MQA Listening Impressions

[manisandher]

Edit 30/11/17: Please use the following files (captured directly from the analogue outputs of my DAC using a Tascam DA-3000) to compare the original 24/88.2 against the 16/44.1 and 24/44.1-MQA... all from the same master.

 

Track: Christina Pluhar - Music for a While - Improvisations on Purcell - 09_Wondrous machine_, Z. 328_8 (arr. Pluhar)

 

24/192 PCM

 

24/88.2 original _ HQPlayer _ poly-sinc-short-mp to 705.6 _ TPDF:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ouSdts0JtlCyjlJCN40iIYvI0jtSETRk

 

16/44.1 _ HQPlayer _ poly-sinc-short-mp to 705.6 _ TPDF:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1oTW7ra5cWln9R_fYQYotSm7q8nYVwA3K

 

24/44.1-MQA _ XXHighEnd _ first unfold to 88.2 _ Arc Prediction to 705.6:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1m2npYzIraEKweh-I8Eu-u7VMXTCNzzx-

 

DSD128

 

24/88.2 original _ HQPlayer _ poly-sinc-short-mp to 705.6 _ TPDF:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1EpKgFkcpkaTsm54Ot21ZM_9YW2CgnGR5

 

16/44.1 _ HQPlayer _ poly-sinc-short-mp to 705.6 _ TPDF:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DHXqn7IDeU0__WEb2IPvfQHlEZAMDfwh

 

24/44.1-MQA _ XXHighEnd _ first unfold to 88.2 _ Arc Prediction to 705.6:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1i3PE4GB2VbLBSjGSnPQMTsiPM5_atAqC

 

So, which sounds best to you, and why?

 

********************************************************************************************

 

Just wanted to share my listening impressions of MQA. Happy for anyone else to share their listening impressions too, but ask that people refrain from turning this into yet another ' MQA is evil' or 'Bob Stuart is the devil' type of thread. Much appreciated.

 

I started by comparing the various 'Mozart: Violin concerto in D major - Allegro' free download files from 2L. I compared the original DXD (24BIT/352.8kHz ) to the 24BIT/96kHz, 16BIT/44kHz and MQA files. My preference was as follows (in descending order):

 

1. original DXD

2. MQA (very close to 1.)

3. 24BIT/96kHz (big gap between this and 2.)

4. 16BIT/44kHz (OK, if you have no other choice, I suppose)

 

I've since been playing a bunch of MQA albums from Tidal. Invariably, I prefer the sound of these MQA albums over the CD rips and/or downloads of the same albums I already have. They tend to have a clarity that my rips/downloads don't have. Overall just a nicer listening experience. But I have to say that apart from the 2L files, I've not managed to compare MQA to any original hirez files.

 

From a purely sonic perspective, MQA seems to do 'what it says on the tin'.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

5 hours ago, Sonicularity said:

What is the OP's intent for this thread?

 

To gather MQA listening impressions

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

On 11/22/2017 at 4:34 PM, manisandher said:

I've since been playing a bunch of MQA albums from Tidal. Invariably, I prefer the sound of these MQA albums over the CD rips and/or downloads of the same albums I already have. They tend to have a clarity that my rips/downloads don't have.

 

Here's the sort of thing I mean. Here are two 24/192 captures from the analogue output of my DAC (Phasure NOS1 G3, with files upsampled to 705.6 and 768 kHz respectively in XXHighEnd before being sent to DAC), playing a CD rip and an MQA file from Tidal.

 

MFSL CD rip:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1r1UEnu8rfAhMrO5_vObI-OiuDek-cbJs

 

MQA file from Tidal:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HJHivSQVXWktlGFMX8-jvR0FyceGHDp4

 

I actually quite like the sound of the MFSL rip. But there's no doubt that the MQA file has extra clarity, bite and punch... to my ears.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

 

Both seem to have high level images around multiples of the sampling rate and cannot see unfolding happening at all. The MQA version is 48 kHz while RedBook is of course 44.1k. Distance (in frequency) to the first image is higher on the MQA version and a slightly lower in level too. Second image is again a bit further up just because of of higher sampling rate. MQA version seems a bit hotter too with some extra clipping. So the MQA version is a bit more compressed.

 

Yes, exactly as expected, seeing as I used XXHighEnd's 'Arc Prediction' filter to interpolate up to 705.6/768 kHz. I could repeat the captures using HQPlayer's poly-sinc-xtr-mp filter if you'd prefer... The sonic difference between the files will still be there.

 

In any event, this is the 'MQA Listening Impressions' thread'. So, which do you prefer the sound of, and why?

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

5 minutes ago, Archimago said:

How can you compare an MFSL mastering with typical dynamic compressed  consumer mastering and make any generalization about MQA!?

 

So, the MFSL should sound substantially better than the MQA, right? Does it?

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

11 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

MFSL sounds more natural, something like you'd get off an analog tape. Not really anything disturbing. A bit messy, like a bit older masterings of this genre, like 90's style or so. Sounds like analog tape.

 

MQA version certainly sounds louder and I notice that some algorithm is pumping and splashy (a bit like Dolby C noise reduction on old tape decks). Some EQ to make it sound artificially bit brighter and more on-your-face. Sounds grainier and highs are fussy. Sounds like a cheap sound card or mobile phone, "plastic Tupperware-sound".

 

I could listen the MFSL version longer, my ears already hurt after listening one track of the MQA version at same volume. Neither one is good though.

 

Thanks. This is what this thread is all about.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

9 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

Your captures look strange when run through MusicScope.

 

This is the 'MQA Listening Impressions' thread. You can keep the spectra for other threads.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

On 11/24/2017 at 9:46 PM, watercourse said:

There are inconsistencies in the results of the current MQA catalog, e.g. some albums simply sound inferior to non-MQA'ed albums, that I feel deserve some explanation. Is it poor quality control? Who does the processing, and how are results checked? Will there be some sort of quality standard that is achieved at some point in the future?

 

Having listened to quite a lot of MQA recently, I'm inclined to agree with this. Where I've managed to get hold of a non-MQA and MQA file definitely from the same master, I don't always prefer the MQA version. I'll post an example shortly.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

5 minutes ago, Miska said:

This mastering I have is closer to the MQA version (album version), not as annoying as the MQA version:

https://www.highresaudio.com/en/album/view/tfohhv/rush-sector-two-remastered

 

Haha...

 

I`m sorry!

Dear HIGHRESAUDIO Visitor,

due to territorial constraints and also different releases dates in each country you currently can`t purchase this album. We are updating our release dates twice a week. So, please feel free to check from time-to-time, if the album is available for your country.

We suggest, that you bookmark the album and use our Short List function.

Thank you for your understanding and patience.

Yours sincerely, HIGHRESAUDIO

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

I thought that everyone would agree that an MFSL CD rip would be the best available redbook version of any album (derived, as it is, directly from the master tape), hence why I used it. Apparently that's not good enough to compare with an MQA derived from a presumably lesser source. OK.

 

I do agree that comparing apples with apples would be ideal, though more easily said than done.

 

However... below is a non-MQA and an MQA version of a track... from the same master. (Again captured at 24/192 from the analogue output of my DAC.)

 

Beth Orton - Moon (non-MQA):

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1KFmyilLot7dO9iPukpiJqAE2RGRcjGmX

 

Beth Orton - Moon (MQA):

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lOQ1MUSE2Iv-kkssFwsdtNCAe1gfGKcN

 

The MQA wins... to my ears.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

OK, hopefully this will be the most insightful non-MQA vs. MQA comparison I've managed to come up with. The track is Christina Pluhar - Music for a While - Improvisations on Purcell - Twas within a furlong. Both the non-MQA and MQA files are clearly from the same master. As before, I'm capturing the analogue output of my DAC with a Tascam DA-3000 running at 24/192.

 

non-MQA _ HQPlayer _ poly-sinc-xtr-mp to 705.6 _ NS5:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=13p9ROlG27KuDIBpEy6X4Nw2FdXWcHFbp

 

MQA _ XXHighEnd _ MQA first unfold to 88.2 _ Arc Prediction to 705.6

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-4ByqXm9H8c_IAYBotjsk48EHje3K4qU

 

Taking one of Peter's earlier posts into account, yes, this is very far from a fail-safe process - there's my replay chain, then my ADC, then your DAC... all having an affect on the sound. But even with all this, hopefully you'll get a sense of what I'm hearing in the MQA file. It's simply 'cleaner' sounding. And what I'm really interested in is how this 'cleaning' has been achieved with the MQA processing.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

6 minutes ago, Miska said:

So this is like MQA track played without unfolding through HQPlayer? Compared to unfolded MQA track played through XXHE?

 

No.

 

This is a regular 16/44.1 played via HQPlayer (to use the best anti-image filter available) vs. a 24/44.1 MQA played via XXHighEnd (to do the unfolding to 88.2 and then use the best time-domain filter available).

 

I think this is incredibly insightful, and gives a sense of what MQA can do to the sound. No probs if you don't agree.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

11 minutes ago, Miska said:

But for comparing MQA against non-MQA you need to use non-MQA 88.2 kHz version of this track and compare that against the MQA 88.2 kHz version.

 

I want to listen to the music I like in the best way I can. If there's only a choice between a regular 16/44.1 vs. a 24/44.1 MQA, right now I'll take the MQA (in most cases).

 

If a 24/88.2 were available, I'd definitely want to take a listen, but wouldn't be prepared to pay the earth for it. Right now, I'm getting a bunch of MQA files for no more money than my regular Tidal subscription.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

2 minutes ago, Miska said:

So just admit that you like hires (although a degraded one) more than RedBook. Fine, that is quite expected.

 

In most cases, yes, I prefer the MQA to the redbook, where they're from the same master. If this is the only choice I'm given, I'm going to take the best SQ.

 

How long have we waited for hirez to become ubiquitous? It hasn't happened. ECM has started releasing some of their material in MQA, available from Tidal for no extra cost (right now... and I hope that continues!). Sorry, but I'm going to take it, and enjoy the music I love, with better SQ than 16/44.1.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

3 hours ago, Miska said:

But for comparing MQA against non-MQA you need to use non-MQA 88.2 kHz version of this track and compare that against the MQA 88.2 kHz version.

 

[Highlight mine]

 

@Miska, I've found a non-MQA 24/88.2 version of this track on HDTracks - same master as the MQA!

 

I'd like to use the best anti-alias filter in HQPlayer during replay - which one do you suggest I use to take it up to 705.6? And NS5 too?

 

(I'd be happy to use XXHighEnd and its Arc Prediction filter, but am preempting the backlash at having used a time-optimized, i.e. 'leaky', filter.)

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

New level matched 24/192 captures of the output of the DAC posted in OP.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

New level matched 24/192 captures of the output of the DAC posted in OP.

 

I'll get the ball rolling...

 

Firstly, I have to say that the 24/192 captures I linked to in the OP unfortunately fall short of the SQ of the original files being played back directly. However, I believe they are good enough to highlight the differences in SQ between the 3 files, and to give a sense of what I'm hearing coming out of my DAC.

 

Let's put the 16/44.1 out of its misery right off. However it may have been derived from its master, it's lost a lot in the process. The other 2 are a quantum leap better all round.

 

The MQA vs. the 24/88.2? Hmm...

 

There is a 'clarity' to the MQA file that the 24/88.2 doesn't have. This gives it more ambience and generally more life - more 'get up and go'. But I sometimes detect a slight 'edge' to instruments and the vocals that makes it sound slightly more 'processed'... which of course it is. But nevertheless, my ranking is:

 

1. MQA 24/44.1

2. 24/88.2

3. 16/44.1

 

As I said, you should be able to hear my substantiation in the 24/192 captures.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

4 minutes ago, bhobba said:

But 176/24 up-sampled to DXD via HQplayer - for me that's better than MQA.

 

Bill, I'm up-sampling to 705.6/24 in HQPlayer! I still have a slight preference for the MQA, and believe it's reflected in the 24/192 captures.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

12 hours ago, matthias said:

... why you did not use Arc Prediction for all the three files?

 

Hi Matt, because of this:

 

17 hours ago, manisandher said:

(I'd be happy to use XXHighEnd and its Arc Prediction filter, but am preempting the backlash at having used a time-optimized, i.e. 'leaky', filter.)

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

10 hours ago, Miska said:

To my ears it's exactly the opposite. MQA version sounds closed in / suffocated, grainy and has lost a lot of fine detail, especially in the highs and reverb tails. MQA version also sounds rolled off.

 

Thanks. Again, this is what this thread is all about.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

3 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

2. MQA can only be judged vs. the source files. 

 

The 24/88.2 file I used is the source file. The MQA was derived from this. I don't know how the comparison could be made more valid.

 

(And to your first question, yes, I played around with bit depths and sample rates a lot when I had my Pacific Microsonics Model Two.)

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

3 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

"It sounds better to me" is really not of any value in this discussion , we need to compare to the source files, and THEN watch out for louder/brighter tricking us.  MQA has harmonic distortion (louder) and alters the freq balance (brighter).  This is an old trick in A?B of any audio.

 

I've linked three 24/192 captures of my DAC's output in the OP. Does the MQA capture sound 'louder/brighter' than the 24/88.2 (original file) capture to your ears?

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

42 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

@manisandher, this is harsher than I intended. Let me retry :

 

I'd hope we can find other ways to show what you (and me) perceive from this, but I'd say it is too difficult. And that I am still undecided myself is not related to anything.

 

 

Peter, I'm travelling for work right now so a quick reply...

 

If you have a better idea of how to do things, just let me know.

 

For now, even if my 24/192 captures undo any good that MQA may be doing (i.e. re-blurring MQA's supposed 'de-blurring') then at the very least, the 24/88.2 and MQA captures should sound the same. (They actually don't to my ears.)

 

But ultimately, I agree with you...

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

I finally got a chance to take a listen to the actual files themselves (and not the 24/192 captures of my DAC's output that I linked to in the OP) on my main system (in sig.).

 

On 27/11/2017 at 4:27 PM, manisandher said:

... I sometimes detect a slight 'edge' to instruments and the vocals that makes it sound slightly more 'processed'... which of course it is.

 

I'm finding that the MQA file has a subtle, but quite annoying, 'wispy', 'wishy-washy' quality to it compared to the original 24/88.2 file. (I think this is audible in my 24/192 captures.)

 

So my ranking now is:

 

1. 24/88.2 original

2. 24/44.1 MQA unfolded to 24/88.2

3. 16/44.1

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

On 28/11/2017 at 4:57 AM, PeterSt said:

If you are so persistent, I hope you can find other ways to prove your case...

 

I really have no 'case' to prove. Just want to give others a chance to hear what I'm hearing, as closely as possible.

 

On 27/11/2017 at 9:37 AM, Miska said:

You could use DSD128 instead because the ADC (TI PCM4202) is 1-bit DSD ADC. PCM outputs are on-chip conversion from DSD128...

 

This way the recorded result is not subject to decimation filter effects.

 

I'm going to give this a go, though I realise it'll limit the number of people who can play back the captures natively. I'll post the DSD128 captures in the OP, along with the 24/192 captures.

 

Mani.