MQA vs HiRez: an apples-to-apples comparison - FINAL

[manisandher]

I can't imagine there's any appetite for yet another hires/MQA comparison... but I wanted to do this for myself anyhow, and decided I may as well share. You see, from a purely personal perspective, the score from the previous two apples-to-apples comparisons is: MQA 1 _ Hires 1. I can't leave it there - this has to be a best of three.

 

For all those who participated in the previous two threads, don't feel at all obliged to share your thoughts, or indeed do the comparison at all. But the outcomes of the previous two were inconclusive to my mind, and it might be nice to take a final listen to another apples-to-apples comparison.

 

As before, I played and captured 3 files:

- an original hires 24/96

- an MQA 24/48, decoded to 24/96

- a 16/44.1, converted to 24/96 with iZotope

 

Each file was played back on Roon (in WASAPI Exclusive Mode), sent to a USB-to-spdif converter and captured at 24/96 on a Tascam recorder.

 

The original hires and the hires capture null perfectly:

 

The original and the MQA capture show the following difference:

 

So everything looks perfectly in order.

 

Here are the 3 captures:

 

Sample A

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Mbg55FWQjs98qfXlZG3cnq4U6FetAaxk

 

Sample B

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1OTOpIQcYjd3_DVAvJXtVFkAIjBJui7uv

 

Sample C

https://drive.google.com/open?id=10wuw9xu9sR0pmaSb6k5Edbz67bpYF5h4

 

(It's trivial to identify the 16/44.1 by analysis. By all means go ahead and do this, but please refrain from sharing the results of your analysis until I reveal the answer, in a few days' time.)

 

To my ears, there's a clear difference in sound between the 3. But which is the MQA?

 

Mani.

[sandyk]

Hi Mani

 

 I'm not even going to try and guess which version is the MQA.

 However, FWIW, these are my impressions :

 "A"  is a bit dull and lifeless.

 "B"  has much more light and shade, and to me is much more enjoyable

 "C"  sounds like a light weight version of B, as if a little shy on LF perhaps ?.

 It reminds me of what happens with my files when I accentuate HF detail a smidgin too much.

 

Regards

Alex

[manisandher]

On 10/13/2018 at 3:54 AM, Lee Scoggins said:

Peter's recordings are really excellent without the MQA encoding but the MQA encoding made a pretty noticeable difference.  With the MQA encoding, the sound of the room became much more clear.  There was more fullness in the mids and bass and transients seemed more lifelike.  It seemed like the soundstage got both wider and deeper.  It wasn't subtle.  The MQA files sounded much better and more natural like live music in a real space.

 

@Lee Scoggins, I wonder if you can hear the same 'MQA effect' in one of the three samples I've linked in the OP? I'd say this is a more realistic test of MQA's efficacy.

 

Care to take a listen and let me know?

 

Mani.

 

[Kyhl]

Don't hold your breath.

[Le Concombre Masqué]

zzzz what's this ? zzzz had a hard time not falling asleep and reporting: might be a good go to sleep record...

 

In the end I took great pleasure listening to the double bass on sample B played per my signature*

 

I started with Closed Form PCM and double bass was fat, everything actually was comparatively fat, in A and I then thought it was like vinyl repress when LF is up to mask loss in HF and deduced A is 16/44

piano seemed a little less confused with C, maybe just because I knew, and since I had a hard time identifying a piano with the first notes with B (played in order), I slightly preferred C

 

I then went SDM with ext 2 filter.

A improved/benefited very much and I could live with it.

double bass on B got a hook on me : dry, extended, going low dry and fast. 

zzzz what's this ? zzzz had a hard time not falling asleep with C and its soft imprecise double mess bass

went back to B and listened to the whole track ; enthusiasm coming, I even had the visualisation of the drummer's arms hitting...

 

Verdict :

 

A 16/44

B hires, my choice anyway

C MQA

 

*(I slightly modified the convolution filters, straightening 0.5 to 1 dB L&R here and there, but did not kept the slight HF rise mimicking Michael Fremer's above 1K in room response: nobody pays me and I don't care as much for revealing as for enjoyable) 

 

 

[avta]

Could not tell the difference between the files.

[pkane2001]

On 10/24/2018 at 10:17 AM, manisandher said:

I can't imagine there's any appetite for yet another hires/MQA comparison... but I wanted to do this for myself anyhow, and decided I may as well share. You see, from a purely personal perspective, the score from the previous two apples-to-apples comparisons is: MQA 1 _ Hires 1. I can't leave it there - this has to be a best of three.

 

For all those who participated in the previous two threads, don't feel at all obliged to share your thoughts, or indeed do the comparison at all. But the outcomes of the previous two were inconclusive to my mind, and it might be nice to take a final listen to another apples-to-apples comparison.

 

As before, I played and captured 3 files:

- an original hires 24/96

- an MQA 24/48, decoded to 24/96

- a 16/44.1, converted to 24/96 with iZotope

 

Each file was played back on Roon (in WASAPI Exclusive Mode), sent to a USB-to-spdif converter and captured at 24/96 on a Tascam recorder.

 

The original hires and the hires capture null perfectly:

 

The original and the MQA capture show the following difference:

 

So everything looks perfectly in order.

 

Here are the 3 captures:

 

Sample A

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Mbg55FWQjs98qfXlZG3cnq4U6FetAaxk

 

Sample B

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1OTOpIQcYjd3_DVAvJXtVFkAIjBJui7uv

 

Sample C

https://drive.google.com/open?id=10wuw9xu9sR0pmaSb6k5Edbz67bpYF5h4

 

(It's trivial to identify the 16/44.1 by analysis. By all means go ahead and do this, but please refrain from sharing the results of your analysis until I reveal the answer, in a few days' time.)

 

To my ears, there's a clear difference in sound between the 3. But which is the MQA?

 

Mani.

 

I decided not to use software for analysis this time and just listen. After I made my decision, I saw what Le Cucumber found and he seems to completely agree with my conclusions, or maybe I agree with his 

 

A  = 16/44 -- sounds good but has just a little bit less 3d/air than B

B = 24/96 - very nice, focused bass, more shimmer and air around cymbals

C = MQA - bass a bit less controlled, less air around cymbals, piano sounds just a bit more artificial

 

Was this even close? I'll wait to do software analysis until others have a chance to report their preferences.

[manisandher]

23 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

**I am not sure a pure play A/B exists in Tidal where the mastering has been identical except for the MQA encoding.

 

The original hires file (not from Tidal), the MQA (from Tidal), and the 16/44.1 (from Tidal) used in this thread are from the same master.

 

Mani.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

The original hires file (not from Tidal), the MQA (from Tidal), and the 16/44.1 (from Tidal) used in this thread are from the same master.

 

Mani.

How do you know this for sure?

And is the 16/44.1 from Tidal the MQA version undecoded or actually just straight redbook?

[manisandher]

19 minutes ago, esldude said:

How do you know this for sure?

 

Musicscope analysis.

 

19 minutes ago, esldude said:

And is the 16/44.1 from Tidal the MQA version undecoded or actually just straight redbook?

 

It's redbook - undecoded MQA would be 48, not 44.1.

 

Mani.

 

[esldude]

After some listening, and no looking in software I rank them this way. 

 

A. Best

B. not quite as good

C. least good and more different vs B than A is to B.  

 

If I were going with conventional ideas, Hi-res, MQA and CD.  B sounds a bit artificially airy, and soft imaging.  C is missing some low end, and has unnatural hardness on the upper mids.  But then I don't trust myself in sighted listening anyway. 

 

Maybe I'll abx them tomorrow. 

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

But then I don't trust myself in sighted listening anyway.

 

I think you're doing yourself a disservice.

 

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Maybe I'll abx them tomorrow. 

 

I suspect any differences you heard sighted will vanish. The question then is: were you just hearing differences sighted that didn't actually exist, or... is ABX is less effective way of judging subtle differences? I'm squarely in the latter camp when there is absolutely no reason to be biased one way or another, as is the case in this comparison.

 

Mani.

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

I think you're doing yourself a disservice.

 

 

I suspect any differences you heard sighted will vanish. The question then is: were you just hearing differences sighted that didn't actually exist, or... is ABX is less effective way of judging subtle differences? I'm squarely in the latter camp when there is absolutely no reason to be biased one way or another, as is the case in this comparison.

 

Mani.

I'm squarely in the opposite camp.

 

Bias doesn't need a reason.  It is inherent in how the human organism works.  

[esldude]

I would agree they seem to be the same master having examined them some.  

[manisandher]

57 minutes ago, esldude said:

I'm squarely in the opposite camp.

 

Bias doesn't need a reason.  It is inherent in how the human organism works.  

 

Once you've analysed them, then your bias is going to set in. "I couldn't possibly have heard such subtle differences. I must have imagined them."

 

But as long as you're happy...

 

Mani.

[Le Concombre Masqué]

3 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

Once you've analysed them, then your bias is going to set in. "I couldn't possibly have heard such subtle differences. I must have imagined them."

 

But as long as you're happy...

 

Mani.

about bias : seeing austinpop going for 16/44 (as I did) but almost seduced by MQA and interested in the recording pianist (I would very much rather consider Richter Pollini Arrau Argerich...) I wonder if the Chopin's recording at the center of test II has/was made with/ any other purpose than biased demonstration to start with

[manisandher]

2 hours ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

about bias : seeing austinpop going for 16/44 (as I did) but almost seduced by MQA and interested in the recording pianist (I would very much rather consider Richter Pollini Arrau Argerich...) I wonder if the Chopin's recording at the center of test II has/was made with/ any other purpose than biased demonstration to start with

 

Not everyone preferred Sample A (the MQA file), though a surprising number did. My personal preference was B (the hires).

 

Interestingly, this FINAL test is proving a tad more consistent than the first two. I still haven't released the answer yet, so there's still time for others to take part.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

@John_Atkinson, do you fancy giving this 'test' a go?

 

Mani.

[austinpop]

What genre of music is this? The last 2 were not genres I listen to. 

[manisandher]

2 hours ago, austinpop said:

What genre of music is this? The last 2 were not genres I listen to. 

 

It's a fusion of Arabic music and jazz... I think. I picked it because it has a lot of energy throughout the spectrum.

 

Mani.

[Ralf11]

11 hours ago, esldude said:

I'm squarely in the opposite camp.

 

Bias doesn't need a reason.  It is inherent in how the human organism works.  

 

Bias is inherent in how all organisms work.  Even very simple neural nets "fill in" or predict "information" - after an instant's thought i suppose I should limit this to non-plants but I'd bet money that systems of auxins do the same.

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

Bias is inherent in how all organisms work.  Even very simple neural nets "fill in" or predict "information" - after an instant's thought i suppose I should limit this to non-plants but I'd bet money that systems of auxins do the same.

 

OK, so which of A, B, or C are you biased towards, and why?

 

Mani.

[austinpop]

@manisandher

 

Could you also post a Tidal (or Qobuz) link to the track? 

[esldude]

3 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

OK, so which of A, B, or C are you biased towards, and why?

 

Mani.

The point is if differences are small enough no human can actually hear a difference, our bias as an organism is to choose something as different.  In which case bias can create a subjective perception of different where there is none.  So "listening carefully" makes us likely to hear differences whether there or not.  At some higher level of difference our perceptual senses are accurate. 

 

Your opinion seems to be if we perceive a difference it is by definition really different in reality and not just in subjective perception.  It is counter to all kinds of knowledge about humans and mammals.  But this is an old argument. 

[PeterSt]

I listened one time to each of them. Please notice that I am not familiar to Hires comparisons and that I hardly listen to Hires.

I listened in the sequence B - A - C so my descriptions go like that as well. They are relative to each other.

 

Don't read when you want to apply the test.

 

------------------------------------------------

B.

Piano sounds hazy. In aftermath (after listening to the other two) I added "is lacking" to it.

Highs OK (referring to the "ticking" on the cymbals).

Sounds inside out. Hollow. No proper attack on the nylon strings of the guitar.

Cello doesn't sound right either.

Cymbals at the end not right. Sound dirty (China cymbals).

 

A.

Sounds much clearer which is readily noticeable on the guitar. Lively.

There's more vibrato in the bass (cello ?) audible. OK, in B I didn't hear any of that.

The ride on the cymbals now sound realistic (mind the "ticking" I mentioned at B).

All sounds normal. Piano still sounds confused though. Piano is also less annoyingly (!) present.

In the end this presentation is more "sleepy". At 5 minutes or so I really wanted it to be over. Long winded.

More normal cymbals at the end.

 

C.

More play in the guitar. Individual strokes or two subsequent fingers audible. Catchy !

Again better cymbal rides. Best piano !

Suddenly piano and guitar play together (there's even a small part in the beginning when both play the exact same notes together).

More dynamics in the guitar.

Piano plays well with all. Bass is less disturbingly present.

Best cymbals at the end.

------------------------------------------------

 

To me it is clear that this coincidental sequence went from worst to best. This is a danger in itself because I could have gotten used to matters.

I started with B so I would not be subject to Mani's ideas of pitfalls, if any.

 

With B I was annoyed all over. Logically, to me, this should indicate Hires. The chance would be minimal that the Hires was done well and I don't recall to be annoyed of Redbook ever (or hardly).

 

A surprisingly went from a "much better !" (and seriously different than B) to a falling asleep mode. I don't know why, but I lost interest. I don't think this was because I listened to the song for the second time. The last minute went like "oh, there are these cymbals again, it must be finished now". Because Hires and MQA were determined by the paragraph above here and under here, this should be the Redbook.

 

C, in comparison to A completely woke me up. The "catchy !" I noted tells me that this should be the MQA because it is a property of MQA. I tried to hear grain in the cymbal rides, also in the cymbals at the end, but I did not hear that. So this could be a reason I am wrong. Otoh, I did not hear graininess in the others as well but I also did not put my focus to it (I did with C because I started to get the idea C had to be MQA).

 

------------------------------------------------

 

So B is the strange duck. Anyone would denote that MQA for this reason. It very well can be, if the MQA was executed wrongly.

In aftermath : I don't think that Mani would have put up a failed MQA to begin with. He would have chosen a properly done one. This should definitely rule out B as MQA.

 

A and C are quite alike which is my general consensus about Redbook vs MQA, and then merely to the sense that Redbook is 100% fine with me (and my whole system focuses on it). Apart from a handful exceptions, MQA also sounds fine to me, to the sense it never disturbs. This makes A and C both candidates for MQA as well as Redbook. However, most of the time when I play an MQA for a first time, while I am used to the Redbook all of my life, the MQA is more catching. You get involved more. This with the notice that it is not so that MQA sounds better per se. And because I was right into the music suddenly with C, I'd have to dedicate that the MQA. This leaves A as the Hires.

 

------------------------------------------------

 

Most probably, when I' have chosen an other sequence, the judgment would have been totally different.

My judgment that MQA is C is heavily based and biased towards the catchiness MQA usually implies. This is super dangerous to hang on to.

I never am disturbed by Redbook, though here I was on B, so this is why B is not the Redbook. Super dangerous again. And of course, completely contra-dictionary to what everybody else would claim. I mean, were it about the comparison with Hires;

Hires I am usually disturbed with because, well, they have usually been done wrong. But was that so in this case ? So again super dangerous to hang on to that. 

So why was everything so wrong in B then ? was it because I heard that as the first one ? was it because it is the Redbook and Redbook can't be any good ? was it because it is the MQA and MQA can't be any good ?

 

Why did I hear more "guitar string" resolution in C ? is that because it is the real Hires and MQA would not be able to reproduce that ? was it because it is the Redbook and it articulates more because of less resolution ?

 

Blahblahblahblah. Is there also a prize for having all wrong ?

 

Peter