First impressions are very good here.
Tidal - offering MQA
Showing 27 responses by dbtom2
@cymbop You wrote: "Bass was somehow more plump and more taut at the same time -- and better pitch-defined." I have the same experience. I heard bass strings being plucked and a distinct kick drum detail I had missed before. For some reason, I wasn't expecting the improvement to be in the lower frequencies but it's the first thing I noticed. Glad to know it isn't just me. I hope others will post their impressions as well - good or bad. |
@ahendler It has been my assumption (perhaps mistaken) that the latest Tidal desktop app provides MQA decoding and sends the unfolded hi-res PCM stream to an outboard DAC. The Tidal app offers options to allow "Passthrough MQA - Disable software decoding of MQA" I'm seeing Tidal streams showing as 24/96 on my DAC that sound much better. That same album shows in Roon as a 24/48 file. Roon does not yet offer software decoding of MQA. I'm hearing an improvement between the versions. For me, there is a major difference between the 16/44 version and the UNFOLDED, UN-DECODED 24/48 version. Maybe that's the filters in my DAC, though. But I'm fairly confident that Tidal's desktop apps are doing the full MQA decoding/unfolding to MQA hi-res. Of course only on those albums identified on Tidal as MASTER. |
For example, the 2L record software decodes in the TIDAL player to 88.2kHz while a hardware DAC that supports MQA will decode the same stream at 352.8kHzThis kind of baffles me. Tidal is calling the service "Masters." From their website: TIDAL is delivering master-quality audio recordings directly from the source to HiFi members — an audio experience exactly as the artist intended — in partnership with MQA. Yet, to obtain a fully decoded version the listener still needs an MQA enabled DAC. So this "Master" is really a sub"Master" to the "Master-Master?" On the other hand, even without using an MQA DAC, I have noticed a distinct improvement to the sound quality both on the Tidal stream and using Roon, which isn't decoding MQA (yet) and merely delivers the 24 bit version in either 44 or 48kHz sampling. So I'm happy-er. I don't have to purchase an MQA DAC to get SOME benefits. Yet baffled at this third alternative to enjoying the MQA experience. |
@donzi Only the desktop apps are able to decode MQA. Use the app for Tidal. No MQA via Tidal from anything other than the desktop apps for now. Soon to change I am certain. To find MQA Masters in Tidal: Under What’s New, scroll down to albums and select Masters on the right of the New, Recommended, Top 20 line. Use the 105 as a DAC from the PC running the app. You can Passthrough the undecoded unfolded MQA to your DAC (and Airplay, I presume) if you like. Even these versions sound better to my ears. But to hear MQA from your 105 let the Tidal app do the decoding and DO NOT passthrough MQA. (Passthrough is for those who have MQA enabled DACs.) Good luck. |
@dtc I am baffled by this because I thought I had a good understanding of how MQA works, both on the production and listening side. I am still uncertain whether "software" decoding/unfolding of the MQA stream could be programmed in software (Tidal) to be a lower sampling rate than the hardware decoding/unfolding of the stream (MQA DAC). I have been reading posts on the Roon Community Forum where some contributors have concluded this is happening. Roon has a Tidal integration but Roon doesn't yet decode MQA. However, Roon is able to transport the MQA contained stream through to the users DAC. Roon MQA DAC users are reporting higher bitrates than the 96KHz I am seeing for a Tidal stream thru the Tidal app. I can say with confidence the undecoded/unfolded containerized MQA FLAC sounds better than the 16/44 version of the same track. And Tidal's MQA decoded streams sound really good, even if it's at a lower sample rate than what an MQA DAC would unfold. So until the last 24 hours I believed the same as you: having read everything I could about MQA over the last 16 months, I thought MQA could be software or hardware decoded. Now, like you, I am looking for an authoritative answer. I am nonetheless pleased with what I am hearing. And surprised at the level of low frequency response and details. For some reason I expected the improvement to be in the upper mids and high frequencies. |
@ahendler I have visited the MQA website and revisited my setup. I should clarify that Tidal's desktop application players for Windows and MacOs are the only Tidal players - for now - that decode an MQA version of an album and then sends a decoded/unfolded hi-res version to my non-MQA DAC. Would "passing through" the MQA stream to a MQA DAC result in a playback of higher sampling rate (and perhaps better quality) than what I'm hearing now? I don't know. In other words, does an MQA DAC decode/unfold something more that a software embedded decoder? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Nonetheless, as I understand the term "decoding" Tidal's desktop application does indeed decode. |
@pirad In the Tidal app go the Settings/Streaming. Under Sound Output you should see your DAC. Select the gear icon that appears when you click on your DAC name. Check the Use Exclusive Mode box. The Force volume should be checked as well. The Tidal app will then have Exclusive use of the sound device. |
@donzi First, in the Tidal app go the Settings/Streaming. Under Sound Output you should see your DAC. Select the gear icon that appears when you click on your DAC name. Check the Use Exclusive Mode box. The Force volume should be checked as well. The Tidal app will then have Exclusive use of the sound device. Second, you don't have a printer with such a USB cable you could "borrow" for a few hours? From a neighbor? ;) |
@ejr1953 Though I was really skeptical about all the wild claims, I must say MQA seems to have more/better bass, the highs seem to have more timbre and voices just sound smooth and "analog" to me, and it seems to offer better dynamics. I agree with your assessment. I noticed the difference in bass first. Since I'm not familiar with the audio vocabulary, I have difficulty describing the difference I'm hearing. I hear the bass notes quiver - the higher frequency component of a bass note that makes it seem more real. The same goes for kick drum. I hear the same thump but I'm also hearing a more realistic trailing component to the transient. Organs sound better too. To my ears, (old, mis-shapened, un-pierced) the biggest improvements have been in older recordings from the 70's Could this simply be because I'm hearing a higher-resolution version and comparing it to a lower resolution version? Yes, it could be. Am I happy that Tidal now offers an MQA decoder that lets me stream high-res from a growing - yes, still limited but growing - library of recordings? I am delighted by that. Especially the part where it didn't cost me anything to listen. (Other than my regular Tidal Hifi subscription fee.) |
I still don't understand why one needs to spend $$ on a MQA enabled dac. Optimization algorithm to decode and optimize a particular dac can be chosen in a drop down menu from any software player that supports MQA and doesn't have to run on a processor inside of a DAC. Any content can be made to sound better to ours ears with proper filtering and equalization. I agree. But we're told the DAC needs to be a "known" device. I think full software decoding is something that will come eventually with options to select from a menu of "known" DACS. How soon? Can't even speculate. But I agree it is something that could be fully done in software. |
@pokey77 I appreciate the link and comments. When I wrote, I think full software decoding is something that will come eventually with options to select from a menu of "known" DACS. It was within the context of Tidal's current setup with the desktop apps only partially decoding MQA content. So the word 'full' in the quote above should have been italicized in my comment to contrast with 'partial' decoding now available. I'm like a lot of other Audiogon users. Happy to see the beginning of the MQA rollout and enjoying - at least partially - its benefits. Now it's time to shop for an MQA DAC and/or wait to see if a software solution comes on the horizon that does FULLY decode/unfold the MQA stream. |
@pokey77 The article says "the Tidal desktop app can now fully decode MQA". So it seems that the software FULLY decodes the file. Wish it were so. But not, I'm afraid. That's what caused the confusion that has since been clarified. For me, at least. And since I only know what I read on-line, I could be wrong. This is my understanding: The Tidal desktop apps partially decode the MQA Master. Full decoding to the full resolution of the Master requires an MQA DAC. I like (very much) what I'm hearing from the Tidal library of MQA Masters. I do not have an MQA DAC so I can't tell how much better full MQA decoding/unfolding will sound. My point in my post was that software decoding was theoretically possible. And given the quote you mentioned above, The article goes on to say "I asked a very high end DAC manufacturer what it saw as the differences between hardware decoding in its DACs and software decoding in an app like Roon (before outputting to its DACs). The answer was a refreshing, "there should be no difference." I am heartened by that. |
@dtc I wondered about the Dragonfly issue as a renderer as well. Hmm... And my theory about full MQA decoding done by software is admittedly wishful thinking. But then, I wasn't expecting Tidal's MQA rollout to include even partial decoding. So, with time... As an Audiogon shopper and as a Hifi shopper as well, it is painful to think of the many brands and models of high end DACs that aren't capable of MQA decoding/unfolding and whether their prices will drop at a faster rate, now that newer MQA capable versions arrive on the marketplace. Are we seeing that now? |
@dlcockrum Here's a good objective analysis of how Tidal's decoded files sound versus Hi-Res versions of the same files. The blogger has not yet analyzed using an MQA DAC but his writeup is worthwhile reading. http://archimago.blogspot.ca |
@dlcockrum I agree with your understanding of his blog post. So, would it be accurate to say MQA’s value is to make sound quality when streaming from Tidal (a relatively inexpensive subscription service with >2 million titles) comparable to the more expensive and title-limited HDTracks hi-rez downloads instead of improving upon the latter? He hasn't yet compared them using an MQA DAC using his ears. He has done a very good objective analysis of the streamed files using Tidal's decoder. He has also pointed out how Tidal doesn't call the tracks MQA, referring to them as Master. My interpretation of his listening analysis is that he's hearing an equivalent to a hi-res download in the Tidal Masters streaming without an MQA DAC. I appreciate his direct language and his down-to-earth comparisons, especially in a field where there's argument over how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Tidal's library is between 35 and 40 million tracks. Some thoughtful audiophile researched the Tidal Master library and found upwards of 800 albums in the Master format. It seems to be growing daily. Here's a links to the Google spreadsheet for it: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10VtON9VjMAt3uyHC2-Oo2MjIa3orv9DKZfwiRQKmTAA/edit#gid=9454760... |
@mward, Tidal's MQA library and is only available so far on the pc or mac apps running Windows or MacOS. Tidal calls these "Master" versions of certain albums. Check with Oppo to find out when they plan to have a Tidal update w/ Masters for your Oppo player. After two weeks of listening to these Masters, I can say I am not disappointed in the change in sound quality. Very soon I will have spent more cumulative time listening to MQA encoded music than I have spent reading about it. |