If some day you would like to do a vinyl vs digital (MQA / Hi-Res) comparison I would love to read about it.
Now youâve opened a completely different can of worms. Before you know it we we will have tubes Vs transistors and cheap Vs expensive cables putting more worms in the container!
This sounds like a different remix to the redbook (Tidal) to me. A bit too much bass for my liking but pleasant nonetheless.
I can;t say Iâm noticing huge differences between MQA and redbook- itâs more akin to different filters in HQP to my ears, some sounding very good others no better or worse than the redbook
.sjb
I discovered a good example yesterday of what MQA can do well â listen to the TIDAL MQA 24/96 version of Workingmanâs Dead. It blows TIDALâs CD version away, though I suspect they are sourced from different masters. The MQA version actually produces a better detailed acoustic guitar string sound (listen to Uncle Johnâs Band) than my early Warner Brothers vinyl pressing (though the vinyl has better dynamics). Just when I thought MQA simply wasnât worth the effort, this comes alongâŚ
Iâm still a total newbie when it comes to MQA. So I purchased a few albums from onkyomusic.com in MQA format. I am running Roon Rock directly connected to my Peachtree SONA DAC via USB.
The SONA DAC does not support MQA so I assume ROON is handling the conversion?
My question is should I be thinking about getting a MQA DAC or the end result will not be that much different / noticeable. I realize there are a thousand variables here.
Thanks
Comparing different masters is just that, it doesnât prove anything good or bad about MQA.
In any case a better comparison would probably be to the Workingmanâs Dead hi-res version released a few years ago in a âbox setâ.
Valid comparisons are few and far between. Comparing something out of print with MQA is equally futile if you donât already own it.
MQA may or may not use a different master? Different to what? I donât know, but consistent reports of the great sound quality and my own experience means a couple of things to me.
First; They (The Relevant people) consider this the master and have authenticated it as such. Second; the MQA process is doing no audible harm to the said master.
If you have to compare it to ones favourite high res version of this and that only to find minor differences based on individual preference from what one is used to, then we are missing the point.
The point is, high res is not available to everyone and never will be without MQA or a similar technology being adopted and rolled out over time. This has stimulated a music quality debate which has to be good and a rising tide raises all ships.
Just thoughts⌠donât get mad at me
I think there are many who consider the good ship MQA fatally holed below the waterline! I donât agree personally as there are so many people on board now but we will need to wait a while to see if adoptive brands go to generation 2 and 3 of the MQA revolution.
How can you say MQA sounds âbetterâ if you are comparing two different masters? To know if MQA sounds âbetterâ youâd have to compare it to the master it was produced from. Do you not understand that there can be several âmastersâ of the same album - and that each one can sound different?
Consistent reports of great sound quality? Apparently you havenât read the many reports of MQA reducing sound quality or making no positive difference. No matter what your personal opinion, there is certainly no consensus that MQA results in improved SQ. If the vast majority of listeners donât agree that MQA sounds âbetterâ, then it is hard to claim that it does, no matter what your personal opinion.
You apparently havenât read much about who is doing the âauthenticatingâ of the master. In many cases it is just a record company employee who had zero to do with producing the original. There are artists, mastering engineers and producers on record as saying they had nothing to do with the MQA version of a record they worked on - and they arenât happy with how the MQA version sounds. The whole âauthenticationâ thing is largely meaningless - itâs just a marketing ploy to get consumers to think they are getting something special. Itâs even been shown that you can do digital alterations to an MQA file and the âauthenticatedâ light still glows on an MQA DAC. So how is it âauthenticâ?
How is hi-res not available to everyone? Itâs as available as the record companies want to make it. It can be bought on a disc, downloaded, or streamed. There are streaming services right now that stream hi-res with no problem. In spite of what MQA says, streaming hi-res it isnât an issue and you donât need MQA to do it.
I have no argument with you if you like the sound of MQA. But base your arguments for it on facts and not on marketing claims from MQA that sometimes have a dubious connection to facts and truth.
Interesting, as I thought the MQA version of âAstral Weeksâ noticeably inferior to my 24/96 download of it.
What is for sure is that Van Morrison had nothing to do with the MQA version - heâs out of the loop as far as Warnerâs is concerned and has been quoted as saying he has nothing to do with any of the remasters and that they wouldnât be released if it was up to him.
My remarks about Workingmanâs Dead (as an example of an MQA file on TIDAL that sounds quite good) was intended to point out that it had excellent sound quality. Essentially, MQA allowed it to sound like a good quality hi rez file. Obviously there are different masters involved, but the TIDAL MQA version played through Roon on my system â which, I should mention, is set to upsample to 24/392 â sounded better than (a) the TIDAL CD version and, remarkably, better than the recent MFSL 45 RPM vinyl version (which is a bit of a dud). Some aspects of the MQA version sounded better than my early Warner Brothers vinyl (particularly the detail in the acoustic guitar sounds) but overall the original vinyl was better (better dynamics and imaging). I donât have a hi rez box or download of Workingmanâs dead for comparison.
However, I do have a 24/96 download of Whoâs Next â a file that other posters have identified as sounding good on TIDAL MQA â and I did a comparison of my download and that MQA 24/96 version. I THINK the masters are the same â I donât know how to prove it â but they certainly sound the same, and I doubt that there are many 24/96 versions out there. But thatâs the real point; I really canât hear much difference. The MQA folding technology seems to work and the files are so close in sound quality (I doubt that I could reliably tell them apart in a blind test) that I wouldnât buy a download to obtain better sound quality were the MQA version available at the time I purchased the download.
On the other hand, the MQA version is certainly not any better. The fact that it is not any worse (or, at least, not appreciably worse) is pretty important to me. I use the Roon/TIDAL combination for music discovery and to listen to new recordings. If I can persuade myself through additional comparisons that I donât have to go out and purchase downloads to get true hi rez sound (at least while TIDAL is still around), that is a huge economic benefit to me even if MQA does not provide any correction/sound improvement on a particular file.
Some seem to be âbetterâ, or just different. MQA isnât really doing much for me in my system. Often the MQA choice just sounds a bit louder but not better, other times it is better but I suspect its a better master or transfer than what Iâm comparing to.
At the end of the day, MQA seems to be solving a problem that doesnât exist.
Did I say that? Nope, I donât spend my life comparing⌠I am finding plenty of favourable reports about MQAâS sound and find I am liking what I hear. Now thatâs a good thing. Plenty of people also seem against MQA and as such are unlikely to admit to likeing it. The arguments will go on as we gainsay each other.
As I type I am listening to Elton John, Funeral for a friend in MQA and it just sounds great. Itâs been a long time since I heard this so how and why would I compare? I am just enjoying it. So, I donât care who authenticated it, itâs great to hear again in such great quality.
I could comment on the rest of your reply but I cannot see the post as I am replying. Thatâs a feature request for the forum perhaps. Anyway, life is too shortâŚ
If I do have comparisons, mine are with 1960âs pirate radio stations AM broadcasts to a background of Soviet jamming signals. Everything we have today is a bonus⌠MQA Marvelous Quality AudioâŚ
MQA seems to be solving a problem that doesnât exist.
I agree for storage-based Redbook and high-res tracks. But for streaming, MQA makes a lot of sense.
Thatâs been proven wrong as well. You could deliver the same musical content in a 18bit 96Khz regular PCM file and it compresses down to the same size as the equivalent MQA file. Bonus it doesnât require end to end licensing.
MQA makes sense for people that get it for free from their Tidal subscription or need the softer sound of MQA to match their system, âmake it Analog likeâ. Thatâs about it.
How so? I understand the bandwidth reduction is not much if any, and I donât really care about bw for audio, 4K HDR video is a whole bunch moreâŚ
With my system, I just donât hear any significant difference except that some of the MQA sounds to be a different master or handled better. Unfortunately, we canât know which it is, a better master or the MQA process.
Alas, Iâm beating a dead horse. Theyâve done a good job convincing people we need this to be happy.
Cool. Which streaming services offer 18/96?
No need, itâs not 2014. Just stream all the original content.
Ah, so the 18/96 point wasnât real.
Cool. Which streaming services offer the original high res content?