They’ve already answered the question - listen to the Audiophilestyle podcast interview with them.
1 Like
Here is a bit more detailed feedback on my experiences, albeit with some qualification re: context.
Being at work does not make for an easy testing scenario, and so what I have been able to do today has been limited to using a Hugo 2, via a Cayin iHA-6 amp into Mr Speaker Ether headphones.
I have stuck with streaming platforms as that is what I am more likely to use going forwards. I will report more over the weekend, and recognise what a different experience it is when one applies scrutiny to a subjective experience…was I mistaken? Noticing something on the fly, when you just stop and notice how much you are enjoying something, and then check what it is, is a less fraught process…being a reviewer in an age of social media must feel akin to having a gun at your head.
So what follows is an initial account of comparing Qobuz Flac and Tidal MQA, all at 16/44.1 sample rates. I have tried to best match the versions, and heard no substantial difference in terms of volume. Because the Hugo 2 has no MQA Decoding or Rendering, the comments relate to a Roon decode of MQA alone…no subsequent unfold.
‘On the Border’ - Al Stewart
Qobuz: Sounds really great! Acoustic guitars and percussion flying, string synth noises soar. Nice.
Tidal MQA: The speed and pace of the music now rockets ahead, the instruments sound ‘tighter’, more defined, and the string synths soar in a manner that seems more defined in space, and with a greater dynamic range, and perhaps sweeter. It sounds more gripping, driven, and urgent.
‘One of These Days’ - Pink Floyd
Qobuz: The howls of the wind at the beginning sound chilling, and I really like the small noises wide of the soundstage. When the basses start, right and left, there’s a nice bounce, and the organ ‘ping’ swoops down, placed perfectly in the middle.
Tidal MQA: The wind noises sound smoother yet the howl has greater dynamic range; it starts more quietly but then becomes more of a roar. Those little noises seem quieter, but clearer, placed more precisely in the soundstage. When the basses come in, you could argue they sound less rich, but they also sound tighter, and the rhythm has more urgency. The organ ‘ping’ swoops precisely in space, and the notes seem to stop sharply, again more precisely, giving the track a much tighter feel and drive. It is more compelling musically, and the foot taps more.
‘Air et Choer’ - Gluck ‘Orfeo et Eurydice’ - Eliot Gardiner
Qobuz: This is not a good recording - 80s digital recording of a great performance which I love. When the sublime Barbara Hendricks starts to sing, her voice is lovely, but somehow there seems to be an offkey ‘sourness’ to the accompaniment that does not make it an easy listen.
Tidal MQA: Still not a great recording by any means…no magic occurring here. However, the accompanying instruments sound sweeter and more tuneful. But when Hendricks sings, her voice seems to soar, and the quality of her top notes are ravishing; stops you in your tracks. Much greater sense of her range, and the dynamics seem much greater overall; more dramatic. But still not great.
So for me there are advantages to the MQA versions, and if pushed, I would consider Tidal MQA as superior to Qobuz, as I would Qobuz to high sample rate MP3 or AAC…if I can have an MQA version, I will probably prefer it. I now find Qobuz sounds more ‘digital’ and pale besides Tidal MQA.
Now I might consider that MQA is processed in a manner that is aligned with my preferences for a sweet sound, pulsing rhythms, and a greater sense of dynamic range. But I am still so impressed that if all I am listening to is a batch conversion of Redbook albums, it sounds this good, and unexpected.
It will be good to test more with the Devialet Expert Pro 1000s over the weekend, as my experience with them is that they highlight the sweetness and tunefulness more…perhaps rightly so. I also suspect that the context of a testing environment (let alone during a working day) is not what one needs to appreciate a performance and may diminish some of the differences.
3 Likes
Richard, thanks for the examples. I think it’s a great idea to have specific tracks to listen to.
But I’d also like to have some examples that compare Tidal MQA and Tidal non-MQA. My original suggestion was based on the thought that Tidal is replacing some non-MQA with MQA versions. But which ones? What criteria are being used? Perhaps, I hypothesized, they are cherry-picking the really good ones to MQA-ize, and leaving the crappier ones in PCM format. Which might then easily lead to a scenario where the MQA tracks would sound better than the non-MQA tracks, if you’re listening to a mix of the two.
2 Likes
Meridian have nothing to do with MQA. Separate companies
Thank you very much for taking the time.
Here’s the result of one of my comparisons…
Tidal 24/48, uncompressed to 24/96 via Roon, compared to a FLAC file at 24/96 of the same recording. Play through Roon, through Soundflower and Audacity, save to 32 bit .wav, re-open in Diffmaker, align without gain, substract the difference.
I hereby present: the sound of MQA.
I’ll let you guess the track… and do take note of the PRAT, the air, the musicality…
(all jokes aside, if someone has a suggestion on better ways to get sound from Roon to a file, I’m all ears)
1 Like
Thanks Bill,
I’ll have a look tomorrow. I think it is possible with with Studio MQA versions, but with the MQA 16/44.1 I don’t know how often you can still find non-MQA versions there. But I will have a look around.
For those who’d like to try:
If anyone has better ideas in terms of protocols, please, do tell.
1 Like
How about one of your Tidal playlists with both MQA and non-MQA tracks on it, one of the playlists that made you notice the difference? That would give us a good starting point.
Not quite right. MQA was developed by Meridian. Meridian is still the patent owner of the original patent. MQA was taken out of Meridian and put into an own company. Both companies are owned by the same company. Only legally they are different.
1 Like
Or did I miss the point?
I’m not certain quite what it says, tbh.
Assuming I didn’t mess things up, which is a big assumption, I’d guess nulling could easily reveal things like volume boosting or EQ’ing.
Not quite, although some of the genius is shared: MQA Ltd has mostly been losing Richemont money (about 30 million GBP of it if I’m not mistaken), while Meridian has been losing money from another source.
Actually it has been shown to be 17/44-48 “lossless” except the noise floor is risen by 12 dB which is the reason for the brackets.
Have done this, Analog output to ADC. From both Tidal, Deezer and Quboz.
Result MQA throws away everything above 21 kHz and raises the tones in the presence frequency. (This raise creates the illusion of a better resolution)
That’s the old “24 bit” files haven’t bothered testing the “16 bit” versions
2 Likes
Well You know what they say about pointing at others…
1 Like
Yes you are right, they spin off.
1 Like
You just have to go a little bit further up the chain.
Maybe this article helps:
1 Like
Old news (phew 
).
I was also mistaken about the genius being shared - causation, correlation and all that, but the genius is no longer shared and Meridian claims to be profitable again.
I did tests with 6 tracks from the link above, with two different DACs: one with headphones and the other with amplifier/speakers. None of the DACs have MQA, so at MQA I only used the first unfold made by Roon.
I compared files stored locally on SSD, FLAC/WAV versus MQA.
Contrary to my expectations, I did not perceive any difference between FLAC/WAV and MQA.
I wrote “contrary to my expectations” because in previous tests done QOBUZ FLAC versus TIDAL MQA (hypothetical for the same mastering) I noticed differences: at MQA the bass seemed a bit softer and with less punch. That’s right, the difference is very small and does not always appear. But, in the vast majority of cases, I preferred the QOBUZ version.
The above leads me to assume that MQA and FLAC sound the same in my system, if both use the same source/master and if both are well done. I don’t know what the result would have been if my DACs were MQA…
I do not rule out the possibility that TIDAL did not only make the bulk transition from FLAC to MQA, but also other processing.
Note: Personally I am neither pro-MQA nor anti-MQA. When I can choose, I listen to all the versions of an album and keep in the library the one that seems to me to sound the best.
1 Like
16 / 44.1 is the format MQA CD, which unfolds in 24 / 44.1 in a full decoder, I have it on my Luxman D-03X. It works like this, read. To my ear, the Tidal MQA versions sound nicer than the Qobuz version 
1 Like