So far all the albums sound slightly better in Master setting with non-MQA dac. It’s mostly noticeable in the highs. Crisper and more defined. But the whole range feels like a slight veal has been lifted.
But playing the non-MQA file thru Roon + HQPlayer sounds better in my system. So I’d think the MQA file thru Roon would sound even better in my setup. But really was hoping for software hi-res decoding. Current setup really seems to be a push for MQA enabled dac is all.
Sorry, I’m only using MQA thru Tidal, so those same tracks only play as HIFI files thru Roon at the moment. I haven’t downloaded the test tracks from 2L to see how they’d sound with Roon/HQPlayer.
Also keep in mind, I only have 24/96k Dac, so my benefit with HQPlayer isn’t as much as others with DSD.
What I was sort of getting at is the improvement I hear with just the MQA track played thru Tidal (without MQA dac) is similar to the improvement I get using HQPlayer. So then if I start with a better sound MQA file and then add HQPlayer on top of it, it should be an even bigger improvement. If I wanted to test this now, I could download some of those sample tracks.
But since I do hear an improvement without a MQA dac, I would say that Tidal adding MQA throughout their catalog is a good thing even without offering the hi-res decoding some initially thought they’d offer. I’m just disappointed since I thought Tidal or Roon would play at least 24/96K Tidal tracks.
Seems like it - but without an MQA decoder… Which proves losing the brickwall filter on redbook quality is also an important value of MQA encoding itself. Even without the unfold to full sample rate it sounds better than regular redbook.
Bear in mind all of you that not anything of what you are comparing is fully implemented yes. Some of you see this only because of you have really, really old login sessions
Before you settle on conclusions you should hear the final product.
Yes, I saw this, it’s cool. Two questions:
1- The TIDAL app does not remember my selection of DAC, it defaults back to System every time I restart. Why?
2- I don’t understand how, with the same TIDAL app version, mac OSX, network, account, etc, my mini gets Master whereas my macpro tops out at HiFi.
It’s being worked on. It’s a CoreAudio API handoff not working properly everywhere.
It’s because on one you logged in before we fixed some backend things back in autumn 2015 so an old session is giving you access to Master. Your Mac Pro has a newer session that is actually working as expected because of fresher login. It’s the old session on the mini that’s tricking us all…
Thx Pal, good to hear an explanation that makes sense!
Questions on MQA on TIDAL:
1- It will simply relay the data to an MQA DAC rather than do any unfolding on the TIDAL/software side, correct?
2- What’s the point of a Master mode separate from HiFi mode? You mentioned one of the key advantages of MQA was that it only requires you to host one file, so why make a distinction?
3- If the distinction is there to stay, will “Master” require a special more expensive subscription?
Haha. Yeh, thought it’d be good to jump in before you all speculated your hair off.
Right now it’s just exclusive mode/wasapi yes and whenever there’s MQA content it will pass this off to external decoding on hardware. But a decoder can of course also live in software. Unfolding and rendering can of course happen in application as well. Right now it doesn’t.
To give users control. Some people would like to have this limited on some devices for some reason and we’re all for that control. It also gives us a lot of flexibility to how we roll things out in the future. As vague and as simple as that
I can’t comment on this yet. But as a general thing I can say that we are trying to make a great music experience affordable to as many as possible. To hear music at its original and finest quality is not an elitist thing, every music lover should have that opportunity to connect with their favourite artists and recordings.
[quote=“palbratelund, post:293, topic:5408”]
1- Right now it’s just exclusive mode/wasapi yes and whenever there’s MQA content it will pass this off to external decoding on hardware. But a decoder can of course also live in software. Unfolding and rendering can of course happen in application as well. Right now it doesn’t.[/quote]
Do you have any info on whether MQA has decided to allow software decoding?
[quote]
2- To give users control. Some people would like to have this limited on some devices for some reason and we’re all for that control. It also gives us a lot of flexibility to how we roll things out in the future. As vague and as simple as that [/quote]
But then you must host both the 16/44.1 FLAC and the MQA FLAC…
Ok, thx. Not a problem. I think it’s ok to charge more for better resolution frankly…
I would break a whole bunch of NDAs if I commented…
Yes, when you have 40 000 000 tracks distributed on CDNs all over the world you don’t do overnight switches anymore.
Personally: I don’t. I think it is messed up that higher sample rate means more money. It’s not a world of scarcity anymore and the artists never asked for this. It’s a leftover from a gatewayed world that isn’t here anymore. But that’s just me.
Thx Pal. On the higher sample rate, it would be justifiable from a storage & streaming bandwidth cost standpoint, but maybe those don’t matter anymore. Agree there’s no reason why a label should make more money out of delivering what they already have without downsampling to 16/44 - that tactic would be very shkreli-like…
From a storage & streaming standpoint - this is why MQA is good. The file travels as 44.1/24 or 48/24 and the coding is better and more lightfooted so all in all you can transport any sample rate at same as with 44.1/16 FLAC today. So, it doesn’t really matter anymore.
Can you elaborate your question? Not sure if I get the context. If interpret right, yes you can also have redbook spec MQA but my answer was whether higher sample rates had any storage or bandwidth impact influencing the pricing.
What will you do for redbook content? I can imagine two options:
1- Stream as FLAC exactly like you do today - MQA only for hires content; or
2- Stream MQA that has “improved” the file by “fixing ADC issues” thus rendering a 44.1/24 file.
If ‘2’, you would be streaming a bigger file hence you would require more bandwidth and storage than you do today even for redbook files.
Which proves losing the brickwall filter on redbook quality is also an important value of MQA encoding itself. Even without the unfold to full sample rate it sounds better than regular redbook.
