MQA General Discussion

Audio Gear Talk MQA
1694

I’m all for the try it and see if you like it - better or not, different or better are not always the same. My issue is that to try the fully unfolded MQA one must pay for hardware, even if the software desktop playback is used its not a full unrestricted unfolding.

Some may have no issue with going out and getting an MQA ready DAC to do what the last unfolding requires…but many who have invested prior to MQA will not.

I personally think that the streamed content from Tidal is as good if not better for the most part than Apple Music’s streamed and downloadable content - and both my wife and have noticed this on the move when playing back in the car from our iOS devices - not an ideal environment but one that was a better experience with tidal content (HIFI) than we had with apples iTunes stored content.

I am happy with Roon’s ability to stream Tidal (HIFI), and hope they do get the software enabled access to unfold 1st or even to 2nd level down the road - but I am not about to go and get a new MQA ready DAC anytime soon - though if one of my existing DAC’s is updatable in firmware to support MQA then I will do that much - short of buying a new DAC but still open to try it as an update/upgrade to my existing infrastructure.

1695

People who dismiss MQA and better still call it useless are amongst the very people who contribute to this thread daily keeping the discussion alive.
As for MQA’s strategy, it has already shown some sign of changing so I am sure they will adjust it to suit circumstances.

1696

There seems little in the way of discussion to me. Just repetition and gain-saying

2 Likes
1697

Thanks for your insights.
We see how things evolve over the next months.

1698

IMG_2050.PNG993×1765 1.64 MB

1 Like
1699

An MQA’d ECM recording? That’s a new one on me.

What application is that?

1700

Most recent(ish) ECM albums are available in MQA through HighResAudio.com (the guys that supposedly stopped selling eh… MQA).

This is the Bluesound app, playing to my Node 2. I use the app for radio primarily – and for MQA. :slight_smile:

1 Like
1701

You are probably right to advise forgetting about the tech stuff. It is too difficult to fathom where the truth lies trying to wade through all the tech talk from those in the pro-MQA and the anti-MQA camps. But Benchmark is a company who I respect for manufacturing acoustically transparent DACs.

As to your advice to take out a trial Tidal subscription, I would be very wary trying to compare without being able to level match for loudness the MQA stream versus the non-MQA stream. It is well understood that people will prefer the louder stream (simply because of loudness) if level matching is out by more than 0.1 or 0.2 dB. Secondly how can anyone be certain that they are listening to files derived from the same master, or that the plain old 16/44.1 file has been optimally down-sampled from the same master? That is why the file samples from 2L were so appealing as a starting point to carry out an ABX comparison, because 2L gave those guarantees.

It matters not to me how many casual listeners offer up their opinion that MQA is an improvement (or not) without proof such as verifiable results from an ABX test. I quoted from a hearing expert in an earlier message that people tend to hear what they want to hear. The only satisfactory way to remove biases is to listen double-blind. Once we know how much something cost, or whether it is made of plastic, or what a reviewer has said about it…(lots of other things ad infinitum), they cannot ignore that information. It biases our listening opinion.

1 Like
1702

Aye, and people tend to think what they want to think. As long as they don’t try to make me think it too, that’s fine.

1 Like
1703

So instead of paying for an MQA-enabled DAC, I can just crank up the volume by 0.1 dB?
And no DRM either.

EDIT: I don’t mean to be snarky, I have found level-matching to be a challenge when comparing my two headphone amps, no way to measure.

1704

I am not gifted with golden ears; that said, here’s what I can summarize about differences in sound quality between different sources/transports I listen to:

  1. With my headphones, I can always tell how much better my Oppo HA-2SE is than my onboard PC Realtek 5.1 sound card.
  2. With my headphones, I can always tell the difference between my cheapy tube amp, FiiO amp, or straight out of the HA-2SE.
  3. With my Oppo HA-2SE, I can always tell the difference between my Meze 99 Classics, Sennheiser HD598, Philips SHP-9500, Onkyo H500BT headphone sound signatures.
  4. In my car, I can almost always tell the difference between Spotify 320kbps streaming and Tidal HIFI CD-quality streaming from my iPhone (in Bluetooth or through USB connection).
  5. In my car, I can always tell how much better the USB connection is over Bluetooth.
  6. With any of my headphones and my Oppo HA-2SE, I can often tell how much better a Tidal “Master” is over a Tidal HIFI version (I find HIFI sound quality varies a lot…it seems there isn’t much quality control on streaming distribution).
  7. For well-mastered music, I cannot reliable tell the difference between an MQA stream from Tidal (using Tidal’s desktop app first unfold) vs. a high-resolution PCM version.

All of the above comparisons were made without much care for volume-matching. The differences, when I hear them, are obvious enough. I suppose comparing MQA streaming to high-resolution PCM may require more care…but then again, that speaks to the quality of MQA.

I don’t feel compelled to buy an MQA DAC…yet. Maybe if one comes out like my HA-2SE that has high-rate PCM, DSD, and throws in MQA for good measure I might upgrade. Until then, I’m looking forward to Roon’s MQA unfolding.

I like that MQA has prompted studios to release better masters through Tidal streaming. If that is its only achievement it is a win for all of us.

I’m not freaked out about MQA taking over the market. I’m expecting the most it can accomplish is something similar to what Dolby has done for surround sound.

Cheers!

2 Likes
1705

I don’t have an MQA DAC, but have been listening to “folded” MQA Tidal Masters through Roon. The Roon signal path shows either 48kHz/24 bit or occasionally 44.1kHz/24 bit. I like the sound of the Masters and will usually make the MQA version the primary version in Roon, replacing any prior Tidal version and any 44.1 kHz local copy. I believe the Masters are often more recent remixes than my local versions. I haven’t attempted to equalise levels when listening so can make no claims to real comparison.

1 Like
1706

You are correct. Level matching is a challenge. That is why it helps to have those sample files from 2L to compare.

If you convert a lossless file to an mp3 yourself, you are probably safe comparing those two files when they are being ABXed through the same equipment chain. It is harder when you are unsure of the source files.

If you are comparing 2 amps then you probably need a voltmeter on the outputs to level match, always keeping the rest of the equipment chain constant. With good amps non linearity across the frequency band should not be a problem

Comparing 2 sets of speakers is harder because the sensitivities of the speakers comes into play, along with non-linearities across the frequency spectrum.

Science is not always easy. I am no expert, but I just know that Audio Engineers will all say that level matching is important, if you want to do a fair comparison.

1707

This surely is a very positive thing because it shows us that the files are very similar sounding with the advantage of the smaller file size. That does have significant savings for infrastructure costs and to be honest we can go on about how cheap storage is and how much bandwidth is availble to those of us in a country with good infrastructure, but we need to think more about how those costs scale up in a commercial environment and what savings that might entail.

1 Like
1708

I strong disagree, I ran both Tidal app (first unfold) and Roon (uncompressed PCM up to 24/96k) under the same PC and same DAC, using 2L test bench downloads, I can immediately hear the difference. I’m not trying to conclude which one actually sound better but again they all sound different.

Definitely, you can’t draw a conclusion like this when someone just can’t hear the difference. Your conclusion is one can opt a inferior format, whatever reasons given by you in order to save cost??? Don’t you want the original reproduction of a studio master or some kind processed sound with ‘beautification’ added in? Choice is yours.

1709

This is a forum, stop trying to stifle debate. You have made numerous posts which boil down to the same thing: you are unhappy that people disagree with you and decide to post as such. Here’s the thing, if you want a thread that only discusses how great MQA is 24/7, go ahead and make it.

1710

Isn’t the argument moot? It’s already been shown that a significant number of MQA titles uploaded to Roon have come from a different master. Therefore, in the ensuing bunfight between someone saying it sounds better/the same/different we can’t even be sure what the provenance of the file is?

Perhaps we should applaud the fact that alternative masters are being made available to the general public through the launch of MQA on Tidal, but it seems a stretch for MQA to get the credit when for at least some of the output, ad hoc listening comparisons are between completely different masters.

1711

@anon55914447 I have no opinion on MQA so on that score there isn’t an opinion to disagree with. Stop trying to stifle my dislike of some of the ‘debating’. Nice to see you back also saying the same things as always/elsewhere.

1712

Hello Mark, take a look at this ‘Magnificat’, the album which I enjoyed listening to…

https://shop.klicktrack.com/2l/439809

The original master is done on DXD 24/352.8k Hi-Res PCM, all other formats listed, including DSD and MQA are actually derived from the original master. In Tidal, there’s a same album but mastered in MQA format. Using Tidal app, it can do the first unfold up to 24/88.2k but If I use Mytek Brooklyn DAC (borrowed), it can unfold to the original resolution which is 24/352.8k (hardware decoding, with Tidal app set to 'Passthrough MQA).

As expected I’m able to hear the different between DXD 24/352.8k vs a fully unfold MQA 24/352.8k, both are playback from Roon. In another scenario which I don’t have the own a Brookyn DAC, I use software decoding on Tidal app, unfold to 24/88.2k and compare DXD master at 24/352.8k, again I were able to hear the difference.

To make thing even more accurate, I purposely purchased 2L ‘Magnificat’ in MQA and playback on Brookyn DAC vs the DXD 24/352.8k master, again, I were able to hear the difference. Now, when I playback from Tidal vs the same MQA album I purchased from 2L on Brookyn DAC, I’ve a hard time telling them apart!

I keep mentioning the differences so exactly how MQA sounds like? To me MQA is like ‘sweetened’ with syrup that makes it sounds uncannily to the ears and if you are first time hearing this, you will immediately praise how ‘good’ it sounds like without making a comparison to the DXD master. On the positive side, DXD master sounds more dynamic, with more ‘air’ and greater realism in the recording.

My purpose of this test is to demo that MQA sounds different from a Hi-Res PCM even when MQA is derived from the same Hi-Res master. Do you like the sound of MQA? I think many who have not compared will say ‘Yes’ but are we getting the original performance of studio recording? In my opinion is a resounding NO!

My setup:
Holo Spring Audio R2R DAC
Mytek Brookyn DAC (borrowed)
CD/SACD: Marantz SA-14S1
Pre-amp: VTL 2.5i
Mono Blocks Power amps: VTL MB-125
Speakers: Dynaudio Contour 1.8MK2
Dedicated music room.

1713

On the subject of provenance, there are some Interesting detailed examples on Bob Talks on the MQA site.
This is a link to Led Zeppelin. BBC sessions

1 Like