Do that please, but I can tell you I have tried whose settings on my other Dac that’s not support MQA!
If comparing it with the other that support MQA, so does it sound pretty much like, but the most important thing is missing!
It’s what happens when the Blue Light comes on, whose changing the sound to much for me!
But if you like it so go for it, and I’m sure that you have made the right settings. That’s been described above in more than one time.
Love & Respect
Note that this upsampling discussion is not about MQA.
In this case, it applies to any 88/96k signal: high res or unfolded MQA from 88/96 or unfolded MQA from 44/48. And rather than speculating about about the audibility of aliasing artifacts and other artifacts, each of us can quite easily test it: playing a 96k file, set Roon to upsampling with each of the various filters, or to no upsampling and rely on your DAC’s upsampling filter(s).
To me, none of these results have been earthshaking.
Hi Anders,
I have come to the same results as you have!
The two or more exactly four different kinds of filters in Roon DSP!
Have I noticed that it’s a great matter of individual taste and also depending on what music you’re listening to!
The Precisely Linear Phase and The Precisely Smooth Phase.
Against!
The Soft Linear Phase and The Soft Smooth Phase.
(I’m sorry if it’s Exactly instead of Precisely! Because I have my Roon Remote on Swedish, so maybe it’s not correctly in English! But I presume that you’re getting it anyway)!
Sometimes I prefer the Precisely Smooth Phase filter, because the instruments and especially the vocal comes forward in the music!
But often I use the Soft Linear Phase filter because it’s reminding about the Precisely Smooth Phase filter but the bass player comes forward in a nice way, also the sound of the bass guitar suits my images of a perfectly balanced mixing!
Now does we all have different taste of how music shall sound and we have the possibility, to use among this filters in Roon DSP!
But my B.M.C PureDac has certainly different kinds of filters but, I can’t select any one of them manually!
The same is with one of my favorite DAC’s The Exogal Comet!
You can’t set anything except the kind of input and volume, nothing else!
When there’s other DAC’s what’s to me, have way to many different kinds of filters so if you’re not knowing what you are doing, it’s probably ends up that you don’t like it or it’s sounds and selling it!
So my conclusion is the same as @AndersVinberg
My test haven’t either got any earthshaking results.
Love & Respect
Thanks Music Fidelity for these suggestions. I tried these settings last night and they significantly improved the sound overall, both non-MQA and MQA. With some of the MQA recordings (Tidal Masters) the sound was better than the non-MQA version of the recording–not a huge amount but enough to keep me listening to the MQA version. On other recordings the non-MQA version was better than the MQA version, although still significantly better for non-MQA than before changing the settings. Maybe has to do with the quality of the master, as others have said. Thanks again for the suggestions.
Jim Heckman
I have a Benchmark DAC 3 and it makes no difference at all what sampling rate I upsample to in Roon. The DAC 3 is robust enough to convert all sample rates without audible differencesbetween them (if the original source file is the same - as obviously different source files for music like a CD file vs 24/96 hi-res file, can indeed sound different)The DAC 3 even has there own brick wall filter design that bypasses that of the DAC such that the filter has the least audibility possible (Most DACs use the available filter options that come built in with the DAC chip they have selected). Of course, if your DAC has different processes and filters for various sample rates (or has jitter/distortion that varies with SR) then it is likely that one will experience audible differences which are DAC/filter dependent.
The whole “cottage industry” of providing software upsampling (Amarra, JRiver, Roon etc etc) is a result of poor DAC design, IMHO. Folks hear differences even when mathematically none should exist!
It looks like MQA is trying to fix DAC design issues by taking greater control of the entire conversion process. And this makes excellent sense for the vast majority of DACs out there. (Most DACs are just a chip in a box with a fancy faceplate) HOWEVER, if you happen to own a properly designed DAC then you don’t need MQA to police the DACs internal processes (upsampling and type of filtering). I have found the Benchmark DAC 3 to be one such DAC - it has hardware implemented conversion processes that guarantee the optimal conversion no matter what the input sample rate. There is no filter choice for the DAC 3 because the filter in the ESS 9028 chip has been bypassed so as to achieve the least conversion distortion possible. DAC 3 even corrects for inter-sample overs which is ubiquitous in pop and rock music - another source of differences in sound between DACs and sample rate conversion software.
BTW Minimum phase is BAD for music. PERIOD. Minimum phase affects the relationship between various frequencies and their phase. This affects timbre. Timbre is one of the most important aspects of music. Linear phase filtering is the ONLY way to preserve timbre. This is something audio engineers have known for 60 years! “Pre-ringing” is just a marketing ploy to correct something that shouldn’t be corrected. By correcting “pre-ringing” you just ruined the phase relationships of all the musical instruments (harmonic and non-harmonic overtones) that you are listening to. Minimum phase is BAD for music. Period. Everyone with a knowledge of audio engineering knows this. I think greedy manufacturer marketing departments and record labels simply see an opportunity to sell more equipment and re-sell their music catalog once again - milk the customer for all they are worth. True audio engineers working inside these companies are either on board with the marketing plan or they are too frightened to speak out and tell the truth!!!
The effect of smooth (slow roll-off) Minimum Phase filter is no pre and just 1 cycle of post ringing. The effects of this type of filter becomes non linear at high frequency >10kHz above and distortion will increase in the faster rate when it hit 20kHz. The main downside of this filter is it is relatively weak in attenuating aliasing above 20kHz. The effects of aliasing is quite noticeable in MQA, what is worrying is the aliasing effects will modulate the signal in the audio band (what we actually hear), thus creating intermodulation distortion.
What it means that such distortion may contribute the way MQA actually sound and if thats the case, we no longer listen to the actual music contents.
If anything is digitised and put back through a DAC then anything we listen to is an interpretation of the original waveform. The only consideration is how we do it. And pretty much any method has its failings as well as its successes. You have to pick your DAC and you also have to be prepared to pay for the stuff that mitigates the failings of any single method. In this respect MQA is absolutely no different from any other methodology.
Unfortunately this is not case…the lossy compression scheme and weak filters implementation does not interpret the original waveform faithfully. On the contrary it produces more artifacts then the original recorded master version. My argument is stick with original masters Hi-Res PCM and DSD. Transferring them to MQA simply add another layer of processing that ultimately change the signature of the music contents.
My take is simple; the shorter signal path the better is it.
I am admittedly new to digital. However, I love what MQA has given us. At the least, resolution aside, it has required new masters. The “Master” part of “Master Quality Authenticated” is the chief benefit in my mind. As I type this, I’m playing R.E.M.'s “Out of Time” MQA via Tidal, and it sounds fantastic. I owned the CD the day it came out back in 1991, and I practically wore out the disc. This Tidal Master sounds better than the early master. Are there better versions out there? Perhaps. But, to my ears and on my system, it sounds terrific.
Jeremy,
I am not knowledgeable technically, and so don’t know what kind of filters my ladder DAC (Resolution Audio Cantata 3.0) has, with its maximum resolution 24/192. But I will say that I don’t hear much difference no matter what file source I use. Recently as a trial I bought my first 24/192 file from HDTracks, and really wasn’t impressed with it. As I stated at the start, I’ve also for the most part been unimpressed with MQA. For both though, I hasten to add that these experiences may well be (and apparently are) different for many others. I feel my system is high enough quality (Vandersteen Model Seven speakers, Antipodes DX Gen3 streamer, Aesthetix Eclipse amp and preamp, very good wires) to be able to easily hear differences, but honestly to date (to my disappointment) I haven’t heard a format that really blows me away. As many others have said, I suppose it’s the original recording quality that matters most.
Jim Heckman
That is the thing I’m hoping for with MQA as I’ve never really heard the supposed benefits of the format itself. Some have argued that’s because I’ve never used a high-end DAC that supports the full unfold, and I’m open minded enough to consider that option.
But just as you write, and many wrote when the MQA hype was the greatest, is that this could mean more new versions of older music being transferred to digital from analog or to consumer digital from digital masters in a better (and at the least less “loudness war”-esque way). And possibly more new music going through a less destructive transfer before it reaches the digital consumer files.
Let’s hope! 
So far, with the music I listen to (mostly rock), the remastered with/for/in MQA has been impressive. Of note, the Zeppelin remasters are fantastic. I’ve had many versions (remastered), and so far MQA has been the best for my ears.
Yeah, no. You are reacting to loudness. The 25th anniversary remaster of “Out of Time” is dynamically compressed junk. It is an unacceptable alteration of the original mastering.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/119202
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/120048
AJ
I don’t see any data for the MQA version there on that database.
I tried the older mastering just now in Roon (via "Versions), and the MQA version is not louder on my system. There’s a touch more detail, and air in this [MQA] remaster … to my ears … on my system.
The “MQA version” is just a batch process of the 25th anniversary remaster. The limited dynamic range does not change.
If you do not hear a difference in loudness between the original and the 25th anniversary, do you have volume leveling enabled?
AJ
I do not have volume leveling turned on. I ripped my old CD to lossless, and Roon shows it as having a DR of 4.
I’ve learned to ignore “loudness” as a preference. The MQA version is marginally louder, but I still detect more detail and air, albeit slight, between the versions. Given a choice, measurements aside, I prefer how the MQA/Tidal Masters version sounds on my system.
Roon uses a different dynamic range metric, one that is useful for volume leveling but a poor measure, unfortunately, for isolating dynamic range changes between/among separate masterings of the same album.
Disregarding increased loudness (due to dynamic range compression) and preferring greater detail (due to EQ boosts) tends toward Joe Sixpack audio reproduction taste. But if that is what you like, so be it. Just understand that what you are listening to is not so much a remaster of the original as much as it is a remodel of the original. Those alterations to the original, however, have almost nothing to do with MQA.
AJ
Be that as it may, I don’t see any reason to insult and devolve this discussion. If you don’t like MQA, then move on. Those of us who enjoy it will continue to do so.
I know what I hear, and I like it. I turned on volume leveling to humor the objectivists, but I still hear more detail (a preference) on the MQA version. I can toggle several versions in Roon and MQA is my preference with or without volume leveling.
I don’t buy from HD tracks anymore - too unreliable. Some stuff sold on HD tracks as hi resolution tracks are just upsampled CD…not high resolution at all but you pay more just for them to upsample the CD file - very poor quality control on the part of HD tracks who simply blame the label…
Tidal is a mixed bad too but at least you can try all their various versions and pick the one that sounds best…
A lot depends on the mastering quality - this matters a lot more than sample rate or bit depth.
