I have both Tidal and Qobuz (beta). I hear little difference between Tidal and Qobuz music of the same bit/sampling rate. They both sound excellent on my system.
I listen to old school R&B/soul, contemporary jazz, and some soft rock. I do not listen to new R&B artists, old school jazz, classical, or hard rock. IMHO, Tidal has a better selection of the music I like.
I get a 50% military discount with Tidal and I like MQA. Qobuz doesn’t have enough HiRes music that I like for me to keep it long term. That may change, but, for the price difference, I’ll stick with Tidal. I only hope they stay in business .
Why would I want to go backwards? Tidal sounds superior
1 Like
James_I
(The truth is out there but not necessarily here)
23
Money isn’t a substitute for judgment, knowledge, or discretion.
Ironic you say this, though, because it was back when I first heard the audio system in a 5 series that I realized my home systems needed dramatic upgrades!
There is nothing more to “unfold” - no data. So from 48>96 you have a lossy facsimile of the actual PCM content. After 96 you have…nothing. Instead, MQA upsamples in the “MQA-enabled DAC”, using their weak (read high IM distortion) filters, to whatever the reported original sample rate is (e.g. “192” or “384”).
Also, when you compared MQA to “regular” PCM, are you sure that the MQA and regular PCM files were the same exact masterings? If they were not, your comparisons don’t mean what you think they mean…
I play MQA vs. non MQA from Tidal going through Roon. The MQA always sounds better about 90 percent of the time. I have run across an occasional album where I feel the non-MQA sound better. I’m not looking closely to compare file formats. Just want to enjoy the music as much as I can.
So far when comparing head-to-head Tidal/MQA vs. the equivalent Qobuz/Hi-Res I always prefer the Tidal/MQA. I will keep Qobuz after the free trial at least for a while because they have some labels in Hi-Res (like Chandos) that Tidal does not have in MQA.
Why would I care if the masters where the same or if the master was created on a Wednesday vs on Thursday? If I’m presented a MQA album and a non-MQA album on tidal, I don’t compare the masters, I compare the sound between them. Same goes for comparing MQA to vinyl. I could care less about which master is used, IMO, that’s up to the engineer to decide. If it’s a crap master then the outcome should sound like crap.
Just 4 my understanding… when u play MQA via Roon but use a non MQA DAC - do u get any advantage over regular 44.1/16? I remember reading something about a first unfold?
Anyhow - I even believe I hear a positiv change in SQ when playing MQA via non MQA DAC by Roon… on the other Hand my DAC can handle true high res… not really sure I understand the “heavyness” of the discussion… all sound pretty great, a lot comes down to personal taste and the differences are often really really subtle…
Yes. MQA software including Roon, Tidal desktop app and Audirvana can perform the first unfold to decode MQA to MQA Core in 24/88.2 or 24/96. This is true even for a non-MQA DAC.
This! This is one of the reasons MQA is a failure with consumers. Why would 99.9% of music lovers wade through the technical mumbo jumbo (because we know that there is no technical reason MQA should sound any better - in fact it is a little bit worse then unmolested 16/44) and increased $costs$ (i.e. new DAC, new music, new licensing to be paid to MQA) for a super MP3 format?
That’s nonsense. MQA sounds far better than a standard CD file. First unfold is also a great improvement.
You dont actually need any knowledge to enjoy MQA, just an MQA aware system, be it Hi Fi, phone, in car system. Just hit play.
Nonsense? It’s fact-sense. What is the reason a lossy unfold would necessarily add anything SQ wise (other than the 15k hump known to be a result thereof)? Knowledge can be a dangerous thing…to folks trying to $sell$ you something.