If MQA DAC always report the original sample rate of the recording, can I say, internally, the DAC is running at MQA core at 88.2/96k if the original sample rate is 44.1/48k?
1 Like
MQA DAC ultimately renders the MQA music at its rendering rate, which is tailored to individual DAC hardware in the MQA certification process. In MQA introduction video youād see Bob Stuart talk about running the DAC at a high(est) rate.
Thanks, so in this case say if the internal DAC is 352.8/384k capable, then the original sample rate at 44.1/48k will be up-sampled by a factor 8x but still the MQA DAC will report either 44.1/48k?
In order to minimize confusion of having different rates in different stages of MQA playback, MQA has chosen to display only the sample rate of the master (this is why you need a non-MQA DAC to know the actual sample rate of the output from a MQA Core decoder such as Tidal desktop app or Audirvana). In Tidal sometimes there are 96kHz and 192kHz versions of the same MQA albums, representing different masters.
Which version is the āAuthenticatedā one then?
Guess, you need see the blue light lit up on your DAC, if you got one!
1 Like
I have both the 2013 high res from HDTracks and the subsequent ā2015 Paisley Park Remasterā (both in 24/96 from HDTracks). The track āPurple Rainā has a DR of 13 in the former, and a DR of 7 in the latter (tested with the TT DR app on mac). 
PS: You might guess I am into Prince from thisā¦ 
And the difference in sound quality between the two tracks is remarkable.
1 Like
All this Prince talk got me in the mood.
Both are. Both pay a royalty to MQA Ltd Iām sure. So much for the āone versionā PR argument! This is why the BS from BS is very hard to swallow and the wrong thing for consumers.
1 Like
And BTWā¦ thereās no way to tell on TIDAL what the target rate is, you have to play them to know. Examples that come to mind can be found in the Jackson 5 catalog, but there are many such cases. What was the masterās sample rate anyway? Isnāt the MQA target rate supposed to be the masterās? Jeezusā¦ The whole PR BS arguments are disintegrating.
How do the versions on Tidal compare? I have been really bothered by the Loudness Wars. We should start another thread here (non-MQA), I would like to learn more. I guess there is nothing that can be done to offset the effects (except track down higher DR versions?)
Thanks,
rob.
I would pay very good money for a filter than would improve DR. I understand that clipping loses info, but there are many cases where improvements can be made.
There is for example: http://www.perfectdeclipper.com/ Listen to the samples on that site.
However, this would require to apply this to a file, not on the fly, as it is a VST plugin and Roon doesnāt support this.
Is it āknowableā on Tidal what the DR is or what release an album is? Using your Prince inspiration above,
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=prince&album=purple+rain
On Tidal there are two versions of the original release (one an EP) and two versions of the Expanded Edition, one of those is MQA. If I pick the older release (1984) then that would have better DR than the new release (2017) per the loudness-war listing? The MQA version looks to be the more recent release.
ORā¦ does Tidal do something totally different and you canāt really use the loudness-war listing?
I have not found anything useful on TIDAL to determine whatās the provenance of the different versions. There is no DR information published by them. And Roon cannot do the analysis on streamed files, only on local files.
I floated the idea of each Roon user core, upon playing a TIDAL file fully, would upload the DR to the Roon master db, but that ask didnāt go anywhere, and I am sure there are issues I am not seeing here.
The only way to analyze the DR of a TIDAL album is to capture the streamā¦ I have never done thatā¦ 
I did yesterday, a normal album has a DR of 10
This is a constant problem with any downloadable or streaming audio. When you have the CD you can figure out which version, who mastered it, etc. Online, itās really guesswork unless you find something on a forum where someone has identified the version, or you can correlate it based on release date, etc.
That is what stops me from spending my kidsā college money on HDTracks. You really donāt know if youāre buying anything you donāt already have or where what you have is better. Early on, they were even providing some upsampled crap, albeit I assume that has stopped.
1 Like
That might be the mean for classical/jazz but the mean for pop/rock is much worse. Iād say DR7. And the variance is large, you will find many tracks at DR5 and DR15.
Just that? Good Dad! 
On the DR front and downloads, I wish there was both a measure of DR and a measure of bandwidth - meaning what is the actual bandwidth of a file. I have too many āhigh resā purchases that were upsamples from 16/44 āmastersā.
Is there a measure of bandwidth that one could use that is akin to the DR measure for dynamic range?
FFT manual analysis, maybe. Automated measurements, probably not. Remember that MQA leaky upsampling, for example, can create false ultrasonic bandwidth.
AJ