That’s almost certainly the case. The Auralic G1 and my Innuos Zen Mk3 have very well implemented usb and provide remarkable clarity due to the reduced noise floor. There new Sonore optical product probably provides the same low noise benefit for usb.
MQA is a derivative product as all master files are PCM or DSD. MQA was originally marketed about 5 years ago as a means to stream HD when it was difficult to stream HD. That problem was soon overcome in the UK (where MQA was created and launched), where most people have quite slow ethernet. I’ve been streaming HD on Qobuz for about 3 years, when it started, and 16/44 for a few years before that.
So for the last 3 years MQA has been looking for a technological reason to exist and at the same time trying to get music companies to adopt it as a required technology. Neither has succeeded. Given that some people think one is better and others the other, but most are indifferent, from a statistical perspective MQA processing is not doing anything significant.
I have no view as I have never listened to MQA, my system will not decode it, and everything I want to listen to is on Qobuz or can be purchased in PCM, e.g. from Linn or Hyperion, high quality labels that are PCM-only. Linn in particular produce the finest audio quality recordings. They also came out very publicly against MQA. https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music
When Tidal first offered MQA, initially I was “smitten”. I found the MQA masters of some of my favorite rock & roll albums from decades past, with somewhat accentuated bass and slightly more clarity, seemed to sound a little better than my CD versions. Some of that may have been the difference between the mastering equipment in the 19070’s vs. today’s technology. But I’m not sure about the MQA masters of classical music, as many of them sound “dull” and “lifeless” compared to the CDs of the same titles.
I’m not sure classical music listeners are interested in fads like the vinyl revival and MQA. CD mastering and PCM downloads and streaming have generally maintained high standards, subject to various recording engineer’s decisions such as microphone placement and balance. Vinyl mastering in the 1970s was often magnificent, such as by Archiv, Telarc and DGG’s early USA releases. Karajan’s 1963 Beethoven cycle is pretty marvellous quality, which I have on both vinyl and the recent remastered digital download. So I wouldn’t worry about mastering quality in the 1970s or the 1960s (e.g. Columbia, Blue Note, Impulse etc)
They did, although they also came out very publicly against DSD but recently and a few years down the line they have introduced support for DSD in their top end Klimax streamers. They may yet change their minds.
I have 5 more DSD album downloads than I have MQA (so that makes a total of 5 non-PCM albums). The one BIG orchestral item (Shostakovich Symp. 2 and 15, Petrenko) has almost too much dynamic range.
Qobuz announced about 3 years ago that they were thinking of streaming DSD, but never bothered. I don’t blame them.
I have 3 MQA albums, but don’t have any full DSD albums - just 3 or 4 DSD tracks.
I haven’t purchased any DSD albums for two reasons. The first is that they tend to be very expensive. The second is that although the DAC (Mytek Brooklyn+ or Chord Hugo) in my second system can play DSD albums, the DAC (Linn Klimax DS/1) in my main system cannot.
Of course, now that I have Roon that wouldn’t be such a big deal because Roon can transcode DSD into PCM for my Klimax streamer. It can also carry out the first MQA unfold (for my Linn Klimax) for any MQA albums I might purchase.
I have given up comparing the SQ from Tidal, Qobuz or other hires streaming services, I think you all have already made up your mind which service(s) that you are subscribing, you know which criteria that you are looking for in addition to the SQ.
For me the SQ is hardware dependent. For example on my Devialet/ Dynaudio combination Quboz sounds better than Tidal MQA (the latter being Roon dependent as Dev does not render MQA) - however if I play the same track on my Digital Audio Player which is MQA ready - in my case the Astell & Kern (SP 1000) and paired with one of my Audeze LCD or CampAudio IEMs (either Andromedas’ or Solaris) - Tidal sounds better, warmer, better sound stage etc (this is without Roon as the SP 1000 is not roon ready). On the KEF LS 50s which is not MQA ready - Quboz sounds a tad better, warmer etc for the same track played via Roon.
So for now I am keeping both Tidal & Quboz as I see benefits of both in terms of Hi Res source (keep in mind I was one of those “mugs” buying both sacds and dvd-a before both formats became obsolete) where the ultimate sound quality rendered is dependent upon the hardware that deals with MQA or non-MQA material. I consider myself lucky to have this choice - thanks to the team at Roon!!
I give the SQ nod to Qobuz. That said, if I had not heard both I would be blissfully happy with either. I second the votes of those who recommend choosing based on content.
Every service has some compromises. I found the sound quality varied from recording to recording with the winning balance going to Qobuz. An even bigger factor for me, since I like classical and jazz, was that Tidal often messed up track order in multiple disc recordings. I don’t know if it has been fixed but it was bad a year ago. Very happy with Qobuz since.
Decided to drop Tidal and stick with Qobuz Hi-Res via Annual subscription. The MQA thing wasn’t enough for me to hold on to Tidal. Both are great services, but I decided I just didn’t need the duplication.
I’m the same. I found the only reason I was keeping Tidal was for a couple of albums that weren’t available on Qobuz and for the Android auto integration. Not worth $20 a month. Now using YouTube music for the car and it’s pretty good.
I’m also happier that Qobuz send to pay more to the artist than any other streaming service.
That’s right. You listen through your ears, and your brain, in your listening room. Personally, I find Qobuz leaps and bounds better that any MQA. But that’s me. As long as you are happy in the sound, forget what I, or any one else thinks. Your ears, your enjoyment. (And it doesn’t even matter if it makes sense or not!!). Rock on, and happy listening!
I wonder if the split between people preferring one over the other correlates with their music taste? maybe classical/acoustic etc is generally preferred on one over the other?
I have both and TBH I cant say one is consistently more enjoyable sounding than the other across the music that I generally listen to.
My tastes are all over the place, loving all but rap, hip hop and opera. Never, ever have I heard an MQA file I liked. But, each system is ruled by the listeners ears/brain, and their listening room. so, my evaluations only apply to me, on my system. If anyone else likes or loves MQA, run with it, and take it for the winning listening touchdown. And to EVERYONE, STOP putting others down for being different than you and your choices. Each of us is unique. To each his/her own!!! And happy listening.
Hi, I am new to Roon but I’ve been reading many different threads here on this site especially around topics like MQA quality, MQA vs. PCM Hi-Res, Qobuz vs Tidal, etc. and I wanted to chime in on the discussion.
About me: I am relatively new to the world of higher-end audio and Tidal was my first real venture into the world of master quality audio. I then stumbled upon Qobuz as a direct competitor/alternative to Tidal and started to compare the two services. I did some long listening tests the past two evenings but I have to say, I really cannot hear a difference between Tidal’s MQA and Qobuz’ Hi-Res PCMs. Sometimes I like MQA more and sometimes Qobuz but it was always the slimmest of margins and my preference could easily shift.
I am wondering if I am missing some obvious differences in SQ being new to this hi-fi world or my ears are just not good enough. I am relatively certain that my setup is resolving enough (Roon -> Naim NDX 2 -> Stax T8000 -> Stax SR-009s) to highlight any differences if they exist. funny enough, in some blind tests, I even picked the CD version over the MQA/Qobuz Hi-Res sibling.
I am really amazed that some people (at least claim to) hear huge differences between the formats, bit depths and sample rates. For me at least I am really struggling to make out any difference (maybe this requires training, I dont know). And that even doing the comparison with only half-encoded MQA files through Roon since NAIM does not support MQA.
