[quote]If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file through an MQA software decoder like Tidal HiFi, Audirvana, or (soon) Roon, and you are using a regular DAC (i.e. a non-MQA DAC), you will get a 24/96 file. A software decoder does not offer the ability to ‘unfold’ the original file to resolutions higher than 24/96 (or 24/88.2).
If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file through an MQA-enabled DAC, you will get a 24-bit/192kHz file. If you are also using a software decoder like Tidal HiFi, Audirvana, or (soon) Roon, you can have the software decoder perform the first ‘unfold’.[/quote]
My understanding is that there are two key aspects of MQA, one is the folding of a 24 bit file into a smaller file, thus allowing streaming with lower bandwidth. The second is the ‘MQA magic’, that is correction of issues inherent with the original A/D conversions and similar, such as tailored time reconstruction filters.
My question is, does software decoding, limited as stated above to 24/96, give all the other MQA stuff in full, such as the A/D conversion time corrections?
A/D conversion time correction YES as this is done when the audio is encoded.
D/A conversion time correction … at present MQA s/w decode is using a “default” DAC profile.
To get the full correction ‘de-blurring’ a specific DAC profile is required … we have not seen any examples of this in the market as yet. Provided the MQA decoder s/w knows what DAC is connected and there is a profile for it … then it can be performed.
That said I believe the very best results will only be achievable with MQA DAC hardware, as the tolerances can be tuned and managed more closely by the designer / manufacturer.
Thanks Carl, that looks clear. Plus, to put a positive spin on thus, if your own DAC is of decent quality, then software ‘decoded’ MQA should yield pretty decent results.
I think the discussion of software and hardware is a little misleading. Like @Robert_Allen commenting on DCS. Because a modern “hardware” device includes a lot of software. Or firmware. Or an algorithm encoded in an FPGA, like PS Aidio and Chord.
And of course a “software” implementation uses hardware from Intel or the several ARM licensees.
There is an important difference, but it is between a generic external implementation, such as Roon or Tidal or something that could be implemented in a streaming box like an Auralic Aries, or an implementation in a DAC or attached to a specific DAC. External/internal, generic/specific, rather than software/hardware.
I’m not just nitpicking, it’s just that we should not make assumptions based on technical considerations. Most comments abov describe the Roon issue correctly, I believe: it’s about knowledge of the DAC.
This is going to sound loony, but I’m going to put it out there anyway. The MQA version of Talking Heads’ Remain in Light is crazy different than the (Rhino) version I’ve got. They’re mixed completely differently…or it sounds that way. Just listen to the first track – Born Under Punches – it’s hard to miss. Anyone else hearing the same thing? Is there a known different mix? It’s like an entirely different album.
(Edited - note that I’m listening to the unfolded, MQA version, which ends up being 24/96, on a Mytek Brooklyn.)
(Another edit: doing some additional research, I think these are the 5.1 mixes done by Jerry Harrison for the “Dual Disc” Brick that came out. That’s why they sound wrong: they’re both remixed and flattened, as far as I can tell, to stereo…)
Yes, I see (hear) what you are talking about. Personally, my favorite version of that song, and many others, is on the 1982 version of “The name of this band is Talking Heads”, the live and expanded version.
I’m not sure what they’re thinking with these 5.1/DVD-A HD tracks that are multichannel and are put out there “flat”. They really sound wrong – not just different – this way.
Thanks for this, I agree that it was a good listen, although it clearly leaves a number of questions unanswered. I don’t think the interview was recorded using MQA either!
@support One problem with TIDAL MQA integration in Roon is the Other Versions button. Whether the album in Roon is a complete album or just a subset of tracks from the album, Other Versions>View album in TIDAL always takes me to a non-MQA version of the album.
This is frustrating for partial albums because if I want to hear or add additional tracks, I have to switch to the TIDAL desktop app, hunt down the MQA version of the album, add the tracks, then go back to Roon and either wait for an automatic Library sync or force a manual sync.
TL;DR – “View album in TIDAL” is a problem for non-MQA albums as well.
This is tied to essentially the same issue that’s been frustrating for me for a while now. If I have a partial TIDAL album in my Library from one version of an album (say the original 1971 mix) and I select Other Versions>View album in TIDAL, Roon always takes me to some kind of Remastered/Deluxe/Special Edition version rather than the version that is actually in my Library. So I have to do the hunt-my-version-down-in-TIDAL dance now, or I end up with 2 versions of the album in my Library and I have to do the dance later on, as well as clean up my Library entries.
I would really like Roon to pay attention to the version of the album that I have in my Library, and force the Other Versions>View album in TIDAL operation to honor the Library version when it sends me to TIDAL. I would have more patience with this feature if Roon was designed to expand my horizons by showing me “other versions” of the album I have in my Library, but it doesn’t seem to do that – if I already have the Super Deluxe Remastered Special Edition of the album in my Library, then that is the version that Roon takes me to when I select Other Versions>View album in TIDAL.
This is all very new, I am sure things will improve here. For now, I favourite in Tidal and then add MQA to the Version field so I know which is which.
Joel,
With Roon’s ability to actually “know” a DAC’s model in the signal chain (assuming it was Tested by you folks), do you see a the potential for Roon to fully “unfold”, given that circumstance?
This is a bit off-topic, but: does anyone know what it means in Tidal when “HI FI” is dimmed? I’ve only noticed it on one piece of music: Britten, Canticles and Folksongs, with Ian Bostridge and David Daniels.
This discussion seems to be a catch-all, so I’ll add yet another relevant question here: What’s up with Focus? If I go through the usual steps of identifying MQA files: find them in Tidal, favorite them, etc.–that adds them to my library, right? If I use focus to find an artist’s name, a composer, or a genre, it includes all library albums–so Tidal albums in my library show up in the results. But it appears that does NOT extend to FOCUS/FORMAT/MQA. When I do that, I see only the literal files in my library–my downloads. No Tidal. Why’s that?
Because as yet, Tidal hasn’t shared the Format of its Library with Roon…and that applies to the AAC albums referred to in the post above…as well as all the MQA Albums that became available only 7 days ago
So Tidal needs to start sharing this info with Roon first…so that the MQA format filter can then be applied
In addition to allowing you to hear MQA-decoded files without an MQA DAC, software decoding offers the possibility of a two-step MQA decoding process. In this scenario the music-player software performs the first decoding step and the MQA DAC performs the final steps to realize the full MQA performance. AudioQuest’s DragonFly Black and Red operate with this two-step decoding process. Such DACs are more properly called MQA “renderers” rather than MQA decoders. The “half-decoded” signal output from your computer to your DAC contains all the information the DAC needs to complete the full MQA decoding.
EDIT: Not picking on you @Jeff_Bellune, this is just one in long line of comments about what folks want with TIDAL MQA integration in Roon. It’s a worthy project. IMHO, it is too much to expect in the next version of Roon.
This is why I think 1.3 should be finished and released without TIDAL MQA decoding. This is a very involved implementation and I fear the Roon devs are afraid of releasing MQA integration that doesn’t fully meet the demands of this forum. As a result I fear 1.3 and the needed bug fixes and features will wait for months longer while MQA decoding and integration with Roon is perfected.
We need the next version of Roon. Further MQA integration can wait.