They should really make such a product.
17 bit resolution after fully decoded according to Bob Stuart. Undecoded is less than 17 bit, probably around 13 bit. 17 bit at 96kHz is still considered Hi-Res. Actual masters are around 20 to 22 bit resolution even though it is ‘24 bit data’
This is what Bob Stuart has actually said.
"With a decoder, in general, the MQA system can reach either:
• In excess of either 23-bit dynamic range capability for 1x 24-bit original, or
• 15.93-bit dynamic range capability for 1x 16-bit original"
“As described earlier, if you don’t have a decoder, the channel capacity appears to be typically >15 bits and this is limited by considerations of compatibility, not coding space. The noise is frequency shaped to minimise audibility, as it is for many well-produced CDs. If you have a decoder then, depending on the authoring parameters, the noisefloor in the recording should not be increased anywhere there is music signal.”
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers-bit-depth-mqa#UboUGkW4UghoGiH9.99
The upper 8 bit of 24 bit data is required to re-construct(both lossless + lossy depending on music contents) back to 96kHz sampling. The down-sampled is always 44.1/48kHz sampling in the undecoded state. By doing that, the overall resolution is reduced down to 17 bit effective resolution after applying some dithering. undecoded resolution hover around 13 bit.
The best recording today only gets near to 20 to 22 bit resolution even when using a 24 bit ADC and DAC. The 24 bit is merely referring to ‘24 bit data’. The diagram below speaks for itself.
Some folks are mixing up coding space with audible resolution. MQA uses noise shaping and subtractive dither to obtain at least 3 more bits of perceptual resolution with 17 bits of coding space. Thermal noise in the best equipment limits playback to around 21 bits of resolution, and most recordings have far less dynamic range than this. I really don’t think this is anything to worry about at all.
1 Like
Is that not the point though, this so called “perceptual resolution” is simply not the standard? Does any other product or encoding claim a “perceptual resolution”?
Yes. Basically, every other lossy codec.
AJ
1 Like
Don’t get confuse between actual and perceptual resolution. Actual resolution is determined by the resolution of the ADC (recording) and DAC (playback). Perceptual is based on subjective analysis of the general human hearing, which they called ‘Neuroscience’ or others called it as psychoacoustics. This apply to areas where lossy compression is used. Perceptual coding is a term normally used in AAC and MP3. This bring to the point of discussion. MQA is indeed reducing the actual resolution of the recording masters to around 17 bit of perceptual resolution in favour for a drastic bandwidth reduction.
PS: Why not have a actual resolution; 18 bit 96kHz FLAC for streaming? It is in fact the same or slightly smaller file size than an undecoded MQA, plus fully compatible to existing playback system.
I also have a DSJr, and stream Tidal Masters (MQA) through the Bridge II using either Roon or the Mcontrol IOS application. It does suppoert MQA. It was a consideration when I was deciding between the Brooklyn and DSJr, before MQA support was part of the PS Audio picture (they initially declined). I’m pleased that I have it now (free upgrade), as I have yet to find an MQA track that was worse than non-MQA (mostly 44.1K/16bit), and often find it better, sometimes markedly so. There are some forums where I would now be saying, “personal preference, nonscientific, one person’s opinion” to avoid a rain of hellfire. 
One of the frequent criticisms of MQA is that the deblurring claim is bunk, and delivering a signal that is better (more faithful) than the source material is not possible. I don’t claim that MQA actually does that, but they do and if it’s responsible for my enjoying MQA tracks more than CD quality, I’m fine with that. But how would that work?
An analogy that I read and appeals to me used the example of a high-resolution digital photo. You have a file with flawed color balance as it was taken with a camera’s whose sensor has known distortions. The digital photo is more blue than the original scene. However, since we know of that distortion and can measure it, we can apply an offsetting filter that precisely alters the color balance to be closer to the original scene. We now have a more faithful digital representation by compensating for known distortions.
Digital audio experts may have explanations as to why that’s an invalid analogy, but it suits me for now.
2 Likes
That is an invalid analogy. The original digital master is signed off by the producer and artist. It is not ‘more blue etc’ than the original. MQA claims to release ‘Authenticated’ masters, but as has been demonstrated (see interview with producer Brian Lucey), neither the producer or artist is involved in MQA releases. More original? Who says?
3 Likes
Wow, an MQA thread I hadn’t seen! Yeah if you read the Computer Audiophile thread with Brian Lucey you’ll note there are plenty in the actual music industry that feel the “master…authenticated” part is total bunk. Now, that doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy the sound. It just means the pre-MQA sound is what the engineer and producer wanted, and thus MQA is adding ketchup to a chef-prepared dish. That is not a judgment on ketchup.
4 Likes
I like ketchup, but don’t want to put it over everything I eat…
2 Likes
I will not buy MQ enabled DAC if I could avoid it. Taking into account how aggressively MQA is pushed I would be seriously concerned that such a DAC would be build to make non MQA content sound worse.
It happens today in the streaming domain. Find the album on Tidal from UMG for example where a watermark can be clearly heard. If there is an M version (MQA) for the same album you will find it will sound better. One of the reasons is that watermark is removed.
2 Likes
Given the limited MQA content today and the uncertainties around its future DAC manufactures cannot possibly think of doing this. They would be shooting themselves in the foot.
You posted this in the PSAudio thread if you look into PSAudio’s own journey with MQA they refused to support it until they were sure it would not compromise the sound quality of their products.
Don’t by an MQA DAC if you don’t want to but I would not worry about this.
Great that MQA is helping get rid of watermarking but it’s not just that that improves the sound quality.
oops I was not implying PSAudio would do that, sorry for misunderstanding. I actually thought Paul’s comments on MQA were pretty balanced and gave me some assurance that PSAudio is not one of the MQA pushers.