At the very end of the Article. McGill University conducted a listening comparison uncompressed PCM to MQA. The results were not conclusive. Hence at best the differences appear to be small (yes I know that with training one can hear the distortions).
Why are there reports of MQA sounding vastly better?
One reason could be this: https://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/mqa-op-ed.3817/page-3#post-166101
At least on some albums Tidal seems to use HDTracks files as the Master for the MQA version and an inferior 16/44.1 for the standard resolution album. In those cases the MQA should indeed sound vastly different.
Yes it is often a mixed bag. Sometimes the earliest CD release is the best there is, as all other later attempts have been remastered more loudly.
It took me forever to find a Duran Duran Rio digital CD version that sounded as good as my Japanese OBI vinyl. It was complicated further by a remastering that was done specifically for the US and Canada market, of course the Japanese vinyl was from the original UK masters. In the end I got a CD digital release that was likely from the original CD Master. The UK original is more laid back and funky/disco style while the US release was made to “rock” more.
It is still not so bad if the DAC end uses a minimum phase filter (user selectable). MQA applied both MQA filters during initial conversion from Hi-Res then again at the DAC end. So the effects is more felt than just applying at the DAC end alone.
The process in which MQA does the conversion is nothing more than just applying a specialised DSP. MQA is not a recording by itself (master). All recording masters only exist in Hi-Res PCM and DSD, so if you can get hold one of these, you basically get the ‘crown jewel’ and the very best!
This makes perfect sense. If you select the CD version, you get the CD version. If you select the MQA version, you get a hi-res master delivered as an MQA file. It wouldn’t make any sense to deliver an MQA version of the CD file.
This is an excellent reason to listen to the MQA version. Even if MQA itself doesn’t add anything, it gives you the opportunity to listen to a hi-res master, even if delivered in a format that may be technically lossy, but still superior to the CD version.
This is exactly the type of commercial strategy that I find offending. 16/44.1 is enough to carry the best of masters. There is evidence for and against whether the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 can be heard (given the same master), but most likely the differences are small. The strategy you describe as “making perfect sense” does so from Tidal’s commercial perspective. It deliberately dumbs down a product at a lower price point that would be just as good for >99% of the customers as the more expensive “master” product.
But that’s where we are. Actually the early CD releases are often better than the later (even hires) remasters, if you look at DR values. Later (remastered) versions tend to be more compressed to bring up the low level detail (“wow I hear things on the remaster I didn’t hear before”).
Oh, it must be so nice to have a cause/vendetta/crusade (take your choice) to which to devote most of one’s waking life.
You appear to be dismissive of any position that involves subjectivity. Do you really never make a subjective and personal preference choice when it comes to your selection of hi-fi systems or components? I would be very surprised if you were to answer - no!.
I think the difference between our respective positions is that were MQA to disappear from the hi-fi world overnight then I would be slightly annoyed. I get the impression that some who oppose MQA so vigorously would be totally distraught.
I have finally been convinced that HWZ has got it absolutely right.
I’m going to retire from this debacle, sorry ‘debate?’ before I get too punch drunk.
16/44.1 may technically have the dynamic range for almost all recordings, but that’s not how it’s used. Due to the “loudness wars”, many times the overall level is increased and peak limiting is used to compress the dynamic range to provide the sound that most people like.
Many folks here may be interested in this article by the producer of Tom Petty’s album, Hypnotic Eye. He explains that they did exactly that, i.e. increase the overall level and add peak limiting for the commercial release “in order for our record to compete sonically in the marketplace”.
But when it came to the hi-res master, they did not do this. They kept the dynamic range intact. So the reality is that the masters for the 16/44.1 release and the hi-res release are not the same.
So, what you have Tidal do? If they delivered the hi-res version downsampled to 16/44.1 for the CD version, they would not be delivering the CD version that Tom Petty released. So, MQA lets you enjoy the hi-res version delivered at roughly the same bandwidth as the CD version.
Sure, if you prefer to download music or subscribe to Qobuz enjoy! I prefer to subscribe to Tidal for a number of reasons (including their catalog) and they stream hi-res as MQA.
Neither I nor most of the readers of this thread would be interested in your amateur psychoanalysis of mine or anyone else’s motives. Your crystal ball is cheap and broken. You should upgrade it.
Nobody is “dismissing” subjective evaluation, rather simply (and truly, it is very simple) putting such an evaluation in its proper perspective. With software such as MQA the subjective evaluation is just one thing among many to consider. In MQA’s case, the subjective evaluation even correlates very strongly with what we know, factually, about MQA - it’s just math and software - very well understood domains of human knowledge. So, when you say you like it it makes perfect sense: some (but not all) people like their music with a bit of distortion and out-of-phase wackery.
However, what you (or me, or anyone else) like or dislike is neither here nor there. MQA is not about sound quality. That is simply a play on the very sentimental audiophile culture. MQA is about other things…DRM. MQA begins and ends with DRM.
He’s the same over on Computer Audiophile/Audiophile Style, always banging-on with his little chorus over there, knocking MQA.
Very tiresome. And very repetitive.
The problem is, is that this sort of ‘guerrilla warfare’ by-post detracts from the real debate.
And I think you hit the nail on the head there. Some people just can’t live without a punchbag!
Pot, meet black. Again (and again, and again, and again), the “guerrilla warfare” is the “campaign” to reduce MQA to a subjective preference. It certainly is that, but it is also at the same time more. Yep, I talk about these other things. You say you want a “debate”, but apparently you don’t want one - you want another subjective evaluation, a “well, if you like it then that is what really matters”
You guys can attempt to make this about the man (i.e. personal) all you want (which is against the letter and spirit of this communities rules) but it’s not about me - it’s about MQA.
Too bad MQA does not bring anything to the “debate” besides false marketing assertions and an DRM! What else do you guys have, besides yet-another report of “I like it!”?
Unfortunately, the only aspect of MQA that is truly worthy of debate (as the topic heading suggests) is whether or not MQA mastered source material sounds disappointing or sounds quite good and is a worthwhile addition to streaming services. On this point many people have differing views, which is exactly what one might expect from such a subjective subject.
The question of whether or not Bob Stuart is attempting to ransom you and I along with the entire audio and music industry by surreptitiously introducing DRM is rather a binary choice and likely to end up with a simple boring ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘yes’, ‘no’ ‘YES’, ‘no’ set of responses.
Perhaps a new thread with a title of ‘Is MQA the death knell of the music industry’ or ‘which particular conspiracy theory do you adhere to’ would be more worthy of debate?
I think this thread should be limited to subjective SQ impressions about MQA only.
Everyone else that clearly has an anti-MQA agenda, or believes that Bob Stewart is really Donald Trump’s secret half-cousin but they were separated at birth, etc etc ad nauseam should be posting elsewhere.
I think those players in the marketplace are happy providing MP3/AAC streams. I don’t see them vying for customers who want high-quality/‘hi-fi’ quality streams.
And that’s where I suspect MQA will be targeting its resources in the future - high-quality/‘hi-fi’ quality streaming platforms, as they already have with Tidal.
Well, if we’re going to go there, we really should admit there actually is an almost Trumpian level of perversity in having seed funding for what’s possibly the biggest disinformation campaign in the history of audiophilia coming from Boston Globe money.
Then again, there’s quite a bit of disinformation know-how on the Rothman’s side of the MQA family…
Is SQ ever objective? I don’t think so. You might not like the sound of something that I love. The whole appreciation of how music sounds is subjective. And whether-or-not you like the sound of MQA is also subjective.
But you cannot discuss subjective experiences. ‘What you like’ is not debatable. Who am I to question ‘what you like’.
Trying to remove objectivism is a cheap way to stop a discussion going not the way you want it to go.
