TIDAL:- limited catalogue on Naim App

Although there is no such thing as Redbook files (there are no files in Redbook) I think I know what you mean.
I believe the non decoded MQA files may appear as 44.1kHz 16 or 24 bit files.
Indeed that is the construct that is used, however the MQA encoding information is added to the least significant bits of the sample word… hence why non decoded MQA files are inferior to CD resolution as there is a loss of resolution and the addition of digital noise to a renderer not expecting MQA.

1 Like

Chris, I do find the first stage decode and oversample of MQA as supported by Roon Core does sound ok. The MQA media is typically presented as 88.2 and 96 kHz sample rate encodings to a PCM DAC such as used by Naim.

1 Like

Yes, I haven’t heard any MQA files that I thought sounded bad, or obviously worse than regular 16/44. It’s just that I have yet to hear it sound any better either, which makes me think that all the effort of providing it is a bit pointless. Given that MQA take a cut of money at every stage of the process (what that bloke on the Linn forum described as a ‘land grab’) which ultimately we all pay for, albeit invisibly, I can’t help feeling that we just don’t really need it.

Have you listened to MQA files through an MQA-enabled streamer/DAC?

Only through the Tidal desktop app on a Mac, which does the first ‘unfold’ in software, to an Audioquest Dragonfly Red DAC.

Chris
Interesting results.
But those lofi/midfi ways of testing MQA are surely not enough to provide a conclusive general judgment on MQA as a sound reproduction technology.
I’d say one might want to throughly test it on at least one good quality hifi system that is explicitly designed to render and reproduce MQA-encoded files before judging it in terms of SQ.
As regards whether it is a technology that one approves of in terms of value for money and the economics and power structures of the industry is another interesting and important question.
It might be that some people might object to buying and even listening to MQA for the latter type of reasons. That’s perfectly legitimate and is their choice.
But surely the question of how good it sounds (other things being equal) is a separate question.
Mixing up the 2 issues does not seem like a helpful route to go down to me.
(I have encountered elsewhere posters/bloggers who object to MQA for power structural reasons and therefore opine that it must sound bad!)

Personally, I’m delighted with how my 272 sounds, and (partly thanks to your earlier advice) have chilled out about even trying MQA.
When I nex buy a new streamer/DAC - perhaps when I’m 60 in 5 years time - I’ll review the technologies again and assess it at that time.
cheers
Jim

Yes, the Dragonfly DAC is cheap, but it’s quite revealing for what it is, and using it with good quality IEMs, it’s perhaps better than you might think at revealing such differences. You’re right, though, the acid test will be when the entire MQA process is carried out on compatible hardware, not just in Tidal software, into a decent DAC and system. Until then, I’m happy to keep an open mind about MQA despite the questionable business model, and if it can deliver a sound quality improvement with reduced file size, that in itself might be a good thing.

Although I know nothing about MQA, I have also used a Dragonfly Red DAC, in my case to convert the BBC’s Radio 3 FLAC trial last year so it could feed analogue into a SuperUniti. The sound quality was significantly better than the Superuniti’s built in FM/DAB module and now that I am using a NAT05 XS, I would say I’m hearing a similar SQ enhancement over the Supertuniti FM module. So my conclusion is that the Dragonfly Red is really a very good performer, not just for the price but on any terms.

Best
David

Even compared to a high end DAC?

More from mconnect:

“ …MQA decoding is up to the playback device’s capability. If the device does not have MQA decoder, MQA track from Tidal will be played as FLAC 24/44&48. the firmware(software in the mconnect module) has MQA Full Decoder.”

No but that’s not my point.

What I am saying is that the £169 Dragonfly Red with a good digital feed from the BBC is similar in SQ to one of Naim’s best FM tuners and much better than Naim’s FM/DAB module fed into their very capable DAC in a SuperUniti.

Best
David

So it is living up to its excellent reputation.

I bought a Dragonfly because I now have one of those iPhones with no headphone socket, and it does a good job. I’d say it has a very clean sound, but rather clinical, and for portable use I much prefer my Sony ZX2.

I have the Dragonfly Black and it has a nice sound but too many tangles (iPhone + adapter lightning camera 3 + dragonfly + headphone). I preferred to take a hiby-r3 DAP albeit cheap …

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.