[headfry]

thanks for that.enjoyed reading - I've reached some conclusions about MQA,
at least Tidal - decoded MQA listening through headphones.
 
First of all, it is not in any real way overhyped - all they are claiming  on their web site
is the delivery of hi resolution sound quality in a much reduced file size, more practical.
 
To me, MQA succeeds like Jimi Hendrix was born to play guitar. 
 
Now, some listeners may listen differently - different equipment, tastes, ears
and for some MQA may give no real benefit
- however, I can tell you that for the careful listener (assuming well-resolving
and performing/sounding hardware) the difference is often huuuuge
 
 
listening to Bonnie Raitt's opening track Unavoided Consequences of Love from the album Dig In Deep 2016 
the Tidal HIFI version (conventional non-MQA Flac) is like listening to the band in an average bar setup - listen to the opening, which seems to be coming from a drum machine
 
With MQA the resolution sounds much higher, the opening bass and drums
are now real instruments in their own space on the stage, sounding like real, separate 
instruments with real body, resonance with great presence rather than a wall-of-sound spatially compressed
and overly large ribbon-flat image, not generally not well defined in space nor in solidity
 
MQA to my ears removes a major "veil" (more like blurriness and obstruction of the finer details
that are crucial to reconstructing the music), similar to the way moving from an excellent budget dac
to a really great sounding high end one (with awesome 3d soundstage and imaging)I mproves musicality.
 
I would go so far as to say MQA engages my brain's visual sense beautifully, while 
the HIFI version offers very little that way. Much more musical, as a company like Naim would say.
 
Please be advised the above are just my opinions, not scientific fact. 
 
however, don't blanket-discount the world of opinions

 

[oneway23]

The impressions we've discussed thus far have largely come via Tidal, using non-MQA-certified DACs.  In this circumstance, the output is essentially identical what one would get by buying high-res PCM.
 
Anyone out there using an MQA-certified DAC that can speak to any audible differences they've personally observed between software-decoded MQA and their own MQA-certified hardware? I know it may be difficult to find willing victims, as there aren't many DACs out in the wild right now, although, maybe someone with a Meridian Explorer2 or a Bluesound device would care to contribute?  
 
Not merely looking for a link to Archimago's comparison here.  I've read that blog post, and it's great work, but, I'm looking for individual impressions, please. 

 

[headfry]

hi oneway23....one more impression from Tidal-decoded MQA, as I don't have an MQA dac
(I too welcome any MQA Dac/Tidal Masters listening impressions):
 
 
Listening to Michael Buble’s album To Be Loved    2013
 
 
The opening track - You Make Me Feel So Young - the vocal sounds good on both but listen
to the orchestra, the Tidal HIFI version the orchestra is brash, overly large 
and in one flat sheet - like in old mono recordings - and over-powering/too loud.
 
...in the Masters version, the orchestra is no longer flat, occupies believable 3d space
and the instruments are distinct, as opposed to all being mushed together in one 2d sheet of sound.
Everything sounds much more composed and refined instead of brash - like a real performance in a high end venue.
 
Second track - “It’s a Beautiful Day” - same. The HiFI version is flat with very little spatial cues,
sounds like a mono wall of sound. The Masters Version is MUCH more natural, with a realistic soundstage,
imaging and refined detail and dynamics…….
 
As far as soundstage, imaging, fine detail and overall refinement are concerned...
it’s like the difference between hearing the song on an average FM car radio
versus a really high end home setup.
 
 
The differences are vast…to the point where I wonder about the motives of some of the MQA naysayers - perhaps they don’t appreciate much finer audio reproduction….(or they might not have done a fair audition), I really wonder.

 

[oneway23]

Well, I certainly can't articulate my perception as well as Headfry has.  What I can do, however, is let folks know that I've noticed that Tidal has finally begun marking their MQA-enabled albums with an "M."  I don't know if this is old news, but, I had just noticed it this morning.
 
I'll admit, part of me is going to miss the hunt!

 

[gregorio]

 
[1] The differences are vast… [2] to the point where I wonder about the motives of some of the MQA naysayers - [3] perhaps they don’t appreciate much finer audio reproduction….[4] (or they might not have done a fair audition), [5] I really wonder.

 
1. The difference with the McGurk Effect (and many other perceptual biases) is also vast!
2. Really? Even though the motives have been clearly explained to you a number of times?
3. An entirely common response from audiophiles suckered by perceptual biases. The EXACT OPPOSITE of your statement is in fact the case, it's precisely BECAUSE we appreciate much finer audio reproduction itself, rather than only a perceptual illusion of it! In my case, it's pretty much guaranteed that I not only appreciate finer audio quality than you (because in addition to my passion for audio, my livelihood depends on it) but that I also have much better/more accurate equipment than you.
4. The method you are using: A "sighted" test/audition, is demonstrably the LEAST accurate/fair method!
5. And I really wonder about the motives of those unjustly ascribing vast improvements to MQA. Are they just so totally suckered and so unquestioning of their hearing biases (to the point of ignoring or even misrepresenting the actual facts), do they just not care about actual finer audio quality or is it something worse, are they shills?
 
Despite the fact that positive biased opinions of MQA could have a long term negative impact on my (and everyone else's) listening pleasure, us "naysayers" had left you to get on with your mutual celebration of your (incorrectly ascribed) flawed hearing perception. So, why don't you just get on with it? Why bring it up again and why go out of your way to cast aspersions and insult those of us who do really care about finer audio quality and have therefore disagreed with you?
 

  Both versions show same release date; therefore I’m assuming that the both versions are based on the same master

 
That's been the basic problem with so much of this thread: Your assumptions, your belief in your assumptions and your complete dismissal of anything, including actual facts, which challenge those assumptions. So, while I fully expect you to ignore, dismiss and/or insult, for the benefit of others, here are the actual facts:
 
The "release date" refers to the date the album became available for purchase by the public. It does not refer to the date/s the master/s were completed. For a commercial release, a mastering engineer is not commonly contracted to create just a single master, typically there is more than one, in more than one format and therefore aimed for different uses. It's entirely possible that all the required masters are completed on the same day but it's also possible they're completed days or occasionally even months apart.
 
G

 

[headfry]

hey gregorio- [COLOR=A52A2A]again this thread is not for the debating of the scientific or ethical validity of MQA,[/COLOR]
[COLOR=A52A2A]it's to share appreciations for its SQ and the enhanced quality of specific albums.[/COLOR]

In my opinion you go too far with some of your points.
My hearing isn't flawed - thousands of others appreciate the same types of improvements that I do and
we're not all deluded and I could say that your bias is sighted as well - you see MQA and you know it has
to be a money grab..

My perceptions in my own system aren't due to placebo....they've held up to months of critical listening
and my initial impressions continue even after hundreds of hours.

Having said this this the conversation could become more nuanced:

In my opinion the [COLOR=B22222]real[/COLOR] question is whether the non-MQA version is purposely mastered
to give sub-par 3D soundstage, imaging, [COLOR=A52A2A]and[/COLOR] whether the qualities heard in the 

Tidal-decoded MQA version could be achieved with standard 44.1 Flac...
so far this hasn't happened with the recordings that I like....[COLOR=000080]consensus so far[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000080]indicates that MQA sounds about as good as conventional hi-res...do you agree?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=000080]I appreciate your participation here if it is constructive and not repeating previously made points - and not[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000080]making needlessly critical comments that are ultimately based on your[/COLOR] [COLOR=A52A2A]opinion[/COLOR][COLOR=000080]. I appreciate enthusiasm but[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000080]it can go overboard into[/COLOR] [COLOR=B22222]trolling territory[/COLOR] [COLOR=000080](not necessarily from your posts so far, no offence intended).[/COLOR]

[COLOR=000000] Roughly how many hours you've spent listening to Tidal Masters or MQA files?[/COLOR]

 

1. The difference with the McGurk Effect (and many other perceptual biases) is also vast!
2. Really? Even though the motives have been clearly explained to you a number of times?
3. An entirely common response from audiophiles suckered by perceptual biases. The EXACT OPPOSITE of your statement is in fact the case, it's precisely BECAUSE we appreciate much finer audio reproduction itself, rather than only a perceptual illusion of it! In my case, it's pretty much guaranteed that I not only appreciate finer audio quality than you (because in addition to my passion for audio, my livelihood depends on it) but that I also have much better/more accurate equipment than you.
4. The method you are using: A "sighted" test/audition, is demonstrably the LEAST accurate/fair method!
5. And I really wonder about the motives of those unjustly ascribing vast improvements to MQA. Are they just so totally suckered and so unquestioning of their hearing biases (to the point of ignoring or even misrepresenting the actual facts), do they just not care about actual finer audio quality or is it something worse, are they shills?

Despite the fact that positive biased opinions of MQA could have a long term negative impact on my (and everyone else's) listening pleasure, us "naysayers" had left you to get on with your mutual celebration of your (incorrectly ascribed) flawed hearing perception. So, why don't you just get on with it? Why bring it up again and why go out of your way to cast aspersions and insult those of us who do really care about finer audio quality and have therefore disagreed with you?


That's been the basic problem with so much of this thread: Your assumptions, your belief in your assumptions and your complete dismissal of anything, including actual facts, which challenge those assumptions. So, while I fully expect you to ignore, dismiss and/or insult, for the benefit of others, here are the actual facts:

The "release date" refers to the date the album became available for purchase by the public. It does not refer to the date/s the master/s were completed. For a commercial release, a mastering engineer is not commonly contracted to create just a single master, typically there is more than one, in more than one format and therefore aimed for different uses. It's entirely possible that all the required masters are completed on the same day but it's also possible they're completed days or occasionally even months apart.

G

 

[headfry]

According to many seasoned listeners.Tidal Masters and MQA are capable of sounding as good as conventional hi res...it would
appear that its process is capable of audiophile sound .....even if this was solely due to remastering
the MQA process doesn't appear to audibly harm the result. Also, MQA is said to sound different than standard hires -  
not necessarily better or worse but different. This would seem to refute those who claim MQA is a low fidelity format falsely portrayed as hires sound.

 

[oneway23]

I have to be honest, Headfry.  As of the past few days, I've been questioning my Tidal usage here, as, for some reason, there are a few Yes albums that are refusing to play their MQA variants.  I have uninstalled and re-installed, to no avail.
I have 50meg DL speed at home, so bandwidth should certainly be a non-issue.  
 
On it's face, this isn't really a big deal overall, but, for me to commit fully, I need Tidal to be capable of replacing what I already have locally, and play everything consistently.  These issues are forcing me to return to my local library.
 
For reference, if you'd like to check a couple out for me and let me know, take a look at Yes Fragile and Yes Close to the Edge and see if you have any issues playing them.  I'd really appreciate any help.  Thanks!

 

[headfry]

hey oneway23 - I will try tonight and report back - The Yes Album and Relayer were both stellar on Tidal Masters - hopefully no skips later today!
 
....are you a Jethro Tull fan? Two Tidal Masters that are stellar:  
 
 
Jethro Tull Benefit (1970) is one of the best pop albums of all time IMHO
 
 
JT's  A Passion Play (1973)   - is Ian Anderson and band at their creative peak, e.g. their Abbey Road -
 
took me a few listens to really love this one! Both remastered by Steven Wilson, pop/rock and production genius!
 
 
========BTW, if you are a Mac user - have you tried Audirvana Plus 3 - it has MQA
playback and was really simple to setup! Fantastic SW and worth and well worth the audition - would be curious to see
if this fixes the playback issue! I'm planning on buying this when the trial is over!

 

[oneway23]

Hi Headfry.  I'm a PC user, but, I'm glad to hear that people have yet another option out there!
 
I own Steven Wilson's re-mixes of both Aqualung and Thick as a Brick in 24/96; both sound stellar!
 
I have yet to listen to Benefit or A Passion Play via Tidal MQA, but, I'm sure they sound just as good.  I'll take a listen in the next few days and report back.
Thanks again for your help on this one.

 

[headfry]

The problem appears to be with the Tidal app...on my Mac it doesn't even play Yes Close to the Edge nor Fragile anymore; but 
Masters titles from other artists play just fine...of the Tidal Masters albums I've tried only these Yes ones don't work, Emerson Lake & Palmer's
Brain Salad Surgery, Jethro Tull's A Passion Play, Aqualung and Benefit, and more still all play fine through the Tidal app...
 
...so far, it's only the Master Yes albums that aren't working through Tidal software now,
 
....but on Audirvana 3 Plus....these same Masters Yes albums play perfectly (so it isn't the albums themselves):
 
...I"m listening to the Tidal Masters Close to The Edge.....no stuttering, no glitches.....just a major slice of musical perfection. I forgot how 
good this album is......wow. Take The Yes album, make it more progressive, keep the lyrical-ly space-rock planetarium constellation of 
sounds but make it a whole classical work spanning an entire album........I love both albums, both are primordially essential Yes...stellar (literally,
out of this world) 
 
I highly recommend "Gates of Delirium" from Relayer....maybe the very best track Yes ever put out!
 
Fragile next....no problems what so-ever - again through Audirvana Plus 3 software...
 
With the possible exception of "South Side of the Sky" however I don't find this album to be in the same league as the above three....
 
...also the production/recording/mastering isn't as musical....it's a good but not great Yes album in my opinion
 
 
so far - and with very little testing - the issue appears to be with the Tidal SW; if so hopefully it will be updated
very soon. Lately I'm also enamoured by Joni Mitchell's Hejira (Tidal-decoded Masters) - the first track Coyote is essential listening
(as is the whole album) - does Herjira play? It plays beautifully through Tidal for me.

 

[headfry]

I just heard from another headfier that those Yes albums play fine through Tidal in Windows 10. Could it be an issue of which country you're in? At any rate, hopefully Tidal will pmay these albums soon.

 

[oneway23]

Thanks for checking back in Headfry.  I appreciate it.  I'm still seeing the same issue on Windows 10 here in NY.  
 
I don't know what state your friend lives in, but, it must be the state of bliss, because he's able to listen to these MQA albums without interruption!
 
I posted the same over on Computer Audiophile, and I had one person tell me they played fine, while another said they didn't.
 
Not sure what's going on, but, I noticed a few days ago that Gates of Delirium from Relayer will no longer play for me.
 
I can now get every song from Fragile to play consistently, with the exception of Roundabout.
 
Still can't listen to anything from Close to the Edge.
 
At one point, when the Tidal Masters series first launched, I had no issue with any tracks, so, I don't know what's going on.  Who knows?  Hopefully, this gets sorted soon.

 

[headfry]

hello everyone here.....I have a track which is an epiphany, as good as any pop or rock song
ever done.....
 
group: ZZ Top    track: "Sharp Dressed Man" from the album "Live: Greatest Hits from Across the World" Masters Version
 
 
...Software decoded by Tidal 
 
 
...this track has such fantastic artistry, musicality, you name-it and superb sound!
 
 
This track sounds so good it!!!! (sounds like excellent hires)!

 

[oneway23]

The ZZ Top box set that came out a few years ago in hi-res sounds superb.  Fine example of the benefits of hi-res music.  I checked out some of Tres Hombres via Tidal MQA and I couldn't tell the difference between the MQA and my files, which is absolutely awesome for high-resolution newcomers, since the digital hi-res "box set" cost me over $100 in 2013!