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

[Ryan Berry]

This looks like a fun experiment.  I wanted to post before I read comments in case the answer is given away, so I'll follow up afterwards:

 

A. Sounds the most "correct", if not the most exciting in some ways.  From a purist standpoint, this is my preference.

B. I can hear more elements in this version, particularly with the strings having a longer reverb time.  Something seems off though, like it was ripped from CD and converted to 192K.  Was this played at a different clock rate than the original file?

C. Definitely MQA.  Sounds like someone pressed the bass-boost/loudness button.  Individual players loose their "realness."  

[Ryan Berry]

9 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

I agree, the highs come across as more accentuated in C vs. B. But I'm certainly not hearing any bass-boost in C vs. B. Quite the opposite - the bass sounds tauter and more tuneful in C.

 

To my ears, it seems that MQA (C) is 'correcting' the mess made in the creation of the hires (B), and therefore sounding more like the redbook (A). 

 

I'm still totally done with all hires. It seems to me that if you can't get properly done hires from ECM/Qobuz, then you're not likely to get it from anywhere. And no wonder MQA sounds strange to some people, if most of it has been derived from 'fake' hires.

 

Mani.

 

It's always interesting how people hear different things when listening to the same music.  I never think anyone is wrong, it's just what they listen for.  For me, strings are always a good indication of what's happening with a recording and something I tend to key in on, so this particular sample rather slapped in the face with strings right away and made it hard to focus on anything else later.  Though I don't play stringed instruments myself, but as a musician I have sat around my fair share of them while they play for most of my life.  There's a certain feeling I get when I listen to way the bow rasps over the violin strings, or the way the string of a guitar vibrates while someone is playing.  When I hear anything with a violin or guitar, I know that the recording (or in our case, the equipment) is close when the harmonics of the strings are distinct and I get that same feeling that I do listening to them live. In these samples, B, and C in particular just felt too smooth and rounded to me for a stringed instrument, lacking that sharp buzz that A had.  I listened both with a Codex and whatever they throw into computers on the onboard sound card nowadays.  With A, feel like I'm hearing more of those overtones and that's the "realness" I mentioned.  This really crops up again with the piano around the 5:30 mark.  The song had a REALLY annoying popping sound going on in the background in all 3 samples around 3:27 that made that section nearly unlistenable to me.  I'm not sure if it was intentional or some artifact, but it certainly got to me.

 

Granted, focusing on one part of the song or one type of instrument is not the way to listen, but were this a listening test for gear we were designing, the difference would be enough to make us go back to the drawing board to figure out how to make the other versions better before further pursuing them.  I will also say that what I heard in these files is not nearly as distinct as other independent listening tests we've done with the formats.  I'm not sure if it's because of the conversion to .wav (I'm not in touch with the digital audio particulars as much as the engineers here), but I think any of these comparisons may need to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Having been forced to dig out my old CD collection with the upcoming CX-8, I've really be gaining a renewed appreciation for CD's.  Where I once thought 192k was the only way to listen nowadays, the CD's have been really holding their own and even have moments where they outshine their hi-res counterpart.  I'm somewhat surprised to read that the hi-res may have been an upsampled 48k file.  I'd almost suspect it was upsampled from the same CD-quality 44k with the way it sounded.  Anyway, thanks for the experiment!  It actually was fun to do.  We're in between product designs right now, so I haven't had the opportunity to do much in the way of listening tests in a few weeks and this was a great way to justify taking some time.

 

 

[Ryan Berry]

21 hours ago, manisandher said:

I apologise if the MQA capture sounds 'better than it has any right to' - but it has nothing to do with lack of resolution on the part of the capturing chain.

 

Thanks Manis.  Like I said, that's a level that I just don't get into with digital.  I don't know if the MQA sounds "better than it has any right to", just that it was less different from the other formats when I've listened in other tests -- for better or for worse.  But then again, I haven't listened to this particular song before either.