It will not because in all cases you need an MQA-certified DAC decoding in hardware. This is an unnecessary choice made by MQA (the company) and in my opinion it is the death knell for MQA.
1 Like
I know â volume is set at 100% while listening (it is enabled by default on the Hifiberry image, but I usually enable DSP volume on my own images as well. I like to have the option to be able to tone things down a bit quickly in non-critical listening situations â like when having dinner guests over.)
It just surprised me that Roon is already MQA-aware enough to distinguish between unfolded and full fat MQA.
That info is in the files so apps can show both packed and unpacked rates.
TIDAL streaming MQA can mitigate this aspect as it may broaden the narrow market and trigger DAC upgrades -it will certainly get me to consider a purchase/ upgrade of one of my DACs. Again speculation - am keen to wait and see how this unfolds.
Few high end DACs will be supported by MQA. Many DAC manufacturers with firmware-upgradable codecs have said they would not deal with it because it would mean not only upgrading their codec but making sure to recertify with MQA. Iâm talking DACs in the 10k+ range (mine ainât cheap⊠EmmLabs XDS1v2).
I would predict that if MQA does not relax their policy of no software decoding, then itâs DOA⊠And of course it can be done as Auralic had it working on the Aries for CES 2016.
Just a heads-up that, with default settings, the Metadatics tag editor on Mac OS X whacks the critical ENCODER tag in MQA files. It doesnât delete it, but it does rename the tag to ENCODEDBY, and that prevents Roon from detecting the file as MQA.
Default settings:
MQA âsafeâ settings:
Thatâs MAC for you then 
Understood, but thereâs no magic here. A careful remastering can improve most recordings. Call MQA a euphonic filter? I have no problem with that.
To me the greatest value of MQA would be the guarantee of careful mastering. But it will be a long haul to remaster a substantial amount of music.
To me the greatest detriment, as I have said all too many times, is the unwavering desire to squeeze all monetary benefits from all points in the chain - in my opinion this is the true reason for the requirement that a DAC must be MQA certified. This will be the demise of MQA.
Is there thought the new Audioquest DraogonFlys will be able to be upgraded to MQA?
??? Thatâs 3rd party software and has nothing to do with the OS.
Miguelito, youâve made your point and your entitled to have your view ⊠however to quote yourself âas I have said all too many timesâ ⊠imho your are just trolling now and I ask you to moderate yourself so we [moderators] donât have to.
3 Likes
Thank you Carl. Enough is enough.
1 Like
Thereâs the MQAENCODER tag that has exactly the same content as ENCODER tagâŠ
Hi guys, whatâs the progress of implementing MQA decoding in Roon? Soon? Pending or not sure? Thanks
Unchanged since the last time someone said we donât know because the devs are under confidentiality obligations and canât talk about negotiations until they are concluded.
When negotiations are concluded there will be an announcement and I will suggest to my fellow moderators that we close this thread and open a new one. That way people wonât need to keep asking about the current state of negotiations in this thread. If this thread is still open then there has been no announcement.
Encouraging read about the Brooklyn DAC. Looks like a nice implementation.
Now hang on a minute. This has to work both ways right? Because there certain members on the other side of the fence continually inputting the same faith-based comments that could be considered trolling and yet they seem to get a free pass.
5 Likes
No free passes. Iâm also disappointed that Roon and MQA havenât reached agreement for software decoding in Roon and suspect that commercial considerations associated with licensing fees from DAC manufacturers has something to do with it. Of course itâs completely up to MQA how they licence their technology, but I would hope there may be more for them in the long run if software decoding were permitted.
These arguments have all been had further up the thread however and there is nothing to to be gained from reopening them.
Of course, if moderators disagree about a post, then as I understand @mikeâs policy, itâs to be resolved by half naked jello wrestling at a bar on the lower East side, so letâs hope it doesnât come to that.
2 Likes
Seems like youâre just trying to encourage them to make the endless bickering even more tedious 
1 Like
I came across Auralic support page and explain why they are not implementing MQA in their products at this timeâŠ
To me, it seemed MQA has a set of very strict rules for manufacturers to follow. Most DAC chipsets come with customised built-in digital filters, such as sharp, slow and so on⊠It gives users a slight different sound options, it look like MQA doesnât allow this option which is indeed a dismay.