[bfreedma]

  hi pinnahertz - thanks for your measured reply!
 
 
The answer is in the third last line of my post - as you'll be comparing
the master copy that is non-MQA'd I would like to know if you hear any
significant improvements or not in the MQA version.
 
To me there IS a significant improvement, hence this thread.
 
The improvements I hear in the clarity/detail smoothness and overall 
non-artifact naturalness are comparable to the best hi-res recordings
I've heard, and actually may be better in some aspects. The fact that this
is achieved in a practical-sized, smaller streaming container and without an MQA dac is great!
 
Looking forward to more feedback from all interested parties!

 
Mastering and MQA encoding are two entirely different topics.  No one is going to argue that two distinct masters can't sound different - that would be the case whether MQA encoding is done or not.
 
The question is, IMO, does a the same master sound different with and without MQA encoding applied.  To date, there is no evidence to support that and with MQA controlling their new masters, it may not ever be possible to properly test the impact of the encoding on audible reproduction.  It does raise an interesting question - if MQA truly believes their encoding improves an identical master, then why not make that master available for comparative testing?

 

[digitaldodd]

It doesn't take much to notice that several of the Masters titles on Tidal sound better to me - cleaner, more articulate, fuller - than the same title played via the normal HiFi version on Tidal. Whether they are from the same masters or not may be of concern to some, but not to me. What really matters is whether I enjoy the sound entering my ears. In that regard, I can say that "yes", I do 'appreciate' MQA in a way that I believe the OP had in mind. And that's just listening to Tidal doing the initial software unfold. I'm confident if I had the requisite hardware, some titles would sound even better.

That's not to say that every title is fabulous. For example, there are a couple of Chicago titles in MQA apparently from non-remastered masters that I don't enjoy as much as the remastered versions in HiFi. So, it's not a complete win across the board. But there's enough goodness to be found to really enjoy the experience.

And for people like myself who have limited capital to spend on musical bliss, the ability to get such terrific sound from a streaming service is absolutely fantastic. If I buy one hi-res album a month, after 10 years I will have 120 albums. Or, I will have enjoyed countless hours of pleasure listening to thousands of MQA titles being streamed from Tidal. So again, I can appreciate what Tidal is doing with MQA.

I'll let others debate the technical merits of MQA. All I know is that it puts a smile on my face.

 

[old tech]

  hi pinnahertz - thanks for your measured reply!
 
 
The answer is in the third last line of my post - as you'll be comparing
the master copy that is non-MQA'd I would like to know if you hear any
significant improvements or not in the MQA version.
 
To me there IS a significant improvement, hence this thread.
 
The improvements I hear in the clarity/detail smoothness and overall 
non-artifact naturalness are comparable to the best hi-res recordings
I've heard, and actually may be better in some aspects. The fact that this
is achieved in a practical-sized, smaller streaming container and without an MQA dac is great!
 
Looking forward to more feedback from all interested parties!

Correct me if I am wrong, your reply here seems to suggest that there is only one master copy of an album.  That may sometimes be the case but that would be very rare.  For example, there are at least 11 different digital masters of Pink Floyd's DSOTM.  There are many CD, hi res and vinyl pressing of a particular album that sound different depending on which release/remaster/pressing that is being played.
 
So just to be clear, are you asking us to compare the mastering that was used for a particular MQA release with another?  If so, which other?  Any one in particular or against all different masterings that one has heard to date?   If that is the case then yes, it is an interesting exercise but no more interesting than comparing a CD with its later remasters or different record pressings of an album.
 
One thing is for sure, as pointed out by others, it is not a comparison of MQA against other formats.  That sort of comparison cannot be done as yet due to reasons others here have expanded on.

 

[spook76]

Try the Masters versions of the following albums for starters:


David Crosby - Croz ( I really like the track Holding On To Nothing)


Steely Dan - Two Against Nature


Jethro Tull - A Passion Play


Yes - The Yes Album


Yes - Relayer


Joni Mitchell - Court And Spark (I like to skip the first two tracks - the rest is absolutely golden music)



Compare with the matching non-MQA masters and see!



Looking forward to your findings.


.....BTW if you like other MQA albums I would enjoy hearing about them!

Are you kidding me? I know progressive rock and are you comparing the unbelievable 96/24 Steven Wilson remixes of Yes' 'Relayer' and 'The Yes Album' to a MQA remaster? The man has 4 Grammy nominations and is almost universally considered the greatest musician/engineer in modern progressive music. Compare your MQA remaster to Steven Wilson's band approved remixes and tell me.

 

[headfry]

That the MQA Relayer sounds excellent
doesn't preclude Wilson's version from also being excellent.

In no way does one diminish the quality of the other.
They could BOTH be excellent yet in some different ways.


I will compare both in the next few days and will report back.

BTW, I'm a big Steve Wilson fan - own his last two albums
and have listened many many times, saw his last
show live and have listened greatly to many of
his remasters on Tidal, esp. from Yes and Jethro Tull.


...I'm assuming from your post that the MQA version is Not based on Wilson's remaster - is that the case?

 

[spook76]

That the MQA Relayer sounds excellent
doesn't preclude Wilson's version from also being excellent.

In no way does one diminish the quality of the other.
They could BOTH be excellent yet in some different ways.


I will compare both in the next few days and will report back.

BTW, I'm a big Steve Wilson fan - own his last two albums
and have listened many many times, saw his last
show live and have listened greatly to many of
his remasters on Tidal, esp. from Yes and Jethro Tull.


...I'm assuming from your post that the MQA version is Not based on Wilson's remaster - is that the case?

That would be impossible unless someone else remastered Wilson's remix. Steven Wilson never remasters any album. He makes it very clear he remixes with the goal of returning the album back to what the artist's intended working directly with the approval of the artist.

I can pretty much guarantee he would have nothing to do with MQA if you know the story of his remix of Jethro Tull's 'Thick As A Brick'. After he remixed the album the record company had another engineer remaster it to brighten the recording. Wilson was indignant and released his 96/24 flat transfer on HDTracks.

As MQA, to my understanding, requires remastering to encode. If that is so, you will never hear an MQA album from Steven Wilson.

 

[digitaldodd]

That would be impossible unless someone else remastered Wilson's remix. Steven Wilson never remasters any album. He makes it very clear he remixes with the goal of returning the album back to what the artist's intended working directly with the approval of the artist.



I can pretty much guarantee he would have nothing to do with MQA if you know the story of his remix of Jethro Tull's 'Thick As A Brick'. After he remixed the album the record company had another engineer remaster it to brighten the recording. Wilson was indignant and released his 96/24 flat transfer on HDTracks.



As MQA, to my understanding, requires remastering to encode. If that is so, you will never hear an MQA album from Steven Wilson.

 



So, I'm a bit confused because the Steve Wilson remix of Chicago II shows up as an MQA album.

 

[Slaphead]

Try the Masters versions of the following albums for starters:


David Crosby - Croz ( I really like the track Holding On To Nothing)


Steely Dan - Two Against Nature


Jethro Tull - A Passion Play


Yes - The Yes Album


Yes - Relayer


Joni Mitchell - Court And Spark (I like to skip the first two tracks - the rest is absolutely golden music)



Compare with the matching non-MQA masters and see!



Looking forward to your findings.


.....BTW if you like other MQA albums I would enjoy hearing about them!

The key word here is master, not MQA. It's the mastering (and mixing) of the music that makes it sound better. The actual delivery format only makes a negligible difference at best once you're already at 16/44

Call me cynical, but Meridian has done an expert marketing campaign on MQA, creating a massive amount of hype, to point that a lot of DAC makers feel the need to incorporate it into their products, for which they need to pay Meridian a licensing fee.

Also pumping MQA through a DAC that doesn't support it lowers sound quality from a technical perspective - the 3 LSB bits used to encode MQA effectively become just noise.

Nah - MQA is an audio equivalent of the emperor's new clothes.

 

[mswlogo]

Try the Masters versions of the following albums for starters:


David Crosby - Croz ( I really like the track Holding On To Nothing)


Steely Dan - Two Against Nature


Jethro Tull - A Passion Play


Yes - The Yes Album


Yes - Relayer


Joni Mitchell - Court And Spark (I like to skip the first two tracks - the rest is absolutely golden music)



Compare with the matching non-MQA masters and see!



Looking forward to your findings.


.....BTW if you like other MQA albums I would enjoy hearing about them!

Thanks for the list.

I did hear a difference and I talked about it my Meridian Prime Headphone Amp review.

http://www.head-fi.org/products/meridian-prime-headphone-amplifier/reviews/18160

 

[pinnahertz]

  hi pinnahertz - thanks for your measured reply!
 
 
The answer is in the third last line of my post - as you'll be comparing
the master copy that is non-MQA'd I would like to know if you hear any
significant improvements or not in the MQA version.
 
To me there IS a significant improvement, hence this thread.
 
The improvements I hear in the clarity/detail smoothness and overall 
non-artifact naturalness are comparable to the best hi-res recordings
I've heard, and actually may be better in some aspects. The fact that this
is achieved in a practical-sized, smaller streaming container and without an MQA dac is great!
 
Looking forward to more feedback from all interested parties!

Perhaps my reply was a bit too measured.
 
The problem is not that there is an audible difference, the problem is what you are attributing it to.  There is no evidence at all that MQA had anything to do with anything.  Unless you have complete knowledge of the entire path to the end copies you are comparing, you have no idea what you are comparing.  And that makes the comparison a waste of time.  
 
And you've probably mistitled the thread as you really have no idea (nobody does) what MQA actually does, and therefore, what you actually are appreciating.  And just listening and comparing will not tell you anything. 

 

[514077]

 

  hi pinnahertz - thanks for your measured reply!
 
 
The answer is in the third last line of my post - as you'll be comparing
the master copy that is non-MQA'd I would like to know if you hear any
significant improvements or not in the MQA version.
 
To me there IS a significant improvement, hence this thread.
 
The improvements I hear in the clarity/detail smoothness and overall 
non-artifact naturalness are comparable to the best hi-res recordings
I've heard, and actually may be better in some aspects. The fact that this
is achieved in a practical-sized, smaller streaming container and without an MQA dac is great!
 
Looking forward to more feedback from all interested parties!

 
Mastering and MQA encoding are two entirely different topics.  No one is going to argue that two distinct masters can't sound different - that would be the case whether MQA encoding is done or not.
 
The question is, IMO, does a the same master sound different with and without MQA encoding applied.  To date, there is no evidence to support that and with MQA controlling their new masters, it may not ever be possible to properly test the impact of the encoding on audible reproduction.  It does raise an interesting question - if MQA truly believes their encoding improves an identical master, then why not make that master available for comparative testing?

The cable gadfly known as Dr. Aix, stated he offered some of his own masters to MQA's Bob Stewart to be encoded for comparison.  So far, he hasn't been responded to.  It could be a conclusive test yay or nay. Makes me wonder why it hasn't happened, yet.  Are they busy or not confident?

 

[spook76]

That would be impossible unless someone else remastered Wilson's remix. Steven Wilson never remasters any album. He makes it very clear he remixes with the goal of returning the album back to what the artist's intended working directly with the approval of the artist.



I can pretty much guarantee he would have nothing to do with MQA if you know the story of his remix of Jethro Tull's 'Thick As A Brick'. After he remixed the album the record company had another engineer remaster it to brighten the recording. Wilson was indignant and released his 96/24 flat transfer on HDTracks.



As MQA, to my understanding, requires remastering to encode. If that is so, you will never hear an MQA album from Steven Wilson.

 



So, I'm a bit confused because the Steve Wilson remix of Chicago II shows up as an MQA album.

Nothing to be confused about, the record company remastered Steven Wilson's remix of Chicago II to encode for MQA. Some unknown engineer came in after the fact and probably screwed with his remix.

I own the Steven Wilson 96/24 remix of Chicago II. It was just released in January and it is a glorious remix.

 

[headfry]

Thanks for the responses so far.... To be clear.... this thread is not about proving that the MQA process
itself is responsible for what we're hearing and appreciating.... there's another thread for that.


Let's say that the improvements made could be had with a standard, good hirez master -
and that MQA's only benefit is to get the hirez quality in a smaller, streamable package.
I don't think that's all there is to it... but let's postulate that for now.


That would be good enough for me.... as we're benefitting from higher quality Tidal streams.... assuming the quality continues.


Again....this is a subjective thread about the perceived enjoyment of
MQA recordings... regardless of the scientific or engineering reasons AND regardless
whether all of MQA's claims are true.

....anyone else want to share enthusiasm for the better sound of MQA albums???

 

[headfry]

The key word here is master, not MQA. It's the mastering (and mixing) of the music that makes it sound better. The actual delivery format only makes a negligible difference at best once you're already at 16/44

Call me cynical, but Meridian has done an expert marketing campaign on MQA, creating a massive amount of hype, to point that a lot of DAC makers feel the need to incorporate it into their products, for which they need to pay Meridian a licensing fee.

Also pumping MQA through a DAC that doesn't support it lowers sound quality from a technical perspective - the 3 LSB bits used to encode MQA effectively become just noise.

Nah - MQA is an audio equivalent of the emperor's new clothes.

Well, if MQA is a scam it's fooling many of the best audiophile reviewers and engineers - Bob Ludwig, John Darko, etc.
including engineers that have made their own field recordings and have noticed MQA improvements
such as more accurate and better 3D soundstage - clearer low level details
and a more natural sound with greater ease.... among others:


http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/mytek-brooklyn-mqa-compatible-dac/?page=2


If this is a scam then some industry experts who are accurate about just about everything
else are on the take - a conspiracy view that I reject.

If specialist, boutique companies like Brinkmann - makers of very high end equipment are only caving in to
marketing pressure - while possible is unlikely to the extreme.

Again, debating the scientific worth of MQA is not this thread..... sharing enjoyment is.



Anyone listen to some of the tracks in my previously posted list? Any other MQA album appreciations?

 

[pinnahertz]

Thanks for the responses so far.... To be clear.... this thread is not about proving that the MQA process
itself is responsible for what we're hearing and appreciating.... there's another thread for that.
 

But you've titled the thread the MQA Appreciation Thread. How can you express appreciation for something you don't know?
 
A couple who met on the Internet has been email and text-dating for a few weeks. She says, "I just spent $300 at the hairdresser for their new Miraculous Quality Application...it makes your hair much more beautiful!" He says, "Wow, that was expensive. How did it turn out?" She says, "It's the most beautiful hair now! Here's a picture..." and she sends him a picture the back of a head of beautiful hair. He doesn't know what her hair looked like before, so he can't evaluate the improvement, or if there even is any. Worse, he doesn't even know if that's really her hair.
 
That's what you've got here.

Let's say that the improvements made could be had with a standard, good hirez master -
and that MQA's only benefit is to get the hirez quality in a smaller, streamable package.
I don't think that's all there is to it... but let's postulate that for now.
 

Those are all huge assumptions based on what you've been fed. There may be more to it, there may be nothing to it. That's really all we know.  What are you actually appreciating?

That would be good enough for me.... as we're benefitting from higher quality Tidal streams.... assuming the quality continues.
 

Then retitle your thread, The Tidal Stream Appreciation Thread, and don't attribute the difference to anything in particular other than the choices Tidal has made in presenting their product.

Again....this is a subjective thread about the perceived enjoyment of
MQA recordings... regardless of the scientific or engineering reasons AND regardless
whether all of MQA's claims are true.

....anyone else want to share enthusiasm for the better sound of MQA albums???

Sorry, you've still got nothing here.
 
"Better sound of MQA albums"? Better than what? What's your reference? And is that the same reference the MQA version was made from? Is the non-MQA version the best it could be?
 
What are you appreciating?
 
Let me point out, the "process" of gaining "appreciation" in this thread seems to be listening to a Tidal-streamed track or album, then playing some other version. That's a fully sighted, fully biased A/B comparison, and the result is fully biased opinion, with nothing whatever to do with reality.
 
You want to appreciate the Tidal stream vs some other version?? You've got this task: Find a way to play the Tidal stream AND the other version in perfect sync, and via identical hardware. Find a way to instantly switch between them.  That's instantly, with no gap.  Find a way to remove the sighted bias and introduce a blind control (X). Collect a few hundred trials, compile, and publish.   Otherwise, you're stating your appreciation based on expectation.  What if someone else has heard that MQA throws away a lot of data then resynthesizes it?  How does that sound? So they listen to an up-sampled 24/96 version of 16/44 master of a 1970s analog tape master, and think it's better because there's no "missing data" and no "resynthesis".  See what I mean?  How's that for spin?  And yet, with at least several of your suggestions, that's exactly what's going on.  
 
You cannot appreciate what you don't know.
 
And so far, you don't even know what you don't know.