Tidal and MQA Files

[mep]

In Koolaid?
Ok, just kidding
Yes, heaven forbid it just be a mere preference for "authentic" remastering with some added EQ/aliasing, of artists dead/alive...or not.

They have figured out how to get dead recording engineers to sign off on the MQA files as being "authentic."

 

[mep]

Here’s another one to try:

Elton John - Mad Man Across The Water - Levon.

Listen to how much more rich and full the piano notes are at the beginning of the song with the MQA version.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Listen to how much richer, fuller, and more sustain the piano has on the Krall cut I mentioned above with 16/44.1 vice the MQA version.

 

[Mike]

Mike-The Mytek won't work with the Roon Nucleus+ because it's not a Roon endpoint. I wish I could hear it though. Additionally, I struggle with the concept that converting PCM files to DSD via the DSJ only affects MQA files and not PCM files of all resolutions.

It does affect all PCM files regardless of resolution. Converting to DSD giveth and taketh away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mep]

It does affect all PCM files regardless of resolution. Converting to DSD giveth and taketh away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All I know is what I hear. Go listen to the Brubeck album I mentioned. It's 16/44.1 and it sounds stunning.

 

[Mike]

Listen to how much richer, fuller, and more sustain the piano has on the Krall cut I mentioned above with 16/44.1 vice the MQA version.

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

 

[Ritmo]

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 - Indeed a great recommendation.

 

[Mike]

To clarify, what I said was that upsampling a BAD 16/44 to DSD can help take the edge off. Of course there are plenty of great 16/44 recordings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[still-one]

I leave MQA files alone and let the Upsampler and DAC process those with MQA filters. For the last month or two I have all 16/44.1 files going to 2X DSD and it sounds great. Previously I had been going with DXD (which is either 352 or 384). Fortunately by set-up remembers what I select for each possible rate (44.1, 48, 88, 96, 176, 192 or 384) so I can choose what I think sounds best in every situation.

 

[mep]

Mark - Indeed a great recommendation.

Thanks. I'm glad you like it.

 

[mep]

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]

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]

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]

Some PCM files suffer being converted to DSD as well.

 

[Kuoppis]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[nicoff]

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]

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]

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.