[old tech]

   
You appear to be using your knowledge of the recording process to dictate what should be the case. Only your musical appreciation
(with an open mind) over time will reveal your preference....this hobby is all about aesthetic/artistic, musical, listening pleasure.
 
My intention is not that of sharing naive beliefs of MQA's benefits with "friends"....it's to encourage more to approach MQA with an open mind
and not have an indignant I-know-it-can't-be-any-good cynical attitude that is so prevalant here and elsewhere.
 
 
And it's not true that I'm only looking for validation of MQA's benefits. I'm totally open to those finding otherwise, as long as it's not
someone looking to confirm their negative expectation bias....plenty of those online BTW.
 
 
 
....any other MQA or Tidal Master listening perceptions out there?

 
When I listen to music and decide what is best to my ears I focus on the music not the format it is on, hence why I have CDs, hi res and vinyl in my colllection.  With than in mind, have a re-read what you said in the bold part and reflect that you have described yourself as evident in all your posts.  Projecting that thought on to others may make you feel good but it is not constructive and gets in the way of understanding what makes music sound great.  Just because someone knows that 2 + 2 = 4 does not mean that person is closed minded to entertain someone else's belief that 2 + 2 = 5.  Again reflect that perhaps you might appreciate music more if you let go of your beliefs that have no basis in reality and understand that there are different masterings and the general idea is to get hold of the best one, regardless if it is CD, hi res or even vinyl.  Perhaps then you may come to appreciate that the sound quality is always in the recording and mastering and rather than assuming that MQA is some sort of magic. 

 

[headfry]

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[headfry]

Here's another track to try if interested that may-or may not - demonstrate some of the experienced
benefits of MQA (to some of us only it seems):
 
Bjork.  album:  Biophilia - the opening track "Moon" opens with a harp -
 
on the Master version (software decoded), notice how much of the tone of the instrument comes through, with good 
dimensionality and density.
 
To me, the non-MQA track this harp sounds thinner, with less of the sound of the resonating instrument -
sounds more like a recording, (to my ears) the MQA track has more of the complexity, warmth,
density and natural sweetness and ambience of the real instrument -
 
The MQA'd harp to me sounds like a better harp played more expertly with better expression - the song makes more musical sense to me. To isolate just one component of many in the sound.
 
-this thin-ness of density is a frequent criticism of computer-based audio
 
to me the Master reproduction generally has more saturated tonal colors, texture and weight,
as well as being nicely smoother and somewhat more coherent and refined. Non MQA I've heard tends to sound
more matter of fact - not quite as accomplished in the playing, a bit rougher sound and somewhat flatter
with less ambient cues - also some less impact/weight in the bass, dynamics and drive; not as desirable to me if there is a choice.
 
I understand that these differences can be somewhat subtle and may at times be easy to miss for some on certain
recordings, fair enough. If MQA doesn't work for you no biggie - we all have differing variables. When not making
comparisons, the matching non-MQA recoding generally sounds very good and fine on its own.
 
can be subtle but to myself these are important and consistent differences
.
These improved sounding albums weren't on Tidal before MQA, and if MQA is a scam
let another publisher create the same stream-friendly sound quality in another, competitive format. So far it hasn't happened.
*****************************************************************************************
​Musically, I'l also like to recommend listening to the Bjork's opening track Hidden Place from the
album Verspertine for such great layers -
shaman-poet singer/songwriter in the vein of Kate Bush, Peter Gabriel or perhaps Laurie Anderson (yay late 60's/early-mid 70's pop!). Also, check out the 3rd track "It's not Up to You".
 
*********************************************************************************************
 
It's perfectly OK to disagree as systems, ears, albums, tastes and priorities vary. 
 
Open Mind, relaxed mind. No preconceptions.
 
If any of you would like to advance this discussion of enjoying MQA albums or tracks - feel free to express
your experiences!e.g. Any of you prefer Tidal Masters to Tidal Hifi, or MQA to Redbook (for example)?
 
Looking forward to more feedback and respondents! Happy Listening!

 

[winders]

One thing I have noticed with these MQA tracks compared to the 16/44.1 FLAC equivalents is that the volume is off between the two. The MQA files almost always play louder. So if you aren't careful and volume match, you are going to hear things that aren't really there. I was listening to the MQA Fleetwood Mac "Rumors" album and then switched to the 16/44.1 FLAC version. At first, I thought the MQA version was fuller and more engaging. Then I realized the volume was off. As soon as I matched sound levels I noticed little difference...and that difference I would not categorize as better or worse. Just different.

 

[headfry]

  One thing I have noticed with these MQA tracks compared to the 16/44.1 FLAC equivalents is that the volume is off between the two. The MQA files almost always play louder. So if you aren't careful and volume match, you are going to hear things that aren't really there. I was listening to the MQA Fleetwood Mac "Rumors" album and then switched to the 16/44.1 FLAC version. At first, I thought the MQA version was fuller and more engaging. Then I realized the volume was off. As soon as I matched sound levels I noticed little difference...and that difference I would not categorize as better or worse. Just different.

You acknowledge that there is a difference....fuller and more engaging is what I'm hearing too...among other improvements -
smoothness, better space and soundstage, more natural sweetness to the mids and highs......not subtle 
improvements either.
 
On the albums I've heard I notice no volume difference, however I find the Master tracks have their usual improvements
even at lower volumes relative to the non MQA - I would call the differences I hear better sound quality, similar to good conventional hires, but in a much smaller stream. If the improvements disappeared at lower volumes I'd
be calling the Emperor's New Clothes too.
 
IMHO, MQA is not a scam folks, I don't care if anyone thinks I'm gullible and foolish for preferring it.....
I'm in some very good company too (not that it matters to me, I hear what I hear).
 
ABX is useless in determining the above, usually it is  recommended that auditioning should happen
over a reasonable time frame - e.g. listen to the Master/MQA tracks for a few days - then the non Master tracks
version for the next few days, alternate. Of course ABX won't reveal a preference -music can't be enjoyed that way.
(If still no preference is determined, well you've given it a fair chance and MQA obviously isn't for you).
 
Posts trying to discredit MQA  - including those that keep repeating the same agenda that has
been endlessly posted here and elsewhere - with all due respect - don't belong in this thread

 

[saddleup]

My listening was done with a speaker system not with headphones.  The sound stage collapses.  I didn't associate the difference to volume.  It was more to do with the depth of the sound stage.  With Tidal in general and with MQA titles in particular the sound stage in in your face.  Suddenly the system sounded too loud and we'd reach for the volume control.  Never experienced this on the system before.

 

[headfry]

  My listening was done with a speaker system not with headphones.  The sound stage collapses.  I didn't associate the difference to volume.  It was more to do with the depth of the sound stage.  With Tidal in general and with MQA titles in particular the sound stage in in your face.  Suddenly the system sounded too loud and we'd reach for the volume control.  Never experienced this on the system before.

thanks for your reply saddleup......perhaps Tidal decoded Masters sounds best on a highly resolving headphone setup?
 
I've listened through my speaker setup and liked what I heard, but I generally listen through my superb-sounding GS1000i's!
 
...any other impressions out there? Esp. album and track recommendations.

 

[AxelCloris]

I've had to remove several personal posts again. Please keep the discussion on the topic and not about other members' opinions. I'd rather avoid having to lock the thread.

 

[winders]

  You acknowledge that there is a difference....fuller and more engaging is what I'm hearing too...among other improvements -
smoothness, better space and soundstage, more natural sweetness to the mids and highs......not subtle 
improvements either.
 
On the albums I've heard I notice no volume difference, however I find the Master tracks have their usual improvements
even at lower volumes relative to the non MQA - I would call the differences I hear better sound quality, similar to good conventional hires, but in a much smaller stream. If the improvements disappeared at lower volumes I'd
be calling the Emperor's New Clothes too.
 
IMHO, MQA is not a scam folks, I don't care if anyone thinks I'm gullible and foolish for preferring it.....
I'm in some very good company too (not that it matters to me, I hear what I hear).
 
ABX is useless in determining the above, usually it is  recommended that auditioning should happen
over a reasonable time frame - e.g. listen to the Master/MQA tracks for a few days - then the non Master tracks
version for the next few days, alternate. Of course ABX won't reveal a preference -music can't be enjoyed that way.
(If still no preference is determined, well you've given it a fair chance and MQA obviously isn't for you).
 
Posts trying to discredit MQA  - including those that keep repeating the same agenda that has
been endlessly posted here and elsewhere - with all due respect - don't belong in this thread

The difference that sounds like "fuller and more engaging" disappeared when I volume matched......

 

[headfry]

 
The difference that sounds like "fuller and more engaging" disappeared when I volume matched......

 
 
it did for you but not for myself nor for many others; perfectly valid conclusion for yourself.
 
I respect your opinion but different person, system and usage could have a different take.
 
If that was all it took - matching volume - then this process continues to fool many industry professionals and what
a waste of many millions in funds, man-hours of research and work, for such an obvious, commonly adjusted-for factor.
 
 
Contrary to some poster's views on my intentions- I'm not here only to get praise for MQA and Tidal Masters -
I'm here to encourage open-minded listening and 
reaching one's own conclusions - positive, negative, indifferent, whatever & separate from marketing claims and other poster's beliefs and findings.

 

[winders]

   
 
it did for you but not for myself nor for many others; perfectly valid conclusion for yourself.
 
I respect your opinion but different person, system and usage could have a different take.
 
If that was all it took - matching volume - then this process continues to fool many industry professionals and what
a waste of many millions in funds, man-hours of research and work, for such an obvious, commonly adjusted-for factor.
 
 
Contrary to some poster's views on my intentions- I'm not here only to get praise for MQA and Tidal Masters -
I'm here to encourage open-minded listening and 
reaching one's own conclusions - positive, negative, indifferent, whatever & separate from marketing claims and other poster's beliefs and findings.

 
Clearly you do not respect my opinion because I have to be wrong otherwise everyone else is fooled and has wasted millions of dollars. Thank you.

 

[headfry]

I'm sorry that you feel that way....and I think that you're reading waaay too much into my comments -
in my comment I said that I respected your opinion.
 
No slight in any form was intended; my opinion is just mine and naturally
my opinion isn't going to be everyone's. I'm also open to the possibility that my opinion
could be wrong.
 
 
I've previously stated here that MQA isn't going to be for everyone; it didn't
sound better to you and I totally respect and accept that. We can both express ourselves
and have a thick enough skin to not read more in than was written; I think that it's a good policy
that unless a post is obviously otherwise to assume positive intent.
 
Headfi is supposed to be interesting and enjoyable; not about one's position being any better
than another's.
 
 
...anyone else want to contribute to this thread?

 

[headfry]

OK - so I'm listening to the track Almost Gothic from Steely Dan's "Two Against Nature" - recorded Feb 29 2000 
 
here are my impressions:
 
the MQA version has more drive in the bass, sounds more refined and coherent with noticeably better ambiance around instruments and voices, naturally extended front to back with everything more in its own, believable space
 
the Tidal HIFI version by comparison sounds spacially flattened, the sound less refined and somewhat more aggressive, with everything competing and squashed, limited 3D soundstage
 
better focus on the Master/MQA track in general, for example the backing voice that says:  "

The summer - this could be the cool part of the summer" ​

sounds nicer, as if sung by a better singer (and recorded better) and the triangle on the left has more space and also sounds more enticing
 
...everything does, like moving from a pretty good budget Dac to an upscale, audiophile one
simply better, not even close...a more enjoyable listen for me!
 
- this is with software unfolding only and a non-MQA dac through highly resolving headphones
 
every time I compare I generally much prefer the MQA version - the differences so far are very consistent
on really good recordings
 
BTW really enjoying my trial of Audirvana Plus 3 - worth an audition as well. Tidal sounds very close,
hard to say which sounds better but I'm enjoying comparing.
 
 
...anyone out there have some impressions on Tidal Master/MQA sound quality?

 

[headfry]

Comparing David Crosby’s track: Holding Unto Nothing. from "Croz" -  2014
 
This is with Tidal software decoding and listening with 
very resolving headphones
 
Both versions show same release date; therefore I’m
assuming that the both versions are based on the same master
 
 
After listening to both versions, the differences are vast to my ears
 
the Tidal HIFI version sounds spatially compressed, 
for example Crosby’s voice sounds very close and large - actually
it and the entire soundstage is like an unnaturally flat sheet of sound and again very close - too close to be optimal
- the images are large and only vaguely defined spatially
 
On the Masters version Crosby’s voice sounds a bit further away, with a much
more natural size, shape and focus and extends in 3D, more the way a live voice sounds 
 
... much more real and natural sounding and not an artificially large, flat image on a flat soundstage
 
also, fine detail is better resolved on the Masters version, along with the natural 3D
depth and better focus of the audio images; 
e.g. Winton’s trumpet sounds much more ethereal/emotional/poignant and more convincing in sound and artistic emotion
 
- Masters/MQA version more musically engaging and for me much nicer to listen to - no contest
 

1. comparing the two reminds me a bit  of the 3D naturalness  of a really good tube amp instead of a lesser solid state one with images like flat cardboard cutouts

 
 
or like comparing a very good midfi dac with a high end one that excels in naturalness,
refinement  and imaging/soundstage
 
or like the difference between a flat recording and the way it sounds live from an excellent performance in a really good sounding venue

 

[oneway23]

Just started my work morning listening to The Flaming Lips' "Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots" via Tidal MQA, and, I have to say, it sounds completely indistinguishable from my previously-owned hi-res download.  This is a good thing, IMO, seeing as Warner is simply encoding their existing hi-res masters (which can still be purchased individually, if one should choose) with the MQA process for use via Tidal.  
 
Those $20 per hi-res downloads that stung my wallet on a regular basis can now be enjoyed by anyone with a Tidal Hi-Fi subscription at no additional cost, and yet, they still sound exactly the same, or, if you want to be a little more objective, let's say audibly transparent.  Good times!  
 
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but, I believe that the hi-res download/MQA/whatever for this album is simply a transfer of the 24-96 stereo layer from the DVD-A that was released all those years ago?