Markpd

So if I listen to two tracks on Tidal both released at the same time, same album artwork, and same track timing, and the MQA version, software decoded, sounds clearly better, what should I assume about the masters used?

I think the provenance of the masters on Tidal is easy to guess. We all know record companies are lazy and penny pinching. When Tidal lists 2 albums released at the same time, with the same cover art, one an MQA "Master" the other a regular 16/44 one, then I think it reasonable to assume that the both were generated from the same master at the same time. If the MQA version partially or fully decoded sounds better in this situation I think it unlikely that must be because a better master was used to generate it. Which master do we want to hear anyway? Surely, the best sounding one. If MQA remastering promotes the use of better masters then that is a good thing for our music listening. As far as software decoding is concerned Bob Stuart has stated that the software decode uses a "generic" target DAC profile. I have also seen somewhere suggested that software decoding yields 80% of the ultimate debluring "achieved" with full hardare decoding. I think this is why software decoding was only released starting with Tidal reluctantly- MQA would much rather garner profitable hardware licences... I hope you find MQA music as enjoyable as I have.

In my ears I trust....

Well spotted:-) I listen to both downloaded files from 2L fully decoded on the Explorer2 but more often from Tidal software decoded by the app, fed to the amp via USB. Tidal via USB sounds much better than the Explorer2 but there is always the possibility that a better master was used, so for apple to apple comparison purposes I used the explorer2. 1) My information is that Devialet will release an MQA firmware update in the near future. Then I expect MQA will really shine. Given the processing required and the available ASIC processing power most every advanced modern DAC could process MQA already via a firmware update (if the will was there....) 2) Roon app is slowly creeping towards releasing MQA software decoding, perhaps in the next 2 months. 2) EVEN with the extra A/D D/A conversion MQA 2L files sound as good as 24/192 played directly (and much better than the same 24/192 played via the explorer2.) So from my perspective it is all good.....

Many plausibly good reasons are offered here as to why MQA does not actually work in the way MQA suggests, and is simply a deceptive money grabbing exercise. However, from my self centred perspective I don’t care about the motives of Stuart et al, but only “what’s in it for me.” I very much like the sound of partially or fully decoded MQA music (comparing the same masters at various bit rates courtesy of the Norwegian 2L label). To my ears (and my wife’s ears, who has no interest at all in MQA) on my Devialet / ProAc system /Meridian Explorer system MQA decoded music sounds every bit good as 24/192 PCM. MQA music streamed from Tidal can sound even better, but re-mastering/different masters could be responsible. It seems to me that 1. You must judge that high sample rate/bit depth PCM can offer better sound to care about MQA at all. 2. Currently high sample rate music has limited availability and is sold at a premium (around 250%) 3. As a consumer there is little or no premium for MQA re-mastered music. The cost is absorbed by the record labels and the DAC manufacturers. Since an MQA file is dual use I fail to see how widespread adoption could enable much, if any, premium for MQA music. Like a considerable number of people I also prefer the sound of Tidal streamed MQA music. This could be either due to MQA offering real benefits, or as often suggested, due careful re-mastering. No matter, in either case, the presence of MQA in the music market has resulted in better sound for me to listen to, at little cost to me. In conclusion, for me, global domination by MQA has no downsides, only upsides.