‘Reconstructing what looks like the equivalent of a 24/96 download’, and what sounds good to me are two completely different things.
What might look the same on a spectrograph, might sound different.
And albeit subjectively, to my ears, I don’t like the sound of first-unfold/rendered MQA.
And that’s especially pertinent when we have a choice of where and how we stream music. We can choose to stream MQA from Tidal, or FLAC from Qobuz. We can even choose to listen to MQA with just a first unfold, or by using an MQA DAC.
And as I’ve already stated, I like the sound of MQA when it is fully unfolded/decoded via an MQA DAC. BUT given the choice of a first-unfold only vs lossless FLAC, I would choose lossless FLAC any day.
Much clearer that this is just your subjective preference now mate. And that’s all good of course.
Just wanting to share what some objectivists have to say about the 1st unfold. The rest is best left to the ears of course.
To add another data point, my ears agree with Archi. If you purchase a 24/88 or 24/96 Hi-Res track or album and it’s available in Tidal in MQA and they are the same mastering (more likely with newer releases) it sounds the same to my ears… looks the same objectively and sounds the same subjectively. Just talking about the 1st unfold with a non-MQA DAC.
1 Like
I agree that just listening to MQA unfolded in roon is not the same as an equivalent hires file. MQA has some filtering already added and doesn’t sound right until it’s fully unfolded.
I’d rather use non-MQA files and upsample them with roon or HQPlayer than use MQA if don’t have MQA dac. Even better, use Qobuz hires files.
I find fully unfolded MQA to be an improvement on just cd quality tracks from Tidal. But I also found hires Qobuz upsampled with HQPlayer to be best sound. Due to current limited library I chose to stick with Tidal for now.
You’re right! I had MQA CD in my head when I wrote that. I think they still use some of the bits in the sample to identify where things get folded.
Just listen to the Beatles White Album in MQA vs hires. They don’t sound the same. The vocals are smoother on MQA. Think the filtering on MQA does sounds better at lower sampling. Easier to listen to. When I upsampled in HQPlayer to 256 dsd, the hires file was clear winner since vocals more detailed and natural and no harshness at all.
This comparison was when just using roon to do first unfold vs Qobuz hires file.
This is an internal subjective evaluation done by Lumin. For those who love the MQA sound signature, the fully decoded (i.e. rendered) MQA output has more of it over MQA Core decoded only output. (Note that the keyword here is signature, not SQ, before anybody jump in to attack based on SQ.)
For those who don’t care for this signature, they already know the answer for themselves. MQA Core decoding will at least recover more musical information from a Hi-Res master than no decoding.
3 Likes
First statement: I’d say ‘at least 24/192’.
Second statement: The reason is to tune the filter for individual DAC hardware.
3 Likes
My problem is the first unfold is already tuned to go with a certain MQA filter. So finishing with your own filter will not bring out the best sound. A regular hires file seems better to add whatever filter after and get your desired sound.
In HQPlayer I prefer their xtr filter which is supposed to be similar to Chord’s. And I liked the linear version better. Think MQA works best with minimum phase filters. But even then didn’t get as good of an output as using the fully unfolded rendering of my dac.
Anyway, I think if you want to best from MQA you need an MQA dac. With that said, I think you can get better sound with true hires files and other DACs and/or software upsamplers. It opens up your choices to DACs. The current limitation is access to as many hires files.
You can from regular redbook as well.
Again, my second question was: does it matter even if the original master was 24/96 (which is more of the case in Tidal)? Shouldn’t the first unfolding be enough?
So in my system with regular cd quality Tidal tracks upsampled to 384k within roon using minimum phase smooth filtering, I think MQA fully unfolded sounds noticeably better. I can easily test this choosing different versions. I also just tried 128 dsd with precise linear in roon and MQA still sounded better.
To test this with HQPlayer would take more work. The only thing I know for sure is MQA unfolded in roon vs true hires, true hires wins. Also when I compared hires without upsampling vs MQA fully unfolded it was very close but thought hires has slight advantage.
No because there’s something going on with the filtering. With my dac even the 48bit files rendered in MQA sound better than just roon infolding. Using rendering gives better location of instruments and a cleaner sound. Not sure how this is done but it’s what I hear. I can’t get MQA files to sound as good with first unfold as I do when my ifi does the final render.
2 Likes
Whether it is enough or not is up to individual users to decide.
MQA Core decoding recovers most of the musical information. But since you said you are asking for subjective experience - For those who seek the MQA sound signature, it’s not about the sample rate. The MQA rendering helps giving the sound an analog quality that some prefer (and some don’t).
2 Likes
I don’t think you can fully evaluate MQA until you hear it fully rendered. I understand the arguments for and against. I do think it’s an improvement over cd quality tracks of Tidal. I like the sound. But that’s only with full rendering.
But now with Qobuz, you have a choice in streaming. I’m torn since I choose Qobuz but ended up back with Tidal because Qobuz’s library was lacking.
Seems to me the priorities are backward here.
-
When adding an album to the library, I pick the highest quality available: high res (download or streaming), then MQA, then CD (download or physical or streaming), then (extremely rarely) lossy.
-
When playing an album, I pick the album and press play. Based on the music. Certainly don’t choose music based on format,
To support that behavior, I need a DAC. Same thing: I choose a DAC I want, if it comes with MQA fine, if not I’ll still choose the DAC I want. E.g. a Chord is more important than MQA.
Results:
I will listen to great music.
It will sound awesome.
Done.
1 Like
No arguments there. Music first of course. But it’s also fun to tweak around different DACs and amps and speakers. “Careful” A/B test can be still quite stressful, which is why I am trying to rely on other people’s labor. 
Following the same logic, I got a BorderPatrol DAC and find it awesome, so I have absolutely no remorse without MQA compatibility. Nevertheless, you always wonder about the road you haven’t been…
On some recordings I’ve found the opposite: just doing the unfold in Roon sounds better than when the MQA filter is also applied. I think the poster who said it may come down to whether you like the sound of the MQA filters better than the ones you already are using had the right idea.
Btw, I have added Qobuz to my Tidal subscription, and I find that almost all of the Tidal MQA albums of artists I like have a high-res version in Qobuz. So I choose Qobuz hi-res for new stuff, and I’m gradually adding hi-res versions as primary over previously added MQA stuff.
This is not because I dislike MQA (the Brits have this expression “damp squib”, I dont know what a squib is but I wouldn’t want a damp one).
The reason is that I have several systems, three ambitious ones (speakers + 2 headphones), two less ambitious ones, plus a good portable system I can bring out in the garden (WiFi), plus my phone for travel. I have chosen those systems with great care for their characteristics. Replacing them all with MQA capable gear is not going to happen, neither desirable nor financially feasible.
So standardizing on MQA hardware is not practical. At best, I get Roon unfolding.
And in any case, I have a lot of non-MQA content and i want gear that does a good job on everything from CD to high-res.
So using Qobuz high-res is a better solution than Tidal MQA.
Some people agonize over pay8ng for double streaming services. But compared to replacing my DACs, Qobuz is a bargain,
3 Likes
I also got Qobuz in addition to Tidal. But I do exactly the opposite. I prefer to keep MQA files over Qobuz with my belief that MQA tracks were usually created from better masters, so they sound better even at basic 16/44 replay without a proper MQA unfolding/rendering. (I am fairly convinced by Jim Austin’s Stereophile articles on the removal of pre-ringing in the ADC process. If someone knows better, feel free to correct me.) Meridian indeed claims that MQA tracks sound slightly better even on normal players.
To me, the selling points of Qobuz are (a) occasionally they have hi-res versions when there are no MQA in Tidal, and (b) the liner notes.
1 Like
Martin,
Could I ask if you were comparing MQA files with equivalent non MQA hi-res files (from Qobuz or your local collection) in each case?
Are you suggesting that an MQA file with just a first unfold is just much less ‘good’ than a hi-res file or also much less good than a 16bit 44.1 FLAC equivalent?