Hi Dan

But playing a DSD file on a non DSD DAC will play - usually at PCM 176 but you are not playing back the file as the engineer intended.

So to be clear are you saying there is no need for the MQA file to be mastered before it becomes a true MQA file with proper encoding and decoding requirements?

james

If I can get the equivalent of 96/24 hi-Rez files streamed via Tidal and converted via software at no extra cost then that's great.

Now, if I still want higher resolution say 192/24 or higher then I would have to pay extra for the hardware. It is up to me to buy the hardware or not.

With Tidal streaming master quality albums, users should be able to decide if MQA albums sound better to them or not. There is no extra cost to the consumer... for now...

MQA Discussion
 

"For now" being the operative statement. Isn't everyone in the chain is paying a licensing fee? If that's the case, then sooner or later this will get back to the consumer in some form.

But one question I have is the recording engineer decides what resolution he wishes to use either CD quality or high resolution or DSD or PCM, or MQA or whatever and then we come along and alter that using a lot of complicated math and filters and end up with something other than what he intended.

i am a NATIVE file format guy so that may be my bias.

james

Consumers who stream their music pay a different monthly rate depending on the resolution of the stream. Right now Spotify and Tidal have two tiers. It is quite possible that if there is demand for MQA, Tidal may create a third tier. Consumers who want MQA would have to pay extra. Some consumers will pay others not. Another possibility is that if Spotify or Apple start streaming CD quality music and challenge Tidal on price, then MQA would be the differentiator for Tidal. Will consumers be willing to pay? That's the million dollar question.

Just my two cent on MQA and Bryston.

I was about to buy a new Bryston DAC a few weeks ago when I started paying attention to the whole Tidal/MQA discussion. And now, I'm holding off, as I like streaming music and I'm a Tidal subscriber. I'd like to buy a Bryston DAC that is MQA capable, but if I can't, then I'll find a brand that offers me what I want. And I think the most customers would have the same point of view. Why buy a DAC that can't handle what I want it to handle? Why spend thousands of dollars on an outdated piece of equipment?

For James Tanner: imagine Bryston made two versions of Bryston BDA3 DACS. One with MQA and one without. Do you really think that people would chose the one without MQA? Don't forget, unless your buddies in the industry who you "highly respect" are going to buy all the DACS Bryston can produce, my suggestion would be to pay attention to what the customers want. How much could it possibly coast, to add MQA to each DAC? I'm sure people will pay the extra to get better sound.

James
Not quite. A MQA file is backward compatible and will play whether or not you have either the software or hardware to decode MQA.

Yes but thats true of most files - correct?

james

There are many DACs that cannot handle DSD or DOP nor PCM above 24/192.

BigJohn... Welcome to AA! :wave: