Update your Tidal and get "Masters"

That was a great read, and easy to understand. So, with an N of 2 (Rex and archimago) one person says the sound is better, the other says it's not any better. All the graphs, etc. that archimago uses (except Joni Mitchell. Which, blech, Joni Mitchell) shows that there really isn't a difference. Seems that a lot of the press on what this does is puffery, but I guess the bottom line is that (except for the outlay for a DAC and the $20!!! per month (and sure to go up)) you get nice sounding streams.
 
That was a great read, and easy to understand. So, with an N of 2 (Rex and archimago) one person says the sound is better, the other says it's not any better. All the graphs, etc. that archimago uses (except Joni Mitchell. Which, blech, Joni Mitchell) shows that there really isn't a difference. Seems that a lot of the press on what this does is puffery, but I guess the bottom line is that (except for the outlay for a DAC and the $20!!! per month (and sure to go up)) you get nice sounding streams.

I agree. Good read. Although I'm less interested in the measurements. But let me just say that I'm not the only one that says it sounds better. In fact, I think everyone on this thread that has actually heard a full decode says it sounds better. In fact, Archimago says he was able to discern differences in an ABX blind test 70% of the time. That's statistically much better than "no difference". And I suppose you can say that all the muiltitude of professional reviews that are saying it sounds better is "puffery" too, but then you might as well say that any opinion is "puffery" and that wouldn't be very fair.

Allow me to just put this in perspective, as I really feel like I'm starting to sound like a zealot. I'm an audio skeptic. I think the differences that audiophiles hear are vastly overstated. I cringe when someone talks about a "night and day difference" when comparing gear. I think that our own confirmation bias accounts for a vast majority of those differences. Sound is just one of many hundreds of inputs (price, perception, build quality, expectation, other's opinion) our brain receives when we plug in a piece of new gear. I prefer the sound of the DAC in an Apple Airport Express over a $900 DPSpeaker DAC. I run a frickin' Crown XLS 1502 amp into my beloved Ohm Fs for chrissakes! I'm not audio elitist. What I like about MQA is that it's essentially a free upgrade for me. At $100-200 to upgrade, it's a downright value for others. In my opinion, it's a bigger upgrade in sound quality than going from a $60 DAC to a $900 DAC, from a $200 amp to a $2,000 amp, based on my own experiences with different gear. Is it a "night and day difference"? Nope. Would I bet I could score more than 70% in an ABX test? Nope. Is it worth $0-200 as an audio upgrade? Absolutely.

If anyone is in the mid-Michigan area this weekend, I'm having my audio club over on Sunday. Shoot me a PM, you're welcome to stop by and listen for yourself. I'm always interested in getting other's listening opinions. You can also check "hear a pair of Ohm Fs" off your bucket list as well. ;)
 
I agree. Good read. Although I'm less interested in the measurements. But let me just say that I'm not the only one that says it sounds better. In fact, I think everyone on this thread that has actually heard a full decode says it sounds better. In fact, Archimago says he was able to discern differences in an ABX blind test 70% of the time. That's statistically much better than "no difference". And I suppose you can say that all the muiltitude of professional reviews that are saying it sounds better is "puffery" too, but then you might as well say that any opinion is "puffery" and that wouldn't be very fair.

That's not what Archimago said, or showed. Go back and re-read it again (I'll copy/paste here):

"As for the sound itself, having both the MQA decoded files and an original 24/96 "Studio Master", I have been able to do A/B comparisons easily with the foobar ABX plugin. For me (and my 45 year old ears!), I was not able to score >70% when blinded using AKG 701 headphones with my ASUS Xonar Essence One DAC/amp for any of the 4 "mainstream music" samples I examined. This is corroborated by the "correlation null depth" measured with Audio Diffmaker where I'm seeing 70-85dB; much better than the typical 60-65dB null depths with MP3 320kbps using recent LAME encoder versions. The only exception to the high correlation null measurement was the Joni Mitchell track which sounds like it's the same mix, but I suspect it comes from a different transfer compared to the 2013 HDtracks version I have. Even with that one I was not able to ABX with impressive result. Sure, maybe if I sat down and meticulously listened for subtle differences, maybe did a bunch more A/B switching one very quiet night, nuances in certain passages may be evident... By the way, based on the findings, one would probably try to listen for slightly more high frequency "presence". I tried this with my wife in the main system downstairs for around 15 minutes before she got really bored. She was not able to consistently choose either."

He talks about how it's easier to ABX between MP3 and non-MP3, how that's due to the measured "correlation null depth" being so low. Between a known HDTracks and the MQA, that number isn't in the same range. Further, with ABX, he wasn't able to discern a difference. Whether or not you like spectral plots and other measurements, he did an excellent job of showing that the MQA was nearly the same as the known HDTracks file, just with stunted highs, due to the lossy compression/folding they do. Whether or not you could hear that difference.... If you can hear a difference, that's fine. *Should* you be able to hear a difference? The point here is that this is another view of the same format. It's good to have more than one opinion on this. That doesn't nullify your opinion OR archimago's. It's great that we can discuss this and it hasn't gotten heated, etc. Why can't cables/cords/whatever discussions in the main section ever go this smoothly? THIS is the type of experience on AK that I used to be a subscriber for. If there were more of this I'd really consider supporting the site again.

What, to me, would be more interesting, would be if Archimago or someone else with the tools, did a proper dither/downsample on the HDTracks file to redbook, made sure all levels were equal, then did an ABX. THAT would be a better comparison than "I listened to Tidal MQA and compared to my CD and it was much better." I'm a strong believer that redbook can be more than adequate for great sound, if given the proper master to begin with. My point, I guess, would be that I'm glad that MQA is here, in that it finally gives (by all reports) great sounding streams, but why couldn't they have just done this with redbook all along?
 
I agree, great to be able to keep it civil.

Maybe this thread is just tiring me out, but when I read this: "As for the sound itself, having both the MQA decoded files and an original 24/96 "Studio Master"... I was not able to score >70% when blinded", this means to me that he was able to hear a difference in the MQA track 70% of the time. If there were truly no difference, wouldn't an ABX return closer to 50%? Maybe I'm missing something. Also, note that he's not comparing MQA to Redbook. He's comparing MQA to an original 24/96 master. The beauty of MQA on Tidal, and the opinion I've expressed here, is that it's a clear upgrade of what's currently available out there: Redbook.

Here's another thing, and I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see where Archimago is actually doing a full MQA decode. I don't see where he mentions he's using a fully MQA compatible DAC. It looks to me like he's just looking at tracks that have had the software decode only. If that's the case, his whole comparison isn't very valid if he's not allowing the format to fully reveal itself. I must be missing something.
 
He's using desktop Tidal app to do the decode...

Standard is >90%confidence for ABX.

My systems use room correction via DSP, which makes a huge improvement in SQ. MQA wouldn't allow that, so I'll have to give it a pass.
 
He's using desktop Tidal to do the decode...

Standard is >90%confidence for ABX.

Thank you. Obviously I need to read up more on ABX comparisons. But again, I don't see the point of his opinion if:

1. He doesn't have the full product to review
and
2. He's comparing to a 24/96 master, something most of us don't have easy, free access to.
 
?? Tidal is the full product, it fully decodes in software, so that's what he's testing. He compares Tidal's decoded stream against the same masters that Tidal uses, to the best of his knowledge. Perfectly valid test, seems to me...
 
?? Tidal is the full product, it fully decodes in software, so that's what he's testing. He compares Tidal's decoded stream against the same masters that Tidal uses, to the best of his knowledge. Perfectly valid test, seems to me...

Not if the discussion is full MQA vs Redbook, like we've been having throughout this whole thread. It started as "Hey look, everyone who was previously listening to Redbook on Tidal now has the ability to get a partially decoded MQA file or a fully decoded MQA file if your DAC supports it." The opinion I expressed on this thread was "I'm getting a full MQA decode and it sounds better than the same Redbook track on Tidal."

His opinion is valid, I just think it pulled us off track from what we were previously discussing.
 
Ok, I see what you're saying. The whole point of MQA streaming is to get "better" than CD quality, while keeping the streaming rate as low as possible. It seems to accomplish that, if indeed it is technically possible to get better than CD quality.
 
@Rex81 Things are getting blurry for me again. Are you saying that a 24/96 source file is not fully decoded by Tidal? That by having an MQA DAC, the 24/96 source file will decode (unfold) to a higher sample rate/resolution? And/Or be even more "de-blurred" than the 24/96 master? I'm not trying to be contentious, I just want to be clear on where you're coming from when you say fully decoded.

:cheers:
 
Ok, I see what you're saying. The whole point of MQA streaming is to get "better" than CD quality, while keeping the streaming rate as low as possible. It seems to accomplish that, if indeed it is technically possible to get better than CD quality.

Right on. :thumbsup:
 
@Rex81 Things are getting blurry for me again. Are you saying that a 24/96 source file is not fully decoded by Tidal? That by having an MQA DAC, the 24/96 source file will decode (unfold) to a higher sample rate/resolution? And/Or be even more "de-blurred" than the 24/96 master? I'm not trying to be contentious, I just want to be clear on where you're coming from when you say fully decoded.

:cheers:

Hmm, now I'm going back to read what I wrote. First, let's have a look at this article, which is about as simple an explanation as you can get about MQA decoding:

http://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-decoding-explained#VVBwQH3VtCZVyQQP.97

"If the original MQA file is 24/48, 24/96, or 24/88.2, it will pass through the software decoder and be 'unfolded' to its original resolution".

However, "If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file through an MQA software decoder like Tidal HiFi, Audirvana, or (soon) Roon, and you are using a regular DAC (i.e. a non-MQA DAC), you will get a 24/96 file. A software decoder does not offer the ability to 'unfold' the original file to resolutions higher than 24/96 (or 24/88.2)."

So software decoding, as Archimago is doing, is achieving the full original resolution since he's comparing 24/96 source files. I guess I missed that detail. My apologies. He wouldn't be getting everything if the source file was 24/192 or above. And it's known that original master files are all over the place (16/44.1, 24/48, 24.88.2, 24/96, 24/192, 24/352.8, etc). And, no, MQA can't add resolution that wasn't there in the first place.

So Archimago's testing is spot on and can't be faulted. He's just not testing the question that we had at hand: Is MQA better than Redbook.

Sorry for the confusion.
 
So software decoding, as Archimago is doing, is achieving the full original resolution since he's comparing 24/96 source files. I guess I missed that detail. My apologies.
:thumbsup: No worries, no sorrys required mate. I'd been through that article (even posted the "decode path" image from it here) several times and was wondering if I was confused/missing something. Glad that piece cleared up some fog for you.
 
And I found interview I referenced above: http://www.stereophile.com/content/spencer-chrislu-master-quality-authenticated

Quote:

"It's important, though, to protect the interests of studios. If a studio does their archive at 24-bit/192kHz and then uses that same file as something to sell on a hi-rez site, that is basically giving away the crown jewels upon which their entire business is based."

Yet shortly after his (Spencer Chrislu, MQA's director of content services) "crown jewels" comment he said, "There is no point in trying to lock anything down,.."

:idea: That seems fairly contradictive in the spirit of this conversation. If anything, it upholds MQA Ltd.'s contention that there is no DRM in the MQA product.
 
Is it possible that MQA isn't all it's cracked up to be? What if they "sign up" all the major labels and all tracks become only available in MQA because it successfully unseats regular CD's (and current Hi Def formats) as the defacto standard? Shouldn't be a problem, right? We all will enjoy better sound. And for those who don't want MQA, it is backwards compatible, right? Or is it?
What I can see is two different scenarios. The first all is well and Hi Fi gets a revival with everyone from the mega system down to the iPhone and ear bud suddenly getting to experience the MQA difference. The second, MQA takes over everything else, but after the euphoria wears off it starts to become plain that it really didn't sound any better than 24/96, and actually isn't much difference in file size either. The backward compatibility feature promise was a bit of a hoax in that MQA files really don't sound as good over Non-MQA DACs. Now music is more expensive to buy because everyone is paying another layer of royalties, on the front end (with their new MQA DAC, and the back end with higher subscription rates for Tidal and paying more for music downloads.

Everyone keeps telling the naysayers to stop bashing MQA, either embrace it or not, but what if we are all forced along at some point?
 
Last edited:
Yet shortly after his (Spencer Chrislu, MQA's director of content services) "crown jewels" comment he said, "There is no point in trying to lock anything down,.."

:idea: That seems fairly contradictive in the spirit of this conversation. If anything, it upholds MQA Ltd.'s contention that there is no DRM in the MQA product.

We had the same trend in video: first Macrovision, then HDCP. Now it is time for audio content to be "protected" too (after DVD-A watermarking and SACD signatures).
 
...The second, MQA takes over everything else, but after the euphoria wears off it starts to become plain that it really didn't sound any better than 24/96, and actually isn't much difference in file size either.

Except it does sound better, and there is a file size difference (a very significant difference when you're looking at files sampled higher than 96), and that difference is important. That file size difference allows a hi-res file to be streamed into a home, something that has not until now been possible. Streaming is the key here.

The backward compatibility feature promise was a bit of a hoax in that MQA files really don't sound as good over Non-MQA DACs.

Except it's not a hoax because MQA does sound better than Redbook, even over non-MQA DACs.
 
However, for that little light to illuminate, there can't be any DSP processing done with the data stream, which seems to preclude the sort of modern driver and room correction that ELAC, Kii Audio, and many other forward-looking companies are doing with their powered speakers. DSP driver/room correction can do far more to improve SQ in-room than MQA.

MQA doesn't want the digital stream accessible in any way, which is why they were initially insisting that the decode had to be done in the DAC's firmware. Many DAC makers said "screw you, MQA!" So, they now allow these software plugins, along with the few DACs that are MQA enabled.
 
We had the same trend in video: first Macrovision, then HDCP. Now it is time for audio content to be "protected" too (after DVD-A watermarking and SACD signatures).
Your analogy here is irrational. To me, that’s akin to saying Sharp’s Quattron technology is a DRM scheme.

Is MQA proprietary? Sure. Universal DRM foisted upon the consumer at the behest of the content owners? Nah.
 
Except it's not a hoax because MQA does sound better than Redbook, even over non-MQA DACs.
Are you referring to the Master authentication part of it? Or the Tidal software that partially unpacks MQA?

Except it does sound better, and there is a file size difference (a very significant difference when you're looking at files sampled higher than 96), and that difference is important. That file size difference allows a hi-res file to be streamed into a home, something that has not until now been possible. Streaming is the key here.
I have read to the contrary, but that article was blasted by the pro MQA crowd here so I wont bother to link to it.
 
Back
Top Bottom