Tidal and MQA Files

mep

mep

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
5,106
The reason I started this thread is that some of the digital cognoscenti have proclaimed MQA to be the greatest sounding digital ever. MQA was going to lead everyone into the digital promised land. My reaction so far to MQA is quite the opposite which made me wonder are people listening to different MQA files than I am on Tidal. There is something going on with MQA that causes the top end to stick out in the mix and people are constantly talking about how cymbals sound "better" with MQA files. I think making the high end stick out in the mix is coming at the expense of the body of the music which has been put on a keto/vegan friendly diet. It's like drinking diet coke when you were expecting real coke. Margarine instead of butter, Miracle Whip instead of Duke's Mayonnaise. I think you get the point that the files have been manipulated in the MQA process in a way that is not faithful to the actual recording..

I also find there are some jazz titles that are 16/44.1 on Tidal that blow MQA files away with regards to overall sound quality. But then there are some 16/44.1 files that smoke some 24/192 files too. I'm becoming less and less convinced that so called hi-rez files are inherently better than RBCD.

Has anyone purchased MQA discs and compared them against the same title on Tidal?
 
I agree Mark as I have never understood all the excitement about MQA. I have listened to MQA files through five different compatible streamers and never thought the results sounded right to me except in a few rare cases. I have been an almost exclusive Qobuz user for over 18 months.
 
Glad to know that some other people are hearing what I’m hearing.
 
IMO keep the MQA files coming, transients are tighter, increase of soundstage and generally more "foot tapping" musicality (timing)

I am using an Aurender N10 as streamer and a dCS Rossini as DAC. (Tidal/Qobuz/Aurender SSD)

Reading so many positive/negative opinions on MQA, to me it is just another option to play music, in the end the recording itself is most important, a bad recording will not sound good through any file format.
 
Just like high-res files, MQA files are highly variable, some better and some worse than the redbook version. I would say the majority are better. You have to listen and then choose. For me, it’s another arrow in the quiver.

Ken
 
imprezap2 said:
IMO keep the MQA files coming, transients are tighter, increase of soundstage and generally more "foot tapping" musicality (timing)

I am using an Aurender N10 as streamer and a dCS Rossini as DAC. (Tidal/Qobuz/Aurender SSD)

Reading so many positive/negative opinions on MQA, to me it is just another option to play music, in the end the recording itself is most important, a bad recording will not sound good through any file format.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It also, still comes down to the implementation and the DAC. I agree especially on the foot tapping musicality. It’s slightly more relaxed to my ears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
saw the new Dido album (i'm a fan) on Tidal, 'Still On My Mind', in 24/88 MQA (44/24), so i played it and really liked it. power pop, well sung and produced. spacious, lush and nice bass. i happen to like her voice.

i saw the 'add to library' button, but instead went to HD Tracks and downloaded the 44/24 file.

http://www.hdtracks.com/still-on-my-mind

no doubt to my ears the 44/24 file sounds some better on the Select II. a little more vivid and focused.

in direct comparison to the HD Tracks 44/24 file, the Tidal MQA 24/88 seems like it has a very slight smear and softness.

of course, this is simply how it sounds to me.

don't get me wrong, I enjoy the MQA versions of the music on Tidal, but also find so far any hi-rez downloads sound better to my ears. I have not compared redbook rips or redbook downloads yet to MQA so have no comment on that.
 
Mike said:
Agreed. It also, still comes down to the implementation and the DAC. I agree especially on the foot tapping musicality. It’s slightly more relaxed to my ears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yeah, I only have the Roon Nucleus+ and the PS Audio DSJ so I'm really handicapped to hear how special the MQA files are. Somebody name me one album available on Tidal that is available in both MQA and 16/44.1 (or any other PCM version) and the MQA version is better.
 
mep said:
Yeah, I only have the Roon Nucleus+ and the PS Audio DSJ so I'm really handicapped to hear how special the MQA files are. Somebody name me one album available on Tidal that is available in both MQA and 16/44.1 (or any other PCM version) and the MQA version is better.
Click to expand...

I have over a hundred MQA files tagged. I haven't heard one MQA file that doesn't sound better than the 16/44.1 version. Of course it was so consistent that I no longer waste time comparing the two. If I have the choice I always tag the MQA version.
 
still-one said:
I have over a hundred MQA files tagged. I haven't heard one MQA file that doesn't sound better than the 16/44.1 version. Of course it was so consistent that I no longer waste time comparing the two. If I have the choice I always tag the MQA version.
Click to expand...

Can you please name just one file that I can compare?
 
diane krall wallflower is in both formats, i'll play a tune from both and see if I can hear a difference. I would expect the individual hardware to make as much difference also.
 
steve59 said:
diane krall wallflower is in both formats, i'll play a tune from both and see if I can hear a difference. I would expect the individual hardware to make as much difference also.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I will check it out too. And of course hardware makes a difference.
 
Important is also the streaming setup, for me the icing on the cake was the addition of an "audiophile" network switch (galvanic isolated connections).
This network switch improved streaming performance in my system very close to the performance of playing directly from my Aurender SSD.
 
imprezap2 said:
Important is also the streaming setup, for me the icing on the cake was the addition of an "audiophile" network switch (galvanic isolated connections).
This network switch improved streaming performance in my system very close to the performance of playing directly from my Aurender SSD.
Click to expand...

My setup is pretty straight forward. CAT 8 cable run from my Infinity router downstairs to my stereo room upstairs and terminated behind my digital rack of gear. From the wall I have a CAT 8 cable run to my Netgear router. My Roon Nucleus+ and my PS Audio DSJ are both plugged into my Netgear router with CAT 8 cables. I don't have any digital dingleberries hanging off my network. To date, I have not had any dropouts.
 
Mark, see list above.

If you can’t hear it on Andrea Bocelli’s Prayer with Katharine McPhee, time for a new DAC!

The 16/44 sounds like it’s been put through the digital blender.

Mark, keep in mind that your DAC converts EVERYTHING to DSD, even MQA, hence the reason you aren’t hearing much difference IMHO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thanks for the list Mike. How many people are using upsamplers and converting all of their files to DSD? I think there a lots of them. When I first reviewed the DSJ, it made all of my PCM files sound better than when played natively than through the Mytek Stereo 192. That was in a different time in a different room in different state with a different server. Reviewing the latest Mojo server showed me how much the laptop server was holding the Mytek Stereo 192 back. I don't care what anyone says, the Mytek Stereo 192 still sounds great and I would still be using it if it had a Roon end point built in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top