[Basshead Paul]

I discovered a reason why MQA might be sounding so much better to me. It might not be due to the temporal deblurring, so you guys could be right.

Basically, it sounds better to me because I'm using a Dragonfly Red. Normally, a DFR maxes out at 24/96. But that limit is placed artificially on incoming files to make the DFR more compatible... No need to install drivers, etc. The Dragonfly Red can output much higher resolutions if it's playing MQA files, because the incoming MQA is under the 96/24 limit, but can be unfolded inside the dac to higher resolutions.

So, basically, I'm listening to much higher resolutions than before when I'm listening to MQA files on Tidal.

That's useful in its own right, but I am starting to believe you guys about temporal blurring. Maybe that's not why it sounds better after all.

I suppose temporal blurring could be helping the sound quality too, along with the increased resolution. It can't hurt to fix timing issues.

 

[pinnahertz]

I discovered a reason why MQA might be sounding so much better to me. It might not be due to the temporal deblurring, so you guys could be right.

Basically, it sounds better to me because I'm using a Dragonfly Red. Normally, a DFR maxes out at 24/96. But that limit is placed artificially on incoming files to make the DFR more compatible... No need to install drivers, etc. The Dragonfly Red can output much higher resolutions if it's playing MQA files, because the incoming MQA is under the 96/24 limit, but can be unfolded inside the dac to higher resolutions.

So, basically, I'm listening to much higher resolutions than before when I'm listening to MQA files on Tidal.

That's useful in its own right, but I am starting to believe you guys about temporal blurring. Maybe that's not why it sounds better after all.

I suppose temporal blurring could be helping the sound quality too, along with the increased resolution. It can't hurt to fix timing issues.

But you're still listening to different masters. There's no evidence that higher "resolution" is audible, but remastering absolutely is. There's still no valid testing going on here because of the lack of verification that identical masters were used.

 

[NobbyChad]

But you're still listening to different masters. There's no evidence that higher "resolution" is audible, but remastering absolutely is. There's still no valid testing going on here because of the lack of verification that identical masters were used.

Does it matter if it sounds better?

 

[old tech]

It isn't possible to do a blind test of MQA that way. Core decoding is only possible if you're listening through an MQA dac.

As a result, that test is only comparing MQA files which have been unfolded once, through the software decoding part. The files won't sound much different than normal hi res files at that point. They'll just be smaller in file size, which can still be useful.

As Gregorio replied to a similar comment in another thread "He is using the MQA core to decode the MQA file, the same as an "actual MQA enabled DAC" would! He's then used a filter to render the file along the lines specified by MQA. All the "de-blurring" marketing MQA have touted about should be just as audible in this test as it would be using an MQA DAC or the TIDAL (MQA core) software. And lastly, MQA states that even un-decoded the MQA file will sound better!"

I'd be interested in seeing the results from Archimago's tests. If you look at some of his earlier blogs on that site, he has also done some individual tests using MQA enabled DACs.

Are any of these tests perfect? No, but given that Meridian do not make perfect testing easy, they are miles ahead of the alternative sighted impressions we are getting in this thread.

 

[pinnahertz]

Does it matter if it sounds better?

Yes. If it sounds better just because of remastering, and MQA has no impact, then we don't need MQA at all, and it has no real value to anyone other than it's creators. No licensing fees, no special hardware/software, etc., etc.

 

[NobbyChad]

Yes. If it sounds better just because of remastering, and MQA has no impact, then we don't need MQA at all, and it has no real value to anyone other than it's creators. No licensing fees, no special hardware/software, etc., etc.

At the moment the experiment re using tidal masters streaming is working well for me, its main use appears to be to reduce bandwidth needs of the provider and the user (me), seems to work well IMO.

 

[tjw321]

At the moment the experiment re using tidal masters streaming is working well for me, its main use appears to be to reduce bandwidth needs of the provider and the user (me), seems to work well IMO.

If I understand it correctly, it uses 50% more bandwidth than 16/44 FLAC (or 16/48) because it uses an extra 8-bits per sample to encode the unfolding data. If you don't unfold at all, it uses 50% more data and adds a little noise to what would have been red-book(ish), if you unfold once, it saves about 30%. So, if you are content with red-book, it actually wastes bandwidth. But please correct me if I've got it wrong.

 

[NobbyChad]

If I understand it correctly, it uses 50% more bandwidth than 16/44 FLAC (or 16/48) because it uses an extra 8-bits per sample to encode the unfolding data. If you don't unfold at all, it uses 50% more data and adds a little noise to what would have been red-book(ish), if you unfold once, it saves about 30%. So, if you are content with red-book, it actually wastes bandwidth. But please correct me if I've got it wrong.

I have no idea, i get better sound with less drop outs.

 

[Consequential]

Hi all,

Please excuse this question if it's considered a bad question...


Can you please tell me if this means my receiver is outputting correct/full/proper masters quality?

Configuration:

1. PC with Tidal desktop app
2. Tidal is set to Masters
3. PC is connected to Denon 6200w receiver using optical cable
4. PC's optical out is set to use 24bit - 96000hz (Studio Quality) within PC's "Sound" settings
5. When playing a masters track from within tidal I see the following information output on screen from receiver

"Sound mode = Stereo"
"Input Signal = PCM"
"Sample Rate = 96khz"


NOTES:

1. The 6200w does not have MQA decoding built in.
2. Before I setup the PC's optical output as above, by default it was set to 16-bit 44100 hz (CD Quality) and when playing a masters track the receiver showed 44,1 khz via pcm
3. Tidal reported within the desktop app that in both cases the track being played was output as Masters (regardless of optical sound quality selected)

Thanks very much!

 

[Left Channel]

Hi all,

Please excuse this question if it's considered a bad question...


Can you please tell me if this means my receiver is outputting correct/full/proper masters quality?

Configuration:

1. PC with Tidal desktop app
2. Tidal is set to Masters
3. PC is connected to Denon 6200w receiver using optical cable
4. PC's optical out is set to use 24bit - 96000hz (Studio Quality) within PC's "Sound" settings
5. When playing a masters track from within tidal I see the following information output on screen from receiver

"Sound mode = Stereo"
"Input Signal = PCM"
"Sample Rate = 96khz"


NOTES:

1. The 6200w does not have MQA decoding built in.
2. Before I setup the PC's optical output as above, by default it was set to 16-bit 44100 hz (CD Quality) and when playing a masters track the receiver showed 44,1 khz via pcm
3. Tidal reported within the desktop app that in both cases the track being played was output as Masters (regardless of optical sound quality selected)

Thanks very much!

Your setup looks fine. The Tidal app is doing software decoding: 1x unfolding and 24/96. Adding an MQA DAC would get you hardware decoding up to 4x and 24/192. Personally I'm not certain I hear a difference between the two levels on my current setup, but will continue to compare.

 

[Ray Schoepfer]

I've read this thread, from the beginning, because I was looking for more suggestions of Tidal Masters to try out. There were very few and an awful lot of talk about why MQA does or does not work. At first I thought I'd take the high road and add info on Masters that I like and why but I find myself having to put my two cents worth on the MQA debate.

Yes. If it sounds better just because of remastering, and MQA has no impact, then we don't need MQA at all, and it has no real value to anyone other than it's creators. No licensing fees, no special hardware/software, etc., etc.

.

From the start, the fellow above has asserted that all MQtA Tidal releases are remastered. Not sure if the "temporal deblurring" that the MQA company says is part of the MQA process, qualifies as remastering? If so, then absolutely, all MQA files are remastered, on purpose.

If, on the other hand, the "deblurring" does not constitute remastering, then I find it very hard to believe that all the Masters that I have been listening to were remastered.

First off, what I'm listening with:
Quad 57 ESLs on 24" stands, properly located in a dedicated listening room (can't listen to headphones)
Mark Levinsons ML2 mono blocks (originally built for the Quads)
Homebrew passive gain control
Meridian Explorer2 (MQA DAC)
Old windows laptop
Custom built power conditioning
Proper (but not stupid expensive) cabling throughout
I have significant analogue equipment and other DACs but not worth mentioning for this discussion

Also, I have a little over 50 years experience in hifi with a few years in high end retailing (many years ago). My music interests lie mostly in classical, jazz and classic rock but I appreciate any music where the artist is in it for the joy of creating outstanding music.

Back to my theory as to why it seems impossible that I'm listening to all remastered files.

I tired the Maria Calls Tosca (opera). This is the one with her on the cover, not the older one. It is an MQA and I've listened to it a number of times on my system as well as three other systems that did not have MQA DACS. It sounds stunning on all DACs but particularly good over the Meridian Explorer2.

When I look at the MQA records currently available for Maria Callas in count 62 !!!!!! Is someone trying to tell me that the record company spent the money to remaster 62 opera recordings, from one artist. Only I, along with a handful of others, in the whole world, listen to opera. (Curious how many reading these posts listen to much opera?).

The idea that these are all remastered makes NO SENSE.

 

[pinnahertz]

I've read this thread, from the beginning, because I was looking for more suggestions of Tidal Masters to try out. There were very few and an awful lot of talk about why MQA does or does not work. At first I thought I'd take the high road and add info on Masters that I like and why but I find myself having to put my two cents worth on the MQA debate.

.

From the start, the fellow above has asserted that all MQtA Tidal releases are remastered. Not sure if the "temporal deblurring" that the MQA company says is part of the MQA process, qualifies as remastering? If so, then absolutely, all MQA files are remastered, on purpose.

If, on the other hand, the "deblurring" does not constitute remastering, then I find it very hard to believe that all the Masters that I have been listening to were remastered.

First off, what I'm listening with:
Quad 57 ESLs on 24" stands, properly located in a dedicated listening room (can't listen to headphones)
Mark Levinsons ML2 mono blocks (originally built for the Quads)
Homebrew passive gain control
Meridian Explorer2 (MQA DAC)
Old windows laptop
Custom built power conditioning
Proper (but not stupid expensive) cabling throughout
I have significant analogue equipment and other DACs but not worth mentioning for this discussion

Also, I have a little over 50 years experience in hifi with a few years in high end retailing (many years ago). My music interests lie mostly in classical, jazz and classic rock but I appreciate any music where the artist is in it for the joy of creating outstanding music.

Back to my theory as to why it seems impossible that I'm listening to all remastered files.

I tired the Maria Calls Tosca (opera). This is the one with her on the cover, not the older one. It is an MQA and I've listened to it a number of times on my system as well as three other systems that did not have MQA DACS. It sounds stunning on all DACs but particularly good over the Meridian Explorer2.

When I look at the MQA records currently available for Maria Callas in count 62 !!!!!! Is someone trying to tell me that the record company spent the money to remaster 62 opera recordings, from one artist. Only I, along with a handful of others, in the whole world, listen to opera. (Curious how many reading these posts listen to much opera?).

The idea that these are all remastered makes NO SENSE.

All MQA releases must be remastered just for their "de-blurring" process. The concept of remastering involves going back to some final master from the record company and creating a new release version. There's simply no other way to insert that process. What we don't know is what else may be done besides deblurring, and those opportunities abound, from a simple level change to EQ to...well, the possibilities are limitless. The obvious motive is to create a better version, or there's simply no point. We don't know at all what is done, but MQA would have us assume it's their magic process. However, it's the complete lack of provenance that casts doubt over the value of the deblurring process vs every other common, usual and normal process involved in remastering.

Add to that the typical fully sighted (biased) comparisons, and you've got the problem in a nutshell: No proof of the efficacy of MQA. That, then, is reinforced by the complete lack of effort on the part of MQA to supply real scientific backing (including proper testing), the unavailability of the encoding process for independent evaluation, and the preponderance of marketing propaganda.

If the MQA process were, in fact, all that fantastic, it would be very, very easy to prove. Yet, there remains no proof, only opinion and hype.

 

[Ray Schoepfer]

Ok, GREAT.

We've established that all MQA is remastered.

How long do think it would take to remaster 61, 2hr long albums. I always thought that remastering was something that a talented person spent lot of time on.

Anyway, how long to remaster 61, 2hr long albums (122 hrs of music - the equivalent of about 160 pop albums). Anyone out there that knows the answer, please chime in here.

 

[castleofargh]

the all "mastered for itune" was often just a level adjustment to limit the risks of inter sample clipping on lossy format. so yeah even batch processing could count as remastered. but of course it could also be so much more.

 

[pinnahertz]

Ok, GREAT.

We've established that all MQA is remastered.

How long do think it would take to remaster 61, 2hr long albums. I always thought that remastering was something that a talented person spent lot of time on.

Anyway, how long to remaster 61, 2hr long albums (122 hrs of music - the equivalent of about 160 pop albums). Anyone out there that knows the answer, please chime in here.

It all depends on how much is done in mastering. I could be anything from a batch process to listening and adjusting each individual track. Adjusting each track is typical for the original mastering process, as the goal of mastering is to enhance or bring out the creative goal of the track while helping it to stay in context with the rest of the tracks, and finally, to make the whole thing "competitive" in the market place.

The point is, nobody knows specifically what is done, and since there are many opportunities for subjective "improvement" in mastering (it's kind of the whole point), there is a strong possibility that some of those were taken, since the goal is a different sounding product.

One thing we know for sure about remastering is, the details of what was done are hardly ever published, and what is published is usually incomplete.