MQA Deep Dive - I published music on tidal to test MQA

[GoldenOne]

A typical consumer MQA-rendering DAC - eg infamous $300 Dragonfly Cobalt - when fed with a core-unfolded stream, will apply one of it (16) MQA filters following the command embedded/watermarked in the data. And will turn on the ‘blue (actually magenta) light’. No non-MQA filters or user-selection options are available.

For a little background on this area, I've had several manufacturers telling me that mqa has been heavily pushing (though not explicitly forcing) them to upsample all content using an mqa reconstruction filter prior to the dac.

I've been told that this is to prevent issues when attempting gapless playback or switching between mqa and non-mqa content or even multiple mqa tracks in some instances.

I don't use an mqa device or listen to mqa content regularly so I don't know how bad this issue is but multiple manufacturers have separately expressed their disagreement with this in particular.

Some companies like ifi are seemingly branding it differently, ifi's GTO filter etc

 

[DimitryZ]

Should have made my point more simply. What if you stream with something like the Yamaha WXC-50. How do you get MQA without buying new hardware or making a big change in how you play music?

Good question. How can you get any MQA content into it?

If you can get a Tidal app to connect to the DLNA input of the streamer, you should get an unfolded LPCM into the internal DAC and it should play.

Maybe more computer savvy folk here can suggest how this can be done.

 

[DimitryZ]

Why is that? Are you saying that if I feed the coax output of an ordinary CD player into an MQA capable DAC it won't decode? Just curious. What's special about the 205?

Most MQA DACs will only decode MQA on the USB input - at least this was the case until recently. Perhaps others here know more on this.

 

[pjug]

Good question. How can you get any MQA content into it?

If you can get a Tidal app to connect to the DLNA input of the streamer, you should get an unfolded LPCM into the internal DAC and it should play.

Maybe more computer savvy folk here can suggest how this can be done.

I don't have the Yamaha device but it supports Tidal, so I assume it streams at least the MQA-CD material. But not ulfolded. Sonos same I think. Denon, Play-fi stuff, etc. I think might all be in the same boat. (sorry but too lazy to check these, just my guess)

 

[tmtomh]

You didn't read my post? I said there were *two* reasons: "Such customers are shopping on spec and "what their ears tell them."

Spec is the bit depth and sample rate. Customers are most definitely influenced by that and as I have said, it is a requirement to play. This is why 20 bits anything is a non-player so is low sample rate. Big numbers need to show up on DAC display or the whole value prop goes out the window.

I misunderstood "on spec" in its meaning as "pending actual review," like when someone writes an article on spec or builds a spec house (meaning not pre-sold). Sorry about that.

In that case, I agree for the post part that people are looking at the "resolution" of the audio and then if it sounds good they're happy.

But none of that really has any bearing on the point I was making.

 

[amirm]

For example, the DMCA was used to stop people from using DeCSS to view DVDs from regions different from where they lived. Which has nothing to do with making copies.

I specifically quoted both access control through DRM and copy protection in my quote. MQA music is distributed without either. DVD region coding which has nothing to do with CSS by the way, is a form of rights management. Studios delay release of their movies overseas due to (incorrect) fear or piracy in those countries. You bypassing region coding is against the rights embedded in the content and hence give rise to them going after you although practically speaking, region coding was hardly enforced. Indeed, major members in steering group of DVD like Panasonic routinely released players where a simple remote control code would let you defeat region coding. It was with a wink and a nod that this was done by all of them or they could not sell any players to Europe.

All of this smoke screen/ changing of the topic anyway as you haven't shown one bit of evidence that the labels would have any cause of action, or could show damages of any kind because you used this decoder versus another.

 

[amirm]

But none of that really has any bearing on the point I was making.

It does. I used to hang out in another forum I co-founded that was full of high-end subjectivists. Many started with not liking MQA but once it was released, they played it and many came back impressed and MQA got some legs. Their decision making criteria was simply that it was high-res and that their ears told them it sounds good. That's how they believe everything. A plausible technical reason and what their ears tell them.

 

[amirm]

I have no doubt you feel you can speak for Lawrence Lessig. But I think you have a long ways to go to prove to other people that you can.

And so people should believe you represent him? Were you there when music labels put out a call for watermarks to be inserted in music? I was. Did you meet with all the execs a million times at the labels and studios on watermarking, yes I was. Did you negotiate some of the same in AACS? Yes I was. Did you then follow what Lessig and his students do to piss off the labels? I was. So the man while a respected professor, was bruised and bruised bad so made it a mission to fight the content owners. I can understand that but you need to know all of this before you tell people, "if you want to know more follow him." You don't know him, the landscape, the issues involved, or really anything. You have to be part of the circle of people in the industry that dealt with these things. Just reading about them online doesn't get you there because a ton of the insight is not expressed such. I can tell so many stories to fill a book on stuff you have not ever heard about.

As you said, you are a lay person and should leave such matters to professionals in the field.

 

[DimitryZ]

I don't have the Yamaha device but it supports Tidal, so I assume it streams at least the MQA-CD material. But not ulfolded. Sonos same I think. Denon, Play-fi stuff, etc. I think might all be in the same boat. (sorry but too lazy to check these, just my guess)

You will need the actual Tidal app if you want to unfold.

Is there a way to intercept the output of the Tidal app (unfolded) and cast to any of the available inputs of the streamer?

 

[mSpot]

Roon added decoding for the same without asking me for more money.

Roon charges plenty of money for their player and MQA costs are cost of doing business.

Roon pays MQA a royalty each time software unfold is used on a track. Roon is eating the cost and doesn't charge it separately for customers, but if you don't use MQA unfold you are effectively subsidizing customers that do use MQA unfold. The same must be true for other players that support MQA decode, such as Audirvana.

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/why-do-manufacturers-support-mqa/155965/294

The terms are complicated and not worth going into, but simply put: if you don’t core decode, we don’t pay

When we introduced MQA support, we didn’t raise the price, so MQA has always been a cost center for us. If you core decode, we make less profit. If you don’t core decode, we make more profit. It’s almost that simple.

But it seems there is a better new way to avoid the tax… Just stop subscribing to TIDAL “HiFi+”. Drop to the new middle tier of “HiFi” and you won’t get MQA capabilities.

 

[pjug]

You will need the actual Tidal app if you want to unfold.

Is there a way to intercept the output of the Tidal app (unfolded) and cast to any of the available inputs of the streamer?

The tidal app on what? I don't stream from a computer. That's why I was bringing up all these types of standalone streamers.

 

[symphara]

Most MQA DACs will only decode MQA on the USB input - at least this was the case until recently. Perhaps others here know more on this.

My DAC actually does MQA on the net input. Apparently the CD can be ripped and the FLACs tagged as MQA, and then it should work.

I’ll see if I can get a disc and experiment.

 

[tmtomh]

It does. I used to hang out in another forum I co-founded that was full of high-end subjectivists. Many started with not liking MQA but once it was released, they played it and many came back impressed and MQA got some legs. Their decision making criteria was simply that it was high-res and that their ears told them it sounds good. That's how they believe everything. A plausible technical reason and what their ears tell them.

That's my point. The technical reason needs to sound plausible, but it doesn't need to be true, and doesn't even need to be possible. Dimitry's claim - which is what my comment was responding to - was that people will make "adult decisions" and therefore MQA marketing/tech claims are irrelevant. My point is that if people have bad information their decisions are impacted by that - and I think you are making an unwarranted claim that people look only at whether or not something is "high-res" and that MQA's additional, specific claims have no impact on getting potential Tidal consumers to try out the service. Whether or not MQA's technical claims are true, and whether or not MQA's actual technical reality results in any detectable sonic difference, you can't reasonably claim that people shop "on spec" but exclude "MQA specific specs."

To be clear, if you want to say that any claim of 24 bits' worth of depth is bad information, regardless of the format/codec, I'm not going to argue with you. And if you want to say that any claim or implication that any sample rate above 96k (or, IMHO, 48k) contains any meaningful additional frequency info is also bad information, I certainly agree: most of the "high" in "high resolution" isn't necessary, and most of the "resolution" in "high resolution" doesn't actually add any resolution. MQA is not unique in that regard, but nor is it exempt.

One important difference, though, is that a 24-bit PCM file is going to allow for the full delivery of the information in a 20-bit recording. An MQA file in a 24-bit container is not necessarily going to do that. Same deal for the noise floor available from a 16-bit PCM file vs a 16-bit undecoded MQA file or an MQA-CD.

 

[Raindog123]

…As for me, I got MQA (as Tidal Master tier) entirely on the marketing and advertising. Got totally fascinated by what was said, trusted everything too (why would not I?) And their ‘technical specs’ are their marketing and vice versa, but it was fine.

Don’t get me wrong, MQA did not sounded bad. It did not sound better than non-MQA hi-res, but that did not bother me, not then. I was one happy proud MQA consumer.

What got to me personally was when Tidal stopped sending MQA to us, the Auralic DAC users: As an integrated DAC-streamer, Auralic (a) had a Tidal interdation and agreement with Tidal. (Think of it as a ‘Roon with integrated DAC HW’.) And Auralic (b) did implement its own version of MQA decoder nicely integrated into their Lightning DS environment - with user-selectable filters, equalizer, some DSP functions, etc…

Well, ‘it was all good while it lasted‘: One day Tidal just turned off the MQA delivery to Auralic users. Imagine multiple emails and phone calls to both Auralic and Tidal customer service and tech support, with their typical level of incompetence and finger-pointing… Discussions on the Auralic forum, while desperately craving for a hi-res ‘fix’… It was gone for two weeks, and then it came back…

…Only to be gone again, half year later.… ‘Fool me twice…’ So, I ditched Tidal with its MQA. And as I got smarter by then, I sold my ‘[promised to be] MQA capable’ Auralic, and my MQA Dragonfly, and my EarMen Sparrow. And did I mentioned getting smarter by then? So, bought four non-MQA DACs… And letting Auralic’s Lightning DS go forced me to get Roon…

And when someone tells me that what Tidal did to me/us ‘is not a form of DRM’, all I think back is ‘Yah, right! You are lucky that did not happened to you.” And though I had to essentially refresh my entire digital streaming arsenal, I feel I ended up with a much better setup!

 

[DimitryZ]

The tidal app on what? I don't stream from a computer. That's why I was bringing up all these types of standalone streamers.

Any device, really. Probably a phone or tablet.

I know I can use Mconnect to cast bit-perfect Tidal stream to UDP-205 DLNA input. It then decodes it as an MQA stream.

I don't know if one can specify the output of the Tidal app as the "cast" to the streamer.

 

[Raindog123]

Since 99.99% of MQA content is on Tidal, you will be using Tidal if you are getting MQA

Tidal app - whether PC, Mac, or iOS - DOES NOT allow for digital equalizing or DSP.

 

[pjug]

Any device, really. Probably a phone or tablet.

I know I can use Mconnect to cast bit-perfect Tidal stream to UDP-205 DLNA input. It then decodes it as an MQA stream.

I don't know if one can specify the output of the Tidal app as the "cast" to the streamer.

The beauty of these devices, if you like them, is a nice controller app made for them. Hardly anybody would do anything like you are saying, if it is even possible. And then even if you cast the bitperfect stream, you are back to needing to buy the MQA DAC.

 

[amirm]

My point is that if people have bad information their decisions are impacted by that - and I think you are making an unwarranted claim that people look only at whether or not something is "high-res" and that MQA's additional, specific claims have no impact on getting potential Tidal consumers to try out the service.

Unless you have better data than me, I observed countless audiophiles react to MQA since inception. For starters, they got completely lost as to what it was and what it did. And the fact that it came from Meridian which hardly any high-end user buys, was a second negative. Their reaction only changed when they played the content and whether it was due to different masters, true benefit of high-res and false conclusions, many changed their mind and adopted it.

Messaging from MQA has always been poor and not to their benefit. Things like "authentication" and such is not something people associate with goodness. Nor "origami," etc.

While Bob Stuart and crew had history in creating a new format in the form of MLP for DVD-Audio, they licensed the technology to Dolby who is the master of marketing the format. So they clearly made a lot of mistakes him in how they have rolled out MQA. And continue to do so to their own detriments. As such, I don't consider anything they have done on marketing front to have been an asset.

And oh, the standard for audiophiles is the live presentation of music, not what the mastering engineer heard. We value the mastering because we attempt to be faithful to a recording. That is not how high-end audiophiles think.

 

[DimitryZ]

Tidal app - whether PC, Mac, or iOS - DOES NOT allow for digital equalizing or DSP.

Sure, I was only looking to try to help those "stuck" with Tidal and wanted MQA functionality without having to spend more money.

 

[amirm]

And when someone tells me that what Tidal did to me/us ‘is not a form of DRM’, all I think back is ‘Yah, right! You are lucky that did not happened to you.” And though I had to essentially refresh my entire digital streaming arsenal, I feel I ended up with a much better setup!

Tidal, just like other streaming services deploys rights management or you could subscribe for a month, steal all of their 70 million songs and then quit. They must provide this type of protection or they can't license content from the labels for just a monthly fee.

We are discussing MQA which as a content format has no provisions for content protection. Just like FLAC, MP3, AAC, etc. though you can wrap it in a content protection system as streaming services do.

 

[DimitryZ]

That's my point. The technical reason needs to sound plausible, but it doesn't need to be true, and doesn't even need to be possible. Dimitry's claim - which is what my comment was responding to - was that people will make "adult decisions" and therefore MQA marketing/tech claims are irrelevant. My point is that if people have bad information their decisions are impacted by that - and I think you are making an unwarranted claim that people look only at whether or not something is "high-res" and that MQA's additional, specific claims have no impact on getting potential Tidal consumers to try out the service. Whether or not MQA's technical claims are true, and whether or not MQA's actual technical reality results in any detectable sonic difference, you can't reasonably claim that people shop "on spec" but exclude "MQA specific specs."

To be clear, if you want to say that any claim of 24 bits' worth of depth is bad information, regardless of the format/codec, I'm not going to argue with you. And if you want to say that any claim or implication that any sample rate above 96k (or, IMHO, 48k) contains any meaningful additional frequency info, I certainly agree: most of the "high" in "high resolution" isn't necessary, and most of the "resolution" in "high resolution" doesn't actually add any resolution. MQA is not unique in that regard, but nor is it exempt.

One important difference, though, is that a 24-bit PCM file is going to allow for the full delivery of the information in a 20-bit recording. An MQA file in a 24-bit container is not necessarily going to do that. Same deal for the noise floor available from a 16-bit PCM file vs a 16-bit undecoded MQA file or an MQA-CD.

I would also add that a lot of bad Information was used over the years to try to discredit MQA.

Such as constantly comparing it MP3 and scaring people that it has DRM and can turn off user access at will.