[watchnerd]

3. This is to say nothing of the fact that audio on headphones sound nothing like the sound on the loudspeakers that most music were mastered for. A few technically oriented companies tout niche HRTF simulation solutions that attempt to compute the way each sound bounces around in a real listening room and enter BOTH the listener's ears with complex frequency and phase relationships, yet the average headphone audiophile is again content to shell out sums of money well in excess of that which could buy him such solutions, to (again) buy more expensive cables and hi-res audio equipment. The difference such HRTF simulation makes goes beyond "huge" and borders on the "infinite": a plain headphone system receiving signal on the left channel will produce no signal whatsoever on the right channel (leading to a classic "left right and centre blobs in your head" soundstage, whereas a HRTF-enabled headphone system will produce delayed, attenuated sound of meticulously computed phase on the right channel to simulate the effect of a left loudspeaker going around your head to reach your right ear. And yet...

Moreover, audiophile-approved solutions get a free "if at first you don't succeed..." pass if one doesn't hear a positive change the first time round: the solution is to buy more and more expensive / different pieces of kit until one finally notices the difference. OTOH, said audiophile will literally give an EQ all of one minute of screen time, throw a few sliders at random, and, if the sound does not change for the better immediately, forever, forever consign EQ to a bin of "perpetual failures".

/rant

 
Not to threadjack, but does HRTF work with regular music?
 
I thought it had to be encoded in the software and decoded by the hardware.  Can it just be induced with the right kind of headphones?

 

[asymcon]

Crossfeed could be considered lite version of "industrial-quality" HRTF. 

 

[GuyUnder]

Well... I get that it is a popular audiophile opinion that "everything matters" when it comes to sound quality, including which way the wind happened to be blowing at the power plant powering your listening room from a hundred miles away on the day you are listening, to say nothing of whether said power plant happens to be coal-fired, nuclear or hydroelectric (coal-plant powered audio rigs sound warmer while hydroelectric powered rigs sound more liquid, I've been told). Fine. Suppose you are correct. I have the business interests of the company I represent to look after and can only go so far at alienating potential future customers, even in unrelated chitchat.

What I don't get is, why this "everything matters" mentality never extends to the very things that even pro audio practitians agree *do* make huge differences. Compare:

1. The difference in signal between that presented by regular CD audio and that presented by MQA can be quantified in terms of distortion figures at something like 0.000x% THD. If the decoded continuous waveforms of CD and MQA were plotted on top of each other using 0.1mm pencil lead with a 1 meter axis height, you'll still probably have a hard time finding any point where the curves do not completely overlap to the naked eye.

2. The difference between whatever waveform is specified by CD or MQA, and that actually produced by whatever headphones you own, look *nothing alike*. Gross frequency response deviations occur in the audible band to the tune of 10s of dBs, warping the resulting waveform beyond anything but the crudest recognition. Yet any time some technically minded audio enthusiast suggests using equalization to combat these distortions, the most probable result is half the community dismissing him as a green amateur unschooled in the mysterious ways in which EQ will "further degrade the signal", making it "only a bandaid suitable for the worst recordings" or making said "amateur's" "pathetic system sound even worse".

3. This is to say nothing of the fact that audio on headphones sound nothing like the sound on the loudspeakers that most music were mastered for. A few technically oriented companies tout niche HRTF simulation solutions that attempt to compute the way each sound bounces around in a real listening room and enter BOTH the listener's ears with complex frequency and phase relationships, yet the average headphone audiophile is again content to shell out sums of money well in excess of that which could buy him such solutions, to (again) buy more expensive cables and hi-res audio equipment. The difference such HRTF simulation makes goes beyond "huge" and borders on the "infinite": a plain headphone system receiving signal on the left channel will produce no signal whatsoever on the right channel (leading to a classic "left right and centre blobs in your head" soundstage, whereas a HRTF-enabled headphone system will produce delayed, attenuated sound of meticulously computed phase on the right channel to simulate the effect of a left loudspeaker going around your head to reach your right ear. And yet...

Moreover, audiophile-approved solutions get a free "if at first you don't succeed..." pass if one doesn't hear a positive change the first time round: the solution is to buy more and more expensive / different pieces of kit until one finally notices the difference. OTOH, said audiophile will literally give an EQ all of one minute of screen time, throw a few sliders at random, and, if the sound does not change for the better immediately, forever, forever consign EQ to a bin of "perpetual failures".

/rant

With my lo-fi headphones (HD668B, K553) and mid-fi headphones (HD600) not only is EQ recommended I find it necessary to correct the worst FR imbalances. With any of my hi-fi headphones (HE-6, TH900, Utopia) EQ is worthless and all attempts result in making the headphones sound much worse than before. I've heard that a real tube / analog EQ is much better but I have no experience with those.

Crossfeed sounds like trash I can't imagine anyone would enjoy that. Possibly this high-end solution is a different animal though.

Anyway since discovering native DSD decoding and SRC-bypass streaming I'll never go back to PCM so all of these software solutions won't work for me any longer.

 

[garysohn]

I am using the desktop ap with Tidal premium. I live in a rural area and I only get about 8-10 mbps.  I can play the Masters version, but it cuts out.  I thought the idea was to have a file that would be higher quality, but would be unfolded and be playable with a lower Mbps.  It isn't working for me at these speeds.  My primary interest is to have Tidal playable with phone (eventually). But if it won't play on the desktop then it won't play on the phone.

 

[asymcon]

With any of my hi-fi headphones (HE-6, TH900, Utopia) EQ is worthless and all attempts result in making the headphones sound much worse than before.

Damn, I should then remove all parametric EQs from all my projects and resign to equalization through boutique analog gear, because other producers seem to do so. 

 
But wait, I don't have high-end headphones, so it's all dandy. 

 

[castleofargh]

These critiques remind me of the angry, self-satisfied posts about SQ differences of digital cables,
and how a $20 Belkin USB is all you need, after all 0's and 1's travel down the cable the same way
as through a Siltech Anniversary USB orWireworld Platinum.. and that the expensive USB cables in THEIR
OPINION were in no way significantly better sounding and certainly way overpriced snake oil .

Well in my opinion the above argument is nothing but self-righteous, arrogant ignorance - (of course some
higher priced digital cables can give significant SQ improvements in a quality setup) - all done
with the same attitude by several posters on MQA being no better sounding and just looking
to discredit what many hear as a major advance in music streaming delivery SQ.....
which I hear as much better than the non MQA FLAC versions on Tidal and on par with other hi-res formats- perhaps significantly better.

I don't need a DBT to know that MQA/Tidal Masters in general sound obviously much better than their non-MQA
counterparts - myMojo and music have never sounded this good before through Tidal. And this is without DAC MQA decoding,
which I expect to be even better!

Like I said a few days ago.... the verdict on MQA will be overwhelmingly positive -
it's already starting.

if that's fine for you, great, but it isn't fine in this section of the forum where blind testing is one of the very few methods recognized to prove audible differences.
of course if you came with measurements for 2 tracks showing that one has like 3db variations in the signature somewhere audible, because other blind tests have already confirmed this magnitude to be audible, we would agree with you that the files can and should sound different. and that without a need for more evidence. but faith in the random online stranger telling us to believe him, it's not very scientific nor very safe in general. I hope you can understand at least that point of view on the matter.
 
 
so far evidence that higher sample rate above 44.1khz does sound different hasn't clearly been demonstrated in controlled tests. MQA increases the sample rate(and decreases the bit depth) compared to some PCM file of the same size. my reasoning and it seems to be shared with a few others, is that if just more samples has failed to be clearly demonstrated as sounding better, why in Stevie Wonder's name, would the exact same thing but with a little loss in bit depth, result in a clear improvement in sound?  that doesn't feel logical based on what we know so far.
and if something is obviously audible when just increasing the sample rate isn't, it would suggest a loss in objective fidelity instead of proof of a "revolution".
 
we're not saying MQA must sound bad or that if you have a MQA device you're a loser, there really is no need to fight this as if your honor was on the line over some BS file format. there are more important stuff in life.
our conclusion doesn't seem too far fetched, and relies on a good deals of controlled tests(personal or not). it doesn't however prove that MQA must always sound identical to the PCM version on all devices, because our reasoning is based on the format and suppose a transparent DAC at 16/44 playing the same master. so our point of view doesn't mean you're automatically a liar for saying you notice a change, but you also don't make any effort to verify yourself that you don't get fooled by some different master or a little light or maybe a tiny change in volume level, or a possible delay added when MQA is active... so don't blame us for not putting much value in your claim as it has none of the components of a valid claim and all the components of a personal opinion.
 
it's a simple enough system, we believe in measurements and blind tests, results from those let us build some confidence on a few matters, and that confidence then can be used as building block to test and assess other matters. if all you bring is a personal belief, we can't do anything with it. it's inconclusive, we can't even be sure it's true. and if it is, because you didn't control anything, we cannot hope to find out a cause. so we're stuck with "I believe vs he believes" that goes nowhere and serves no purpose. you telling us again and again how you can hear a difference isn't making your claim more significant or less empty of evidence.
and that's why we find subjective opinions from sighted tests to be a waste of time in such circumstances. not because we don't care for at least our own subjectivity(I do very much), but because we cannot conclude anything objective from an opinion.
 
now my personal opinion, because I have one to, like anybody else. nothing proved, nothing objective, just me, myself, and I:
if they don't offer to the consumer free converters we can use on our highres PCM files, it's going to be annoying as hell and almost as impractical as DSD. it will also make it harder to measure stuff. and just that would make me dislike MQA. the license on the format is another reason. how R&D should be focused on things that could really improve listening experience would be another personal reason. having to get a MQA DAC is another one. and no matter how it's presented, MQA is asking for money to allow manufacturers to implement it in their devices, and indirectly we'll be the ones paying for it. even if there was a clear audible benefit to MQA(and that hasn't been established objectively at this time), all those other reasons would still make me wish MQA didn't exist. so as you can see, my opinion isn't as simple as believing it sounds better or not.

 

[oldmate]

This is all I need to know about MQA.
 
http://forums.linn.co.uk/bb/showthread.php?tid=35624
 
Anything marketed under and protected by a registered trade name is bad for all of us.
 
There is more to this than "improved" sound quality.

 

[oldmate]

Edited.

 

[sonitus mirus]

  This is all I need to know about MQA.
 
http://forums.linn.co.uk/bb/showthread.php?tid=35624
 
Anything marketed under and protected by a registered trade name is bad for all of us.
 
There is more to this than "improved" sound quality.

 
It has been brought up recently.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/733233/tidal-lossless-streaming/3165#post_13166552
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/745608/mqa-revolutionary-british-streaming-technology/660#post_13166546
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/805832/new-dragonfly-black-and-red-discussion/2445#post_13171124
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/784602/chord-mojo-dac-amp-faq-in-3rd-post/29100#post_13171127

 

[oldmate]

Ok, thanks.

 

[jagwap]

This is all I need to know about MQA.

http://forums.linn.co.uk/bb/showthread.php?tid=35624

Anything [COLOR=222222]marketed under and protected by a registered trade name is bad for all of us.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=222222]There is more to this than "improved" sound quality.[/COLOR]

What, like Compact Disc?

Philips R&D department in Eidhoven was effectively funded by the liscence fee from that for 20 years. Kept Philips going. Now Philips consumer audio is owned by Gibson, and their TVs are chinese owned. Eindhoven was a centre of excellence for tv innovation.

This industry needs to make money, or this forum will be just moaning about the good old days when there were products.

 

[watchnerd]

This industry needs to make money, or this forum will be just moaning about the good old days when there were products.

 
Sure, but CD really was revolutionary.  It was a game changer, revolutionized the whole industry.
 
It was objectively superior in terms of measurements and convenience.  No flipping records, instant track FFWD!  No rewinding!  No tape wearing out!
 
It obviously sounded different than LPs or cassettes.  No popping or ticks!  No tape hiss!
 
MQA doesn't tick near as many boxes.

 

[watchnerd]

Well, this is certainly something that's not very pretty for a hot new format:
 

 
Taken from Archimago's recent post: http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/01/comparison-tidal-mqa-music-high.html

 

[ThomasHK]

  Well, this is certainly something that's not very pretty for a hot new format:
 

 
Taken from Archimago's recent post: http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/01/comparison-tidal-mqa-music-high.html

Actually, that's exactly what you would expect. Without the software decoding, the folding process leads to a higher noise floor when played back. That's by design and means the format is reverse compatible with 44.1/48 kHz capable DACs. The outcome is as I (and others) expected: the folding process is a neat (all be it) lossy process that allows to capture higher res formats in a smaller container. Will it sound better than the original high res file? Absolutely not. Will it sound better than a 44.1/48 kHz downsampled version? I don't believe it will and so far studies on High Res vs. CD have been not very positive now have they

 

[watchnerd]

  Actually, that's exactly what you would expect. Without the software decoding, the folding process leads to a higher noise floor when played back. That's by design and means the format is reverse compatible with 44.1/48 kHz capable DACs. The outcome is as I (and others) expected: the folding process is a neat (all be it) lossy process that allows to capture higher res formats in a smaller container. Will it sound better than the original high res file? Absolutely not. Will it sound better than a 44.1/48 kHz downsampled version? I don't believe it will and so far studies on High Res vs. CD have been not very positive now have they

 
I agree, it is exactly what I expect.
 
Which is why I think MQA is stupid.
 
It's not better than the original high resolution file.
 
Undecoded, it's worse than Redbook.
 
File size for streaming? Really not an issue today.