You shouldn’t be amazed, people’s hearing and hearing ability are all drastically different. That is why you need to listen for yourself and take any review that extols something’s great sound with a grain of salt.
For example, I know some people that love Devialets and I know others that think they sound horrible. Take out Devialet and put in any audio software or hardware. You really have to listen to it. Which is difficult in terms of hardware.
Certainly some exaggeration by those claiming to hear huge differences. Different digital filters can sound subtly different in my experience.
Yes, that is what I think. Maybe with a little bit more training I will also be able to make out small differences but for now I am just enjoying the world of Hifi Audio that opened up to me 
at home, through non-MQA dacs, i generally feel Qobuz sounds better than Tidal. this is true of both 16/44 content, or higher res, whether MQA unfolded by Roon, or not.
however, via their mobile apps in the car (CarPlay) Tidal wins, and their smart playlists (when whichever album i’ve used as a seed has finished playing) are superior.
so, i keep, and enjoy, both.
Just noticed there’s one track, “I’m a Man” off Chicago’s first album on Qobuz that plays as MQA.
Does anybody know anything about this? Possibly, a test or a mistake. Thanks.
MQA format has me listening to most of my old Analogue and CD’s 16/44. Most sound the best I have ever heard them. True PCM 24/96 and higher masters, need no extra/alternative treatment. I am a AIX 5.1 Fan. Those recordings are my standard for true HiRez.
So I was a bit under the weather last weekend and decided to compare SQ between Tidal and Qobuz. I have been subscribing to Tidal for about 9 months, and just started a Qobuz trial.
I should start by saying that I have no bias against MQA because it is lossy, or because it allows DRM. I liked the promise of HiRes with a lower bandwidth requirement. I really didn’t expect to hear much of a difference between the two on 16/44, but I was very interested to see if there was much of a difference between MQA and “Plain” HiRes. I was hoping the differences were nonexistent or minimal, since I have been quite happy with Tidal in general.
The results were quite surprising to me. It didn’t take long to realize that all the MQA selections I listened to have more presence than their non-MQA counterparts. By presence, I mean more energy in the 200-600Hz range. I’d guess that this is quite intentional, and is the main reason some people like the way it sounds. For the most part, I do not. If I wanted more midrange energy, I’d prefer to get it through intentional equalization.
As far as detail and resolution go, I’d give Qobuz a slight nod. Most of the Qobuz files just sounded a bit more realistic to my ears, and closer tonally to local FLAC files of the same material. The same held true for 16/44 material, much to my surprise.
I’ll be dropping Tidal in favor of Qobuz solely on the basis of SQ. Qobuz’ library is not as comprehensive, and it costs a bit more, but honestly I’m a bit put off that MQA, Inc. chose to “equalize” the material in an effort to make people think it was closer to the truth.
MQA does not use DRM as has been stated by MQA themselves. Just saying
It’s all in the ear of the beholder. I find some recordings sound better in MQA from Tidal and some sound better from Qobuz.
I have dropped Tidal in favor of Qobuz a couple of weeks ago and have not regretted my decision. In a couple of comparisons I could not really make out a difference between Qobuz and Tidal in SQ though. I think both sounded almost identical.
Not at the moment! But they can, if they want. Everything is prepared.
Since Walter Ulbricht in 1961 said “Nobody has the intention to build a wall” we germans are suspicious if we hear such statements.
They claim they have no intention to do this and I believe them. I was just answering a statement made as if it were fact as a point of balance.
Hmm. They may not. But, is it up to them?, or, is it up to the client that licenses MQA, aka the labels, on whether restrictive playback is activated. The ability to limit unfolding is part of the MQA spec as is the switch bit which will cause parts of the music to be mixed around leaving a 4 bit scratchy audio stream unless played back on hardware with the appropriate codes, is certainly there.
I said it allows DRM. I never said they use it.
Can’t believe this is still a thing! It all sounds great folks, just enjoy and be thankful we have awesome HiFi choices!
I have listened to MQA and then the 16/44 version and I mostly prefer the 16/44 version . I don’t have a MQA dac and let Roon unfold MQA . So that could be a factor .
24/96 or 24/192 sound better than MQA imo
Not a view I share. I do have an MQA DAC (Mytek Brooklyn+) in one system, but my main system streamer/DAC (Linn Klimax) is not MQA enabled and so I use Roon for the first unfold of MQA source material on Tidal. I generally find that MQA masters on Tidal sound subtly better than the 16bit/44.1kHz versions.
I find very little difference between ‘standard’ hi-res files and MQA equivalents (where they are available).
I assume (but I haven’t tested to find out) that MQA Masters might potentially sound worse than ‘standard’ 16bit/44.1 if played on DACS without access to the first unfold via Roon or other MQA capable software.
Why do we (and many others) have different opinions with respect to the sound quality of MQA material? I really don’t know. I assume that most people report their personal findings truthfully and without prejudice. It may be individual auditory differences from person to person, or it may depend on the specific DAC architecture that we use.
It depends on a persons system. Different digital filters can improve the subjective sound quality and match a particular system better.
It also depends on what a person prefers. I prefer the punchy, bass heavy sound of MQA.
I ditched Tidal before my first month was over and bought Sublime+ from Qobuz.
Why? Mainly because Tidal customer service is appalling. They couldn’t or wouldn’t answer a simple question and kept batting me between the same two ‘resources’.
They give NO info about downloads to buy until after one has bought them. They had two different versions of the same album for sale. One was more expensive so I assumed it would be higher res or MQA or something. It wasn’t. It was red book. FLAC 44.1khz. That really ped me off and the lack of any real customer service is beyond the pale in my book.
Tidal need to buck up their ideas. I understand it is set up to get artists their fair dues. Well, they are not doing their artists any favours with such bad service.