I have a quite high end expensive system that is very revealing. I am sure that it is presently MQA to my ears faithfully enough that I am getting the correct opinion on MQA for me. I bet that if your system is more revealing than mine that I would dislike the sound even more on MQA files, but FLAC and DSD better. MQA has distortions that grate on my nerves (yes, fully unfolded) but not yours, and apparently, either FLAC/DSD or whatever has problems that bother you, or you find the distortions in MQA enjoyable. And nothing wrong with that. Vinyl has distortions, and I love vinyl. Heavy metal has tons of distortion, and many of us love that sound. Every format, every recording has distortion. Whether we like it or not depends a lot on our brains and our ears. And each of us is unique in that respect.
I am sure some will clamor “but Tidal has a better library”, and in some areas they do, just as Qobuz has a better library in other areas. They both have a similar total number of tracks (Tidal has virtually the same compilation albums under numerous titles). But even if Tidal had twice the number of tracks in areas I like, I would still go with Qobuz. Why? Because it sounds extremely good to my ears, and Tidal doesn’t, and Qobuz has more music I like than I could ever listen to. (So what if Tidal has 5-10 million more tracks. 70 million are more than enough for me). I had both Qobuz and Tidal simultaneously for about a year, and spent several ours a day with each. My system, ears and brain unanimously declared Qobuz the winner by a large margin. But I respect anyone who prefers Tidal, as long as they don’t try to push Tidal and MQA on me.
Another reason I love Qobuz.
Same here. Tested Tidal and Qobuz on both my stereo setup and my headphone setup with Roon and Audirvana for a few months and Qobuz wins hands down.
I am listening to Soccer Mommy’s Color Theory and went back and forth and the PCM version sounds better than the MQA version. I have no dog in this fight.
The higher frequency vocals with MQA sound rolled off and the PCM vocals are more resolute.
Soccer Mommy hits a lot of high notes and take a listen and tell me I’m wrong!
Well when Spotify comes out in HD , i will change up to Spotify and Qobuz and drop Tidal.
Hi Wim, congrats on purchasing Roon after all…! So now you own the Matrix Element-X and Roon, just like I do. GREAT.
Regarding MQA vs PCM, I disagree with you, since it sounds better than PCM in my current and former system. I also prefer MQA when I listen to it via my HiFiman 400i planar headphones and the iFi nano black, playing direct from my laptop, passing Audioquest jitterbug.
It’s OK that you have your preference, others clearly prefer MQA, not only 24 bit 88.2 → 352.8 but also 16 bit 44.1 MQA which is simply bliss, some albums are a large improvement compared to the PCM version.
This is not unique, some recording and mastering engineers like Peter McGrath testified this already years ago. I’ve met him twice in The Hague during demonstrations of the Wilson Audio Loudspeakers. I asked him what he thinks of MQA and he confirmed the testimionial which is written in the Stereophile article. The improvement of his personally recorded PCM files was overwhelming and even emotional for him. Such contacts with persons who are deeply involved into the music and produced and know the original master tape for years, are much more worth than anything else. I hope to be able to witness an MQA encoding process somewhere in the future, this would be the ultimate experience.
An example: a few years back Peter had sent me a live recording he had made with his Joe Grado omni mics of the Belcea String Quartet’s performance of Twisted Blues , a work by Mark-Anthony Turnage based on “Stairway to Heaven.” I love this recording, but it had taken me several plays to decipher the modern scoring, to become comfortable with the performance. When Peter played the same file in the Sunny room, it sounded just as I expected, somewhat opaque, somewhat raw, and somewhat intimidating. When Peter then played the MQA version, my jaw dropped—this was not the recording with which I was familiar. This was now a live string quartet playing in front of me. The music made instant sense in a way that it had taken me a long time to comprehend from the PCM original.
MQA at LAAS | Stereophile.com
Hi, Peter.
Look, I know you’ve bold-faced it and all, but does this really say anything?
The guy speaking already “loves” this recording, he’s listened to it “several plays”, he’s “become comfortable” with the performance; then he hears the MQA version and it makes “instant sense”? Well, of course it does, because he’s already “comprehended” it from the PCM originals. So, nothing new here, really.
Other than, perhaps, a nice example of how to say nothing with a lot of words in a PR release.
I get this same exact feeling with alot of PCM files now when I direct them towards HQPlayer and it spits out DSD256… And I get the same feeling when I direct unfolded MQA files at HQPlayer…
If there is even a gap between MQA and non MQA, it becomes a non issue when I send MQA files to HQPlayer.
So people will say, that’s not a comparison of PCM and MQA… that’s a comparison of DSD and MQA…
When I make my PCM a DSD stream, I’m applying a filter and sorts… They’re kinda doing the same thing but deblurring and folding and blah blah better this and that, please don’t go on the rant about telling me no it isn’t because you’re not getting all the data and the full file, and you can’t make something out of nothing… it’s all there with mqa, it’s not creating anything, it’s interpreting the file…yeah yeah yeah, whatever… but MQA on a non MQA dac isn’t always that great, the source of the recording may have been better so the mqa version probably sounds different anyway… Then there’s MQA on the MQA dac, MQA lights are shining, all is fixed and pretty because the filters are being applied… and it’s warm and fuzzy… well sometimes it is… I get the same warm fuzzy feeling sending that MQA file to hqplayer and applying hqplayers warm fuzzy music fix up filter, ymmv on what the right filter is for you and your dac… I also get that same warm fuzzy feeling with my supposedly dull lifeless non mqa PCM when I apply hqplayers warm fuzzy music fix up filters… my jaw drops and I say… wow is this the same dull pcm file i was used to listening to before. once again ymmv.
Sometimes I even like that sound of the really well recorded MQA file sent to an MQA dac… but I usually just send it to HQPlayer because I am equally happy with what HQPlayer’s magic does to the unfolded mqa file and I don’t have to keep changing inputs.
Hi Bill,
It says a lot to me and it’s not only Peter McGrath who exactly knows what MQA is capable of but other renowned mastering engineers as well.
One of the best is Morten Lindberg from the label 2L.no and he offers free downloads of his master tapes in CD, HD, DSD, DXD and MQA and you can compare them all: 2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH
Another example of what MQA is capable of:
“Using MQA this recording is a total revelation! You can clearly hear the instrument timbre, the room, the piano action, Christian’s technique, and – the point of it all – we get lost in the music. You’ll hear an incredible sense of space and clarity in this recording. So we think it’s very exciting because it’s being brought back, authentically, through the lens of the original equipment.”
And there are more. But most convincing are the testimonials of many of my music friends who are very impressed by the recent 16/44.1 MQA releases on Tidal. No other technology is capable to deblur PCM files form the era of digital recording. No High-res versions are available as well, since the original bit- and sample rate is 16/44.1.
Just listen for example to Tracy Chapman’s debut album and read the story behind it at the time they recorded, mixed and mastered it.
The MQA version sounds as if we are listening to a high-res version, but it is deblurred 16/44.1.
Anyway, other formats are great as well, especially 2x DSD and DXD, but the fact that we are able to stream music with an end-to-end, overall improved impulse response is simply a pleasure to the ears.
PR can be good or bad, but it is used in both ways: some say it is bad and don’t want it, others appreciate it a lot actually.
Greetings, Peter
I know what you mean, Peter. Myself, I like to watch movies like “King Kong” – but I don’t mistake them for reality (well, usually 
).
I would love to get Peter McGrath and Neil Young together for an MQA discussion… lol
“Two men say they’re jesus, one of them must be wrong.”
Dire Straits, Industrial Disease.
Thanks, I corrected it 
I just created a playlist in Roon with the Tidal MQA and Qobuz version of the title track and kept skipping between them without knowing which version was track 1 and which was track 2.
I much preferred the Qobuz version in this instance. The vocals, acoustic guitar and drums all sounded much more realistic. The MQA version sounded smother but with less space and decay around the instruments - everything sounded like it was at the same volume.
No idea if MQA is solely responsible for the differences though or if different masters were used.
And for the record, I have no horse in this race .
I believe your experience, for me it is the oppposite though. Which DAC do you use for this test?
Hi. Did you compare Tidal to Qobuz without knowing which was which?
My DAC isn’t MQA compatible so I’m using Roon to do the first unfold only but given that MQA is marketed as sounding better than CD even with no unfolding or upsampling, this shouldn’t matter. I find it odd that we have a different preference as to what sounds best!
I’ve preferred MQA versions on other comparisons I’ve done in the past but the more I do, the more I seem to prefer the PCM versions. If I was to generalise, I find MQA sounds a little flatter, darker and less alive than non MQA.
What I find really odd about these MQA threads is that there is very little discussion about specific tracks and how the versions sounds different - it just seems to be endless technical and political discussion about the MQA format itself. I’m just happy to listen to whatever version sounds best.
This was a post from Rugby a couple of days ago.
RugbyDaniel BeyerCommunity: Moderator
The quality of Tidal’s content, non-MQA, went downhill last Oct. Not sure what it was, but, it is extremely noticeable. So much so, that I actively choose the Qobuz CD version over the Tidal CD version every time now, and again, nothing to do with MQA.
Make sure to check whether Tidal and Qobuz sound the same on your system with a range of identical non-MQA CDs before assuming differences are due to MQA or PCM. Especially timbral differences like bass, which give a darker sound.
Hi, listening to 1st unfolds sounds very good, but on a good system, the full end-to-end MQA is the best experience. This is related to the conjugating filters in the MQA DAC.
on any system, full end-to-end MQA is the best MQA chips can offer.
I can also say…
1st unfolds sound very good, but on a good system, 1st unfolds can provide a better experience by not using generic suboptimal digital and analog filters in the mqa chip and incorporating a higher quality filter, modulator and upsampling to higher DSD rates provided by hqplayer. ymmv.
Just sayin’…