Hi I just to clarify if MQA is supported with the Windows 10 version? The led on my dac shows the correct color for MQA when I’m using the tidal app, however when I’m playing MQA on Audirvana’s trial version I’m not getting the correct led color which means I’m not getting the correct frequency. I just want to make sure that it’s fully supported with the Windows version before I buy it. Thanks.
Sorry i couldn’t resist 
3 Likes
I am using AUdievana to play MQA via Tidal masters without problem. It will only decode the first unfold to 24bit 96 the second unforl has to be done by the DAC. An alternative if your dac is not MQA compatible is to use AUdirvana to upscale to 192. I have used this method with my favorite Chord dacs and it works and sounds very good! Hope this helps
1 Like
How can I upscale to 192 khz via Audirvana. I don’t find a way do to that in the settings. Thanks
Is your DAC MQA compatible? The Tidal app only outputs 24 bit 96 so if your DAC is not MQA that is as high as it will go. In Audirvana settings you can use the multiplier function X2 will give you 24 192 if the original is MQA, you can upscale further all the way to 32bit 768. The settings you see may differ depending on which DAC you are using. What resolution is your DAC currently displaying?
Hi my dac shows 24/176.4 for a Tidal MQA track that is 24/352.8. I’m not sure why he puts that rate as ‘supported PCM rate’. since I have an RME Adi 2 dac that goes up to 768 khz. thanks for your help
sorry, to answer your first question; my dac is not MQA compatible
First not all the MQA traks on Tidal are 24/192 some are as low as 24 /48 you can still upscale of course. The highest you will Get from Tidal without the second unfold which can only be done by a DAC is 24/192 The resolutions you are seeing are teh result of upsampling in Audirvana. I find that the best overall sound quality comes from X2 rather than trying to upscale to teh max your DAC can use. Try and see if you get the same results. I have Chord DAC and they also do not have MQA capability.
There Luigi corrected Your post to show the actual facts. I’m still hoping that Damien will drop MQA support so that We again can enjoy a great piece of software. Without supporting a scam company.
Remember that initially they launched MQA as lossless (which it is not) now they are trying to market it as HiRes (which it is not)
Archimago, Maner and others have exposed the Emperors new clothes, why would anyone support MQA ?
1 Like
MQA is not related to a specific sampling rate or bit depth, although 24/192 is optimal. They work with what they have.
Calling MQA a scam is exaggerated, and this comes from somebody who doesn’t even especially like MQA or the business model. Meridian is a reputable company and there are clear advantages in theory for using MQA.
Now, there are also many disadvantages, like the business model, the fact that you need a DAC that specifically supports it.
The market will decide on it. Like many other formats that promised better sound quality but required special equipment, MQA may also go by the way of dodos. Remember HDCD.
Well lets look at it.
They started out claiming it was lossless, it wasn’t
They claim that when not using either an app or any form of decoder it retains CD resolution, it doesn’t
They claim to deliver 24 bit and up to 384 kHz resolution, they don’t
They claim to be Highres, it is not
They claim to correct timing errors, they are not
Five claims that they can not deliver on. This is in my book a scam
You might see it otherwise, personally I’ve stopped buying products from any company that promotes/sells MQA
Well, your claims are quite dubious.
If you look at how MQA works, some parts of the frequency band are compressed losslessly. If you look at which part is lossy compressed, it’s beyond the audible spectrum. It’s partially lossy, but from a higher resolution.
The audible part of the spectrum is encoded using FLAC and the “folds” are buried below the noise floor. So in theory it should be inaudible and when played on a DAC that doesn’t support MQA it should be exactly the same quality as a normal FLAC.
It’s not sampling rate dependent, it does support what they claim. Not every track is compressed in highest resolution. They work with what they have, hi-res file is not available to Tidal for encoding.
It’s hi-res, it supports resolutions beyond 16/44.1. This is not in doubt.
The whole point of the MQA is to correct time errors and reduce time smearing. Whether they achieved that, people with higher technical knowledge and equipment to verify this claim can only tell. Meridian is betting their reputation on this claim and they know thing or two about PCM. So the chances that this claim is true at least in theory is high.
Well, you claims are quite dubious.
Really ??? Please go read: https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/
If you look at how MQA works, some parts of the frequency band are compressed losslessly.
At a resolution of max 15.something, according to Bob Stuart. Included in those bits is included a higher noise floor due to the “embedded” information in the lsb’s
If you look at which part is lossy compressed, it’s beyond the audible spectrum.
If it’s beyond the audible spectrum why would they include it. You do sound like an MQA employee, as the company talks a lot about inaudible losses in MQA
It’s partially lossy, but from a higher resolution.
If something is lossy it can by definition not be of high resolution.
The audible part of the spectrum is encoded using FLAC and the “folds” are buried below the noise floor.
Again You sound a lot like an employee of MQA, the “folds” (glad You " " that expression as it is purely a marketing term. It has been shown that the “information” that is “embedded” in the lab’s is mainly for turning on the blue light, and doesn’t generate anything other than random noise. You could be mistaken about the fact that the audible part is encoded in FLAC, as all that MQA has revealed is that the MQA file is delivered in a FLAC container
So in theory it should be inaudible and when played on a DAC that doesn’t support MQA it should be exactly the same quality as a normal FLAC.
Well there’s been loads of claims that MP3 and other lossy formats are inaudible from lossless. Again at a resolution of less than 16 bits and a higher noise floor, due to the “embedded” “information” in the least significant bits. Whether or not You think that MQA is inaudible from a lossless file doesn’t change the fact that it is audible for me and many others. And however You look at it technically it is of less than CD quality.
It’s not sampling rate dependent, it does support what they claim.
It actually does not do what they say, max lossy resolution is 24 bits at 48 kHz everything above that is pure upsampling. How much is determined by the embedded bits.
Not every track is compressed in highest resolution. They work with what they have, hi-res file is not available to Tidal for encoding.
Despite of this they claim to have music files at 24 bit/384 kHz
It’s hi-res, it supports resolutions beyond 16/44.1. This is not in doubt.
Except for the fact that they are calling a lossy file for hi-res. Which sounds to me like hot Ice cream.
The whole point of the MQA is to correct time errors and reduce time smearing. Whether they achieved that, people with higher technical knowledge and equipment to verify this claim can only tell.
Well it could be determined if MQA actually believed in their product and supplied files that had various stages of their “processes” applied. That would prove that their claims are actually valid. Their current way of doing things resembles the emperors new clothes. i.e. they claim a lot of things and a lot of people are afraid to tell that they can’t hear the difference.
Meridian is betting their reputation on this claim and they know thing or two about PCM. So the chances that this claim is true at least in theory is high.
Why don’t they come out and show that it is true. It should be quite easy. All they have done so far is banging tables, shouting and a continuation of the same marketing babble. I e-mailed back and forth with MQA for a while. And all they could/would tell was that there was a lot of misunderstandings and misinformation, the moment I asked for precise information. They reverted to marketing babble.
So basically if MQA does what they claim they should show it. At the moment independent review has shown that their claims do not hold true
I have absolutely no vested interest in MQA, not even a DAC that is capable of decoding nor rendering MQA. I’m debating this purely on personal interest grounds. As I said I don’t particularly like it either.
Many people are debating this topic without the necessary technical knowledge nor the brainpower to understand what it’s about. I’m cautious in whose opinion I accept and how I weigh it.
The optimal resolution for MQA is 24/192, they never interned to go beyond that resolution if not for purely declared specification purposes. The reason for that is purely time resolution.
Many audiophiles, some well known are respected, actually like MQA and claim that they can hear tangible improvement in sound quality. Whether this will be a commercial success remains to be seen. Only time will tell.
I don’t know based on what you reached this conclusion. It’s simply not true. This is not how it works.
Let me ask You, as an adult. Would a company that has a viable product, with capabilities as the claim act like this ?
Do note that this is the CEO of MQA !!!
Alex
It seems that You have read a lot of the published articles that have been orchestrated by MQA.
The bluesound products do have MQA capability.
I do encourage You to seek information away from these curated articles. Which seems to have misled into thinking that MQA actually does more than You think.
The article by Archimago posted above is a good place to start.
Again, it’s not my job to defend MQA.
I’ve seen this video and I believe that they put it well. The biggest problem with it is that it’s “costly, proprietary and restrictive”. I absolutely agree with this. Beyond that it’s debatable.
On sound quality benefits, the jury is still out. If people do indeed care enough about the “benefits” to adopt MQA remains also to be seen.
I actually do have Bluesound Node 2 (forgot it had MQA support), but I go via SPDIF into active speakers that have PWM dac/amplifier module built in. That shows you how much interest in MQA I have on practical level.
Still, I’m curious. If there is something there, I want to know.