Why can't Roon both decode and render MQA?

[Chrislayeruk (Chris)]

Well, clearly some of them are. Listen to a modern MQA release and you will hear how good it is, super high Digital resolution is no longer required at all. 24/48 MQA on a modern recording is incredible.

[Mediahound]

Just because it sounds good to you, doesn’t mean the studio actually recorded or mastered for MQA.

[Chrislayeruk (Chris)]

Well you could look at 2L who release MQA music, as well as Bob Ludwig’s studios amongst others.
They record in many ways with MQA as part of the workflow.
This is off topic for the thread though…

[AnimalOnDrums]

96khz is not the final sample rate, 192khz is. So your file starts out as 48khz and then Roon does the first unfold to 96khz. Then an MQA DAC will do the next unfold to 192khz. Only a MQA DAC can do the second unfold

[Mediahound]

@Chrislayeruk

This is off topic for the thread though…

You’re the one who first brought it up…

[Jazzfan_NJ (Listening to JAZZ since 1972!)]

Thanks for the clarification. So I was incorrect when I wrote that MQA is a one trick pony. I guess that it’s a two trick pony or even a three trick pony when combined with a Tidal Premium subscription.

Tidal with MQA - $19.99 per month with no yearly plans available or $240 per year with an MQA DAC required to see and hear all the of the pony’s tricks.

Qobuz with no MQA, just 44.1kHz to 192kHz FLAC files - $150 per year. Works with just any DAC that goes to 192kHz.

If and when Spotify begins to offer CD quality streaming I foresee a slow death to MQA. Can you say BetaMax?

By the way has anyone been able to show that the various DAC firmware updates that enable MQA compatibility are anything other a licensing toggle?

And yes I am most definitely a cynic whenever money is involved and MQA is all about money.

[Peter_Bruderer]

I spent quite some time to understand what MQA really does:

MQA disappointing

There is a lot of confusion, what MQA really does. Here is what happens, when you wrap a normal CD into a 44.1/16 MQA file. A normal CD has 44.1k samples with 16 bit resolution. This allows to represent all frequencies between 0 and 22.05 kHz. From absolut silence to the loudest signal we have a range of 96 dB. Keep in mind, there is NO CD with more dynamic range then 40 dB. The noise floor is somewhere around 35 dB. Also keep in mind, that more than 120 dB will severely hurt humans. With 8 …

Theoretically all this can be done in software. Also a streamer could do the rendering and send it to the DAC. But MQA does not allow it license wise.

The MQA filters which are applied in the DAC are minimum phase, slow roll off. On most newer DACs you have an option to select your filters. And this is one of them.

@Jazzfan_NJ you are right, comparing the user numbers of Spotify, Apple, Amazon, TenCent together, Tidal is less then 1%. From all these 500 million users of the top 4, almost all are happy to listen to compressed music. But I guess this is off topic here.

[Martin_Webster]

I think that’s incorrect for this recording. This one is an anomaly since the MQA recording is 48kHz 24bit. If as you say, the final unfold renders 192kHz the source would be FLAC 48kHz 24bit 2ch, MQA 192kHz.

For MQA 44.1kHz and 48kHz the output file will always be 88.2kHz or 96kHz regardless.

[Mediahound]

All I know is I always try to add the non-MQA album from Tidal if it’s available, and it sounds better. I only play MQA when it’s the only choice and not having an MQA DAC makes me wish Roon would decode the full MQA for me. That would certainly simplify things for a majority of Roon customers.

[Bill_Janssen (Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)]

I think Peter Bruderer got it right the first time: they don’t do it because MQA Ltd. won’t let them. To suggest Roon’s DSP couldn’t do it, because some DAC has to do it, is ridiculous. No, it’s because Roon mayn’t do it, because MQA Ltd. wants to have its own nose in every DAC-maker’s tent. They want the sole ability to turn on that special colored light on the DAC, that light which exploits the insecurities of the unhappy audiophile.

[Jazzfan_NJ (Listening to JAZZ since 1972!)]

I agree with you but you left out the money part of the exploitation. MQA actually involves three unfoldings - the first unfold, which I think is the decoding, the second unfold, which I think is the rendering and the unspoken third unfolding of one’s wallet.

[Trevor_Cameron]

Farce or not … it does deliver good sound quality.

[vmartell (Berlin Papel)]

@Jazzfan_NJ

If and when Spotify begins to offer CD quality streaming I foresee a slow death to MQA. Can you say BetaMax?

That’s a great point - You actually made me realize that! Thnx!

I was neutral to cold on the upcoming Spotify lossless offering… Until this post - indeed, it is very unlikely that Spotify will support MQA. And their sheer weight and influence will probably help make it irrelevant. Hopefully…

Will Spotify’s solution be proprietary, watermarked, DRMed etc? PROBABLY.
But as long as it doesn’t try to disguise it as a benefit to the public while being an scheme to deprive the consumers of their rights, well… rather deal with the devil you know than the wolf in sheep’s clothing…

v

[QuinnT (BANNED)]

@Peter_Bruderer

Theoretically all this can be done in software. Also a streamer could do the rendering and send it to the DAC. But MQA does not allow it license wise.

Best explanation so far in my view. I do not subscribe to Tidal because of this limitation, and I do not want to be hooked to any MQA-licensed DAC, I want to choose any DAC that is best for me in terms of SQ and good value for my money.

[DrTone (Jeff)]

@Jazzfan_NJ

If and when Spotify begins to offer CD quality streaming I foresee a slow death to MQA. Can you say BetaMax?

We have to assume Spotify has a their back catalog in CD quality on disc already but Spotify will be given wherever the labels want to give them going forward.

It could be the flaming turd MQA-CD.

[Rockhound]

@DrTone

We have to assume Spotify has a their back catalog in CD quality on disc already

I would not assume that at all.

[Peter_Bruderer]

I’m going to steal this one!

[Jacques_Distler]

What audio file formats does Spotify support?

You can deliver your audio files to us in either FLAC or WAVE format, but we highly recommend using FLAC as it’s much easier for us to work with.

How does Spotify process my audio files?

When we receive your audio files, we apply the following processes:

• Check they aren’t corrupt and that their format and container is known.
• Convert to WAV 44.1 kHz (keeping bit depth).
• Transcode the file into the following delivery formats for the quality options available to listeners:

- Ogg/Vorbis [96, 160, 320 kbps]
- AAC [128, 256 kbps]
- HE-AACv2 [24 kbps]

• Calculate the loudness using ReplayGain.

Files are also encrypted before they’re delivered to the platform, but this doesn’t affect the resulting files.

[KMM]

I have no clue about the decoding and the voodoo around MQA and I am not willing to dig into it. If TimeWarner and other major labels can pump out millions of MQA versions from their stock of recordings and market them immediately via Tidal, I do not believe it has anything to do with processing for SQ, but all with a clever licensing scheme.
If you want unaltered SQ to be introduced to a wide audience, supply FLAC compressed 192/24 original master recordings to the market. Come to think about it, how is it possible that you have a MQA version of analog recordings from way back then?

[anon26308295]

Linn didn‘t play any „game“ where it can be good for you