I am aware that in some cases different masters are used for MQA streams on Tidal. It is possible that in some of those cases better masters are leading to the impression of better sound. I can’t play with MQA at the moment because my MQA-capable gear is in another location, so I am reserving judgement. However, aside from whether MQA itself makes a difference I would welcome any improvement that comes from improved masters being associated with MQA streams…
2 Likes
I would say “yes” and “no”.
I have a PS Audio DirectStream (non-MQA-capable) DAC and recently purchased a Meridian Explorer2 (MQA-capable) DAC on Amazon for $199, when Tidal began streaming MQA.
In Tidal I have it set to do “passthru” to the Meridian DAC (where Tidal is not doing any preparations of the files sent to the DAC), for the PS Audio DAC I have that option un-checked, so Tidal is doing the “unfolding” to as high as 96/24 (apparently the max that can be done in software).
When listening to just about every album with MQA being decoded “end to end” using the Explorer2 DAC I can say, to my ears, MQA IS better! It offers better bass, more “analog” sounding midrange, more distinct highs and better dynamics. Back in my younger days I was a rock and roll drummer and could “feel” the timbre of vibrating cymbals, something that I’ve only experienced with well recorded music, only with MQA. As well, acoustic piano and guitar just sound a lot more realistic.
When MQA is “unfolded” by Tidal but the PS Audio DAC is not doing the “end to end” work, it sounds a little “dull” to my ears, though the DAC is reporting the files are at 96/24.
I think there IS something to the reduction in “temporal blur”, but that only seems to be available with an MQA-capable DAC.
With Universal joining Warner and Tidal, I think the DAC manufacturers will now have the incentives to adapt their future offerings to do end-to-end MQA decoding in their hardware. I know I will be in the market for an MQA DAC in the near future.
1 Like
On most MQA material i have found a major improvement in sound quality. This includes a greater sense of space around voices and instruments and a sense of greater coherence in the music as a whole. It just seems to be more natural and not tiring to listen too.
Naturally the differences vary with some recordings being vastly improved and others more subtle and some recordings being poor no matter what!
I use a Sonictransporter i5 via a Meridian Ultradac into Linn 350A (non digital) active speakers with Tidal.
Thank you for clarifying that. It is a shame you were not quite so specific originally. But what is your opinion about what you hear? That is, after all, what this thread is about!
I was listening to Prof Cox on the Infinite Monkey Cage last night about how good science has to be OK with being wrong. It is the only certainty. We have to be ok to change minds on “established” theories.
That is how we make progress.
As per the thread title, aside from whatever the technology and science may be, my ears tell me that things have been improved here. I am really enjoying the experience with what I am trying from the MQA issues so far. About 2400 last count with UMG still to come.
Filtering for Tidal master in Roon is coming soon so it will get easier.
1 Like
I’ve moved out 30 OFF TOPIC posts. I repeat …
Plus for the avoidance of doubt … please do not get side tracked into the technical merits or de-merits of MQA technology. This is absolutely NOT what this topic is for.
Please be aware that this topic is on the verge of being closed … it seems people can’t help themselves and staying on topic is proving to be too difficult. However we [moderators] don’t take locking down discussion topics lightly … so for now it remains open but is being closely monitored.
Any further OFF TOPIC posts from now on will simple be removed from this topic.
3 Likes
Well I was at a comparison with a very experienced audiophile and we compared a MQA recording we knew well, Blue, with the standard CD on a very transparent system.
It was with the BHK 250W amp and new ML5 Lenehan Audio speakers you probably haven’t heard about but are simply the most revealing and transparent speakers we have heard - and we have heard a lot.
We used 2 DACs - a simple Meridian Explorer 2 that did full unfolding and a PS Audio Direct Stream fed with the 96k from Tidal… The comment from both of us was holey F - it was way better.
Its way better - simple as that.
Thanks
Bill
2 Likes
Well, I’ve got to say I’ve really enjoyed everyone’s feedback! Thank you for posting your experiences! I think this should be an excellent record of people’s experiences with MQA, that will be of great value to the community here. And THAT is what I was hoping to do by starting this thread.
Unfortunately this topic also appears to have a lot in common with poking a stick in a hornet’s nest, and created a bit problem for @Carl. Sorry Carl, that was not my intention, and thank your for you diligent work in keeping this thread a coherent record of people’s experiences. If you decide that it’s too much effort, I won’t be hurt if you close the thread down. Happy to see it stay open, but not if it’s too much work. We’ve got a good record now.
Thanks everyone! 
1 Like
Hi Steve
I agree that people’s actual comments are more important than what I’m about to propose…but have you considered including a Poll in this thread that will put numbers to people’s thought on MQA
i.e. along the lines of …
- MQA sounds worse to me than Redbook
- MQA sounds better than Redbook
- MQA and Redbook sound the same
Your call
There is an audio store in California named Audio High that recorded pianist Robert Silverman playing the compete Beethoven piano sonatas in a series of charity concerts. They have released, for download, 23 of the sonatas in three formats: MQA, CD quality (.wav), and MP3. Detailed liner notes are included. Information is on their website.
I’m very impressed with what I’ve heard using a Meridian Explorer2 to fully unfold MQA. To my ears there is much to recommend MQA over standard CD resolution.
Thats not a bad idea Ronnie. Thanks. But honestly, I am really kind of hesitant to constrain people’s replies. It seems to me that no matter how you ask a question, you’ll eventually find that you wish that you’d asked it a little differently, due to something that had not occured to you. Or that’s my experience.
And it’s not really numbers I’m interested in anyway. As in MQA wins/loses/ties in a vote. I’m interested in people’s experiences - subjectively - as they perceived things, and what hardware lead to those experiences. Please note, I’ve not weighed in with any kind of judgment or evaluation of of peoples experiences, as in "I believe that’s good proof because… " or "I question your experience because… ". I have been just looking to get people’s unfiltered experiences.
I’ll leave it up to each individual reader to interpret and evaluate those posted experiences as they so choose.
Hello…
Thank you for the tip. I’m very interested in this, yet am wondering if you’d acquired yours recently. As of this afternoon, I’m only seeing the MP3 versions linked on the Audio High website. I do see a mention to scroll down the page to make a donation and download the higher resolution files, yet links to donate/download (for me) don’t seem to be there.
I made the donation and downloaded the files within the last couple of weeks. Great music. I’d been following this project for a couple of years and when I learned the recordings were available, particularly in the MQA format, I jumped. Hope they release the other 9 sonatas later.
1 Like
Same here - appears they’ve disabled the donation / download option (or it’s just messed up right now).
Hope they fix it - would like to take advantage of this, as well.
The hardware may be an important factor, but there are not many responses listing their hardware chain when they made the comparison. Although someone mentioned the difference was audible on PC speakers I doubt that would be the case for most listeners, but it would be most useful to know if that generally held true.
Late to the party, sorry but I have been busy listening.
Categorically, yes yes yes! MQA (Tidal Masters) is better on my system, which is M MQA enabled all the way. Rumours have it that I have an unbroken chain. Very reassuring.
1 Like
So far, I have only been able to listen to MQA that is decoded by Tidal and fed to each of my two audio systems. The maximum bit rate that I’m seeing is either 88x24 or 96x24 and I think that hardware decoding would give higher bitrates. In each one I can easily hear the difference between the MQA track and the regular CD quality track. The MQA is a bit more laid back in its presentation but gives a much deeper and more focussed sound stage. The improved timing allows me to very precisely localize each instrument and voice in the soundstage. The bass is better and the highs smoother. Also, the voices and instruments sound fuller with more presence; “more real” to my ear. Of course, MQA does not overcome poorly recorded material. Overall, I would have to say that MQA is a significant improvement over CD quality and I’m looking forward to hearing more music in the MQA format. I haven’t done extensive comparisons with my HD music but my impression is that the improved timing of the MQA is a greater improvement than the higher bit rate.
System 1: MacBook Pro (using Tidal) -->LH Labs Pulse DAC SE–>ARC 40th Anniversary Ref Pre-Amp–>Bryston 28B Monos -->KEF Blades + 2 x REL 212SE sub. Custom built room with extensive acoustic treatments from GIK acoustics. All Cardas Clear cabling and Shunyata power.
System 2: MBPro (using Tidal) -->LH Labs Pulse DAC Infinity–>Bryston BP26/MPS2 Pre–>ARCAM P1 Monos–>KEF Reference 207/2s + JL Fathom f113 sub. Custom built room with extensive acoustic treatments using Tube Traps. All Cardas Golden Ref cabling and Shunyata power.
5 Likes
I applaud you for giving a full answer to the OP. It does not go unnoticed that you have some very nice equipment. From my point of view (and I think for the benefit the community) it would be great if others were to list their equipment. If enough responses come in we may get to a situation where say the individuals who hear better (or worse) audio with MQA can be related to a certain level of equipment. Or maybe it will demonstrate that the better (or worse) MQA sound can be heard over PC speakers.
It is easy enough to put your kit in your profile.