Is MQA a Friend of the Devil? A sonic evaluation...

[witchdoctor]

I didn't anticipate the let down I would get going back to standard audio after MQA. I spent the good part of the adternoon listening to MQA tracks on Tidal and enjoying the "revealed" nuances in music I was long familiar with. So I get busy with stuff and tonight sit down to listen to a variety of tracks in redbook. I am looking aound wondering WTF did I do to my system. I checked to make sure my Audyssey settings were engaged, the volume was right, all my speakers were at the right level. Then BOOM it hit me. I wasn't hearing the dynamics I had become used to afgter a few hours of MQA tracks. I guess its a nice problem to have.

[witchdoctor]

I have the DVD-A (also ripped to 24/96 FLAC ), the red book (ripped to 16/44 from late '80's CD) and the MoFi SACD's (ripped to DSD 128) of both American Beauty and Working Mans Dead), I much prefer the MoFi SACD / DSD versions of both, perhaps that's why I did not care for the MQA streams of them?

In my system the Low end of the MQA and DVD-A sounds bloated to me in comparison to the MoFi DSD versions?

 

Yeah but you had to PAY for them, I got my MQA with no funds added. Going forward will you still buy hirez tracks that are also available in MQA? Those DVD-A discs are like $20+ a pop.

[witchdoctor]

MQA needs to be transparant and tell us what source/mix was used to make the MQA/MASTER. This should be in the Metadata so that Roon and Tidal can display it for us and eliminate all the speculation as the source.Apart from this pet peeve I am enjoying the MQA/MASTER tracks through my Explorer2 DAC. Thanks Tidal.

 

 

Who are you, the MQA police? MQA doesn't owe us jack, if you don't like it return your MQA tracks for a refund (hehe hehe)

[witchdoctor]

Yeah I saw those plots. I appreciate folks posting real date rather than just muttering conspiracy theories. I haven't got time to look into at the moment though. But maybe at one point Bob himself can respond at some point. Perhaps Chris can get another round of Q&A after we've had time to listen to the music and do some testing as well.

 

Regardless of what people think of MQA (personally I am cautiously for it), I think we can agree that the marketing and promotion towards audiophiles and tech savvy folks has been a complete mess. I'm glad MQA is now firmly here, but what a crazy ride the last two years have been, with all the changes of direction etc.

 

The plotmeisters now believe MQA came from aliens at Area 51 (watch for the next Will Smith movie for details)

[witchdoctor]

I think only almost all bets are off - if numerous MQA releases sound different but not better than "regular" releases, then we know something. This is what the post just above says.

 

Similarly, if the MQAs only sound a bit better then we also know something. Several here have reported this.

 

Only if we find that MQA sounds a lot better (as Stereophile claimed) do we both care, but not know why.

 

 

From the consumer's point of view, why a MQA release sounds much better may not matter either.

 

Now, the important thing is: which Workingman's Dead do I buy? Should I get the DVD-A or not?

 

I can't say this for certain but I think the quality of an MQA track ir related to the quality of your amp. These tracks are extremely dynamic and your amp needs to be up to the challenge to get the full benefit. Of course it will be related to the quality of the original master but without a great amp you got racing tires with not enough air in them.

[witchdoctor]

I don’t think that MQA does nothing at all, I was just making the point that if it that were true we still have a whole bunch of great sounding albums that to my ears sound way better than the existing redbook versions. I can hardly complain about that! My gut feeling is that compared to the existing redbook flacs on Tidal the new Masters sound better 70% due to improved mastering 20% due to higher sample rate and 10% due to MQA magic. But thats just my gut feeling.

 

I agree, and when you factor in Moores law and the steady march of technology I'll bet this gets better by CES 2017. Like the march from SD, to HD to 4K.

[cgiammona]

My testing approach (almost complete) is to use the 2L recordings on Tidal and the 2l Testbench (where they overlap) for comparisons. Both sets will be run via various setups - MB Pro and Explorer² DAC using Tidal APP and Audirvana (both software and hardware decoding), round 2 will add Woo Audio WA-8 to the mix; MB Pro and Mytek Brooklyn DAC + Woo Audio WA-8 or Taboo MKIII Amp using Tidal APP and Audirvana (both software and hardware decoding).

 

Will post my conclusion when completed. So far, I get the comments made around MQA being brighter with some more clarity, but to me it seems to lose warmth and tends to sound more digital.

 

Chris

[crenca]

My testing approach (almost complete) is to use the 2L recordings on Tidal and the 2l Testbench (where they overlap) for comparisons. Both sets will be run via various setups - MB Pro and Explorer² DAC using Tidal APP and Audirvana (both software and hardware decoding), round 2 will add Woo Audio WA-8 to the mix; MB Pro and Mytek Brooklyn DAC + Woo Audio WA-8 or Taboo MKIII Amp using Tidal APP and Audirvana (both software and hardware decoding).

 

Will post my conclusion when completed. So far, I get the comments made around MQA being brighter with some more clarity, but to me it seems to lose warmth and tends to sound more digital.

 

Chris

 

Yep, it has a noticeable "digititus" as if I am running a different DAC (that I normally would not choose). Perhaps a "warm" playback chain is required (line stage, amp, speakers) to compensate? Would anyone really be surprised if MQA/Meridian had realized this and compensated in just such a way when they did their press demos of the last (how many is it) 2 or 3 years?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Yep, it has a noticeable "digititus" as if I am running a different DAC (that I normally would not choose). Perhaps a "warm" playback chain is required (line stage, amp, speakers) to compensate? Would anyone really be surprised if MQA/Meridian had realized this and compensated in just such a way when they did their press demos of the last (how many is it) 2 or 3 years?

 

Perhaps your extreme hatred of all things MQA had an influence on the outcome.

[crenca]

Perhaps your extreme hatred of all things MQA had an influence on the outcome.

 

Nope, I am not (overly) influenced by my "feelings" when it comes to SQ evaluation - my two evaluations on this very thread (i.e. "Friend of the Devil" and Bob James "A New Cool") speak for themselves. I note both "pros" and "cons" of MQA (what it does well and what it does not) in comparison to the PCM formats livable (and the same up-sampled to DSD).

 

In fact, I would say that besides being a dud when compared to the hype, MQA is probably a positive over all SQ wise (perhaps with a bit of playback chain compensation) when it comes to many recordings (i.e. older and/or poorly recorded in first place), even if this improvement is relatively minor. If it were just this, then it would be a minor thing...but MQA is not really about SQ anyways

[The Computer Audiophile]

Nope, I am not (overly) influenced by my "feelings" when it comes to SQ evaluation....

Oh yes, clearly.

[bobbmd]

agladstone(and Jud) thanks for your insight and info esp Jud but as I have said before it is what one's ears and head hear and feel-I for one enjoy the 'bloated' sound of the DVD-A's and I never really had the opportunity to listen to all the various alterations you guys described as I was limited to whatever Barnes&Noble had to offer at the time- so let us all enjoy the give and take here I find it interesting enjoyable and sometimes humorous.

I think MQA is very good and enjoyable-just remember everyone is different

remember everyone has different ears heads and hearts-keep those MQA threads coming

[Jud]

Now, the important thing is: which Workingman's Dead do I buy? Should I get the DVD-A or not?

 

Bill Scott recommended it; I was initially reluctant (may have been unspectacular DR numbers or bad experiences with prior DVD-As, I don't know). When I did get it, I was happy I had.

 

I agree with another commenter that I prefer the Mo-Fi SACD for sound quality, but it's not a night and day difference. If you don't have the ability to rip/play SACDs, the DVD is well worth it; even if you can listen to the SACD, the DVD version has interest as an alternate mastering.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[agladstone]

I have the DVD-A (also ripped to 24/96 FLAC ), the red book (ripped to 16/44 from late '80's CD) and the MoFi SACD's (ripped to DSD 128) of both American Beauty and Working Mans Dead), I much prefer the MoFi SACD / DSD versions of both, perhaps that's why I did not care for the MQA streams of them?

In my system the Low end of the MQA and DVD-A sounds bloated to me in comparison to the MoFi DSD versions?

 

UPDATE:

Im always the first to admit when I'm wrong (and in this case perhaps also "jumped the gun" a bit too quickly), so after another long Tidal MQA listening session this Morning (while simultaneously ingesting far too much coffee:) ), these are my updated conclusions:

First, as opposed to the Rock and Pop selections I listened to yesterday that I felt sounded pretty awful, I started out this morning listening to all of the Jazz and Classical Tidal MQA albums, and I must admit, they sounded pretty damn good to me! (Especially the Charles Mingus, Duke Ellington, and Coleman albums in addition to the 2L recordings and the Bartok String Quartets).

So, I must make the conclusion, that the culprit in regards to the awful sounding Tidal MQA albums I sampled yesterday, must have been my new nemesis, formally known as Dynamic Range Compression!! I suppose the masters MQA selected for those albums yesterday must have been newer versions with heavy Dynamic Range Compression and as I had suspected prior to starting my listening session today, Jazz and Classical titles would have been much less likely to have been "poisoned" by the loudness war!

Additionally, I sampled a few more rock albums and found some that did sound very good and better than my own 16/44 FLAC rips. Specifically: All of the Smiths albums (although my rips are all from original 1980's released CD's, I have been told the new remasters from the smiths complete box set did sound better, these must be from those masters?)

Also the Chicago Transit Authority, Chicago II and Fleetwood Mac Rumors all sounded a little better than my 16/44 FLAC rips, but all three sounded worse than my DSD / SACD rips.

Thus, I will stand corrected and apologize for my hasty remarks made yesterday and conclude that just the same as my experience with downloads from HDTracks, just because something is 24/192, or DSD or MQA does not alone equal that the album will sound good, some will sound fantastic, and others will have heavy dynamic range Compression and sound awful!

[Ralf11]

Bill Scott recommended it; I was initially reluctant (may have been unspectacular DR numbers or bad experiences with prior DVD-As, I don't know). When I did get it, I was happy I had.

 

I agree with another commenter that I prefer the Mo-Fi SACD for sound quality, but it's not a night and day difference. If you don't have the ability to rip/play SACDs, the DVD is well worth it; even if you can listen to the SACD, the DVD version has interest as an alternate mastering.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

Thanks. Looks like they are about $30, so worth a test.

 

 

Curious to hear more re bloat.

[Jud]

Thanks. Looks like they are about $30, so worth a test.

 

 

Curious to hear more re bloat.

 

The only bloat I'm worried about isn't in my Dead recordings.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[agladstone]

Ralf11:

If you have the ability to play SACD's, I highly recommend the Mobile Fidelity Hybrid SACD versions of both American Beauty and Workingmans Dead (and definitely over the DVD-A's too), to me, they sound spectacular!! The Grisman/ Garcia MoFi SACD's sound amazing too while I'm spending your money for you, lol (I think they have two of them if I recall, maybe Grateful Dawg, and Self titled Grisman /Garcia??).

In my opinion these are two SACD's (or Four:) ), that are worth the investment, I've not grown tired of any of these albums at all since I was in High School and my older Cousin forced them upon me and then dragged me reluctantly to my first Dead Show in 1985 (about 200 more followed)!

P.S. Music Direct has them and they have a 12% or off all music sale this weekend!

[plp1965]

UPDATE:

Im always the first to admit when I'm wrong (and in this case perhaps also "jumped the gun" a bit too quickly), so after another long Tidal MQA listening session this Morning (while simultaneously ingesting far too much coffee:) ), these are my updated conclusions:

First, as opposed to the Rock and Pop selections I listened to yesterday that I felt sounded pretty awful, I started out this morning listening to all of the Jazz and Classical Tidal MQA albums, and I must admit, they sounded pretty damn good to me! (Especially the Charles Mingus, Duke Ellington, and Coleman albums in addition to the 2L recordings and the Bartok String Quartets).

So, I must make the conclusion, that the culprit in regards to the awful sounding Tidal MQA albums I sampled yesterday, must have been my new nemesis, formally known as Dynamic Range Compression!! I suppose the masters MQA selected for those albums yesterday must have been newer versions with heavy Dynamic Range Compression and as I had suspected prior to starting my listening session today, Jazz and Classical titles would have been much less likely to have been "poisoned" by the loudness war!

Additionally, I sampled a few more rock albums and found some that did sound very good and better than my own 16/44 FLAC rips. Specifically: All of the Smiths albums (although my rips are all from original 1980's released CD's, I have been told the new remasters from the smiths complete box set did sound better, these must be from those masters?)

Also the Chicago Transit Authority, Chicago II and Fleetwood Mac Rumors all sounded a little better than my 16/44 FLAC rips, but all three sounded worse than my DSD / SACD rips.

Thus, I will stand corrected and apologize for my hasty remarks made yesterday and conclude that just the same as my experience with downloads from HDTracks, just because something is 24/192, or DSD or MQA does not alone equal that the album will sound good, some will sound fantastic, and others will have heavy dynamic range Compression and sound awful!

 

I agree on classical being a better (apples to apples) comparison. Comparing the Petrenko - Rachmaninoff Symphony No. 1, last movement; MQA vs. regular Tidal, the start of the fortissimo bass drum sounds like someone is hitting a big cardboard box on the regular file. The MQA sounds more realistic. Also the trumpet fanfare that follows sounds much more focused with obvious dynamic shadings that get lost on the standard file. This with the un-decoded 48hz mqa file.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Been listening to some MQA material through a Meridian Explorer 2 that arrived, and it's not as awesome as I was expecting. First and foremost, Warner Music should be ashamed of how much peak limited garbage they're presenting as "audiophile" material. Brickwalled rock seems to be the rule rather than the exception. There are some nice exceptions. The Van Halen catalog is mastered nicely, and I just happen to have equivalent 192kHz files from HDTracks to compare. I also have some Doors albums from HDTracks, but they don't seem sourced from the same masters used for the MQA versions. I could be wrong about this.

 

The first thing I notice about MQA is detail. Sometimes it's almost to the point of being strident. Sibilance does seem to be more "natural", if that makes sense. But I'm not completely sold on it yet. The HDTracks versions through a Yggy or a Gumby sound more "smooth" and to me, more like analog tape. The MQA versions sound "processed" by comparison. It's subtle, but after a time, the "detail" causes a little bit of listening fatigue. Perhaps with a better MQA DAC, this effect would be mitigated better. I can only speculate.

 

But after listening for a couple of hours, I conclude that MQA encoding is de facto remastering. And because of that, it's not really possible to compare apples to apples.

 

Without MQA, the Explorer 2 is meh, which it to be expected from a $200 portable DAC I suppose. With Redbook as a source, I much prefer the Yggy, Gumby, or iDSD Micro/HQPlayer combo. All of this listening was through a Schiit Lyr 2 with LISST "tubes" driving HD600s.

 

I'm going to try to listen to all the non-peak-limited MQA material on Tidal (that's WAY LESS than 30,000 tracks, I assure you) but so far, MQA hasn't changed my life.

[Ralf11]

Ralf11:

If you have the ability to play SACD's, I highly recommend the Mobile Fidelity Hybrid SACD versions of both American Beauty and Workingmans Dead (and definitely over the DVD-A's too), to me, they sound spectacular!! The Grisman/ Garcia MoFi SACD's sound amazing too while I'm spending your money for you, lol (I think they have two of them if I recall, maybe Grateful Dawg, and Self titled Grisman /Garcia??).

In my opinion these are two SACD's (or Four:) ), that are worth the investment, I've not grown tired of any of these albums at all since I was in High School and my older Cousin forced them upon me and then dragged me reluctantly to my first Dead Show in 1985 (about 200 more followed)!

P.S. Music Direct has them and they have a 12% or off all music sale this weekend!

 

Thx - I see W' man's is only $20 with shipping...

[miguelito]

I would be interested in others opinions, but I am going to have a hard time believing that anyone can hear significant differences between the MQA and 16/44 here - if you claim to, please be as specific as possible because I want to hear it also!

My impression of Joni Mitchell's "Blue" is the MQA version sounds better, her voice in particular is "unveiled" compared to all other versions I have (including a 24/192, but that resolution really means nothing). I am pretty sure this is due to careful remastering from the original source rather than anything related to MQA. BTW, it sounds just as better decoded or not decoded!

[Rexp]

Ok, I have spent quality time with what I will call 4 "playback versions" of Bob James "A New Cool" which I take to be an example of a recording with the same mix/master across all available versions:

 

1) 16/44 via Tidal

2) MQA via Tidal

3) 24/48 via JRiver

4) 24/48 upsampled to DSD x 4 (11289600) via HQPlayer (using ASDM7 and poly-sinc-short)

 

And the winner is....wait for it.... NONE! Fact is, I can not be confident in any of the differences I am hearing between all four of these playbacks, as I believe they are all within the 'margin of error' of my hearing acuity and expectation bias. Actually, I can hear just a touch of difference with the HQPlayer/upsampled version in that it gives me that strange mix of rounded off decay and slightly "suppressed" (or is it just right?) tone of the HF harmonics of the (well recorded) and yet more "natural" sounding piano of this album. This fact is counter intuitive because one of the things I miss on an average/poorly recorded piano is the quality of the HF harmonics. The stand up bass in this recording also sounds very natural or live - they captured the "woodiness" and complexity of the instrument that is missing in so many recordings and is the first thing you notice when you hear a stand up played in person. At first I thought the MQA version was capturing the bass the best, but after more few more listens I can only say that the MQA might (just might) be activating the very lowest harmonics (out of my subwoofer) just a tad more than the other versions - almost as if a 1 db shelf has been added starting around 38 cycles or so to the MQA version. I could distinguished nothing significant around the various appearances of strings or voice on various tracks.

 

 

My conclusion is that on certain recordings that are done well in the first place, as most "audiophiles" know, there just is not that much difference between 16/44 and Hi Res. MQA does nothing to change this fact and appears not to significantly change the way the 16/44 sounds either for better or worse. Would a 24/96 or higher version of this recording made a difference? Perhaps, but my guess it would be quite small.

 

I would be interested in others opinions, but I am going to have a hard time believing that anyone can hear significant differences between the MQA and 16/44 here - if you claim to, please be as specific as possible because I want to hear it also! I know that the MQA version "unfolds" to 24/96 as indicated by DAC control, but what does this mean really? That they used the actual "master" PCM 24/96 (or higher) in the creation of the MQA, and if so why does it not sound "better" than my 24/48, or the Tidal 16/44? So the Hi Res 24/48 download is downsampled from a higher res master - does not appear to make any difference with this recording.

 

What all this means is that there might actually be no value in the alleged MQA SQ improvement at all, excepting in older and/or poorly done recordings (which I recognize are the majority that most listen to), but then we are back to the "which is it - a remaster/mix or the MQA that is effect here" question. Which version did I choose to listen to when typing out this comment? The HQPlayer upsampled 24/48 of course...which really means it "wins" but I admit this preference might not be meaningful to someone else...

Agree no real difference between Tidal Hifi and Tidal MQA version. I don't like the sound of either though...not a negative for MQA IMO.

[crenca]

Agree no real difference between Tidal Hifi and Tidal MQA version. I don't like the sound of either though...not a negative for MQA IMO.

 

I don't follow. Is the sound you don't like a personal (style perhaps) thing, or do you mean the actual recording of the instruments, etc? Is the original recording weak, off, compressed, etc. so that MQA has little to work with in your opinion? If it is not a "negative" for MQA, what is it about the recording that MQA can't improve upon and or what would be a "negative" for MQA technically for you?

[Rexp]

I don't follow. Is the sound you don't like a personal (style perhaps) thing, or do you mean the actual recording of the instruments, etc? Is the original recording weak, off, compressed, etc. so that MQA has little to work with in your opinion? If it is not a "negative" for MQA, what is it about the recording that MQA can't improve upon and or what would be a "negative" for MQA technically for you?

1. The recording

2. Yes

3. I think the original recording or the mastering isn't great.

[speshal]

I don't come on here often, but it's pretty entertaining to read all these reports on MQA. The unfortunate part is that nothing being "concluded" is reliable...at least to me.

 

We got one guy making conclusions, but using totally different DACs for the comparison (Meridien/MQA vs Yggy/Non-MQA).

 

We got another guy making conclusions off of one song he knows so well, but then changes his mind later.

 

We got others concluding that MQA adds sibilance... digititis...and is fatiguing. Others like it a lot.

 

The biggest problem (and one that plagues professional reviewers too) is that everyone is using very primitive means for making "conclusions".

 

Before drawing conclusions, I'd recommend doing more thorough testing that includes blind testing. The good news is that it's really easy to do now with Tidal. Here's what I did....

 

1. Listen to songs you know well that has both a Master and Hifi version on Tidal. Compare the two WITHOUT blind testing and make your preliminary conclusions. These results will obviously have a high potential for expectation bias to creep in, but it's still an important step because it further validates/invalidates the accuracy of your hearing in the blind testing phase.

 

2. Whichever song you feel most confident in hearing a difference, create a new playlist with just the Master and Hifi version of that song. (You can add a third random song to the playlist to help with the next step.)

 

3. Bring up the new playlist and click the Shuffle icon so that songs will be played randomly. Position your cursor over the Play button on the Playlist and close your eyes. Then, with your eyes closed, click it randomly a bunch of times and listen. Whenever you think you've identified the right version, open your eyes and verify that you chose accurately.

 

4. Close your eyes again and repeat #3. If you get 7-8 in a row correct, then your "conclusions" from #1 are probably valid and accurate. If you don't, there is no need to feel bad...Everyone is susceptible to expectation and other biases, but it's NOT helpful to go on forums making definitive conclusions after unsophisticated and primitive testing.

 

BTW, the above test assumes that you use the same equipment, plus it only tests the difference between Tidal Masters and Tidal Hifi. The goal is to isolate the improvement brought by the new "Masters" versions, so this keeps the variables to a minimum.

 

Also, if there is a difference for you, it won't tell you if it's related to re-mastering or MQA, but what does that really matter anyway??? The goal of an audiophile is to enjoy the music better. If the one labeled "Masters" legitimately sounds better to you after blind testing, who cares if it's because of remastering or MQA.

 

If it's LEGITIMATELY better or worse on some songs versus others, what does that matter either? You have Tidal and you have both versions...put the one you like best in your playlist.

 

Sometimes I think audiophiles prefer drawing primitive conclusions and arguing about them more than listening to music. At this point, we don't have enough information to know exactly what's being done on a technical level for each song called "Masters" on Tidal, so why argue. Just do a LEGITIMATE test and enjoy whichever you prefer.