I thought the topic was which sounds better, presumably there’s another topic where people can argue the toss about lossless or ice cream or whatever?
1 Like
That it doesn’t matter where it’s lossless and it doesn’t matter how people define lossless?
1 Like
The claim that MQA is “psychoacoustically lossless” or “sounds identical to lossless” or can be described as “lossless in analogue terms” etc. has been made multiple times in this discussion. Comments on this claim are 100% on topic.
7 Likes
Whether a music file is technically “lossless” or “lossy” makes absolutely no difference. All that matters is how it sounds with your equipment and your ears. I think a lot of so-called “audiophiles” dislike MQA, not because of how it sounds, but because, technically, it is not “lossless.”
5 Likes
I can only speak for myself. I don’t consider myself an audiophile and I don’t dislike MQA. For my own personal music enjoyment, it’s, of course, completely irrelevant how other people describe MQA or what they understand by “lossless”. As I’ve said before, I know MQA albums that sound great (to my ears), although I prefer non-MQA in most cases. In this discussion, however, it does and should matter how we define things and put them in words. If it didn’t matter, this whole thread would be pointless.
8 Likes
So, what sounds better? Tidal MQA or Qobuz HiRes
@Barrowboy
I’ve already answered this question three times here. And each time I was careful to stress that I was talking about my own subjective listening impressions.
6 Likes
Moderators have shifted posts that wandered off topic to a thread with a more general discussion of the merits of MQA.
Please keep this thread focussed on comparisons of Tidal MQA and Qobuz Hires. It is an interesting topic to many people and the experience of users who are in a position to compare the two shouldn’t be masked by more general discussion of MQA.
In my experience, the SQ differences between MQA and HiRes PCM are usually very small. Although MQA isn’t technically lossless, it can sound really good (on my system and to my ears). But most of the time I like HiRes PCM a tad better.
5 Likes
Moderators have temporarily closed this topic to prevent continued posting about MQA generally. Posts have been shifted to the MQA Disappointing thread which is where general discussion of MQA is encouraged. This thread will reopen in a day.
Please don’t drag the dead horses you insist on flogging into this thread.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically opened after 33 hours.
But the reason for this is not a cut above 48 kHz it must be found in the way MQA encodes/decodes and the filtering, not in missing inaudible frequencies.
The big advantage of higher sampling frequencies is not having more frequency bandwith but having more samples per second, at least to me.
I’ve been switching some components around and recently replaced the Lyngdorf TDAI 2170 in one system w/ an NAD M10. the change was partly influenced by ergonomics, and the desire to be able to use HDMI ARC/CEC with the TV in that system. I’ll have more to say about the M10 later, but its given me a chance to hear hardware decoded MQA in my own system for the first time, and compare that with the equivalent FLAC files.
by way of background, I’m a longterm Squeezebox user, and have subscribed to Qobuz long before they were officially available in the US. I also subscribed to Tidal for several years, dropping it at the beginning of the pandemic as i consolidated subscriptions. Whether with LMS, or with Roon, or via their respective mobile apps, I have always thought Qobuz sounded better.
This has been the case via analog or digital Squeezeboxen outputs, and into a variety of DACs, and it’s held true even when Roon does software MQA unfolding, no matter the resolution. Qobuz sounds more open, dynamic, with Tidal sounding “comparatively” flatter, and particularly in the bass region, wooden and “thuddy.” Still, other than a very pleasant evening in the Tidal suite at CES two years ago, I’d never heard full hardware MQA decoding
The M10 gives one a lot of options, from Tidal Connect, to the BluOS app, to Roon. for the purposes of this comparison, i stuck with Roon.
My room is far from ideal. The cabinet in this picture is 60" wide, and the space between the speakers is ~45". I sit on a couch opposite about 9.5’ away, which is not great. room correction from RoomPerfect (Lyngdorf) or Dirac (M10) helps tremendously. the Logitech Transporter in the picture is no longer connected.
in comparing Tidal MQA and Qobuz FLAC, my methodology was to spend an afternoon nursing a beer while playing complete tracks/movements all the way through in one version, before repeating the track with the other version. sometimes I played FLAC first, sometimes MQA. I always knew which version I was playing.
I chose a wide variety of music, from Jazz to Classical to Opera to Rock to Americana. My tastes may not be yours. I did my best to always choose the same version of a given album, made more difficult by the fact Qobuz often has many, many different releases of the same album, often in the same resolution (18 different releases of Somethin’ Else!). Comparing catalog numbers the Credits section of Roon helped, still, i cannot guarantee I was always listening to the same masterings.
The recordings I chose were:
Cannonball Adderley: Somethin’ Else (Autumn Leaves)
Puccini: Turandot; Mehta, Pavarotti, Sutherland, Caballe, Ghiaurov (Signore, Ascolta!—>End of Act I)
Iron & Wine: Beast Epic (Call It Dreamin, About a Bruise)
David Crosby: Here is you Listen (Your Own Ride)
Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto #3; Philadelphia Orch; Nezet-Seguin, Trifonov (1st movement)
Tord Gufstavsen Trio: The Other Side (The Tunnel)
One final caveat before I give my impressions: the M10 is new, it hasn’t fully burned in, but its also new to me, and I’m still getting used to its sound in general (there’s a lot to like), rather than being an amp I’ve lived with for a long time).
in an objective sense, both Tidal MQA and Qobuz FLAC sounded wonderful, and I could happily live with either, something that was not the case before. but over the course of the afternoon a few primary differences became apparent.
As noted above, Qobuz/FLAC sounded very open and dynamic, but it also sounded less cohesive, particularly as the music became more complex, and as volume levels increased. In the Turandot example this was especially apparent. The finale is a vocal sextet, each voice singing its own line, with chorus and full orchestra. With Qobuz/FLAC ensemble became obscured (too diffuse), and textures hardened as the music increased in intensity.
Generally, the MQA versions were better integrated overall. Bass was greatly improved, rounder, fuller, but also more tuneful than before. Turandot is a piece i know very well (i’ve performed the opera on multiple occasions), and this recording in particular I’ve owned on vinyl, CD, and as a 24/96 download from HDTracks. In the download Pavarotti sometimes sounds like he’s singing in another room, almost like he was dubbed in later (i don’t know this to be the case). There’s something of this characteristic in the Qobuz version, but the MQA version was better integrated and even at higher volumes, the performance held together and remained sweet and musical.
w/o breaking down each piece, I consistently preferred the MQA versions, with one exception. MQA was easier to listen to for longer periods, and at higher volume levels (i always started each piece at the same level) than FLAC. call it warmer, fuller, more “musical…” it was all those things, but never less detailed. all the info was there, but MQA presented it in a more cohesive sonic picture than did FLAC.
the one exception was the ECM album (Tord Gufstavsen), where i’m not sure I had a clear preference. MQA sounded a little softer (maybe?), but extended listening made me unsure. both sounded very good. i checked some other ECM albums, and had a similar impression, so perhaps this has something to do with ECM mastering technics.
Bottom line, I preferred MQA, and am now interested in figuring out how to experience it in my main rig, which uses a Transporter via its analog outputs.
My ears, my music, my system, MQA was preferred. Your experience may be different.
5 Likes
When I had Tidal, there were some titles that I thought sounded great via MQA. INXS - The Swing and The Who - Who’s Next being a couple of them.
But I use streaming services as more of a “try before you buy” than rely on them for what they can consistently deliver, so I went with Qobuz over Tidal, as I can purchase what I hear.
The antagonism against MQA kinda humours me.
2 Likes
Well, you know these results won’t be considered valid until you try this again–several times–each time with a different beer 
Great rundown on your listening experience; wish there were more posts like this and less of the back and forth potshots. Thanks for sharing!
2 Likes
And there’s the rub. Have there been double-blind trials by anyone?
perhaps, but i went into this with a predisposition to prefer Qobuz:
and came away with the opposite impression:
1 Like