It seems weird that it won't work with the Gungy. I would contact Audirvana and get some help directly.
As for MQA, I will probably be lighting fires, but, in my opinion, it is something that should be left to fend for itself. Should it become an industry standard, then I will get on board. With the way DAC technology is going, MQA might just be the Betamax of the 21st century.
I agree with the above. Please call Audirvana and review this problem with them. It should work and they should be able to help.
You also might need to call Schiit for assistance. It could be a setting or something similar.
The future of MQA is unknown and I would not be anxious to implement it. Similar conversations are happening with DSD, double DSD and quad DSD. There are too many formats and probably more coming.
Please keep us posted.
Lol. With the right DAC 16 bit 44.1 sounds fantastic. Who needs MQA or DSD is exactly my feeling.
Call Audirvana? Do you know something I don't?
Audirvana has a customer support system that requires registration and so far my registration hasn't been approved so I have no way of communicating with them about the issue. If you have a phone number for Audirvana can you share?
I would like to add my experience with audio gear into the mix. I have always had to be a budget minded audiophile. Starting in the 80s I had one of the first CD players on the market by Sony. Later I bought a Betamax and a PCM recorder and made audio tapes on the Betamax video recorder using the Sony PCM recorder. I bought CDs and have stayed in digital since that time. I did not often spend over $500 on any new audio component. Later I added a DAC that I paid $1000 to get. In all that time, digital sound would get better by small increments since I was a budget minded buyer. That changed with the last $500 component I purchased.
I bought a Bluesound Node 2 to consolidate all my AIFF files to a single hard drive and bypass Itunes on my computer. It was not until I played streamed MQA files on the Node 2 that I realized the best sound I had gotten from my budget sound system. I don’t know if MQA will be around long, much might depend on how it is marketed. But to my ears, many of the albums I have heard on Tidal have been stunning in clarity, separation of instruments and distinct sounds, deep bass and true natural tonality. One should listen to at least a half dozen albums before making snap judgements. Many albums sound okay, many sound great.
I don't honestly know if MQA will sustain there are lots of variables in the mix.Here is a link I found that gives some of the latest content.https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T0xnOzPQZai32L7R7e_uzxfBqhXrPuXh3USOjvuztYg/edit#gid=1599853...
I do also agree with what many others have said regarding the playback of red book.With the very good gear we have today and the high quality sound I hear with my red book recordings,which is the majority of my owned and streamed from tidal collection,is the high res stuff really needed.
I quess time will tell.
So far, I'm leaning toward liking MQA. I have a streamer/dac that does the MQA thing and so far results have been pretty good. What I have been listening to is the MQA on Tidal. And a lot of it sounds very good. Could these be nothing more than very good recordings or is MQA working its (subjective) magic? Time will tell. I for one, hope its the real deal as my results have been very encouraging to say the least.
I don’t have equipment that unfolds MQA but can still often hear differences due to the remastering of the Tidal MQA files and perhaps the effect of 24bit vs 16 bit on some MQA titles.
Some of Tidal’s MQA versions are sonic stinkers, IME. I listened to the Tidal MQA version of Linda Ronstadt’s "What’s New" last night. Oh my, the glare on her voice. The non-vocal sound of the MQA mastering is very nice indeed. I then listened to the ordinary non-MQA Tidal version and Linda’s voice was much more pleasing to my ears. This title has been one of my long-time references for detecting glare and brightness with equipment/cables. The MQA version sounds like when the VTA on my tonearm is adjusted "too high" with the vinyl version.
I am tending to agree with some others, even those with full unfolding capability, that the superiority of Tidal MQA depends on the title and the quality of the remastering, but could it be that full unfolding somehow tames these gremlins and, if so, is it sufficient to warrant investing in MQA-capable equipment? One can buy a lot of hi-rez downloads (wonderful sound) for that money, yet the selection is already much broader with Tidal and it seems that this will grow more pronounced over time.
I have the digital coax output of my Node2 going to a non-MQA DAC and to my preamp and connected the analog output of the same Node2 as another source to the same preamp. This allows me to switch between the two sources instantly and compare at a constant volume. I compared several different MQA and non-MQA contents from Tidal and in my system I cannot hear a difference whatsoever. FWIW.
You do know that the Tidal Masters are remastered for MQA, kalali?
I can definitely concur about the song "what's new" by Linda Ronstadt,the vocals on the mqa version do have such a unpleasant glare but the music is ok.The regular non mqa version of this song is fine.
My direct stream does unfold mqa,but I'm a fairly new Tidal user and still discovering.
The bluesound node2 internal Dac has a slight edge over my Peachtree Nova Pre. Listening to 16/44 Tidal or hi Rez Qobuz streams, the soundstage seems to open up just a faint with the BS. Could be me, but I'm willing to think that to improve the Node 2 , one would probably need to go a bit higher on the Totem pole beyond the mid $500 or so Dacs.