Tidal Masters & MQA Thread!

[iamoneagain]

Thanks @iamoneagain but is there anything in the Album Info or Credits tabs explaining the difference between the otherwise identical 96 kHz and 192 kHz versions? I know now that one of each is a remix produced decades later, with pronounced bass and "loudness". It's very frustrating to have to wade through MQA releases without any indication of provenance, and I am hoping Roon can help.

Think MQA versions are just 192k and 96k versions of regular and expanded of this:

http://www.hdtracks.com/getz-gilberto-expanded-edition

In Album Info in Roon each version has a different product # but nothing else about it.

 

[Left Channel]

In Album Info in Roon each version has a different product # but nothing else about it.

Ah-ha! A product number? Do any match up with what is in the Label/Catalog column here? https://www.allmusic.com/album/getz-gilberto-mw0000649528/releases

That information is something Tidal does not provide, and it's been very frustrating avoiding the non-master remixed Masters without that assistance.

 

[iamoneagain]

Ah-ha! A product number? Do any match up with what is in the Label/Catalog column here? https://www.allmusic.com/album/getz-gilberto-mw0000649528/releases

That information is something Tidal does not provide, and it's been very frustrating avoiding the non-master remixed Masters without that assistance.

Can’t be sure but the 192k MQA 18 track matches the last 4 digits of the 2018 release shown on allmusic.

 

[Left Channel]

Can’t be sure but the 192k MQA 18 track matches the last 4 digits of the 2018 release shown on allmusic.

Interesting, thanks. Too bad there isn't more of a clue there, and in the other three albums. It's easy enough to tell the standard from the "expanded" release because of the ten bonus tracks (which are all in mono), and in Corcovado Gilberto's voice appears in the right channel instead of the left (as someone pointed out to me on another forum). There's also the bass emphasis and other issues.

But it's not at all clear why MQA has produced 96k and 192k versions of the standard album, and 96k and 192k versions of the expanded edition. There is already some confusion about the available Hi-Res versions in general, and this compounds the problem.

This album is just an example. I have the CD and a 192k download of the standard 1964 release, and the Hi-Res version sounds better of course. After being annoyed by at least one of the MQA versions, and having Tidal freeze up on me way too many times while trying to decide which to favorite, I began listening only to my download or streaming the 192k version from Qobuz. But I keep returning to Tidal, hoping for the best.

 

[Signal2Noise]

I'll just leave this here as a "head's up":

http://variety.com/2018/digital/new...-subscriber-and-streaming-numbers-1202815447/

 

[discape]

I've done tests where I was played the HIFI version vs the 320kpbs version and was not able to tell the difference when I didn't know which one was playing (get someone else to play it for you). The interesting thing is I was POSITIVE I was hearing a difference before I didn't know which one I was listening to, and I failed the test.

 

[Left Channel]

I've done tests where I was played the HIFI version vs the 320kpbs version and was not able to tell the difference when I didn't know which one was playing (get someone else to play it for you). The interesting thing is I was POSITIVE I was hearing a difference before I didn't know which one I was listening to, and I failed the test.

Apparently you're normal. What are you doing on Head-Fi?

Can you hear a difference between those formats and Hi-Res/MQA? Many cannot hear that either, but apparently more pass that test than the 320/CD comparison. From one of my recent posts:

A recent study has shown that many listeners cannot hear the difference between 320kbps MP3 and 16/44.1 CD tracks, but many more were able to hear a difference between those two types and 24/192 Hi-Res tracks. Without being told which they were listening to, some heard the Hi-Res difference rationally and scientifically, while others reported an emotional response they could not explain.

 

[discape]

Apparently you're normal. What are you doing on Head-Fi?

Can you hear a difference between those formats and Hi-Res/MQA? Many cannot hear that either, but apparently more pass that test than the 320/CD comparison. From one of my recent posts:

I cannot test that because I do not have the appropriate hardware for the MQA test. However I have always been suspicious of MQA, as it streams at a much lower bitrate than HIFI I believe, which made me think they just wanted to save bandwidth costs by making you think you were getting better quality.

Although I use Tidal, there is something about how the music sounds on it compared to Spotify - I prefer the sound on Spotify, it's a bit livelier. I find Tidal a bit sharp and too loud. So even if the MQA is better there is something about how Tidal decodes that leaves me unsure - but maybe I am imagining that aswell, I would probably fail the test!

 

[Left Channel]

I cannot test that because I do not have the appropriate hardware for the MQA test. However I have always been suspicious of MQA, as it streams at a much lower bitrate than HIFI I believe, which made me think they just wanted to save bandwidth costs by making you think you were getting better quality.

Although I use Tidal, there is something about how the music sounds on it compared to Spotify - I prefer the sound on Spotify, it's a bit livelier. I find Tidal a bit sharp and too loud. So even if the MQA is better there is something about how Tidal decodes that leaves me unsure - but maybe I am imagining that aswell, I would probably fail the test!

MQA streams at HiFi bit rates. That's one of their selling points, as Hi-Res normally requires much higher bit rates.

MQA then "unfolds" to a form of Hi-Res on your end, using the Tidal app software decoder and/or your hardware.

But anyway if you don't like it that's fine. The only true test is what sounds good to you.

 

[castleofargh]

I cannot test that because I do not have the appropriate hardware for the MQA test. However I have always been suspicious of MQA, as it streams at a much lower bitrate than HIFI I believe, which made me think they just wanted to save bandwidth costs by making you think you were getting better quality.

Although I use Tidal, there is something about how the music sounds on it compared to Spotify - I prefer the sound on Spotify, it's a bit livelier. I find Tidal a bit sharp and too loud. So even if the MQA is better there is something about how Tidal decodes that leaves me unsure - but maybe I am imagining that aswell, I would probably fail the test!

MQA sacrifices bit depth and uses that to store more samples. it's really simple, 2 axis variables, use one to partially store the other. also the ultrasounds can end up attenuated compared to the original highres track, and have(can have?) some small lossy parts. so it's for people who believe both that losing bits is fine and that having more samples than 48khz is necessary. and apparently it's also for all the people who misunderstood what this format is doing thanks to marketing always talking about the "more" and trying hard to forget about the "less". marketing will be marketing.
but yes the main idea for MQA is indeed to have relatively high sample rate at slightly lower bitrate(and bit depth), without using the psycho acoustic tricks of lossy formats.

 

[NobbyChad]

I've done tests where I was played the HIFI version vs the 320kpbs version and was not able to tell the difference when I didn't know which one was playing (get someone else to play it for you). The interesting thing is I was POSITIVE I was hearing a difference before I didn't know which one I was listening to, and I failed the test.

Too many factors to say you failed, on poor equipment the f

MQA sacrifices bit depth and uses that to store more samples. it's really simple, 2 axis variables, use one to partially store the other. also the ultrasounds can end up attenuated compared to the original highres track, and have(can have?) some small lossy parts. so it's for people who believe both that losing bits is fine and that having more samples than 48khz is necessary. and apparently it's also for all the people who misunderstood what this format is doing thanks to marketing always talking about the "more" and trying hard to forget about the "less". marketing will be marketing.
but yes the main idea for MQA is indeed to have relatively high sample rate at slightly lower bitrate(and bit depth), without using the psycho acoustic tricks of lossy formats.

I switched on my stereo today and listened to Sade, she wasn't in the room and neither was the band but it sounded like it. All stereo systems use psycho acoustics tricks

 

[castleofargh]

Too many factors to say you failed, on poor equipment the f

I switched on my stereo today and listened to Sade, she wasn't in the room and neither was the band but it sounded like it. All stereo systems use psycho acoustics tricks

I believe I was specific enough. "without using the psycho acoustic tricks of lossy formats". I was talking about the way all those formats take advantage of acoustic masking to discard the data that we are unlikely to perceive, and save a lot of space in the process.
MQA doesn't behave like that despite having the lossy term associated to it.

because I love Sade so much, you still get half a cookie.

 

[discape]

Too many factors to say you failed, on poor equipment the f

Indeed but that is the equip that I have, so you have to scale worth to your context. At the time I had expensive cans and DAC but I'm not actually sure that I used the cans in the test, I think I just used my fairly cheap speakers.

 

[abirdie4me]

Also agree the full unfold is better and about the Brooklyn vs Meridian Explorer 2. The Meridian is a good deal though at $200 plus it does the full unfold and the Dragonfly are renderers.

Is it possible to just use the meridian explorer 2 to do the full MQA unfold and then feed that into another (higher-end) DAC?

 

[Left Channel]

Is it possible to just use the meridian explorer 2 to do the full MQA unfold and then feed that into another (higher-end) DAC?

No, because it doesn't have digital outputs. I can't think of any MQA-capable DAC that would do that for you; certainly not one in this price range.