[Capt Yossarian]

This is slightly off-topic but if anyone wants to hear what Tidal MQA can do check out Bill Frisell/Thomas Morgan "Small Town" (the masters version). It's one of the most gorgeously-recorded live albums I've ever heard. Get into a quiet space and put this on. I have a pair of humble, quarter-modded Sennheiser PX-100's and the ambience of this recording is at times startling. At one point I thought I was hearing people talking in low voices outside my window and I took off the headphones only to realize it was coming from the recording. Musically, even at lower bitrates, this is a great record in its own right. They do an amazing version of Goldfinger.

GOOD CALL! Thanks, Bob, I hadn't stumbled onto that one yet. Someone should start a thread of "MQA Album Recommendations" that, like yours, would hopefully go beyond the
standard "warhorses".

 

[Capt Yossarian]

Food (and wine and....music) for thought. We BELIEVE that we perceive the world rationally and scientifically, but we DO NOT. Expectations often get in the way.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...t-why-we-cant-tell-good-wine-from-bad/247240/

 

[BobSmith8901]

GOOD CALL! Thanks, Bob, I hadn't stumbled onto that one yet. Someone should start a thread of "MQA Album Recommendations" that, like yours, would hopefully go beyond the
standard "warhorses".

Great idea!

 

[Ragnar-BY]

if you specify nothing, I'm a little annoyed because it might imply some false statement to some of the readers.
if you mean it's objectively of higher fidelity when you feel that it is or when you like it better, then I'd have a bunch of counter examples in audio, and paradoxes coming anytime 2 people disagree on what sounds better. and it happens alllll the time. ^_^

Well, I can`t get into other person`s head and see what (s)he likes or not, so nobody can be 100% positive on sound quality perception. But.. I believe MQA in Tidal sounds better. Not "better to my taste", just better. I have compared sound of few familiar albums and each time I could hear very certain differences, each time those differences were in favor of the MQA.

And another thing. MQA-haters mostly talk about graphs, data loss, filters and all other technical things. MQA-lovers usually say "I`ve heard it and I like it". I think the second approach is much more reasonable for our hobby (listening music for pleasure) then the first one.

 

[castleofargh]

Well, I can`t get into other person`s head and see what (s)he likes or not, so nobody can be 100% positive on sound quality perception. But.. I believe MQA in Tidal sounds better. Not "better to my taste", just better. I have compared sound of few familiar albums and each time I could hear very certain differences, each time those differences were in favor of the MQA.

And another thing. MQA-haters mostly talk about graphs, data loss, filters and all other technical things. MQA-lovers usually say "I`ve heard it and I like it". I think the second approach is much more reasonable for our hobby (listening music for pleasure) then the first one.

there is no wrong approach. we like what we like, taste like love doesn't always follow math and doesn't have to.
but looking at the patents and measurements is how you determine what is going on(or try to), and how you can assess objective fidelity. different questions are simply answered differently. the all rage on MQA IMO, aside from all the lies and misdirection from marketing for years, is that some people like it a lot(good for them), but instead of sticking to that subjective appreciation, they try to push ideas of objective superiority, of increased fidelity. you can read such amalgams and self justifications on many MQA topics, and that's wrong:
- first, because we don't measure a degree of fidelity by ear. for that you need the reference track, the resulting sound, and to to measure how much variation went on. never will someone demonstrate that the final MQA file has higher overall fidelity, because that isn't factual. the original master is the closest thing there is from what the artist and his engineers created.

now can MQA make something subjectively more pleasing? apparently if we trust you guys, they can. I'm not doubting your feelings, I see no reason to. but there is a reason why objective reality and subjective impressions are defined differently. nobody should use subjective impressions to make claims of objective fidelity. be it MQA or anything else(vinyls, SACD, tube amps...), it's always cause for conflicts because it's fundamentally wrong and somebody like myself will always come to oppose the erroneous amalgam.

 

[Ragnar-BY]

- first, because we don't measure a degree of fidelity by ear. for that you need the reference track, the resulting sound, and to to measure how much variation went on

If I can not hear something by ear, why should I care about it?

 

[gregorio]

MQA-haters mostly talk about graphs, data loss, filters and all other technical things.

Why would the people who invented MQA be "MQA-haters"?

If I can not hear something by ear, why should I care about it?

No one, including castleofargh, is saying you should care about fidelity. If you can't hear fidelity and therefore don't care about it, that's perfectly reasonable and entirely your choice but then why are you making assertions and arguing about fidelity if you can not hear it and don't care about it?

G

 

[castleofargh]

rhetorical: it's a public forum, people discuss anything they're interested in, not just what you're interested in.

more serious: you're the one who mentioned how you think MQA sounds better. and you specifiy

Not "better to my taste", just better.

I simply replied to that. if it's not taste and it's better, what is it? the obvious suggestion being fidelity. so I explained how fidelity is checked and needs a proper reference.

 

[Ragnar-BY]

Why would the people who invented MQA be "MQA-haters"?

That`s not what I was saying. Not all people, who talk about tech side are MQA-haters. But all MQA-haters are talking only about tech, forgetting the purpose of listening to music.

No one, including castleofargh, is saying you should care about fidelity. If you can't hear fidelity and therefore don't care about it, that's perfectly reasonable and entirely your choice but then why are you making assertions and arguing about fidelity if you can not hear it and don't care about it?
G

Please, show me where I have said anything about "fidelity". I don`t think "better fidelity" means "better sound". After all, why we are listening to music after mastering, not to initially recorded material?

 

[Ragnar-BY]

if it's not taste and it's better, what is it? the obvious suggestion being fidelity. so I explained how fidelity is checked and needs a proper reference.

Well, long story short - according to my ears MQA tracks usually sounds better. What does it mean: high frequencies are smoother, small details like breath and quiet sounds are more distinguishable. I don`t know if it should be called "fidelity" or not. I call this "sounds better". And I don`t need any equipment to verify that in MQA-track I hear this things better than in regular CD-quality track.

 

[gregorio]

[1] That`s not what I was saying. Not all people, who talk about tech side are MQA-haters. [1a] But all MQA-haters are talking only about tech, forgetting the purpose of listening to music.

[2] I don`t think "better fidelity" means "better sound".

1. But those who invented MQA do talk about the tech side, so it's not therefore unreasonable that those who doubt the claims should question that tech side.
1a. This is obviously a false statement because I would be one of those "all MQA-Haters" and I am not forgetting the purpose of listening to music. However, MQA is a lossy data compression codec, so that's what it needs to be judged as.

2. If you think that "worse fidelity" means "better sound" or that "better sound" is unrelated to fidelity, that's fine but then you need to make that clear because the vast majority of audiophiles and members here would assume the opposite.

G

 

[Ragnar-BY]

However, MQA is a lossy data compression codec, so that's what it needs to be judged as.

Lossy MQA-file is playing as 24/192 with my DAC, while "lossless" CD-quality file is only 16/44.1. What resolution is closer to initial master record? I assume pure 24/192 uncompressed PCM would be even better, but there are no such streaming options. For now, MQA with it`s lossy compression is the best quality I can get from streaming service.

If you think that "worse fidelity" means "better sound" or that "better sound" is unrelated to fidelity, that's fine but then you need to make that clear because the vast majority of audiophiles and members here would assume the opposite.

I`ve never said that. Actually, I was not saying anything about "fidelity". I think somebody can make claims about playback fidelity only if he heard original performance. Most of my favorite music is recorded in studio, not live, so I`ll leave this fidelity discussions for others.

 

[castleofargh]

Lossy MQA-file is playing as 24/192 with my DAC, while "lossless" CD-quality file is only 16/44.1. What resolution is closer to initial master record? I assume pure 24/192 uncompressed PCM would be even better, but there are no such streaming options. For now, MQA with it`s lossy compression is the best quality I can get from streaming service.

yes. I'm guessing such file is streamed as 24/48, so even if it was non MQA 24/48, that would be higher resolution than CD. that part is pretty straightforward.
beyond that, it's hard to tell anything(and that's what annoys me, a file format isn't supposed to be a mystery box). 13bit? 15bit? 18bit? in any case the more bits remain from the original audible range, the less ultrasonic content there can be, because data has to be stored somewhere. and vice versa. to this day I still don't know if they attenuate the ultrasonic content until a fixed allocated storage can hold it, or if there is a track by track adaptation of the lower bits discarded to make room for more or less ultrasonic content as the need arises, or if it's a systematic mix of both? I think I've read pretty much all I could find on MQA and I'm still not sure what goes on.
but yes, it's safe to assume that the final signal of 24/48 MQA files gets higher fidelity than redbook PCM or lossy equivalent. no reason to doubt that much.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Lossy MQA-file is playing as 24/192 with my DAC, while "lossless" CD-quality file is only 16/44.1. What resolution is closer to initial master record? [1a] I assume pure 24/192 uncompressed PCM would be even better, but there are no such streaming options. For now, MQA with it`s lossy compression is the best quality I can get from streaming service.

[2] Actually, I was not saying anything about "fidelity".

1. Within the audible range then probably 16/44.1, although as castleofargh stated it's difficult to know because MQA is adaptive. Presuming MQA is well designed, and there's no reason to doubt that it isn't, then there shouldn't be any audible difference between MQA or any other of the better, high bit-rate lossy codecs, AAC 256 for example.
1a. Again, within the audible range there shouldn't be any difference between uncompressed 24/192 and 16/44.1.

2. Actually, yes you were! You stated "high frequencies are smoother, small details like breath and quiet sounds are more distinguishable." - If this statement is true then the fidelity MUST have changed. If the fidelity has not changed, then these observations are NOT observations of the audio and quality (fidelity) of MQA, they're observations of purely what your own perception has created. In which case, MQA is in fact NOT "just better", it is only better for your personal perception/taste, which is the exact opposite of what you've stated (!) and brings us back to castleofargh's earlier post which you disagreed with!

G

 

[D3soLaT3]

I'm not sure if this has already been suggested, but James Taylor's Fire and Rain off the Sweet Baby James album has been stuck in my head since I heard the mastered version.