MQA first unfold in Roon? MQA? [Delivered in 1.5]

That is why I want ‘first unfold’ in Roon. Then DSP in Roon then to the Devialet. No, no RC in Devialet. They promised this back in 2012, but have not kept that promise… Up until recently Devialet has suffered the ‘not invented here’ syndrome. This was (hopefully) ended when Roon introduced it’s AIR compatibility. At about the same time Devialet’s SKY box was marketed. So there is a small chance that Devialet’s new streamer board can handle second stage MQA. There is even a Audinate chip on the board (Dante? Ravenna?)

That might well be in the cards as well. However, Audirvana can now play over the network to upnp devices (at least Sonore’s rendus which I use) so the playing to multiple devices is a lost battle for MQA already. Like I said, adapt or die.

1 Like

Cool. Fair point

I am still confused on how anyone can not hear how superior the MQA files sound. I am talking about the unfolded files from Tidal that Roon still does not decode.
These files sound so much more like real live music. Listen to the instruments, listen to the voices, you also hear more information from the recording. We have never had this quality of recorded sound, beats analog and all earlier digital.

I hope Roon will decode MQA soon …I guess there is no update?

I am not a musician as you are, but I have always been around others who are and have heard alot of live music…My brother was a pro guitar player and my wife plays piano. I agree with you on how much better MQA sounds than any other format.
I just don’t understand how others can not hear the improvement ?..And YES…My undecoded Tidal MQA files sound better than the 24/196 files I have of the same album. MQA sounds so much more like live music, and provides more information about the recording. I am waiting for Roon to provide decoding so that my Berkeley DAC can finish the decoding. But until then , the undecoded Tidal MQA files of piano music sound more like my wife playing hear baby grand than ever before.

If you think undecode sound so ‘like’ real life music, then what’s the point of asking Roon to decode back? My listening test always tell me undecode always sound worse than a Redbook, only a fully decoded will sound better. That’s why there’s a MQA DAC you can buy to fully appreciate Tidal Master.

No update SFAIK.

It’s great that you’re hearing better quality from the undecoded MQA files. I have liked the ones I’ve heard, but I’m not going out of my way to find them as I can’t conveniently identify them in Roon. I have no plans to spend any money on MQA capable hardware. If it happens in Roon, cool. If not, I’m happy as is.

Well having tested a couple of files with some ‘HiFi’ friends we think they sound worse in an over produced and artificial way.

IMO, it depends on the track and, also IMO, I’m not sure it has a whole lot to do with MQA.

I’ve been listening to the newly released Sinatra MQA albums on TIDAL using Audirvana to do the first unfold.

They are the best I’ve ever heard (and I have a collection of original pressings, along with some of the MoFi SACDs - I am a fan of Frank Sinatra’s Capitol years :roll_eyes: ).

However, I also listed to the newly released The Doors Singles MQA collection - wow, these sound like total Schiit. I compared the tracks with my ripped DVD-Audio collection from the Perception box set (which I think are the best versions of The Doors catalog). Not a subtle difference. The MQA versions sound lifeless, loud, abrasive - just bad audio engineering.

Thing is, I strongly suspect that if I listened to the same release on Redbook, it would sound exactly the same - bad. So, I think MQA listening impressions are being driven by mastering quality of re-released material (good or bad).

1 Like

I find it better in many cases, about the same in others. I would say about 50% are better, but it’s a smallish sample size. I also would expect that first unfold gets you the vast majority of the improvement, although I have not done a careful assessment here. I think time will tell.

1 Like

Your impression of undecoded vs redbook had been quantified on Computer Audiophile. I would not be surprised if this is the case. However, in many instances the MQA version benefits from careful mastering from a source tape, in which case even undecoded would sound better. And in some cases (eg Morrisey’s “Viva Hate”) it sounds just as bad.

Exactly my impression as well. Bringing this up for the n-th time, Morrisey’s Viva Hate on MQA sounds as shitty as redbook, whereas the vinyl pressing I have is much better. Maybe MQA should go rip some vinyl is some cases!

1 Like

This has always been my conviction about MQA, you are just paying for a different version/master of the same music, some will sound better, some worse and some the same. I am not sure I want to pay for the same music again though.

I did tried playing back undecoded many times and it sounded ‘lack of dynamic’, some ‘restraint’ and ‘compressed’. The moment it is fully decoded in the Mytek Brooklyn DAC, Wala! everything sounded really good. There’s simply so much information that it needed to get decode back. Playing back undecode is meant for ‘compatibility mode’.

“Compatibility” that sounds worse than redbook is crap. This is one of the issues I have with MQA.

Never have I heard a MQA title that sounds worse than the 16/44 version., I have heard some that are a coin toss, but never worse.

I find non decoded MQA files sound great on my systems. I was playing Jack Johnsons new release in MQA and it sounded brilliant. Describing sound has the same problem for me as describing wine. If I had to say, it’s a smooth Shiraz…

I’m a big fan of MQA in general. But to my ears, in my system, an undecoded MQA file is flat, grey, and veiled in comparison to the same master in redbook. Not a wide difference, but a sure one.

On mine too. But on a slight margin I prefer non decoded mp2.8.:rofl: