Tidal MQA Hollowness

itsjustme, thanks. Need to know what components/software provide these results for you. (Roon sounds like an essential piece?). I'm not asking MQA to be dramatically better, just that it not be noticeably worse. Because you're right, remasters are almost always MQA, and I would like to enjoy them for a change.

Well, since i design gear, that’s a moving target.

But the constants: Roon, wired ethernet (no wifi); one unfold; prototypes of the amps and preamps i have designed over the decades, including current projects; cables = nothing special since i fuse everything since i’m often working with hand made prototypes. Speakers are either; Vienna Acoustics Mahlers (main music room); Sounds Exclusive towers (old! I showed with them at CES and Stereophile in 1990s); occasional players Vandersteen 3 (old) or Totems.

Now, the big question:DACs. I have a Denefrips Aires (with some minor mods); a Theta DSPro Gen2 with my own USB/clock/de-jitter/ground decoupling ("galvanic isolation"), and power supply; older MSB with the same goodies (my power power supply, smae front end as the Theta) and a Allo Revolution/USBridge/Shanti (their fancy-pants power supply which s remarkably good).

Note that I disagree with most of the digital-analog debate. despite having three outstanding turntables i almost always prefer the 16/44 equivalent. Yes, analog has its advantages, bu overall i get better dynamics, clarity and lack of the distortion from wear, tear and crap pressings. A few specialty albums aside (the curve wreckers, but do we all want to listen to Joe Smooth Direct to disk all the time?).
With digital (non streaming), I prefer a mac/bitperfect over CD SPDIF output to the same dac in the same system levels matched (why? i have my guesses but none of us "know"). I prefer ROON with upsampling and unfolding over the Mac/Bitperfect (by tiny amounts without MQA, larger with MQA). I find the difference in re-mastered records bigger than ANY of these hardware differences. Want dramatic? Listen to the remaster of Quadrophenia, 11-17-70, Proclaimers, ....What does this say? They rally messed up the original mastering, or just didn’t care ( the stories of Pete and Rodger fighting over who got "buried" are legendary).

I give this for perspective on digital, which mostly sounds like crap, but almost never in my system. Aside from 1980s, bright, got-the-de-emphasis wrong recordings of course. They are just measurably bad.
G

Got it, many thanks. Although your particular incarnation would be impossible to replicate, you have given me enough clues to work with for the near future. Will add the Quadrophenia as a reference cut, add Roon, then look to often recommended DACs such as Denafrips. At least I'm already on Ethernet and off WiFi. Actually hadn't noticed the limiting effects of MQA before using Aurender -- other streamers were perhaps less revealing. Or maybe be I just wasn't paying close attention to the right things.

i have no basis to comment specifically on the Aurender, but somewhere int he back of my engineer's mind, i'm asking "how do we separate the heoretical advantages and disadvantages of he MQA format from the specific chips that must be inserted to implement the proprietary algorithm?"
Since it is digital and part of its goal is low- jitter, and since Bob's pretty damned smart, one could assume that the MQA chips would be relatively transparent.  But i simply cant say for each implementation. Many manufacturer's kinda follow data sheets -and that can go downhill quickly if you don't truly know what you are doing. Begin WITHOUT he 2nd unfold and with a DAC you KNOW is good on red book, and capable of 24/96.  This establishes a baseline.