I’ve found some sound really good and some don’t. I’ve also found most sound as good or better played back with hqplayer filters applied @DSD256 rates.
But Bob says MQA is what the song was supposed to sound like.
Well mqa vs mqa is not all apples to apples. Tidal has several albums where the 96k file is studio and the 192 is not. Why bother having the 192 file if the 96 is the studio version that clearly sounds different. I thought all mqa was supposed to level the playing field… And then they add all the 16/44 and 24/44 stuff. Same thing. Some of the listings have 16 and 24 for the same album but 24 is not always but usually studio. So why waste the space for the 16/44. It’s not like the 24 bit one won’t play back correctly. I don’t think I’ve found a 16/44 that is studio yet.
Idk. It’s annoying. Being able to unfold in Roon and upsample everything to DSD in hqplayer has given me one less thing to worry about. Now I just go all mad picking filters!
True, but this recording’s final playback is MQA48. His picture shows 48khz 24 2ch MQA 48khz.
Even if the unfold is 24/96, this particular file is a 48 kHz final sampling rate. it also isn’t studio so it’s sub par anyways.
MQA tags in the metadata 3 things and I think they are there only as a reference as I have found most will still playback and authenticate without these. I believe Roon looks for the originalsamplerate to display the correct final MQA value.
Based on the statement above it would mean that all MQA DACs have to follow MQA guidelines in order to decode the MQA file correctly. Is there a published set of these guidelines?
Until these guidelines are available (if they are not already) I’m sticking with my belief that MQA is nothing more than a firmware enabled licensing toggle.
As usual this is completely untrue. No musical information is lost in MQA.
Intelligent packing means empty space is reduced or repurposed within an MQA file.
If the file is originally 44.1/24, one wonders where the high res file comes from? My system upsample and apodises 44.1 Material probably better than a company upsample designed to sell pseudo High Res…
Trying not to hijack the thread, but the new Staves album is also available on vinyl, maybe there had to be a ‘ordinary’ Master to produce that, maybe that was the source for the non MQA versions. Just saying.
You have to believe in Bob, watch all the promotional marketing videos and do absolutely no comparisons, that’s when MQA really shines. If you don’t follow the program you are close-minded.
It all boils down to taste. You can like MQA all you like. But please do not deny facts and do not try to convince other people that MQA is better. As said, there is no objective basis for that.
So please enjoy you MQA, but also respect people who enjoy it differently than you do. This discussion is becoming rather pointless and silly.
dbPowerAmp has a plugin to decode HDCD and it will rip a HDCD to a 44.1/24 file. HDCD decoded from a dac with the chip is apparently 20bit.
I’ve also noticed a lot of Qobuz, note he’s using a Qobuz stream, files are 44.1/24. Not sure what their take is on that… maybe in the studio it was originally done as a 24bit file and when mastered to cd they lost 8 bits.
I repeat, no musical information is lost in MQA. That’s just a fact that you seem to find hard to accept. No point going over old ground and this thread is so off topic. I’ll certainly continue to enjoy music in all formats, the best I can acquire. MQA stands out from the crowd.
I was generously gifted an ongoing sub to Tidal by somebody there last year so switched back from Qobuz (which initially was a switch from Tidal), but can’t say I’m down with MQA at least from an ethical standpoint - haven’t done enough listening tests yet and only recently got an MQA DACs in the office to know or care where I stand on the actual sound quality (and no MQA DAC on the main rig).
My question is, is there a way to get Tidal to only offer up the 44.1/16 versions into Roon? I see the Tidal player itself offers quality levels, but not the actual HiFi subscription. I’m assuming this is something that would have to be done manually in Roon, title by title as long as a 44.1/16 is available (i.e. delete the MQA one and add the 44/16).
MQA may not lose musical information (which is debatable), but it certainly adds bad stuff. This from master DAC designer/engineer Rob Watts:
There are two elements to MQA - firstly the conversion back to 88.2/96 from 44.1/48 - the so called unfold - and the the second part the low tap length minimum phase interpolation filter. Let’s deal with the second issue first, the interpolation filter - I have compared the MQA interpolation filter to my WTA filter and it sounds very much worse than the WTA - soft, fat bloated bass, poor instrument separation and focus, with a flat ill defined sound-stage. So there is no way I would ever offer this as an option.
As to the compression from 88.2/96 to 44.1/48 this is seriously flawed with major sound quality and measurement issues. For one, it has a massive notch at 22.05 kHz or 24 kHz that is introduced, which will have transient timing repercussions; secondly the system has completely unacceptable aliasing issues, which means distortion at 20kHz is a massive 1% - and aliasing has a huge consequence to the sound quality too, as again it degrades transient timing; thirdly the system is lossy, and converts a 24 bit signal into something like 17 bits. This is again unacceptable.
My advice is to ignore MQA and always go for the unchanged original file as the WTA filter will do a much better job of reconstructing the transient timing information to a much higher ability than MQA can.
I don’t think there is but there are often normal non-MQA versions of albums in the Versions section. I always try to add those to Roon instead, when available.
I could counter act with information published by MQA but that would be dismissed as Marketing B.S. so I won’t bother. But I’m glad you agree no musical information is lost being as with MQA the out put is analogous to the input.
No, actually you couldn’t. MQA has not been able to publish any findings or tests disproving it. They basically only keep saying they are so great, like you do, but don’t actually show it with evidence.
The lack of actual evidence-based marketing from MQA is staggeringly zilch. I don’t think they can actually provide it since showing actual measurements would only serve to discredit their own marketing.
And then they add all the 16/44 and 24/44 stuff. Same thing. Some of the listings have 16 and 24 for the same album but 24 is not always but usually studio. So why waste the space for the 16/44. It’s not like the 24 bit one won’t play back correctly. I don’t think I’ve found a 16/44 that is studio yet.
