MQA disappointing

Nothing wrong with that, I just listen for pleasure as life is short and it’s not my job or profession. The 2L site have some comparisons but I don’t think providing such for the whole catalog of MQA music would be feasible.

Well indeed, so in the end enjoy a good production when you find it :slight_smile:
I still think that quality of production is king over anything else. Format, MQA processing etc - are all just icing on the cake, like a good pre-amp and a good dac etc.

1 Like

Ashley “McBryde” for those searching for it in Roon…

1 Like

Yes, agreed… It all starts with production. MQA is, as I understand it, about getting those results to the consumer.

Thanks, edit done…

Listen to Norah Jones Come Away with me “Shoot the moon”. The distortion on repeated plucked string rhythm guitar is pretty obvious vs non-MQA (the pitch is lower than it should be vs the original). After a while you will learn what to listen for and hear it on everything MQA processed. An additional effect is the hole in the middle of the soundstage - everything is less focussed or smeared - this is probably due to phase distortion from minimum phase filtering.

It is easier to hear on every MQA processed track once you know what to listen for but trained professionals should notice right away. MQA proponents will tell you this distortion is an improvement but only a fool would prefer MQA over the original high resolution file.

3 Likes

That’s funny, people find one note in one song that they don’t agree with and then condem a format and dismiss all the correct notes everywhere else that would be too long to list.
Not being a big Norah Jones listener, it hasn’t bothered me yet. If there is an issue, it may be nothing to do with MQA. Here we go :joy:

I hear distortion on every track processed by MQA. It isn’t one note but every note that is distorted by MQA. I just try to pick an example where the distortion is highly repetitive and therefore much easier for others to identify. Once you hear it then you will know what to listen for on every MQA track.

1 Like

And I never notice anything, so what does that prove? You find what you are looking for perhaps… psycho acoustics indeed…

1 Like

Try comparing the first track of the Ashley McBryde album mentioned above. I have and in this case I prefer the standard flac.

The bass is punchier and a bit tighter on the MQA but the rest seems a bit harsh. It’s the same MQA sound signature as on the latest David Crosby album. However, on the Crosby I preferred MQA.

I think the MQA is a bit louder on both albums but not by much.

Which DAC and what Roon settings?

No, we don’t. I’m saying that as a “trained professional” (=musician and sound engineer) who doesn’t even like MQA…

Yes it is quite obvious on that Crosby album. Nevertheless one can hear distortion on every MQA processed track if you know what to listen for. If one likes distortion added to some albums or styles of music then that is a preference for that album or style. Nothing wrong with liking distortion in some cases. However MQA claims high fidelity studio authenticated and this is simply false - turning up the overdrive on a guitar amp may create a sound one likes but claiming it has less distortion is also a false statement.

2 Likes

Well I guess I meant in general terms. Of course not everyone will grasp what MQA is consistently doing to alter and distort the original file.

However, let’s face it - most people hear a difference - the challenge and diffficulty is to recognize that the difference is in fact distortion and that the original file is higher fidelity.

I have several DACs.

PS Audio Directstream Sr and Benchmark DAC 3 are the ones I use most.

Roon settings are everything off. No DSP. No volume control. No upsampling. Nothing. Nada. Only MQA processing allowed in order to get the first unfold (with DAC 3) and both unfolds with the Directstream.

The MQA added distortion is consistent between all the DACs I own. There is a clear fingerprint or watermark effect of MQA processing most likely from apodizing and minimum phase filtering.

Over the past two and a half years my research team and I have carried out more than 500 (!) scientifically reliable listenings tests that prove such claims are untenable. Before the test many people were convinced they could hear a difference, afterwards ALL of them had to admit they couldn’t… (BTW, not even in informal tests at home - with their own audio gear, at least not when we were present :grinning: )…

I’m not surprised given that 256kbs mp3 has been shown to be indistinguishable from lossless in properly controlled studies involving the general public.

Aural memory and acuity is incredibly sketchy when making comparisons. The well-known experiment involving concert violinists being unable to pick out a Strad from a modern instrument under blind conditions is particularly eye-opening, and not an isolated example.

Thankfully MQA has that light, so you know it’s on. :smiley:

3 Likes

On my setup it is obvious as long as you can A to B switch fairly quickly (does not need to be instant switching). After A to B many times then you can learn to identify the telltale signs of MQA. Knowing what to listen for requires some effort and self-training (I would guess several hours of comparisons of known files MQA vs non-MQA may be needed - up to a day or more for some ). Somebody who hasn’t made this extensive effort would not know what to listen for and might be lost if suddenly thrown into a blind listening test. That said, throw a random file on and ask me if it is MQA or not and I would probably be challenged without having something to compare to (an A to B)

Perhaps it depends on system and hearing acuity. I really thought anyone should be able to hear it. A possibility is that if a DAC uses minimum phase filters normally for non-MQA files then perhaps the difference from apodizing with the MQA processing is too subtle to hear: since both files are played with minimum phase filter distortion then the difference would be much less and possibly inaudible to some folks.

The approach you’re describing does not work. Extended A/B listening sessions always lead to the same result: People UNLEARN to hear any differences - even if they’re there. We’ve done that. We asked people to compare two tracks with clearly audible differences (more bass, less treble etc.). The longer people were listening, the more they got confused and couldn’t concentrate any more. I’m talking about “trained professionals” (sound engineers, musicians, audio manufacturers etc.)…

Try real blind tests – you will be surprised…

I’ve had a listen to the 192K MQA and a 16bit CD version from Tidal.

I am not picking up any sense of distortion on either or I am not listening enough all the way through.

However, I also do not think they are the same master unless MQA encoding also includes some compression - I think a little over 3dB boost in loudness relative to peak which I feel may be a tiny bit too much of a boost.

As for pitch - the CD version is a tiny be slower - really tiny.

I also agree it has lost a bit of focus as well - I suspect whatever compression was applied was done with slightly differing mid/side settings (which is not usual to try to widen a sound a bit, but can also defocus a bit if not careful).

Either way - I blame the compression rather than MQA. I even suspect it may have been automatically applied rather than manually applied - so probably blame Tidal.