Tidal Master without MQA dac

jayman_1975

Has anyone done enough experimenting to decide if Master recordings sound any better than cd quality ones if you don't have a MQA dac

tonyb

I haven't done a side by side myself, but some others tell me they actually sound worse when trying to use the master tapes on regular gear.

The MQA tech needs to be unwrapped by another component with that technology. If you don't unwrap it, your not getting the master tape quality, plain as that.

jayman_1975

Ok I kinda figured it might be that way. I really can't tell the difference at the moment on my setup between Master and hihi but my dac isn't MQA.

rooftop59

If you are using the desktop app, or something certified like a Bryston or Auralic, the MQA will be "unwrapped" and sent to your DAC as 88.2/24 or 96/24 files. If you have an MQA capable DAC, then the file rate can be as high as 384/32. So in theory there should a difference even without the proper DAC; now whether its audible is a whole nother story...

http://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/mqa-master-streaming-on-tidal-rules.html

tonyb

rooftop59 wrote: »

If you are using the desktop app, or something certified like a Bryston or Auralic, the MQA will be "unwrapped" and sent to your DAC as 88.2/24 or 96/24 files. If you have an MQA capable DAC, then the file rate can be as high as 384/32. So in theory there should a difference even without the proper DAC; now whether its audible is a whole nother story...

http://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/mqa-master-streaming-on-tidal-rules.html

I believe so, the unwrapping of the MQA is a 2 step process. The app only allows one step. Any other MQA certified device would normally unwrap the whole thing.

jayman_1975 wrote: »

Ok I kinda figured it might be that way. I really can't tell the difference at the moment on my setup between Master and hihi but my dac isn't MQA.

Your just getting Tidals cd quality then. The Masters section has no bearing really on those not playing through an MQA certified device....which is probably why you can't hear a difference.

jayman_1975

tonyb wrote: »

rooftop59 wrote: »

If you are using the desktop app, or something certified like a Bryston or Auralic, the MQA will be "unwrapped" and sent to your DAC as 88.2/24 or 96/24 files. If you have an MQA capable DAC, then the file rate can be as high as 384/32. So in theory there should a difference even without the proper DAC; now whether its audible is a whole nother story...

http://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/mqa-master-streaming-on-tidal-rules.html

I believe so, the unwrapping of the MQA is a 2 step process. The app only allows one step. Any other MQA certified device would normally unwrap the whole thing.

jayman_1975 wrote: »

Ok I kinda figured it might be that way. I really can't tell the difference at the moment on my setup between Master and hihi but my dac isn't MQA.

Your just getting Tidals cd quality then. The Masters section has no bearing really on those not playing through an MQA certified device....which is probably why you can't hear a difference.

Yeah that makes sense. Not sure if it's worth upgrading to a MQA compatible dac or not. Probably would open up a whole can of upgrade itus if I do so I think I'll just be happy with the hifi option.

rooftop59

It's not a two step process. The article explains it clearly. The desktop app can't send it any higher than 96/24, but a DAC can give you it all...either way it's one step, just one method is limited to a certain bitrate...

tonyb

rooftop59 wrote: »

It's not a two step process. The article explains it clearly. The desktop app can't send it any higher than 96/24, but a DAC can give you it all...either way it's one step, just one method is limited to a certain bitrate...

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/mqas-unexpected-twist/

No, it's a 2 step process between the software and dac to get the full resolution of the MQA tech and Master tapes.

Yes, the software alone in the app should deliver 24/96 resolution, that's only one step of the process. Nobody I know using Tidal, and only the app, has told me they experienced better sound quality.....which is why I question that part. Some have even said it sounded a bit worse. Jayman said he can't tell the difference himself.

So what's the benefit of master tapes + software in the app alone ? Not much from what I can tell.

Agree with the rest Skip, others are working on ways to unwrap it for the reasons you stated. Though I don't know how exactly that would work since they have a patent on it. Kinda like finding ways to record SACD, They're going to protect their patent.

rooftop59

tonyb wrote: »

rooftop59 wrote: »

It's not a two step process. The article explains it clearly. The desktop app can't send it any higher than 96/24, but a DAC can give you it all...either way it's one step, just one method is limited to a certain bitrate...

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/mqas-unexpected-twist/

No, it's a 2 step process between the software and dac to get the full resolution of the MQA tech and Master tapes.

Yes, the software alone in the app should deliver 24/96 resolution, that's only one step of the process. Nobody I know using Tidal, and only the app, has told me they experienced better sound quality.....which is why I question that part. Some have even said it sounded a bit worse. Jayman said he can't tell the difference himself.

So what's the benefit of master tapes + software in the app alone ? Not much from what I can tell.

Agree with the rest Skip, others are working on ways to unwrap it for the reasons you stated. Though I don't know how exactly that would work since they have a patent on it. Kinda like finding ways to record SACD, They're going to protect their patent.

Tony, this is mostly a semantic debate as we say in my field, therefore the real-life implications are minimal. But nevertheless, it's an occupational hazard that I must argue that this is, in fact, a ONE-STEP process, but it can be performed in two different ways (which the link you attached makes clear):

1. The Tidal desktop app (or certain network file players) "unwraps" the file and sends it as 96/24 to your DAC. Many SACDs and hi-rez downloads are at this rate, so that certainly seems like a nice upgrade.
2. The Tidal desktop app (or file player) sends the file (essentially "bitstreams" to use blu-ray lingo) to the MQA enabled DAC, which can then (potentially) unwrap the file in all its glory, up to 384/32.

In both cases, the file gets "unwrapped" or decoded, and that is the only step. But one can decode at the full resolution, while the other is limited.

The other reason that this is academic, is that my MQA-enabled AudioQuest Dragonfly is limited to 96/24, so it actually didn't matter that it just got MQA, because assuming you are using a computer as your streaming device, you are getting the exact same thing, EXCEPT that the dragonfly takes over the decoding and bypasses my MacBook Air's audio controls, so it MIGHT sound better on a full rig. So far I have only used it with modest cans. So it's basically like choosing to have your bdp or AVR decode dolby true-hd: technically the result is the same, but one machine might sound better because of a host of factors.

rooftop59

DSkip wrote: »

...and you should never buy an entry level DAC simply because it has MQA. You want the best sounding DAC you can get for your money, not the one with the most features.

Not saying you did this RT. Just pushing a point.

The developers of MQA want FULL control from streaming to analog conversion and require certain hardware to do so. AURALiC used to fully support MQA until MQA found out they were streaming an unfolded digital signal. They then rescinded their approval, hence why AURALiC is now developing another solution.

I am all for a different file type if it really enhances the sound and enables better streaming options, but I don't think MQA is it. The benefits are not substantial enough and the headache and financial investment to carry MQA makes it almost impossible for many smaller brands to compete. Even some of the big names are hesitant to make the investment.

Nope, I bought it long before it had MQA because it was 1. in my price range and 2. I loved that I could use it with my phone or tablet, since in my job I work a lot out of the office, travel, etc.

I like MQA for one simple reason: it's one log in the fire showing companies that there actually are a lot of us that care about audio quality and are willing to pay more for it. I think similarly about TiDAL hi-fi, but I agree that the actual benefits of cd quality flac over mp3 are more substantial than MQA over cd.

adb3da

Perhaps it's just me, but I feel that MQA has done a horrible job rolling out the PR campaign with this technology. Every time I research how exactly it works I see people going back and forth disagreeing on what it does and how it works. There seems to be a lack a unified message from whatever group is in charge of the format. Perhaps there is not single group in charge, thus causing the confusion.

rooftop59

adb3da wrote: »

Perhaps it's just me, but I feel that MQA has done a horrible job rolling out the PR campaign with this technology. Every time I research how exactly it works I see people going back and forth disagreeing on what it does and how it works. There seems to be a lack a unified message from whatever group is in charge of the format. Perhaps there is not single group in charge, thus causing the confusion.

I do agree with that...

rooftop59

adb3da wrote: »

Perhaps it's just me, but I feel that MQA has done a horrible job rolling out the PR campaign with this technology. Every time I research how exactly it works I see people going back and forth disagreeing on what it does and how it works. There seems to be a lack a unified message from whatever group is in charge of the format. Perhaps there is not single group in charge, thus causing the confusion.

I agree with that...

I REALLY hope Spotify hifi gets going, and hd-tracks starts a hi-rez streaming platform. More competition and all that...