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

[MikeJazz]

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!

 

Thanks for your further feedback. I also believe that if a recording/mastering sounds good, it will (also) sound good on mqa. But the issue is, how can we assess the merits of MQA if we cannot guarantee assess to the same mastering? Of course most 80's cd's sound bad, the ADC of that time were not great! I have the Peter Gabriel CD "Security", one of the first produced, and it sounds very bad. Sure it's possible to improve it making a new remastering using the tech of today...and encoding MQA afterwords...

 

Let us know of your further findings!

[Samuel T Cogley]

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.

 

I look forward to your review of MQA. I'll be using this helpful guide you provided as a critique template. :-)

[Rt66indierock]

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.

 

 

Without level matching the songs you will not draw the right conclusions. You will more than likely just like the loudest version.

[abrxx]

Without level matching the songs you will not draw the right conclusions. You will more than likely just like the loudest version.

 

I know that level matching is important, but I don't believe its utterly impossible to prefer the non loudest track when the levels are not matched. For sure, its a lot harder. But in doing my own A/B I've noticed it is possible to hear a clearer better master playing quietly and prefer that to the louder smeary frequency-limited version.

[Rt66indierock]

I know that level matching is important, but I don't believe its utterly impossible to prefer the non loudest track when the levels are not matched. For sure, its a lot harder. But in doing my own A/B I've noticed it is possible to hear a clearer better master playing quietly and prefer that to the louder smeary frequency-limited version.

 

abrxx,

 

Sorry I work from big to small. More than likely is over 50% of the time by the way I define probabilities. Probable is something in this case selected 75% or more of the time. Possible is 25% or less.

 

Even if you can hear a better master at a lower volume it is easier to make comparisons at the same volume. And less likely to reach a wrong conclusion because most comparisons are not as clear as your example.

[rbbert]

Warner's has already said that the only albums they plan to make available via MQA are the ones already released in hi-rez, so comparisons should clearly be between the hi-res versions available from retailers such as HDTracks, Qobuz, Highresaudio, etc. and the MQA versions (on Tidal). For the Grateful Dead albums this means the 24/192 (or 24/96) versions from the 2011 remasterings, not the CD's, not the DVD-A's, not the SACD's. Likewise for Talking Heads, The Doors, etc. And this also means that many rock and pop recordings (and some newer jazz) will be significantly peak-limited.

 

Apparently (info relayed from others' discussions with Bob Stuart at CES 2017) the last bit of time and phase correction of the MQA process can only be done in a MQA-certified DAC, because the time and phase characterisitics of the DAC need to be known for the correction to be "correct". Thus the concept of the Tidal desktop app being only "partial" decoding.

 

using only the Tidal desktop app, into a non-MQA DAC, and comparing to those hi-res versions I have, I can say that the MQA version is immediately distinguishable as "different". Both versions are emminently "listenable" when the recording and mastering are good in the first place. Although I have been very skeptical and dismissive of MQA up to now, I have to admit to being very curious about how these albums would sound with the benefit of a true MQA DAC

[Samuel T Cogley]

In my listening tests to an Explorer 2 so far, I much prefer the selections that seem to unpack to > 96kHz.

 

The problem is there is much peak limited garbage in Warner's MQA dump.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Warner's has already said that the only albums they plan to make available via MQA are the ones already released in hi-rez,

 

Can you cite your reference or post a link to such statement?

[rbbert]

Can you cite your reference or post a link to such statement?

 

Google is your friend

 

MQA and Warner: the Real Scoop | Stereophile.com

[The Computer Audiophile]

Google is your friend

 

MQA and Warner: the Real Scoop | Stereophile.com

 

Where in that entire piece does it say "Warner's has already said that the only albums they plan to make available via MQA are the ones already released in hi-rez,"

 

Perhaps Google isn't your friend :~)

 

I quickly scanned it and found:

 

 

"Has Warner Music Group really transcoded their whole vast catalog?No, they're not finished. So far they've only completed the part of their catalog for which 24-bit masters already exist. That's a lot of music. It includes all their digital transfers from analog tape—think, for example, of all those 1950s and '60s jazz titles—and most of their recent recordings. But it's not everything. In fact, that part was relatively easy. Early digital recordings—the ones made before the introduction of CD, and recordings made for CD through about 1987—require more time and attention. They also haven't yet converted the analog masters that weren't already digitized.

So when will they be finished?

They expect to have completed everything—the whole WMG catalog—by next spring."

[rbbert]

Well, what I read there, combined with what I see on Tidal now, pretty much supports what I posted. When or if some Warner albums appear in MQA that aren't also available in traditional hi-res, I can amend that post

[jhwalker]

Well, what I read there, combined with what I see on Tidal now, pretty much supports what I posted. When or if some Warner albums appear in MQA that aren't also available in traditional hi-res, I can amend that post

 

How does it support what you posted? They said the *exact opposite*. LOL.

[rbbert]

How does it support what you posted? They said the *exact opposite*. LOL.

 

Because that's all there is available, and all that Tidal is talking about becoming available (their "30,000 songs"). Planning to do something and actually doing it can be two different things; the evidence to date suggests that only the current hi-res PCM offerings will be available in MQA. More to the point, I was specifically referring to which traditional PCM masterings to compare to MQA, and for Warner Music that means the ones that are currently available for hi-res download already.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do hope the whole catalog becomes available, but there is really little reason at this time to think that will be true

[jhwalker]

Because that's all there is available, and all that Tidal is talking about becoming available (their "30,000 songs"). Planning to do something and actually doing it can be two different things; the evidence to date suggests that only the current hi-res PCM offerings will be available in MQA. More to the point, I was specifically referring to which traditional PCM masterings to compare to MQA, and for Warner Music that means the ones that are currently available for hi-res download already.

Don't get me wrong, I do hope the whole catalog becomes available, but there is really little reason at this time to think that will be true

 

. . . except, again, that they said the exact opposite: "Q: So when will they be finished? A: They expect to have completed everything—the whole WMG catalog—by next spring."

 

​I understand *you* think it's unlikely, but claiming that their statement "supported" what you posted is nonsense. Not trying to be difficult, but words and facts matter.

[rbbert]

. . . except, again, that they said the exact opposite: "Q: So when will they be finished? A: They expect to have completed everything—the whole WMG catalog—by next spring."

 

​I understand *you* think it's unlikely, but claiming that their statement "supported" what you posted is nonsense. Not trying to be difficult, but words and facts matter.

But in fact you are being difficult. First, the fact is that only already existing hires masters transferred to MQA are being offered. Second, you are ignoring the primary purpose of my post, which was to point out the best way to compare MQA to non-MQA for Tidal's current offerings. Whatever...

[The Computer Audiophile]

But in fact you are being difficult. First, the fact is that only already existing hires masters transferred to MQA are being offered. Second, you are ignoring the primary purpose of my post, which was to point out the best way to compare MQA to non-MQA for Tidal's current offerings. Whatever...

 

You said:

"Warner's has already said that the only albums they plan to make available via MQA are the ones already released in hi-rez"

 

 

People will be in and out of this thread without reading all posts. The reason I brought it up and I'm guessing the reason others followed up, is that it's 100% false. I just want the facts available here, not conjecture posted as fact.

 

 

 

You also said:

 

"... all that Tidal is talking about becoming available ... "

 

This is also entirely false. Words matter. The word "becoming" is used with a look toward the future. Tidal is incredibly tight-lipped about this because it is only a service that provides what is delivered by the labels. Please point us to your source of this information, or we should all assume it's false.

[mav52]

Where in that entire piece does it say "Warner's has already said that the only albums they plan to make available via MQA are the ones already released in hi-rez,"

 

Perhaps Google isn't your friend :~)

 

I quickly scanned it and found:

 

 

"Has Warner Music Group really transcoded their whole vast catalog?No, they're not finished. So far they've only completed the part of their catalog for which 24-bit masters already exist. That's a lot of music. It includes all their digital transfers from analog tape—think, for example, of all those 1950s and '60s jazz titles—and most of their recent recordings. But it's not everything. In fact, that part was relatively easy. Early digital recordings—the ones made before the introduction of CD, and recordings made for CD through about 1987—require more time and attention. They also haven't yet converted the analog masters that weren't already digitized.

So when will they be finished?

They expect to have completed everything—the whole WMG catalog—by next spring."

 

When I read the article, my impression is Warner Music Group is not completed. So "next spring" will be here soon so, we shall see.

[abrxx]

When I read the article, my impression is Warner Music Group is not completed. So "next spring" will be here soon so, we shall see.

 

No offence intended here, but this has to be the most pointless MQA-related conversation. As Chris had said, and as everyone (I thought) knows, Warner have released their first batch of "low hanging fruit": the existing catalog of retail-available hi-rez albums, transcoded now to MQA. They are on record saying they plan to finish most/all of their entire catalog by Spring, lets assume end of Spring. There's nothing more really to say here...

[Samuel T Cogley]

When I read the article, my impression is Warner Music Group is not completed. So "next spring" will be here soon so, we shall see.

 

I can't find all the MQA on Tidal now. Any tips on how to find all the MQA content on Tidal?

[mav52]

No offence intended here, but this has to be the most pointless MQA-related conversation. As Chris had said, and as everyone (I thought) knows, Warner have released their first batch of "low hanging fruit": the existing catalog of retail-available hi-rez albums, transcoded now to MQA. They are on record saying they plan to finish most/all of their entire catalog by Spring, lets assume end of Spring. There's nothing more really to say here...

 

Yep and I agree with you.

[mav52]

I can't find all the MQA on Tidal now. Any tips on how to find all the MQA content on Tidal?

 

 

You already know how to find it or you wouldn't be listening to it. Whats there is there, if its not in the Masters area its not there, yet.

[dpstjp2]

Actually there are lots of MQA albums currently on Tidal not listed in the Masters area. The Roon forum is ferreting out plenty not formally listed.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Actually there are lots of MQA albums currently on Tidal not listed in the Masters area. The Roon forum is ferreting out plenty not formally listed.

Not complete, but one of the better lists I've seen so far:

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10VtON9VjMAt3uyHC2-Oo2MjIa3orv9DKZfwiRQKmTAA/edit#gid=945476039

[Samuel T Cogley]

You already know how to find it or you wouldn't be listening to it. Whats there is there, if its not in the Masters area its not there, yet.

 

Not true! The "Masters" area is a subset of all the MQA titles.

[rbbert]

I'm sorry if what I have posted is misunderstood. Yes there is a lot of "talk" about MQA; there has been a lot published in the last 2+ years about how it is (essentially) the second coming of digital audio. Now two years later there are a handful of titles available for purchase and in the last week (finally!) a few hundred titles available for streaming (admittedly and happily a number growing by the day). My posts reflect what has actually happened, and pardon me for being skeptical of "big talk" by the principals involved. Given the rather ill-founded comments and comparisons regarding the sound of MQA all over the forum in the past few days (really! comparing it to CD's, with no idea of comparable masterings much less hi-res or not) I'm a bit surprised with the response to my comments which are in fact directly on point with that topic, and of this moment are not demonstrably false (although I acknowledge, in fact hope, that may change over the next few days, weeks or months)