[musickid]

In tidal only flac 44.1khz "cd quality"/ with mqa versions available for some albums. I believe qobuz offers hires streaming at a premium.

 

[plsvn]

In tidal only flac 44.1khz "cd quality"/ with mqa versions available for some albums. I believe qobuz offers hires streaming at a premium.

you can stream at full native resolution, from Qobuz, albums you have purchased or the whole catalogue with a Sublime+ subscription

 

[Triode User]

you can stream at full native resolution, from Qobuz, albums you have purchased or the whole catalogue with a Sublime+ subscription

Yes, that’s what I took out. I used to subscribe to Tidal HiFi but I did not want MQA and so swopped to Qobuz. My only slight concern is how the hi res files are generated. Fine if they are digital masters but I suspect that many are just upsampled redbook in which case I would prefer Blu2 to do that.

 

[plsvn]

My only slight concern is how the hi res files are generated

it's what they get from the Labels so you can check directly (and I always do) original recording's data
... at least for Classical, which is what I buy

 

[musickid]

I thought qobuz only offered a small percentage of their library in hires with sublime plus. Not their whole library?

 

[plsvn]

All that's available (for purchase) in Hi-Res
No idea about how much it is in % of the whole catalogue

also consider that with a Sublime subscription you buy Hi-Res at 16/44 price

 

[Triode User]

it's what they get from the Labels so you can check directly (and I always do) original recording's data
... at least for Classical, which is what I buy

Is that info available on the label website?

 

[plsvn]

not always but it often is (eg. LSO, Harmonia Mundi, BIS, ACT...)
or can be found in reviews, booklets when available.

 

[musickid]

Some back to basics: if you have a track at 16 bit, 44.1kHz FLAC streaming and i manually set the output sample rate and bit depth in audio midi set up on my imac to match that track exactly does the track then play true 100% to the original unchanged? (i am aware of exclusive mode in tidal/roon whereby the sample rate is changed automatically to match the native file rate.) In my question above there is no "under" or oversampling occurring so the track should play at 44.1/16 in its original FLAC format? As i learn more i tend to digest complex matter quite readily but stumble into mental blocks with the simple ideas.

For Rob, I recently criticised mqa but i'm listening to kenny g brazilian nights album right now at mqa 96khz first unfold on roon and it sounds fantastic with mojo with the green light on. I remember you mentioned mqa timing was off or something similar if i recall correctly. My question is if it doesn't measure up on paper but sounds stunning then when do measurements seize to become a guide to expected sound quality. If it sounds wonderful then...? Of course my ear is not as trained as experienced members so my reaction to mqa streaming here could be a false start.

 

[514077]

Some back to basics: if you have a track at 16 bit, 44.1kHz FLAC streaming and i manually set the output sample rate and bit depth in audio midi set up on my imac to match that track exactly does the track then play true 100% to the original unchanged? (i am aware of exclusive mode in tidal/roon whereby the sample rate is changed automatically to match the native file rate.) In my question above there is no "under" or oversampling occurring so the track should play at 44.1/16 in its original FLAC format? As i learn more i tend to digest complex matter quite readily but stumble into mental blocks with the simple ideas.

For Rob, I recently criticised mqa but i'm listening to kenny g brazilian nights album right now at mqa 96khz first unfold on roon and it sounds fantastic with mojo with the green light on. I remember you mentioned mqa timing was off or something similar if i recall correctly. My question is if it doesn't measure up on paper but sounds stunning then when do measurements seize to become a guide to expected sound quality. If it sounds wonderful then...? Of course my ear is not as trained as experienced members so my reaction to mqa streaming here could be a false start.

I'm not Rob, but, is there a 24/96 version of the same album without MQA, for which you can compare? I've not heard MQA, but, after reading the well-researched article on Computer Audio, (Archumago), I think I'm going to give MQA a pass. I think I'll drop the link to the article, here later, if I can still find it. Though it's only one article from one person's POV, it is well sourced and detailed. I don't like the possibilities of one company, along with the recording industry selling our music to us, yet once again.

 

[csglinux]

I'm not Rob, but, is there a 24/96 version of the same album without MQA, for which you can compare? I've not heard MQA, but, after reading the well-researched article on Computer Audio, (Archumago), I think I'm going to give MQA a pass. I think I'll drop the link to the article, here later, if I can still find it. Though it's only one article from one person's POV, it is well sourced and detailed. I don't like the possibilities of one company, along with the recording industry selling our music to us, yet once again.

I saw a great quote from Stereophile: "Paying for MQA is like hiring someone to rob you."

It's also quite an eye-opener to run some of these MQA/hi-res tracks through an FFT and see how few have any content whatsoever over 20 kHz.

 

[daberti]

I saw a great quote from Stereophile: "Paying for MQA is like hiring someone to rob you."

It's also quite an eye-opener to run some of these MQA/hi-res tracks through an FFT and see how few have any content whatsoever over 20 kHz.

I'm not alone at last

 

[514077]

I saw a great quote from Stereophile: "Paying for MQA is like hiring someone to rob you."

It's also quite an eye-opener to run some of these MQA/hi-res tracks through an FFT and see how few have any content whatsoever over 20 kHz.

That must have been in the 'comments' section of an article. Everything I've read in Stereophile, with maybe the exception of Jim Austin's March article, seems to be sold on MQA.

 

[musickid]

Any further regulation cannot be good especially as the whole MQA infrastructure costs alot to get into. It does not sound bad but the chord sound is way better. That is not just a passing comment but the WTA filter is superior to MQA without doubt.

 

[Rob Watts]

The articles on CA (particularly Archimago's: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/) is really damaging to MQA, and technically the format is clearly a lossy distortion generating codec. 1% THD and noise at 20 kHz? A huge notch at 44.1k? The blue authentication LED working when the bottom 8 bits are scrambled? My worries with the rendering is that it actually creates transient timing errors, because of the mistaken and technically foolish belief that pre-ringing is bad.

The weight of objective testing against the format is now so vast, and the objections so critical, I find it amazing that anybody can take it seriously as a step forward - particularly in a time when I can stream huge 4k movies right into my home.