better than I expected it to be. The vault 2 is going into a Cary 200ts. When I figure out where the Node 2 is going to end up, it will be either a Denafrips Ares or the Cary 306PV SACD DAC. The MQA appears to be hitting the DAC out of the Bluesound at 24/96, 24/88.2, and some at 24/44.1 or 48k. So far, some sound clearly better than redbook, some the same, and some just slightly different. I haven’t yet heard any that are worse in any obvious sense.

Like most of the other folks who have commented, seems the increased performance of the external DAC outweighs whatever last bit of MQA the Bluesound would otherwise do.

I’m kind of trying to make sense of what is actually happening with Tidal, MQA, and the gear.

Started this thing not all that long ago with some Sonos Connects as a relatively inexpensive and idiot-proof way to see if this streaming thing was for me. It is, and Bluesound was the next upgrade from the Sonos--still had to be idiot-proof and usable without a traditional computer. Probably will wait for some better indication of what’s going to happen with MQA before "investing" significantly more in a streamer or another DAC or combo.

How do you like the Lumin?
It's a miracle I've survived this long in this modern world.  I had no idea.

This discussion might change my life, at least a little, and, more importantly, might open the door to audio options I had dismissed for not being "able" to run Ethernet cables throughout the house.
@hgeifman .  That sounds interesting, and I'm sure sounds excellent over a Vault 2.  I labeled this "for Dummies," and that was not intended to be a self-deprecating joke, unfortunately.  That big of an upgrade would "need" to go to the primary system, but an Ethernet connection is pretty much a deal-killer, there.  Whatever goes there has to function by wifi, and be idiot proof for a computer illiterate (see generally, starting with sonos and then going with bluesound as the upgrade).  The Vault 2 requires a hard connection and is in the office where the router is.

As stupid as it probably objectively is, I'm using whatever router Comcast has been renting to me.  I don't even know if what I'm about to say will make sense, but, here goes (please don't laugh):

Is there a device that functions something like a wifi extender but with an Ethernet connection for other devices (like, say, an Aurender) with sufficient speed and reliability to stream the Tidal MQA files or, if possible, hi-res from a NAS?

@cycles2 . I guess I could just look it up, but figured could just ask, insofar as it may further the discussion. Does the A10 function through wifi (like a bluesound or sonos) or does it need a hard connection to the router? Does it also function as a standalone DAC?

thanks!

@kalali. The Cambridge Audio DACmagic Plus has been reported to offer a lot of bang for the buck and to be a pretty good DAC. It sounds like you are finding that, while a bit different, it’s not significantly better than the bluesound’s DAC, which would speak very positively for the bluesound, imo.
Thank you, both.  Here's how computer illiterate and out of touch I am and probably why the HelpDesk folks probably cringe when I have to call:  I guess this mysterious device I was thinking of to make something like an Aurender work without running a cable from it through the walls upstairs to the router in the office might simply called a wireless bridge, which, I think, is what lalitk is describing.

--Replace the probably crappy Comcast router with something better.

--Get an AirPort Extreme that connects through wifi.  Plug the Aurender or any other network device without built-in wifi into the Airport Extreme with the Ethernet cable.

--Rock on...and realize that, for years, this writer has unnecessarily limited himself to stuff with built-in wifi or, on devices without, forgoing functionality.

I'm depressed, now.  Thank you.
@lalitk.  Thanks!  I guess one last stupid question.  The Airport Extreme on the second floor works through wifi to the Airport Extreme on the third floor, i.e. without running any cable from the second floor to the third?
A non-audio oriented friend recommended Netgear Orbi.  Something about Apple maybe stopping the Airport.
@hgeifman .  Thanks.  I'm on a slab and have textured walls and stucco.  Easily could turn into problem, depending on what it will take.  Had bad run of crappy contractors, too.  But, the electrician was ok.  Might go ahead and have him come out to see what he can do with that and a couple of 20 amp dedicateds.

@lalitk. Might try the Orbi or Google competitor, anyway.  Sounds awesome even without a non-wifi streamer.  It's Bluesound, for now.

How about a good streamer, with built-in wifi, separate power supply, MQA, r2r and HDCD and dsd DAC, HDMI and coax inputs, integrated Tidal, fully balanced with solid state drive under five figures.  Gotta be a market for that?