I use Devialet AIR protocol over ethernet and that supports up to 192k and that works fine with Roon. This is on a Win10 computer.
I set Devialet AIR in exclusive mode in Tidal desktop app and MQA decoding in Tidal.
As I saw someone with the same setup as I have expect the use of iMAC and he got 192k why does I not get 192k with Win10 on the same album on Tidal that is the only question I have and is confused about.
All you did there was tell core audio to up sample to 192. You didnât get 192 from the tidal app.
Heâs upsampling in core audio, his tidal app isnât producing 192. If your devialet is saying 88.2 or 96 with exclusive you have it configured right.
Aaaa I was suspecting something like that but not being a Mac owner I thougt perhaps Windows was doing something wrong but I had it in the back of my mind that 96k was max out from Tidal MQA.
But with a MQA DAC you will get higher sampling than with Tidal desktop? This image got me thinking of that. As I get 88.2 with this album with MQA decoding in Tidal and it looks like it is 352.8 with a MQA DAC.
It appears that software decoding is limited to 88.2/96 â at least thatâs what the Tidal app does â and what the Bluesound endpoints put out over digital.
Full unfolding in an MQA compatible DAC is up to 352/384.
As I thought then at this point you need a MQA DAC to fully get the benefit from MQA. I wonder if Roon also will get the same limit?
Iâm from Barcelona (I know nothing) â but my guess is that this will be the playing field: up to 96 for software decoding, full decoding up to 384 in MQA hardware only.
Which suits me fine, since my Meridian DSPâs are limited to 96/24 anyway. 
Indeed: for a mixed legacy (24/96) and SE house like mine the software decoding limitation will fit like a glove.
I thought I knew what to expect with MQA. Now Iâm not so sure.
Now thereâs a third option to enjoy MQAâs improvements.
An improved but unfolded and un-decoded 24/48 MQA version of a recording that will play back on a non-MQA device
An unfolded and decoded MQA playing at the same resolution as the studio master
This is the third option, something I wasnât familiar with earlier despite reading a ton about what MQA offers: A software decoded streaming versions that can be - but not always - at a lower resolution than the studio master.
Do I have this right? Can someone with better knowledge than me educate me on this?
I use the Meridian Explorer DAC and with bought MQA Music you get the full resolution, up to 384 on some 2L recordings.
The 24/96 limit appears to be working with original pcm files
I havenât read any statement by MQA or its partners on this â but this appears to be what is happening.
Remember Auralic had to withdraw a firmware update supporting MQA decoding and outputting over over digital early last year? Now it appears that this is exactly what Bluesound is doing â only limited to 96/24.
As far as I can see, it appears that the 3rd option indeed is true â limited unfolding, probably to a generic DAC signature. Seems like a good strategy to me: lowering the bar for access significantly, while sowing the seeds of longing for full fat hardware decoding.
Weâll see.
If they did not let companys do software decoding I suppose that MQA would have died a fast death and Meridian perhaps came to the conclusion better to offer something to everyone but if you want to get the highest resolution you need a MQA DAC.
Well time will tell what happens on the software front, never the less 96/24 from Tidal sounds fantastic on my Focal Sopra 2 driven by a Devialet 440Pro 
I guess. I still think that the biggest challenge for MQA is not soft/hardware but content related.
So far I have not come across anything on Tidal that would be part of my daily listening fare â so the big excitement is still a bit remote for me.
Happily puts on yet another Spotify playlistâŠ
Well time will tell and I suppose they will add much more music to the âmastersâ catalog.
Even with âlimited unfoldingâ Iâm hearing an improvement over standard Tidal and my 16/44 rips.
Given my $ 0 investment in MQA gear so far, Iâm happy with the result.
But Tidal is marketing this as âMasterâ so my marketing side says, âOh. There must be a Master Master version, too.â
Maybe the MQA unfolded and decoded resolution depends on the record label. 2Lâs recordings were originally recorded in digital and a higher 352 resolution serves the fidelity of the MQA version well.
But earlier recordings to magnetic tape - The Grateful Deadâs American Beauty, for example- are rendered as good as theyâre going to be in MQA at 24/96. If an advantage of MQA is container space, then why use a higher resolution if it only takes up more space?
Higher resolutions only takes up more CPU and DAC processing donât they? The container is usually 24/44 or 24/48, and the unfolded MQA has little or no impact on the original folded file size. Thatâs how I see it anyway.
Jussi, you have to decide.
Earlier, you seemed to suggest that bandwidth is not an issue, we have plenty of bandwidth.
Now you seem to acknowledge that it is an issue but that you can do a better job of compression than MQA.
Which position do you take?
I am listening to Ziggy Stardust via Roon Explorer 2 and Analog into my Meridian G61 R by way of a test.
Itâs sounds amazing, certainly the best Analog source I have ever played in this system.
Of course my processor is re digitising the incoming signal and then ADC at the output but is is being done correctly.
I am listening in Trifield. Stereo sounded good too.
Full Fat MQA will be even better so there is plenty to look forward to.
It is not an issueâŠ
It is not an issue, but if you want to squeeze the source content to minimum bandwidth usage, you get best results with standard FLAC without MQA.
(because Tidal and MQA in general uses FLAC as container, as FLAC encoder sees encoded MQA data as uncompressible noise)
Yup, I think you got it right.
