Invite: MQA vs Hi-Res blind test...

[Archimago]

Hey guys, just wanted to drop by to let folks know that I'm running a blind test of MQA Core Decode vs. original hi-res...

 

It's a way to compare what MQA decoding sounds like with your own DAC especially for those of you who don't have TIDAL and may be wondering about the difference between a stream that's MQA Core decoded compared to say a non-MQA 24/96 stream.

 

After you listen, I would of course love to know your perception of differences. The tracks are randomized and "blinded". Tell me which you prefer and how much difference you perceive!

 

Test instructions and files can be found here:

INTERNET BLIND TEST: MQA Core Decoding vs. Standard Hi-Res Audio

Thanks all, have fun...

Arch

 

[Archimago]

Thanks guys for the submissions so far!

 

Hopefully I can get as many test results as possible... The more ears and comparisons, the stronger the data set which I think will give us a good idea of the magnitude of difference out in the "real world" compared to claims made by the company.

 

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, austinpop said:

Before I devote time and effort to this, just to be clear ... 

 

By "Core decode" you mean the 1st unfold software decode that the Tidal app or Audirvana + 3 do, correct? Not the full decode, which only an MQA DAC can do, if I understand right.

 

If so, I don't understand the files contained in your zip. For example, the Arnesen is a track I know well. The MQA file is distributed as 24/44.1. The fully decoded version is 24/352.8. A "first unfold" should only yield 24/88.2. Yet the zip file contains this track at a resolution of 24/176.2.

 

How did you go from 88.2 to 176.4? Was that using a non-MQA oversampler?

EDIT: I see in your blog you say "decoded with MQA Core to 24/88 and 24/96, then "rendered" with a digital filter typical of an MQA DAC"

 

Can you say more on what you mean by "rendered" here? What SW did you use?

 

Yes, correct.

 

Although I will go into more details with the testing done to describe the procedure in full, in order to control for the digital filtering effect, what I have done is compared the MQA Core Decode at 24/88 (or 24/96) with the actual original file downsampled (eg. DXD source) to 24/88 using the same kind of upsampling filter that MQA utilizes as demonstrated previously through the Mytek Brooklyn and Dragonfly Black.

 

64-bit iZotope RX 5 was used to model the MQA-like impulse response. If anything, the 64-bit resampling algorithm is better than what I have seen when I tested the Dragonfly Black with less overload.

 

This should be a good apples-to-apples comparison since the upsampling from 88 --> 176 using the same filter will isolate the quality of MQA Core decoding compared to the "real thing" (i.e. an actual 24/88 or 24/96 derived from the source) by standardizing the filtering being used. Also, because the MQA-like filter is the default for some MQA devices like the Mytek Brooklyn, the original hi-res upsampled to this filter would be similar to the effect from such a DAC when played back on your own device.

 

[Archimago]

There is method to the madness.

 

Remember guys, there are many potential variables. Must make sure that one is not confounding too many things. This is a test of *MQA Core decoding*. This is not a test of filters. In fact, I want to keep the filtering the same while providing people with an opportunity to hear what an MQA-like filter output sounds like. If this were about filters (eg. an MQA decoded and upsampled with MQA-like filtering vs. unmolested downsampled DXD), it would be way too easy for people to identify the 2! Anyone and their dog could just open up the files and see the differences rather than listening...

 

As an Internet test in an age of technological sophistication, I want to keep this as difficult as possible to differentiate "by eye". Just use your ears and tell me which sounds better.

 

If there is any advantage at all in the MQA Core decode to make these files sound "better" than just simple 24/88 or 24/96, then we should see the results regardness of the upsampling filtering. If there is no evidence of improvement, then all MQA and its "time domain" improvement is as far as these 2L tracks are concerned is just the different upsampling filters identified...

 

In any event, thanks to those who have already submitted results. Just short of 2 weeks to go!

 

[Archimago]

Results are being posted now...

 

Procedure (Part I)

Results (Part II)