MQA Testing

[wklie]

In case you wonder, Tidal offers a 30 days trial.

Tidal 60-day free trial:

http://tidal.com/masters

[4est]

Yes, but they require a credit card upfront, and I wouldn't trust them to let me cancel without a fight when the trial period is over.

 

A call to the CC company is a quick cure for that nonsense if it were to happen.

[Jud]

Yes, but they require a credit card upfront, and I wouldn't trust them to let me cancel without a fight when the trial period is over.

 

No sense making such accusations without evidence. This would be a violation of law if done purposefully or because the company did not make adequate provision for people taking them up on their offer. Complaints from consumers are also no good for a company's credit rating or their ability to allow customers to continue to purchase from them on credit.

 

These sorts of factors are reasons that only outright scams indulge in such nonsense, and whatever one may think of Tidal, it isn't that.

 

Also, just anecdotally, I personally only have Tidal when there's something I want to test, and I have cancelled previously without any problem whatsoever.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[mansr]

No sense making such accusations without evidence. This would be a violation of law if done purposefully or because the company did not make adequate provision for people taking them up on their offer. Complaints from consumers are also no good for a company's credit rating or their ability to allow customers to continue to purchase from them on credit.

 

These sorts of factors are reasons that only outright scams indulge in such nonsense, and whatever one may think of Tidal, it isn't that.

 

Also, just anecdotally, I personally only have Tidal when there's something I want to test, and I have cancelled previously without any problem whatsoever.

 

I've seen enough services that are nigh impossible to cancel that I never assume it will be painless. If someone is serious about offering a free trial, they shouldn't be asking for payment information until it is actually needed. From what people are saying, it appears that Tidal is one of the few that actually let you cancel the trial without fuss.

[Jud]

I've seen enough services that are nigh impossible to cancel that I never assume it will be painless. If someone is serious about offering a free trial, they shouldn't be asking for payment information until it is actually needed. From what people are saying, it appears that Tidal is one of the few that actually let you cancel the trial without fuss.

 

Then it would seem to me to be a clearer expression of what you meant to have said something along those lines, rather than (apparently) accusing Tidal specifically.

 

Please understand I have no special place in my heart for Tidal. But I do like accuracy so I can base my decisions on real information, and this is a way unfounded rumors get started.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[bcwang]

In case you wonder, Tidal offers a 30 days trial.

 

In fact if you link in through the masters quality section of the tidal site they offer a 60 day free trial.

[sphinxsix]

As I said before - my first (2 minutes long) 'listening session' comparison of MQA vs 16-44 Vivaldi: Recitative and Aria from Cantata RV 679, "Che giova il sospirar, povero core" from 2L site was done with $150 Sony headphones (MDR-CD 777 from the early 90s I think!), in-built sound card of $300 laptop and JRiver software. A setup (apart from JRiver which I use myself) that can hardly be called mid-fi I think. I'm sure most headphones fans wouldn't be impressed with its SQ for obvious reasons. In short - MQA sounded bright and shrill in comparison to 16-44.

 

As for my main system listeng session (quite a quick one too due to a lack of time) some things made it a bit more difficult than usual. As I said before - I usually don't do listening tests using classical music only. In fact - this was the first time I used mainly the sound of a harpsichord to evaluate highs. And in addition - due to my listening room's furniture rearrangement its acoustics are temporarily too 'live' - there's too much reverb which makes for example soundstaging evaluation quite difficult (so I won't focus on that). Fortunately I like challenges. Especially the audio ones.

 

From the first moment it was clear that Sony headphones (well obviously not the most revealing cans on the market) didn't lie. At least not that much.. The hard/software undecoded MQA sounded bright. Shrill would probably be a touch too strong word. But definitely bright. Maybe the word 'forward' even better describes what I heard. My speakers don't 'push' the musicians into the listening room space - they create the sonic 'soundscape' more behind them (if the recording is good they can recreate a really huge soundstage). With MQA the sound was quite 'forward' - too 'close' for my comfort. I'd say it made me feel overwhelmed and yes - uncomfortable. And there was subjectively less bass than with 16-44 file. Which didn't help either as far as the general sonic balance is concerned. I'm not that suprised someone in the earlier post said that MQA sounded as if it was equalized. If I use my own recordings for gear/music file evaluation I can usually quite easily tell for example if the lack of low frequencies is more connected with the low- or mid-bass. In case of this 2L recording I suspect there's not much musical information below 35-40Hz so I think it's quite safe to say that at least as for the midbass the MQA sounded thinner than 16-44 file. I won't comment in detail on soundstaging here for abovementioned reasons. In short I prefer 16-44. Moving to 16-44 from MQA was a sonic relief for me. In all the mentioned regards it sounded better. More balanced. I think the undecoded MQA makes just an impression of being more detailed. I like the detail but only when it's connected with smoothness and true timbral richness (with MQA it's not the case IMO). That's in short the reason I love hi-res audio. Moving to 24-96 and DSD 128 files I downloaded too (I did that comparison some years ago using 2L site) reminded me why after listening to my first hi-res albums some years ago it was difficult (almost painful) to go back to my CDs. Even well recorded ones. Just like I said - the natural smoothness, harmonic richness but also dynamics and soundstaging made me almost want to forget the redbook within just hours. Undecoded MQA is for me yet another step backwards.

 

It's just not for me. Maybe when software or hardware decoded it will sound great. I really hope so. On my personal software SQ scale the 24bit and DSD (which BTW I personally like even more than 24bit but the differences here are quite subtle and system dependent I believe) are on average 15% better sounding than 16bit files. Provided that decoded MQA sounds 10-15% better than 24bit/DSD and let's say 30% of the music I listen to is available in MQA (I'm afraid this won't happen very soon) I will become interested in it. But if it sounds let's say less than 5% better I may quite possibly buy just a handful or two of my favorite albums. Buying the 7th version of 'Kind of Blue' probably won't hurt that much - in fact I'm probably slightly addicted to getting it from time to time. 2 or 3 years ago I even began to think about getting vinyl (even though I don't use gramophone!) due to the lack of new interesting remasters But maybe after all it's going to be MQA 'Kind of Blue'.

[sphinxsix]

And one more thing, slightly off topic - if you listen closely to the aria you will hear that after finishing the first phrase the vocalist turns her head sideways. The vocal moves sideways from the center of the soundstage and the room reverbation changes too in that moment. I pointed to a similiar situation in the latest Macy Gray album thread and some people confirmed they could hear it too. Well I understand that some recording techniques (Chesky uses 'binaural' mike system, don't know anything about 2L) have such sideeffects. And I'm also not a BDSM fan so I'm not for tieing the vocalists tightly before the recording session not to let them move but I find such 'sideways drifting' vocals are quite ennoying. What do you think, guys?

[sphinxsix]

And just one more thing as for the different formats sonic differences. With hi-res the instruments/vocals have more 'body' - 24bit/DSD gives much more convincing impression of a real, physical presence of the musician than 16bit. IMO MQA is even worse than redbook in this regard too. Sounds simply more 'digital' (in the negative sense).

[wklie]

Make sure to use a NON-MQA DAC. Find MQA and non-MQA versions of the same tracks.

 

For Lumin owners, this test can be done via the Lumin app as multiple versions can be chosen from Tidal as described here:

MQA now on Tidal - Page 18

 

Note: if you use Lumin app with a non-Lumin player that supports native Tidal, you don't necessarily get the MQA stream from Tidal even if an MQA album is chosen. Tidal MQA streams are always 24-bit instead of 16-bit.

 

Spreadsheet of MQA albums on Tidal from Roon forum:

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

[bobbmd]

STC: I am having a problem with Meridian Explorer 2 and maybe you could help.

When i connected my new E2 a few days ago to my mac mini A+ worked but then it no longer transmitted sound to either my headphones or my avr the sound/music bar at the top of A+ moves but I get no sound.

The E2 works flawlessly with TIDAL alone ie nice MQA blue light etc and with Qobuz and with ROON 1.3.

I emailed Damien sent him screen shots of the 'debug' info and other shots he couldn't explain it. I called Meridian in the USA their tech gut couldn't explain it either.

Can you help? I hope this doesn't happen with the AQ DF RED i ordered.

It will be very disappointing if I can't fix this especially with A+ 3 coming with MQA ability.

thanks bobbmd BTW I absolutely think MQA sounds better either with just initial 'unfloding or through E2.

[sphinxsix]

And just one more thing I skipped cause I didn't want to suggest anything to the potential participants of this test. But since I don't see them..

 

I know the sound differences between 24bit/DSD - 16bit (- mp3 too). The undecoded MQA file doesn't sound to me like an effect of a simple 'bit-degradation' process. IMO there is something more to it (dither or other 'voodoo', I don't know) - which is quite cleverly done. IMO it can make quite many unexperienced listeners or the ones with slightly cheaper (or just shut in) gear think (!) MQA is more open - detailed while actually it's not. Well done but I don't buy it. And BTW if I'm right and some processing like that has been applied - I'd personally add some substantial amount of midbass (subjectively perceived lack of bass during the test could be caused by the midrange and especially upper midrange and highs offensiveness not by an objective deficiency in the low frequencies) in the process to make it sound even 'better'. Most people love 'tweaked' bass like that!

 

My personal conclusion - before the test I knew that 8 extra bits matter. Now I know that every single bit matters. No matter what.

[crenca]

And just one more thing I skipped cause I didn't want to suggest anything to the potential participants of this test. But since I don't see them..

 

I know the sound differences between 24bit/DSD - 16bit (- mp3 too). The undecoded MQA file doesn't sound to me like an effect of a simple 'bit-degradation' process. IMO there is something more to it (dither or other 'voodoo', I don't know) - which is quite cleverly done. IMO it can make quite many unexperienced listeners or the ones with slightly cheaper (or just shut in) gear think (!) MQA is more open - detailed while actually it's not. Well done but I don't buy it. And BTW if I'm right and some processing like that has been applied - I'd personally add some substantial amount of midbass (subjectively perceived lack of bass during the test could be caused by the midrange and especially upper midrange and highs offensiveness not by an objective deficiency in the low frequencies) in the process to make it sound even 'better'. Most people love 'tweaked' bass like that!

 

My personal conclusion - before the test I knew that 8 extra bits matter. Now I know that every single bit matters. No matter what.

 

I have been thinking something along similar lines, that is the "MQA is more open - detailed while actually it's not." thought. It might not be so much an "experienced listener" - it is rather the kind of experience the listener has. If he does not have a traditional hi fidelity reference - in other words if he is not consciously or unconsciously looking for fidelity (i.e. judging MQA's "improvement") in terms of how live acoustic instruments sound, then DSP is all there really is left. If you were raised on and expect all music to be a studio processed creation, then I can see subtle DSP and things like MQA sounding like "an improvement"...and it is in such contexts because the context becomes subjective in the extreme.

 

I was reading this rave (the normal "review" in the audiophile press) yesterday:

 

Harbeth Monitor 40.2 Loudspeaker | The Absolute Sound

 

What fascinated me the most was the interview section Alan Shaw and his thoughts on what fidelity is (he has a very traditional understanding) and how to get there. Based on what I am hearing, if I was to record my daughters voice and apply MQA I am quite certain it would not sound like it is supposed to - what she really sounds like. They are of course talking about speakers but the general approach applies I think:

 

"Do you still employ recordings of your daughter’s voice to do a final voicing of the speaker? My daughter is now in her early thirties and has quite a different voice to the nine-year-old that I recorded all those years ago. Good news, though—my granddaughter is nearly four years old and I am grooming her for a life in loudspeakers! Seriously, the ear/brain is highly optimized for detecting subtle nuances in human speech. If we guess that our ears have been under development for some millions of years, we know that the first musical instrument appeared around fifty thousand years ago. This is far too recent to have had any physiological impact on the development of the human ear. It follows then that to use our ear as an analytical instrument when grading loudspeakers, it’s the reproduction of voice that can tell us a lot about the mechanics of the loudspeaker. Note that the human vocal tract is a soft tissue structure with plenty of “damping” thanks to being nourished by warm blood and elastic tissue. All of the undesirable characteristics of loudspeakers that are commonly mentioned such as spitty, ringing, wiry, harsh, biting, gritty, bright, brittle, and so on are likely to be the consequence of hard materials in undamped resonance. No wonder then that convincing natural sound is so elusive in home hi-fi.I have always been curious about this whole matter of voicing. How do you “voice” a speaker system without the use of, say, an equalizer, whether analog or digital? “Voicing”—I don’t like this word and don’t use it. All it means in a fancy way is of setting the contribution of the drive units so that they are blended adequately to fool the listener’s ear into thinking that he is actually in front of the performers, live. Present one hundred loudspeaker designers with a cabinet fitted with drive units and a box of crossover components and you will end up with one hundred different voicings. Which one is correct? That’s a tough question because those one hundred designers will have two hundred different ears. They also evaluate sound differently, different instruments will appeal to them or not, they’ll be sensitive to different colorations and some may see themselves as wizards with the power and right to “interpret” the recordings. Some may use test and measurement equipment that will guide them towards a relatively neutral contribution of the loudspeaker, others may voice entirely by ear. Whatever the strategy, expect a wide variation in sonic performance. If, however, a degree of objectivity is introduced, those speakers could be graded. One attack would be to record a human voice under non-reverberant conditions and to switch between that human sitting next to the loudspeaker and his or her voice reproduced over the loudspeaker. My experience is that ninety percent of the candidate loudspeakers would be dismissed as having characteristics not at all present in the live voice. It’s a great pity that the word “voicing” is rarely associated with the concept of listening to a human voice over the loudspeaker!"

[mbain]

Just completed test with Magnificat. Two listeners involved. Myself age 70 with less than the best hearing felt there was essentially no difference between the cd file and the Mqa file. The second listener who has very very acute hearing abilities felt the mqa file was generally more pleasing. Curiously, if you read " sphinxsix" post, second paragraph, #82, the second listener felt almost exactly the opposite on all points.

[sphinxsix]

I have been thinking something along similar lines, that is the "MQA is more open - detailed while actually it's not." thought...

I love the idea of 'voicing' the speaker using ..well - voice. One of Stereophile's reviewer's (I don't recall which one) used to listen to his wife's recorded voice while testing gear. I really like it. After all is there a sound we are more familiar with than the voice of someone we know that well? Curiously both use female vocals for that purpose. Is it because of their higher pitch only or is it also for the same reason there is 'Woman vocals - suggestions' thread on CA but no 'Man vocal - suggestions' one.? We, men simply like female voices. Maybe if more speakers were created by women they would be more often voiced using male voices and due to that sound quite different..

 

As for fidelity in audio - I just reminded myself of a funny story. Many years ago me and my then girlfriend went to one of my hometown churches to hear Hildegard von Bingen choral composition. Because of not so good church acoustics the choir IMO didn't sound that well. We went back home after the concert, I turned on my tube amp I used back then (really wonderfully 'voiced' for voices and acoustic instruments in general) and played a well recorded CD containing the same songs we heard in the church. 'It sounds better than live' I said after a couple of minutes to my girlfriend who being quite an ignorant in the audio field frankly and wholeheartedly agreed..

 

As for rock gigs I've probably been to more sounding not that well than to ones sounding really good. I also remember Chris saying he prefers Metallica in his listening room to their Minneapolis gig sound. I've heard quite many jazz concerts with bad sound too. So maybe after all we shouldn't judge the fidelity of our gear too harshly..