with all great grandparents present?:D
Printable View
with all great grandparents present?:D
There's a trick there... you'd need to score 90%. So I'll say 80% or more, using tracks I have determined to be derived from the same master i.e. ones I can tell no difference between.
Is this another one of those scams where they re-master and then pretend the improvements are due to the format? From what I have read so far that seems to be the case. They claim some sort of 'timing' improvement but even if this is actually something more than marketing bollox it is fixing a non-existent problem. I've no objections to better re-mastering but why can't they just be honest about it?
Not convinced personally by the MQA processing in itself, but these albums are being streamed in 24bit, not 16 as well as 48,96 or 192K samplerate.
This is what I'm attributing the improvement in sound quality to.
I will have a bit more of a scout around as I have only tried one track in depth. That's hardly a fair assessment.
My expectation bias is angled the wrong way i.e. not in favour of MQA and I kind of agree with Macca at the mo.
I am actually inclined to say Tidal MQA streams improves quite ovbviously on their 16/44.1 counterpart. But i will record some samples through a good AD-converter and then make these available for scrutinizing by you good fellow audiophiles. :)
I'll even include some LP needle drops from original and remastered versions!
Too bad i havent got a competitive MQA enabled DAC to compare with too...
Higher sampling would only offer an almost imperceptible difference, and can offer none whatsoever on recordings made in analogue or 16/44. Bitrate only effects dynamic range and 16 bits is overkill already. People are reporting dramatic improvements over ripped cd versions so to me that can only mean remastering of some type. Maybe some sort of complex EQ algorithm that 'spices it all up' from a psycho-acoustic angle? Similar to the way they EQ classic tracks to have more punch on film soundtracks, only this is a one size fits all deal.
Hmnn...can be a bit of a moot point that, but hear what your saying Martin.
I still prefer ripped CD to 16/44 Tidal Flac, but the 24bit MQA versions sound slightly better to me.
Interestingly, non streamed 24-bit versions of the same album on my hard drive sound better than the MQA versions to my ears. :eek:
Lots of variables to get a handle on really and make a definitive judgment I guess, especially given all the different systems and setups everyone has.
Yeah I am sceptical especially when it involves old recordings like Space Oddity or Astral Weeks. If you've got a Cd from the first gen master you have got the master. There's nothing missing. So when people are saying the MQA version is clearly 'better' it has me asking questions. I mean, a recording is not complex data, it is a simple waveform, there is only so much there you can 'reveal'. So I think it is possible that MQA is just a sophisticated graphic equaliser.