[Brain Damage]

We have all agreed to that a few times already but no streaming service offers it afaik

Qobuz does.

 

[The1Signature]

I have a couple of MQA renderers (dragonfly black and Ztella) and full MQA decoders (LG V30 & V40) and I can honestly say, IMO, some Tidal Masters sound better than their Qobuz counterpart and vice-versa.

i have tidal and qobuz for around 2 years, too.

i see the issue exactly like you.

 

[Double C]

I rejoined Tidal this year and now have Apple Music and Tidal as my streaming services. I think both sound great and I really like the way both Atmos and MQA sound to my ears but for me the biggest standout for Tidal was the CREDITS section. I can now know what monster bassist, trumpet/sax, singer, etc is killing it on a track, which helps me to discover more sounds.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

I rejoined Tidal this year and now have Apple Music and Tidal as my streaming services. I think both sound great and I really like the way both Atmos and MQA sound to my ears but for me the biggest standout for Tidal was the CREDITS section. I can now know what monster bassist, trumpet/sax, singer, etc is killing it on a track, which helps me to discover more sounds.

That's a good point. I also enjoy seeing the lineup on great albums.

 

[Brain Damage]

This may be of interest- I managed to do a quick bit of research before my subscription to Tidal ends:

This first image is the metadata for Tidal's MQA version of The Who's 'Who's Next' album streamed through UAPP.

The second image shows the metadata for Qobuz's Hi-Res version of The Who's 'Who's Next' album streamed through UAPP. You'll note that this is a 2014 remaster of the original 1971 recording - Geffen Records.

​

 

[rkw]

I was under the impression that the album is encoded to mqa (directly from the master tape according to the marketing) and then is streamed to tidal...I mean I was under the impression that tidal decides.

The music label is in control and decides what they want to give to consumers. Tidal is only a middleman delivery service.

 

[gregorio]

I was under the impression that the album is encoded to mqa (directly from the master tape according to the marketing) and then is streamed to tidal...I mean I was under the impression that tidal decides.

Nope. The record label owns the recording rights, tidal and other distributors pay for a licence to distribute whatever they’ve negotiated with the label/s but they will never have direct access to the master recordings, only to whatever copies in whatever format have been negotiated. Don’t believe the marketing!

You'll note that this is a 2014 remaster of the original 1971 recording - Geffen Records.

Incidentally, Olympic Studios was one of the world’s great recording studios for many years. Then in the late 1980’s it was taken over and the new studio manager hired a bunch of skips and simply dumped their huge collection of master recording tapes. Entire albums by Hendrix, Queen, Led Zepplin, Deep Purple, Ella Fitzgerald, Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Moody Blues, Pink Floyd, The Eagles, Bowie, Clapton and numerous others, along with all the original film music master recordings done there, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, The Italian Job, Life of Brian and others. There were thousands of master tapes covering around 25 years, among them were 3 albums by The Who, including “Who’s Next”, all just dumped!

However, the skips were left unsecured outside the building for a week or so and obviously someone noticed and did a bit of “dumpster diving”, some of the salvaged master tapes were converted into “bootlegs” but most were thrown away again, as they’d been too weather damaged. So there’s a slight possibility the original recordings of “Who’s Next” still exist but most likely they ended up with the vast majority of others, taken away 35 years ago and either incinerated or put in a land fill somewhere. Again, I’d take the marketing with a pinch of salt.

G

 

[wwyjoe]

Folks, i'm streaming Tidal and Apple Music lossless via bluetooth LDAC to my portable dac amp.

For Tidal MQA, the files will be downsampled to 16bit/ 44.1?

For Apple Music, are files which are higher than 16bit/ 44.1 (e.g. 24bit/ 44.1, 24bit/ 96, 24bit/ 192) also downsampled?

Technically speaking, which of the above would stream at the highest quality via bluetooth LDAC?

Thanks

 

[chef8489]

Folks, i'm streaming Tidal and Apple Music lossless via bluetooth LDAC to my portable dac amp.

For Tidal MQA, the files will be downsampled to 16bit/ 44.1?

For Apple Music, are files which are higher than 16bit/ 44.1 (e.g. 24bit/ 44.1, 24bit/ 96, 24bit/ 192) also downsampled?

Technically speaking, which of the above would stream at the highest quality via bluetooth LDAC?

Thanks

Well if you are streaming via Bluetooth you are not getting true lossless anyhow.

 

[rlw6534]

Folks, i'm streaming Tidal and Apple Music lossless via bluetooth LDAC to my portable dac amp.

For Tidal MQA, the files will be downsampled to 16bit/ 44.1?

For Apple Music, are files which are higher than 16bit/ 44.1 (e.g. 24bit/ 44.1, 24bit/ 96, 24bit/ 192) also downsampled?

Technically speaking, which of the above would stream at the highest quality via bluetooth LDAC?

Thanks

This is a quote from the Q5K app that implies that 44.1 source is best for LDAC quality, by avoiding resampling:

Sony LDAC supports the sample rate up to 96KHz. Typically, most source audio is 44.1KHz, and YouTube Audio streaming is 44.1KHz as well. Android automatically selects the highest LDAC sample rate, 96KHz, and it upsamples the source audio to 96KHz for the LDAC encoder. For a 44.1KHz source, encoding 44.1KHz @ 909kbps would provide slightly better sound quality than encoding 96KHz(Oversampled) @ 990kbps. You can opt-out the supported LDAC frequencies and fix the LDAC sample rate to 44.1KHz. If you usually listen to 44.1KHz sources, fixing the LDAC sample rate at 44.1KHz, as is, would provide the best sound quality as well as slightly longer battery time.

 

[peterinvan]

EQ for Tidal via HiBy Music.

I just discovered that HiBy Music 4.1 includes a link to my Tidal account.
It's great to apply the EQ on my Tidal tracks.

My 70+ ears need some treble boost, and with EQ I can now listen at lower volumes. Double plus.

However the HiBy GUI for the Tidal app is lacking some key functionality, like the ability to sort Albums, Artists, Playlists.

I still have to use Tidal to see recommendations based on my years of usage.

 

[ProteinFromTheSea]

I love their sound, however, this is out of necessity. Not to be conspiratorial, but considering that Tidal's 16-bit 44kHz FLACs are mysteriously worse than any other 16-bit 44kHz FLACs, I would not be surprised if Tidal sabotages the quality of their hifi option, in order to make MQA sound better by comparison. They still sound brilliant. Listen to Raha ja rakkaus by Leevi and the Leavings, This is Happening by LCD Soundsystem and Primal Heart by Kimbra, three solid albums that sound great with MQA.

 

[peterinvan]

Playing Tidal from HiBy music​

I was excited to try Tidal from my Hiby Music App (Android on FiiO M11Pro).

I was able to use the excellent Hiby EQ functions playing my Tidal tracks. The Tidal UI is lacking functionality, but EQ is great.

HOWEVER… the link to Tidal seems to time out after I exit the Hiby app. I can’t find a way to re-establish the link to Tidal.

I have had to delete the Hiby app, re-install it, and log into Tidal again.

Any suggestions?

 

[Golden Ears]

Apologies I'm being lazy here - trying to catch up. Golden Ears, is he right, or is MQA the sunny uplands? I know the answers are in the last 98 pages, but......

Golden Ears here.

My thoughts on MQA in part apply to voicing considerations. Every person who designs voices a particular piece of audio gear be it a codec, speaker cable, loudspeaker, or hardware component has voicing considerations.

Sometimes it’s problematic. For instance let’s assume that the voicing person likes a very forward immediate sound, even if some music wasn’t recorded that way. They strive to layer that sense of front row immediacy onto that recording and EVERY recording thinking that that’s the most accurate. When in fact they’re actually creating additional distortion, by excluding the venue.

Well that’s sort of the problem I have with Bob of Meridian. so when giving the choice of a partial unpacking of hearing - a 24/96 file without MQA versus a 24/192 MQA file… (unless you happen to adore the Meridian house sound… ) You might find it objectionable to have everything so in your face.

In the search for clarity, sometimes things can become hyper clearer or more clear than the original performance was. More immediate. Audiophiles can sometimes mistakenly select this as more pure.

Indeed if you’ve got a really great performance venue you may want to capture more of the venue sound and less close mic’ing of the performers.

For instance if you’ve got a fantastic opera hall like the original Carnegie Hall, why in the world would you want to close mic an opera singer and exclude all of the reverberance and grandeur of that hall??? It would make the opera singer sound much less powerful.

 

[gregorio]

For instance if you’ve got a fantastic opera hall like the original Carnegie Hall, why in the world would you want to close mic an opera singer and exclude all of the reverberance and grandeur of that hall???

Firstly, Carnegie Hall was never an opera hall (house), it was designed as a concert/recital venue.

Secondly, you would typically want both; to close mic a singer/performer AND capture some of the venue’s reverb. Virtually always (for many decades), some sort of multi-mic setup/mic array will be used, in addition to a close mic, so that the direct sound verses reverb balance can be adjusted during mixing. This is because too much hall reverb will make the performer/s sound distant and muffled, while too little will sound unnaturally dry and close/present.

Lastly, once the balance of reverb to direct sound has been decided and the final mix is finished, there is no way to reduce the amount of reverb. It is baked into the recording and cannot be removed, and it certainly cannot be removed by speakers, cables or other audio reproduction components. There’s two potential caveats to this assertion: 1. For the last dozen years or so, there has been DSP software available that can reduce/remove reverb but it’s only partially effective and is almost exclusively used in the audio post (TV/Film) industry, rarely if ever in the music recording industry. 2. Certain types of audio processing can, under certain conditions, create the perception of more presence (a closer presentation), audio compression for example or boosting the mid/high freqs with EQ. However, this is only the perception of more presence, the actual reverb is not reduced.

It would make the opera singer sound much less powerful.

No, in fact quite the opposite, it would make the opera singer (or other musician) sound more “powerful”. Without a close mic, the singer would sound far more distant, more muffled and weaker. However, with only a very close mic (and no other room/distant mics or additional reverb) this could, under certain conditions, be perceived as somewhat less powerful because obviously, a very close sound does not need much power to sound loud.

G