Tidal and MQA Files

**mep** · March 21, 2019, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Mike

Ok, just tried it again. The MQA version had more natural piano and vocals UNLESS I use Roon DSP to convert it to DSD, then it sounds it’s been through the proverbial digital blender.

Her voice especially changes. If I do that, I do hear the glassy quality. Piano at the beginning is also quite noticeable.

BUT, I DID like the 16/44 converted to DSD and have to say this version, the vocals sounded best. But I did hear a veil over the performance. Everything seemed less transparent and smaller.

And no issues at the beginning of either version.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The veil on her voice was lifted on the 16/44.1 version. Like I said, it sounded like I was in the recording studio hearing her singing.

**Alpinist** · March 21, 2019, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by mep

The veil on her voice was lifted on the 16/44.1 version. Like I said, it sounded like I was in the recording studio hearing her singing.

Not surprising that you prefer the redbook if your DAC is converting MQA files to DSD. That was never meant to happen.

Ken

**mep** · March 21, 2019, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Alpinist

Not surprising that you prefer the redbook if your DAC is converting MQA files to DSD. That was never meant to happen.

Ken

Neither was developing a lossy format for PCM files after digital storage became cheaper than dirt. Back to your point though...Most DACs are optimized for either PCM or DSD and they usually don't excel at both. I've also read lots of comments from people who are converting PCM to quad DSD and claim it gives them the best sound. I still don't understand how non-MQA PCM files sound really good when converted to DSD, but MQA files suffer during the conversion.

**Mike** · March 21, 2019, 02:25 PM

Some PCM files suffer being converted to DSD as well.

**Kuoppis** · March 21, 2019, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Alpinist

Not surprising that you prefer the redbook if your DAC is converting MQA files to DSD. That was never meant to happen.

It is indeed a bit odd, attempting to evaluate a format after converting it into another.

Wouldn’t basic logic require to listen to the format as it is, if you were to evaluate it?

I would argue the comparisons were actually not evaluations of MQA, but tests of DSD with different source material.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

**Alpinist** · March 21, 2019, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by mep

I still don't understand how non-MQA PCM files sound really good when converted to DSD, but MQA files suffer during the conversion.

Because MQA and PCM are two different files. Neither were ever designed to be converted to DSD. But a pleasing side effect of converting PCM to DSD is that it can take some of the edge off of poorly mastered PCM files.

I think you should reserve judgment until you’ve had the opportunity to do the same comparison through a DAC that doesn’t convert the files to DSD. Through my MSB, I would say I prefer at least 75% of the MQA to the redbook on Tidal.

Ken

**mep** · March 21, 2019, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Alpinist

Because MQA and PCM are two different files. Neither were ever designed to be converted to DSD. But a pleasing side effect of converting PCM to DSD is that it can take some of the edge off of poorly mastered PCM files.

I think you should reserve judgment until you’ve had the opportunity to do the same comparison through a DAC that doesn’t convert the files to DSD. Through my MSB, I would say I prefer at least 75% of the MQA to the redbook on Tidal.

Ken

MQA is lossy, but it’s still a PCM file. Still a mystery to me how converting a bad sounding PCM file to DSD makes it sound better.

**Mr Peabody** · March 21, 2019, 04:23 PM

Sell it if you will but #1 I din't say I didn't like MQA and #2 if I didn't it would be my ears not omy DAC. My first comparison of MQA was on a DAC you wish you had. Of course, so do I, wish I had it.

Also, you should practice replying without being a jerk.

Originally Posted by mep

If you don't like MQA, it must be your DAC.

**nicoff** · March 21, 2019, 04:27 PM

When I first listened to MQA files, I liked it better than the regular 16/44 variant. But then I heard several MQA files where I could not tell a difference betweenQA and 16/44 and that made me wonder what if all I was hearing in the beginning was a tweaked file or say a different version of the original.
Today I no longer think of MQA files as better. In fact, since I am upsampling everything to 512DSD, I much prefer to start with the original 16/44 files as opposed to MQA.

**mep** · March 21, 2019, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Alpinist

Because MQA and PCM are two different files. Neither were ever designed to be converted to DSD. But a pleasing side effect of converting PCM to DSD is that it can take some of the edge off of poorly mastered PCM files.

I think you should reserve judgment until you’ve had the opportunity to do the same comparison through a DAC that doesn’t convert the files to DSD. Through my MSB, I would say I prefer at least 75% of the MQA to the redbook on Tidal.

Ken

MQA is lossy, but it’s still a PCM file. Still a mystery to me how converting a bad sounding PCM file to DSD makes it sound better.

**still-one** · March 21, 2019, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by mep

MQA is lossy, but it’s still a PCM file. Still a mystery to me how converting a bad sounding PCM file to DSD makes it sound better.

If your position is that upsampling PCM files to DSD or DXD cannot improve SQ that is your opinion and it might be valid for you but you will find many who disagree.

If you are just trying to be a smart ass and paint all MQA files as bad sounding then you have proved your options are worthless. You really don't want an answer.

**kzhtoo** · March 21, 2019, 05:00 PM

Don’t you need a true MQA DAC first and foremost if you want to evaluate MQA format? Saying a bunch of things without doing this ^ first is just being difficult and pointless.

**mep** · March 21, 2019, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by still-one

If your position is that upsampling PCM files to DSD or DXD cannot improve SQ that is your opinion and it might be valid for you but you will find many who disagree.

If you are just trying to be a smart ass and paint all MQA files as bad sounding then you have proved your options are worthless. You really don't want an answer.

First of all, you are distorting what I said and you are missing what other people are saying. I’m being told that converting bad sounding PCM files to DSD makes them sound better but converting MQA files which are also PCM to DSD makes MQA sound worse. That’s the head scratcher for me.

**Jack** · March 21, 2019, 05:23 PM

mep has a true MQA DAC as do I, several in fact.

**mep** · March 21, 2019, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by kzhtoo

Don’t you need a true MQA DAC first and foremost if you want to evaluate MQA format? Saying a bunch of things without doing this ^ first is just being difficult and pointless.

Has MQA taken a position that you shouldn’t use the DSJ to play MQA files?

**CPP** · March 21, 2019, 06:25 PM

I have 3 MQA dac's although not $10k and up dacs but I can hear a difference, sometimes MQA sounds better sometimes not.. I have a Lumin, ExaSound and Brooklynn +. I think it all depends on the recording and since we do not know the masters used by Tidal its a hit and miss on which recordings do improve with MQA vs say, 16/44 or 24/96 or 24/192 or the LP. But to flat out say MQA is better than all and its the way of the future of music delivery, well if thats the case I'll just keep my LP's and CD's at least I own them, because i'm 50/50 on the MQA being better than any format/medium thats been put out.

**kzhtoo** · March 21, 2019, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by mep

Has MQA taken a position that you shouldn’t use the DSJ to play MQA files?

DSJ converts MQA to DSD. Have you taken a position that that how you should judge MQA format?

I personally don’t find MQA exceptionally better or worse. Some files sound better some don’t. But at least my DAC decodes MQA the way it’s supposed to.

**mep** · March 21, 2019, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by kzhtoo

DSJ converts MQA to DSD. Have you taken a position that that how you should judge MQA format?

I personally don’t find MQA exceptionally better or worse. Some files sound better some don’t. But at least my DAC decodes MQA the way it’s supposed to.

MQA shows PS Audio DACs in their list of industry partners so why shouldn’t I judge the sound of MQA using a DAC from a company that MQA obviously approves of?

https://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/our-partners

**Mike** · March 21, 2019, 09:05 PM

I’ve been communicating with a few folks involved with MQA.

The consensus is that converting MQA to DSD is not the desired approach and is not “true” MQA since ultimately, MQA is a PCM format and not a DSD format.

To quote one source:

“MQA decided to open up their end-to-end philosophy a bit and offer 1st unfolds to those manufacturers who do not want to be restrained by MQA hardware certification demands. For this reason some early naysayers like PS Audio joined the MQA bandwagon for marketing reasons, but not whole-heartedly in their approach and implementation...”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Jack** · March 21, 2019, 09:29 PM

Mike

They will tell you whatever you want to hear to further their cause and get dealers to keep pushing their gear. Since you are a PSA dealer why don't you run that MQA statement by Paul and get his input. I doubt he will agree.

**Mike** · March 21, 2019, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by Jack

Mike

They will tell you whatever you want to hear to further their cause and get dealers to keep pushing their gear. Since you are a PSA dealer why don't you run that MQA statement by Paul and get his input. I doubt he will agree.

I don’t need to. The DAC’s convert everything to DSD. In that case, all bets are off for things staying constant.

Did you forget how Paul was against MQA and then decided to adopt it? What changed?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Mike** · March 21, 2019, 09:36 PM

What happened?

The fear of being left out?

https://www.audiostream.com/content/...wan-weighs-mqa

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Jack** · March 21, 2019, 09:36 PM

No Mike I haven't forgotten anything, but I am pretty sure you have sold DS DACs based on their ability to play MQA files and that they are certified by MQA so it's kind of convenient for them to back track when things are found to be different from what is favorable to them.

**Mike** · March 21, 2019, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Jack

No Mike I haven't forgotten anything, but I am pretty sure you have sold DS DACs based on their ability to play MQA files and that they are certified by MQA so it's kind of convenient for them to back track when things are found to be different from what is favorable to them.

I actually haven’t sold one since the flip. Haven’t sold one in years.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Jack** · March 21, 2019, 10:21 PM

The Directstream DACs themselves are not and never will be MQA compatible as you know. Conversdigital who manufactures the Bridge streaming card included in the DSJ and an option on the DS Sr. decided to upgrade their product to be MQA compatible hence the change in designation to Bridge II by PSA. Ayre is using the same streaming card in their products but didn't chose to enable MQA for their line while Charlie was alive. Whether or not they change time will tell. So yes a "flip" was made but it is in the Bridge and not the DAC itself kind of like Auralic is doing with their products. All software related. Other than that if you like MQA or even "adore" it like some here do then good, but if you don't care for it one way or the other like some of us then everybody gets to be happy with their choice. But contrary to the opinion of some it doesn't take a 5+ to six figure DAC to make the decision. Entirely too much of the "mine's better than yours because it cost more" going on around here lately.

**bart** · March 22, 2019, 09:36 AM

When I compare what's available on Tidal and Qobuz, I often see that where Qobuz offers a 24/192 file (for example with the Blue Note remasters), Tidal offers a MQA version.
Often, not always.
Qobuz still has way more hi-res.

So, these remasters - that are splendid by the way - quite surely use the same masters.
I don't see the point in converting them into MQA instead of listening to them uncompressed.
Unless you don't have the bandwidth to listen to hi-res of course.

**AJ Soundfield** · March 22, 2019, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by bart

So, these remasters - that are splendid by the way - quite surely use the same masters.
I don't see the point in converting them into MQA instead of listening to them uncompressed.

What you are missing is those HD masters, despite being encoded/filtered at >2X minimum what any old human guy can hear, need to be refiltered to add a nice dose of aliasing distortion "folded back" into the very audible band and then reEQ'd.
Only then can they be considered "authentic".

cheers,

AJ

**Mike** · March 22, 2019, 10:46 AM

What we need to keep in mind is that early A2D converters sucked ass. The ones today aren’t a lot better, but they’re better. Anything that improves on those lousy first attempts at digital is ok by me.

Now tape direct to vinyl, that’s a whole different discussion!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**AJ Soundfield** · March 22, 2019, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Mike

What we need to keep in mind is that early A2D converters sucked ass.

Evidence? What made all those stellar recordings prior to MQA?

**Mike** · March 22, 2019, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield

Evidence? What made all those stellar recordings prior to MQA?

Analog.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**AJ Soundfield** · March 22, 2019, 10:58 AM

Ya, no great digital recordings in the last 30 years....

**bart** · March 22, 2019, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by mep

So here is a recommendation for those who love jazz, Dave Brubeck, and excellent live recordings. The Dave Brubeck Quartet Live At Carnegie Hall is simply outstanding and it's a 16/44.1 recording. If your system is anywhere near being full range, you are in for a treat. You seldom hear drums recorded this well on modern day recordings. This is simply a great recording with great musicianship. Mike talks about the DAC putting lipstick on the 16/44.1 pig, but that's nonsense with this recording. It's a natural beauty.

Mark, thank you for this suggestion.
I'm streaming it now (via Qobuz

) and it is indeed an outstanding recording.

**bart** · March 22, 2019, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Mike

What we need to keep in mind is that early A2D converters sucked ass. The ones today aren’t a lot better, but they’re better. Anything that improves on those lousy first attempts at digital is ok by me.

Now tape direct to vinyl, that’s a whole different discussion!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes Mike, but my example were the Blue Note remasters.
I'm sure Qobuz and Tidal used the same master tapes for their stream.
Probably even the same 24/192 files that Blue Note sent both of them.
These remasters were mostly done in 2014.

So you have the same A2D converters.

Qobuz offers the 24/192 stream, unaltered, while Tidal offers the MQA 24/192 version.
I think every altering step can possibly harm sound quality.
I prefer to stream the untouched 24/192 stream, but I admit I'm fortunate to have very decent bandwidth here.

**mep** · March 23, 2019, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by bart

Mark, thank you for this suggestion.
I'm streaming it now (via Qobuz

) and it is indeed an outstanding recording.

Thanks. I'm glad you enjoyed it!

**Mike** · March 23, 2019, 09:07 AM

Supposed to be very good. I’ll listen when I get home.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**KeithR** · March 23, 2019, 03:30 PM

Did a half dozen swaps in Tidal through my MSB and couldn’t find a single track better in 16/44. Generally more information, especially harmonics, and flow.

**mep** · March 23, 2019, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by KeithR

Did a half dozen swaps in Tidal through my MSB and couldn’t find a single track better in 16/44. Generally more information, especially harmonics, and flow.

Glad you love MQA.

**Mike** · March 23, 2019, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by KeithR

Did a half dozen swaps in Tidal through my MSB and couldn’t find a single track better in 16/44. Generally more information, especially harmonics, and flow.

It’s because your DAC plays MQA natively.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**UltraFast69** · March 23, 2019, 08:16 PM

Both can be good - depends on the mood barring all things equal

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Thread: Tidal and MQA Files

Re: Tidal and MQA Files

Re: Tidal and MQA Files

Re: Tidal and MQA Files

Re: Tidal and MQA Files