Roon & MQA - Software Decoding Is Coming!

[comedus06]

Thanks

 

That is what I thought. By the sound of some of the posts here it appeared that they were claiming playing Tidal Masters via Roon.

 

Use the tidal desktop app, add some masters albums to your favorites. When you then go to tidal within roon, you should see them under favorites and likely added to your library (that's how I have it setup). You should then be able to play these matters through roon. Now, it won't be MQA decoded like you would get if you played directly from tidal and connected your pc/mac to your DAC directly. Sorry if I misunderstood your question and you're looking to play MQA decoded through roon - for that we'll have to wait till roon release like others have said already.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[miguelito]

Is it worth going through all that just to extract a lossy version of the content?

I want to make a comment on the concept of "lossy"...

 

If we are talking about a single-miked very pure recording, one what has been recorded and presented for download (like some of reference recordings or blue coast records releases) then I get the point of minimal disruption to the original capture. But most recordings go through very many production steps, with eq, dr compression, etc etc. I am not sure what it means in these cases to have a "lossless" file vs a "high res" file.

 

 

If MQA can deliver a recording with great, low artifact dynamic range, frequency extension, etc, then calling this bad simply because it's not identical to the one at some stage of mastering - ie it's "lossy" - is sort of missing the point.

 

 

At the end of the day, all I want is something that sounds great - this does not mean over eq'd or whatever, but natural and present - and if MQA gets me closer to that then great.

 

 

For the record (no pun intended), I still hate all their shenanigans and all the bull that is their PR machine.

 

 

Just my opinion.

[abrxx]

I want to make a comment on the concept of "lossy"...

 

If we are talking about a single-miked very pure recording, one what has been recorded and presented for download (like some of reference recordings or blue coast records releases) then I get the point of minimal disruption to the original capture. But most recordings go through very many production steps, with eq, dr compression, etc etc. I am not sure what it means in these cases to have a "lossless" file vs a "high res" file.

 

 

If MQA can deliver a recording with great, low artifact dynamic range, frequency extension, etc, then calling this bad simply because it's not identical to the one at some stage of mastering - ie it's "lossy" - is sort of missing the point.

 

 

At the end of the day, all I want is something that sounds great - this does not mean over eq'd or whatever, but natural and present - and if MQA gets me closer to that then great.

 

 

For the record (no pun intended), I still hate all their shenanigans and all the bull that is their PR machine.

 

 

Just my opinion.

 

Let's be honest, most of us are technical and the failure of MQA to provide a white paper showing what they are doing with the final version of MQA is annoying the heck out of us. All this black box guessing, referring to out of date patents, various statements made by Bob Stuart over the last two years ... we are all so confused. I guess they are worried about their IP being stolen/copied, but the lack of a clear technical paper telling us all the steps and what is happening to our precious music, this has generated an enormous amount of animosity. The various Q&A sessions with Bob are helpful but its like finding 20 jigsaw pieces for a 100 section jigsaw.

[miguelito]

Let's be honest, most of us are technical and the failure of MQA to provide a white paper showing what they are doing with the final version of MQA is annoying the heck out of us. All this black box guessing, referring to out of date patents, various statements made by Bob Stuart over the last two years ... we are all so confused. I guess they are worried about their IP being stolen/copied, but the lack of a clear technical paper telling us all the steps and what is happening to our precious music, this has generated an enormous amount of animosity. The various Q&A sessions with Bob are helpful but its like finding 20 jigsaw pieces for a 100 section jigsaw.

Absolutely. Just watch one of those loooong interviews with Bob Stuart, where he mumbles and mumbles all sorts of gibberish. I am not saying he doesn't know what he's doing, but he certainly doesn't want to explain it. I much rather he say "I'm not going to give you any real information." That would be a lot more honest.

 

 

Actually, it is borderline deceitful. Like the "artist approved" bull. Do you really think any major artist sits down to listen to the MQA version??? Gimme a break.

[scintilla]

...but the lack of a clear technical paper telling us all the steps and what is happening to our precious music, this has generated an enormous amount of animosity. The various Q&A sessions with Bob are helpful but its like finding 20 jigsaw pieces for a 100 section jigsaw.

 

He gave it to you years ago, you just weren't paying attention:

 

https://www.meridian-audio.com/meridian-uploads/ara/coding2.pdf

 

It's all in there.

[abrxx]

He gave it to you years ago, you just weren't paying attention:

 

https://www.meridian-audio.com/meridian-uploads/ara/coding2.pdf

 

It's all in there.

You're joking right? I've read that paper twice. It barely touches on MQA. Certainly there is no pre-emphasis in the audible band with MQA.

[Priaptor]

Use the tidal desktop app, add some masters albums to your favorites. When you then go to tidal within roon, you should see them under favorites and likely added to your library (that's how I have it setup). You should then be able to play these matters through roon. Now, it won't be MQA decoded like you would get if you played directly from tidal and connected your pc/mac to your DAC directly. Sorry if I misunderstood your question and you're looking to play MQA decoded through roon - for that we'll have to wait till roon release like others have said already.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

Thanks for the info. Appreciate it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Miska]

Actually, it is borderline deceitful. Like the "artist approved" bull. Do you really think any major artist sits down to listen to the MQA version??? Gimme a break.

 

Sure artists' been busy sitting down listening 30k tracks in the past months, Led Zeppelin and all.

 

Everything very carefully handcrafted just for MQA. Really not just batch-converted from the already selling set of hires downloads (where most are really not even hires)...

[jtwrace]

Sure artists' been busy sitting down listening 30k tracks in the past months, Led Zeppelin and all.

 

Everything very carefully handcrafted just for MQA. Really not just batch-converted from the already selling set of hires downloads (where most are really not even hires)...

 

That's exactly my concern. Just another format and farce. I'm waiting for your objective data to back it all up. ;-)

[GUTB]

Personally I couldn't care less about streaming of high res content. But the promise improved quality due to several MQA features is keeping me in the game of figuring out if I can realize these improvements. If it bears fruit I will integrate MQA into my system.

 

Sent from my LG-H820 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[miguelito]

Personally I couldn't care less about streaming of high res content. But the promise improved quality due to several MQA features is keeping me in the game of figuring out if I can realize these improvements. If it bears fruit I will integrate MQA into my system.

It seems to me that the entirety of the MQA "improvement" of a high res file is an apodizing filtering (in very few cases tailored to the ADC) plus some DAC profiling. Nothing else really.

[Sineira]

It seems to me that the entirety of the MQA "improvement" of a high res file is an apodizing filtering (in very few cases tailored to the ADC) plus some DAC profiling. Nothing else really.

Sourpuss! That's not exactly nothing. And since it seems the adoption is going pretty well you'll now get hirez originals of recordings never available before.

[asdf1000]

I'm just glad that after 12++ months of talking and reading about MQA, there's finally a way for us to START to test it out and hear the differences with some of the music we all love (hopefully a lot more to come). The software decoding coming (Roon and Audirvana) should make it even more interesting to test out.

 

Exciting times I say ! Hi-Res streaming is what a lot of us wanted and it's finally kicked off.

 

The proof will be in the listening but Kudos to Tidal and Roon and A+ for being the earliest parties to give it a shot !

[miguelito]

Sourpuss! That's not exactly nothing. And since it seems the adoption is going pretty well you'll now get hirez originals of recordings never available before.

Haha! I will be very happy if whatever MQA becomes I end up getting better sounding music - as I have said elsewhere. My comments are more on the PR shenanigans of MQA the company and less about the technology itself.

[jtwrace]

Haha! I will be very happy if whatever MQA becomes I end up getting better sounding music - as I have said elsewhere. My comments are more on the PR shenanigans of MQA the company and less about the technology itself.

 

I like this guy.

[firedog]

If Tidal/Roon implements MQA through software, fine. Some will say it sounds a little better than a non MQA version, some will say a little worse. I discount all those that say it is WAY better or WAY worse than a non-MQA version.

 

But it is only streaming, so I don't care that much. I don't expect any stream to sound as good as a well recorded Redbook or hi-res file played back directly from my server. If streaming sounds better than mp3, I'm happy.

 

I will only care if MQA takes over, and the non-MQA versions of albums disappear. Then anyone who hasn't invested in an MQA DAC is sort of screwed, as software decoding will never equal what can be done with HW decoding, if I understand how correctly how it works.

[bogi]

I will only care if MQA takes over, and the non-MQA versions of albums disappear.

 

That's the dark side of the MQA - the connection of DRM with modifying original content. The risk that such a practice could become more widely used than only for streaming.

[Sineira]

I will only care if MQA takes over, and the non-MQA versions of albums disappear. Then anyone who hasn't invested in an MQA DAC is sort of screwed, as software decoding will never equal what can be done with HW decoding, if I understand how correctly how it works.

 

I think you need to read up on how MQA works.

The redbook file is included and part of the MQA file, it will always be available.

And you can play it with your redbook DA anytime, the MQA decoder adds on the extra information.

 

However, the new file is a cleaned up version even for the redbook portion since they went back to the original files and "removed" the signature of the recording chain.

[firedog]

I think you need to read up on how MQA works.

The redbook file is included and part of the MQA file, it will always be available.

And you can play it with your redbook DA anytime, the MQA decoder adds on the extra information.

 

However, the new file is a cleaned up version even for the redbook portion since they went back to the original files and "removed" the signature of the recording chain.

 

No, you need to read how it actually works, and not the propaganda. If you don't have MQA decoding, you get back somewhat less than the original file for playback. Some of the original data remains out of reach to those without a decoder.

[Sineira]

No, you need to read how it actually works, and not the propaganda. If you don't have MQA decoding, you get back somewhat less than the original file for playback. Some of the original data remains out of reach to those without a decoder.

 

Please show me where I can read up on that?

[[email protected]]

MQA, Tidal, Roon needs new MetaData.

 

Please, please add the history of the recording, the source of the "master" , what resolution was the master, and what is the resulting output resolution after decoding with an MQA Capable DAC. I would love to see how the latest MQA file was produced when I read the Album history in Roon.

[Bootzilla]

Are any of the "Master" files on TIDAL fresh transfers from the analog master tapes? Or are they all re-encoded digital-to-digital conversions? Thanks.

[mink70]

I've been listening to Master quality files in the desktop Tidal app on my Mac and hear a vast, obvious difference between HiFI and MQA versions streamed to my (non-MQA-decoding) Ayre Codex. The MQA sound is less typically digital and far more realistic than the HIFI versions of the same track. For the first time in my system, streamed music sounds as good as—and in some cases better than—lossless files from local storage. And this is available to Tidal subscribers at no cost.

 

What puzzles me is the sour tone of many posts on this thread. From the beginning, lots of otherwise smart people seem convinced that MQA is out to trick or deceive them. (It's true that this reaction has been egged on by some of Meridian's competitors who have a business incentive in seeing MQA fail, but have muddied this fact by letting drop all kinds of theoretical reasons for why it can't possibly work.) Some people don't need to listen to MQA—they just know that it's some kind of Ponzi scheme. But then there are people who just know that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring out of a pizzeria. Sigh.

[ElviaCaprice]

For me, it's based on principle. I won't support any business supporting DRM. Plain and simple.

[Miska]

What puzzles me is the sour tone of many posts on this thread. From the beginning, lots of otherwise smart people seem convinced that MQA is out to trick or deceive them. (It's true that this reaction has been egged on by some of Meridian's competitors who have a business incentive in seeing MQA fail, but have muddied this fact by letting drop all kinds of theoretical reasons for why it can't possibly work.) Some people don't need to listen to MQA—they just know that it's some kind of Ponzi scheme. But then there are people who just know that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring out of a pizzeria. Sigh.

 

From technical perspective it looks ugly. But it's like with MP3 or anything else, if someone likes the sound, it's all fine.

 

I just like to keep objective and subjective views separate.