[mswlogo]

  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.
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?
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.
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.

​I am NOT a fan of MQA for some of the reasons you sited. But I think it's unfair to go bashing MQA for a group of folks that look very favorably upon MQA or want to have an open mind about it.
 
Like he said there are plenty of threads for that.
 
It's unfair to question their reasoning for "Appreciating it" when they requested a group of folks that already do.
 
If there was a group formed that loved that hairdresser that wanted to meet over a cup of Tea. You have no right to barge in and say that they all don't look so hot and should find another hairdresser. It's just disrespectful.
 
Even though I'm not an MQA fan, I say just let it ride and see where it goes. In the end the consumer will decide.

 

[cfbruck]

I also don't see the problem /critique.

There are many albums/masters on tidal where the same master is available as either mqa'd or not mqa'd. You can just compare them and see if you like the mqa'd better.

One should be aware that mqa'd is not lossless, and the developers do not claim that it is.

This is not strange, however, since (part of) the point of mqa is to alter the file, namely perform corrections for the hardware both at a/d level and d/a.

If the dac is not licensed, no correction is done at d/a level (since the correction is hardware specific)

As I understand however, even when a/d hardware is unknown (old masters for example) they still perform some corrections, based on general assumptions about the hardware.

If it sounds better is up to you to determine.

 

[mswlogo]

One should be aware that mqa'd is not lossless, and the developers does not claim that it is.
 

 
Again, I'm not an MQA fan. But this comment is also unfair. And also doesn't belong in this thread.
 
If say a recording was recorded at 768 and Mixed and 384 and released at 44, 192, and 384 (all FLAC)
 
Is the 44 Considered "Lossy"?
Is the 192 Considered "Lossy"?
Is the 384 Considered "Lossy"?
 
Let's just say the 384 is considered Lossless because that's what the Master Mix was released at and everything else was downsampled from.
If a later version is released at 768 does that now make the 384 one lossy?
 
MQA lingo has certainly made the term "lossless" more fuzzy. But it was already getting fuzzy.
 
I think what lossless really means in practice is, is it below Redbook or At-or-Above, that is about the only consistent definition left.

 

[cfbruck]

Yes, I think you are right. Lossy/lossless seems like a bad distinction in this context. (But they do not claim that mqa can transmit a 196 24 file compressed losslessly into 24 48)

My point what simply that mqa is not only about delivering hi res files more easily.

It is also about actively altering the file based on ideas that you can perform certain corrections based on knowledge of the hardware, much like modern digital cameras process the image and perform certain corrections for the physical lens in the camera, and software can process the image and perform corrections for known printer models when you are about to print the picture.

I have no idea if this works with regard to audio, but it sounds interesting, and I'm all for listening and comparing.

 

[oneway23]

Is everyone on the internet required to share their opinions in every thread?  The OP politely requested a space in which fans of MQA could discuss their enjoyment.  If you're not a fan, or you believe it to be the equivalent of audio voodoo, why not show the OP the same respect and politely ignore the thread?  Plenty of other places to discuss the scientific merits (or lack thereof).

 

[pinnahertz]

 
​I am NOT a fan of MQA for some of the reasons you sited. But I think it's unfair to go bashing MQA for a group of folks that look very favorably upon MQA or want to have an open mind about it.
 
Like he said there are plenty of threads for that.
 
It's unfair to question their reasoning for "Appreciating it" when they requested a group of folks that already do.
 
If there was a group formed that loved that hairdresser that wanted to meet over a cup of Tea. You have no right to barge in and say that they all don't look so hot and should find another hairdresser. It's just disrespectful.
 
Even though I'm not an MQA fan, I say just let it ride and see where it goes. In the end the consumer will decide.

I'm not bashing MQA, I'm simply saying that nobody can "appreciate" something that they don't know anything about (except what they've been told to expect). 

 

[pinnahertz]

   
Again, I'm not an MQA fan. But this comment is also unfair. And also doesn't belong in this thread.
 
If say a recording was recorded at 768 and Mixed and 384 and released at 44, 192, and 384 (all FLAC)
 
Is the 44 Considered "Lossy"?
Is the 192 Considered "Lossy"?
Is the 384 Considered "Lossy"?
 
Let's just say the 384 is considered Lossless because that's what the Master Mix was released at and everything else was downsampled from.
If a later version is released at 768 does that now make the 384 one lossy?
 
MQA lingo has certainly made the term "lossless" more fuzzy. But it was already getting fuzzy.
 
I think what lossless really means in practice is, is it below Redbook or At-or-Above, that is about the only consistent definition left.

Resampling and lossy compression are not the same thing.  For a codec to be "lossy" it would be eliminating "inaudible" data within the audio spectrum based on some form of psychoacoustic masking model.  Resampling does not eliminate data in the audio spectrum until you resample to a rate that that is so low the eliminates a portion of the audible spectrum.  
 
Many consider Redbook, 16/44.1, to be a basic minimum in terms of representing the full audible spectrum. 

 

[pinnahertz]

  Is everyone on the internet required to share their opinions in every thread?  The OP politely requested a space in which fans of MQA could discuss their enjoyment.  If you're not a fan, or you believe it to be the equivalent of audio voodoo, why not show the OP the same respect and politely ignore the thread?  Plenty of other places to discuss the scientific merits (or lack thereof).

Simple: the convicted expression of opinion without basis is a serious mutation of truth.  
 
Here's a green cube.  I say, with conviction "That's a blue cube!  It's the best, most pure blue I've ever seen!".   But, is it blue or green?  
 
Just because the opinions are emphatic doesn't mean there's a wit of truth to them, other than they are, truthfully, just opinions.  
 
With MQA, it's impossible to have an opinion on it because we have absolutely no means of reference.  Yet, strong opinions will always be taken as fact.  
 
I'm not saying MQA is bad, good, or neutral. I'm saying we have no way to know.  

 

[TokenGesture]

Just compare a Tidal MQA Master against the non-MQA Tidal version and point out if you prefer the MQA Master version. Thats all the OP is asking to be done. Its not that complicated. Or compulsary.  

 

 

[oneway23]

  Simple: the convicted expression of opinion without basis is a serious mutation of truth.  
 
Here's a green cube.  I say, with conviction "That's a blue cube!  It's the best, most pure blue I've ever seen!".   But, is it blue or green?  
 
Just because the opinions are emphatic doesn't mean there's a wit of truth to them, other than they are, truthfully, just opinions.  
 
With MQA, it's impossible to have an opinion on it because we have absolutely no means of reference.  Yet, strong opinions will always be taken as fact.  
 
I'm not saying MQA is bad, good, or neutral. I'm saying we have no way to know.  

 
All well and good, but, I don't think the OP's stated intention was to offer empirical proof that MQA was THE superior audio delivery format, merely that they wanted to share their enjoyment, which is a belief and not in need of proof.  
 
I don't have a problem with varying opinions, but, I DO take issue when someone infringes on another's enjoyment in an attempt to "prove" that they are right, and that the person somehow maybe shouldn't be enjoying what they are hearing. There are a lot of places to discuss the science behind MQA, and the OP explicitly stated that they didn't want this to be one of them.
 
Back on topic, I really enjoyed Booker T. & the MGs "Green Onions" in MQA via Tidal.  Sounds fantastic!

 

[pinnahertz]

  Just compare a Tidal MQA Master against the non-MQA Tidal version and point out if you prefer the MQA Master version. Thats all the OP is asking to be done. Its not that complicated. Or compulsary.  

 

Fine.  I'm just pointing out that if there is a difference it may or may not be MQA because you have no idea if they were made from the same master, or if anything was done between the master and MQA.
 
You're not simply comparing MQA to non-MQA.  That, folks, is at this point, an impossibility.   And yet, in this thread, we're asking people to evaluate "MQA".  That's absolutely NOT what's going on.

 

[headfry]

Appreciation, enjoyment is for its own sake.

I may not understand all of the mechanics of how MQA
works - nor do I care. All I want to do is to share my appreciation of a number of MQA recordings and encourage others to do so and to reach their own conclusions and hopefully share them - good, bad, indifferent all welcome.

Deep enjoyment of recorded music is why most of us are in this hobby....can we all agree here? Many of the above posts criticizing or disputing MQA's valudity, claims and/or musical quality - while perhaps being intellectually stimulating or providing an outlet for expression unrelated to this passion appear to be in the wrong forum (with all due respect fellow headfiers).

The truth is found by auditioning over a reasonable time period.

 

[pinnahertz]

   
All well and good, but, I don't think the OP's stated intention was to offer empirical proof that MQA was THE superior audio delivery format, merely that they wanted to share their enjoyment, which is a belief and not in need of proof.  

Not asking for proof it's better! We don't have it anyway. I have no problem sharing the opinions and sharing the enjoyment. I do have a BIG issue with attributing that enjoyment or forming opinions without a clue as to what we're actually hearing.  If you just say, "I think the Tidal track is better", fine.  If you add "because they are using MQA"....nope.  Because you cannot know that.  Nobody does.

I don't have a problem with varying opinions, but, I DO take issue when someone infringes on another's enjoyment in an attempt to "prove" that they are right, and that the person somehow maybe shouldn't be enjoying what they are hearing. There are a lot of places to discuss the science behind MQA, and the OP explicitly stated that they didn't want this to be one of them.

Yeah, the delusion of enjoyment is addictive. The real thing is SO much better.

 

[pinnahertz]

Appreciation, enjoyment is for its own sake.

That's ridiculous. That's like a blind man having a favorite color.

I may not understand all of the mechanics of how MQA
works - nor do I care. All I want to do is to share my appreciation of a number of MQA recordings and encourage others to do so and to reach their own conclusions and hopefully share them - good, bad, indifferent all welcome.

No problem with any of that until you attribute your appreciate to MQA.

The truth is found by auditioning over a reasonable time period.

That would be scientifically incorrect.

 

[pinnahertz]

 
Back on topic, I really enjoyed Booker T. & the MGs "Green Onions" in MQA via Tidal.  Sounds fantastic!

A 1962 recording made on Scotch 111 tape in mono would be the perfect test of MQA.  
 
I give up.