MQA via Tidal.........

[DanSmedra]

Nearly 50 responses but no answer to OP question yet=no hope?
Must consider a different streamer I guess..........

Patience. But you're always free to buy something else.

Squeezebox users had to wait a while for the TIDAL app to show up at MySqueezebox.com, and many were surprised when it did! Since Logitech abandoned this product, it's probably not high on their list. Whoever was the author of the TIDAL plugin (TIDAL, Logitech, or other) refused to come forward and be identified.

MQA is likely focused on hardware and software company's (Playback Partners: http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/our-partners) willing to make an investment (think money) to modify their product(s). Common sense.

If you want to sample a portion of MQA SQ, install the TIDAL desktop app on your computer ("different streamer") and send the TIDAL Master stream via USB to your audio system. Identify an album in Masters and the corresponding non-MQA album. That gives you a simple A/B test to hear deblurring and potentially one decode to 24/96.

[DanSmedra]

...preferably using rational, fact-based arguments

LOL

Based on my recent listening experience via TIDAL streaming, I prefer the aesthetic quality of MQA'd albums/music over the non-MQA'd versions of the similar album.

My statement is both rational and fact-based. Why do you wish to argue with this statement? That's like wanting to argue with a person who says "I like vanilla ice cream rather than chocolate." SMH.

Do you believe in some empirically "objective" form of sound/music that doesn't pass through YOUR ears and nervous system on its way to human consciousness?

This reminds me of a segment from Prof. Theodore Roszak 1969 book, THE MAKING OF A COUNTER CULTURE: Reflections on the Technocratic Society (scientific elites) and Its Youthful Opposition.

An expert, we say, is one to whom we turn because he is in control of reliable knowledge about that which concerns us. In the case of the technocracy, the experts are those who govern us because they know (reliably) about all things relevant to our survival and happiness: human needs, social engineering, economic planning, international relations, invention, education, etc. Very well, but what is “reliable knowledge”? How do we know it when we see it? The answer is: reliable knowledge is knowledge that is scientifically sound, since science is that to which modern man refers for the definitive explication of reality. And what in turn is it that characterizes scientific knowledge? The answer is: objectivity. Scientific knowledge is not just feeling or speculation or subjective ruminating. It is said to be a verifiable description of reality that exists independent of any purely personal considerations. It is true…real…dependable…it works. And that at last is how we define an expert: he is one who really knows what is what, because he cultivates an objective consciousness.

Thus, if we probe the technocracy in search of the peculiar power it holds over us, we arrive at the myth of objective consciousness. There is but one way [according to scientism’s elite and followers] of gaining access to reality—so the myth holds—and this is to cultivate a state of consciousness cleansed of all subjective distortion, all personal involvement. What flows from this state of consciousness qualifies as knowledge (fact!), and nothing else does. This is the bedrock on which the [modern] natural sciences have built, and under their spell all fields of knowledge strive to become 'scientific'. The study of man in his social, political, economic, psychological, historical [and religious] aspects—all this, too, must become objective: rigorously, painstakingly objective. At every level of human experience, would-be scientists come forward to endorse the myth of objective consciousness, thus certifying themselves as experts. And because they know and we do not, we yield to their guidance. p. 208-209

[Mnyb]

Well ofcourse it sounds different otherwise Tidal marketing guys done something wrong .

I would like to get my hands on some MQA tracks . Software decode them them to 24/192 then convert them to 16/44.1 and do a DBT .

I've done similar things with my 24/96 and 24/192 Hd downloads and DVDA's.
Downconverted the actual hd track to cd res NOT compared the CD version or some other version that's apples and oranges.

Btw proper listening s test are hard to do , be 100% sure abut that the level is the same proper blinding and foremost is it the same thing ( same master ).

So MQA brings something that not even proper 24/192 or 24/96 does not do ? OK.
In level matched blind tests with the same material no human can hear the difference between 24/192 and 16/44.1 that's a fact.

[Julf]

Based on my recent listening experience via TIDAL streaming, I prefer the aesthetic quality of MQA'd albums/music over the non-MQA'd versions of the similar album.

My statement is both rational and fact-based.

Thank you - that statement is indeed both rational and fact-based. Unfortunately it doesn't say anything about the possible functioning and benefits of the MQA technology.

Why do you wish to argue with this statement?

i don't.

Do you believe in some empirically "objective" form of sound/music that doesn't pass through YOUR ears and nervous system on its way to human consciousness?

This discussion definitely belongs in the "audiophile" section. I am not going to address the mostly philosophical issue of "objective forms of music". What I do believe in is some empirically objective form of signal reproduction - that is what we are talking about here. Taking a recording, as it exists in the mastering system, and transferring the recorded waveform to your DAC.

At every level of human experience, would-be scientists come forward to endorse the myth of objective consciousness, thus certifying themselves as experts. And because they know and we do not, we yield to their guidance. p. 208-209

Heh, yes. No, you don't have to yield to the guidance of experts and science, but if you don't, it would be nice if you also had the intellectual honesty not to leach on the results of the work of experts and scientists.

[DanSmedra]

...it doesn't say anything about the...benefits of the MQA technology.

Well, sure it does. Where did you misplace your common sense? It's aesthetically more pleasing ("more spacious, tonally richer and more easeful") to a growing number of TIDAL premium subscribers than non-MQA. That's NOT a benefit? If that wasn't, MQA wouldn't exist in the first place and the majority of individuals who began this thread (starting with #1) and have commented wouldn't be interested in getting the Squeezebox Touch modified to play MQA.

Since you don't have any experience with TIDAL MQA, you don't hold an informed opinion on the aesthetic value...which is the essence of bigotry.

As said before, you've expended lots of energy to hijack this thread for the sole purpose of denigrating MQA, streaming music, and insulting others. From your posts, you don't own a Touch, nor subscribe to TIDAL, or have access to MQA files. You don't qualify to post in this thread at all and are just pissing in the wind.

Maybe your comments belong in Ripping/Encoding/Transcoding/Tagging or some website for old, grumpy geezers. Knock yourself out.

[Julf]

Well, sure it does. Where did you misplace your common sense?

No, it doesn't. It tells us something about your subjective preference. That is not very useful for anyone else.

MQA wouldn't exist in the first place and the majority of individuals who began (starting with #1) and have comment wouldn't be interested in getting the Squeezebox Touch modified to play MQA.

The reason MQA exists is probably that Meridian was losing licensing revenue from MLP.

As said before, you've expended lots of energy to hijack this thread for the sole purpose of denigrating MQA, streaming music, and insulting others.

Not really - it is all been in response to you pushing MQA.

Your comments belong in Ripping/Encoding/Transcoding/Tagging. Knock yourself out.

In that case, so would your postings...

[DanSmedra]

It tells us something about your subjective preference. That is not very useful for anyone else.

Oh...really? LOL. Good to know you've transcended the lowly human "subjective" and cornered the market on the "useful" objective perspective. Leaving your ears out of the equation, can you explain to the audience how your oscilloscope tells you "useful" things? Just what are you smoking in Amsterdam?

Let me guess, you've discovered the "scientific approach" to the realm of judging beauty and tastes. Really, what do art, music, and food critics know about anything...anyway! I'll bet Julf is really popular with the Scandinavian crowd.

Folks...Julf has arrived from on "high"... to share his "objective evaluations" of what is in "fact" GOOD vs. BAD sounding music.

[mherger]

DanSmedra, Julf,

I just returned from two weeks of vacation. My kids gave me enough
childish fights for a while. Please stop it here. You'll never agree.
You'll never win.

--

Michael

[DanSmedra]

The near-term future for streaming is MQA.

http://musically.com/2017/02/16/umg-...launches-2017/

Any hope for a software plugin, Michael BBB, or has the time come to sell my multiple SBTs?

The membership did get surprised when the TIDAL plugin app popped up at MySqueezebox.com a few years back.

Can you at least deny Logitech's involvement with the TIDAL plugin, so we can direct info pleadings toward TIDAL?

[Julf]

The near-term future for streaming is MQA.

Please stop it here.

'nuff said?