View Full Version : Tidal now streaming MQA!
As of this morning Tidal is giving access to MQA encoded material for their HiFi-customers. I actually didn't think i'll see the day! ;)
I dont know if it's available for all markets yet though...
Material so far limited, but som nice xamples;
The Eagles, Beyoncé etc
And a very nice album for you all:
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170106/cbead0797de64ea97d7d413c547983c5.jpg
Sturgill Simpson - A Sailor's Guide To Earth
The MQA material seem to be available in Roon too, even if Roon does not say explicitly that it's MQA (it identifies MQA material in your local library, but not yet from Tidal)
It is displayed as 24bit 44.1 Khz though if you look at the source info.
As of this morning Tidal is giving access to MQA encoded material for their HiFi-customers. I actually didn't think i'll see the day! ;)
I dont know if it's available for all markets yet though...
Material so far limited, but som nice xamples;
The Eagles, Beyoncé etc
And a very nice album for you all:
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170106/cbead0797de64ea97d7d413c547983c5.jpg
Sturgill Simpson - A Sailor's Guide To Earth
The MQA material seem to be available in Roon too, even if Roon does not say explicitly that it's MQA (it identifies MQA material in your local library, but not yet from Tidal)
It is displayed as 24bit 44.1 Khz though if you look at the source info.
I got an upgrade notice yesterday for this. It said look in What's New but I saw nothing in the quick glimpse I had.
I'll look again tonight but have they made want is in MQA obvious?
Ah go to What's New then the Albums section then Masters and apparently it is all there.
According to the MQA website the stream will sound better than CD without and MQA decoder. But better still with one.
According to the MQA website the stream will sound better than CD without and MQA decoder. But better still with one.
Yes, and i actually agree that the MQA sounds somewhat better, but im pretty convinced it's all down to the mastering rather than the format...
(Theres some phase correction and other adjustments made to the digital master depending on what ADC's were originalyl used if i remeber correctly?)
Just got home and hey I count 346 albums in MQA. And a large percentage of it is very mainstream. Smiths, Dream Theater. Blur, Muse, The Doors, Bowie, Madonna etc actually it's a great selection.
Unfortunately I can't really evaluate it at the mo as my right ear is still suffering from the end of a serious ear infection.
Still, something to have fun with.
Apologies!
I didn't understand fully first, as i am unused to the Tidal desktop App.
You can actually make it software decode upp to 88.2/96khz if you set your output in Prefs, and of course select Exclusive mode...
I cant say if it's the same in Windows, but probably something similar.
Nevertheless, i fail to detect any noticeable difference in audio quality between software decoded and undecoded..
Out of curiosity do you use TIDAL because you rejected Spotify SQ?
Magik, will check this out on Tidal thanks for the heads up!
Yup, showing as 24/44...nice.
Nice Nirvana cover on the Simpson album too.
Shame you cant use Roon's 'focus' feature on Tidal to identify all MQA albums, ah well.
some info here:
https://support.tidal.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000397069-TIDAL-MASTERS
Zoidburg
06-01-2017, 22:12
Will be downloading the desktop app tomorrow for a try of this.
Out of curiosity do you use TIDAL because you rejected Spotify SQ?
If that question was addressed to me, then no, and yes.. :D
Tidal works so well in coop with Roon, and the combined library of my own files and Tidal content lets me build a really nice library.
Tidal Hifi does sound significantly better than Spotify Premium in my setup, and what i have heard of the new MQA stuff it does sound promising!
And it sounds very good whether your not decoding at all (better mastering) or software decoding (better mastering+Unfolding higher rez content) or presumably what you will get with a good MQA aware DAC.
Now, i'm just waiting to see what the cost will be to have access to this later on!
Zoidburg
07-01-2017, 13:16
How do I go about making sure I'm getting the best from tidal?
I have the hifi subscription and now the desktop app on my windows pc>>>>>>>us cable>>>>>>young dac>>>>amp. The display on my dac always reads 44 no matter what I put through it. It that correct?
Cheers
Ben
Zoidburg
07-01-2017, 13:40
Think I'm sorted after a quick fiddle I'm now showing 96 on my dac display......which has gotta be better yeah��
Oooh and now 192 too........
Would it be worth it to post what hires albums we are finding in Tidal?
Using it through Roon theres no way to select by bit-depth/samplerate for Tidal unfortunately. :scratch:
Think I'm sorted after a quick fiddle I'm now showing 96 on my dac display......which has gotta be better yeah��
Oooh and now 192 too........
I suspect you are going about it in the unorthodox way, by letting Windows software upsample...
Instead, go to the Settings page in Tidal desktop app.
Select Streaming selections, make sure Hifi/Master is selected as Quality.
Then, equally important;
Select your prefered Audio output AND select the gear icon to the right. Here you must select Exclusive mode and preferably Fixed volume.
(Do NOT select Passthrough MQA unless your DAC is MQA certified)
Settings look like this:(but most likely in English, you'll get the point though)
http://www.ollars.net/hififorum/Tidal_Settings.png
Zoidburg
07-01-2017, 17:50
Thanks for that Mike,
When I change to these settings the bit rate drops from 192 back to 44. Is see your comments re up sampling, so is it not preferable to have a higher bit rate?
Thanks for that Mike,
When I change to these settings the bit rate drops from 192 back to 44. Is see your comments re up sampling, so is it not preferable to have a higher bit rate?
Oh, thats not right?
You are sure you have selected a Master Quality album in your Tidal desktop app? And selected your preferred output in Settings dialogue along with Exclusive mode?
If your Tidal application is performing software decoding/unwrapping you should see 88.2khz or 96khz on yer DAC!
Zoidburg
07-01-2017, 18:28
Ah it could be that I wasnt listening to a master quality album. I'll give it another try ina bit.
Would it be worth it to post what hires albums we are finding in Tidal?
Using it through Roon theres no way to select by bit-depth/samplerate for Tidal unfortunately. :scratch:
Theres a similar thread (https://community.roonlabs.com/t/discovered-tidal-master-mqa-albums/17975/10) on the Roon forum, as it is kinda difficult to find them by other means than using the Recent/New Masters in the desktop app.
Spot on!
Thanks for the link Mike.
Someones compiled a spreadsheet of MQA Tidal albums on Google Docs.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10VtON9VjMAt3uyHC2-Oo2MjIa3orv9DKZfwiRQKmTAA/htmlview
Theres a similar thread (https://community.roonlabs.com/t/discovered-tidal-master-mqa-albums/17975/10) on the Roon forum, as it is kinda difficult to find them by other means than using the Recent/New Masters in the desktop app.
I was very lucky this Christmas as my dad gave my wife and I decent sum of money for a present (he doesn't normally do this, but he found out at the beginning of 2016 that he has cancer :( )
Anyway, I have replaced my Sonos connect with a Bluesound Node 2 and I put it into my hifi yesterday.
I have also decided to switch to Tidal hifi from Spotify premium and this morning I have been listening to some of the MQA albums and they sound great!
So far I have listened to Hunting High and Low by A-ha and I am now listening to Parachutes by Coldplay.
The MQA stamp is coming up in the Bluesound app and my Rega DAC-R is showing a 96khz signal.
I am very happy :)
Sorry to hear about your Dad Adam, cant be easy mate.
MQA...yeah, just started listening a couple of days ago, cN tell the difference even though my Dac isn't MQA equipped.
Finding more and more albums in 24 bit, great stuff. :)
X&Y is on there too.
I now count 403 MQA albums, so they are building it up.
There is no way on this planet that the difference between MQA and standard CD resolution is anywhere near as marked as say the lift in SQ from Spotify's Ogg Vorbis 320KBps and standard TIDAL CD res.
On an Intel I5-2500K 3.3GHz CPU, playing standard CD res averages about 10% CPU utilisation. MQA averages around 20%. So as you might expect, it doesn't actually require that much in the way of decoding power to decode the MQA stream. I am skeptical that a hardware implementation would be any better. That'll just be running software on a more specialised platform anyway, probably using quite cheap parts to do the decoding as expensive ones just won't be necessary.
In my second system, which I am basing my evaluation on, and which probably performs to your average level system, I find it impossible to tell the difference between MQA and CD res streams. I'm only saying that now as my hearing was back this morning in my right ear with a vengeance, after suffering from an ear infection.
I was skeptical when I read about MQA. What it doesn't seem to have at all is that sort of DSD smoothness that SACD and DSD players seem to exhibit. No bad thing IMHO.
Will do some main system evaluation later.
BTW the track I was using was I Get Wild / Wild Gravity from the Talking Heads album Speaking In Tongues. This album always sounded great on direct metal mastered vinyl.
If anyone reckons they hear a marked difference, say on which album and track please. I be curious to try it.
Just done the main system test with an SPL meter, the same track, and my wife and myself.
We hear no difference between MQA and CD. Both versions output the same SPL level.
So, do you trust this man? Do you detect a lack of sincerity? Is it possible that he knows full well that your probably not going to hear one iota of difference?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=16&v=BrgjycGhoSM
Technically, compressing everything over 22K into 8 bits might actually produce a worse result. Try listening to ordinary music with 8 bit resolution. JRiver will let you do that. It is hopelessly poor. On that basis, junking that information rather than pretending to represent it might well be the better idea, as standard CD res does. But TBH you aren't going to hear it anyway, at least not those frequencies directly. Talk to your local bat for an accurate opinion.
flapland
08-01-2017, 17:49
Just playing the same track via Explorer2 DX and it appears its 88.2/96kHz as the blue light and one white light is lit. The blue light means its MQA or when white standard 44.1/48khz if not other white lights are lit. It sounds very good and compared to the standard Hifi version the bass is firmer although it is very close.
I have the remnants of a cold so hearing is great at the moment though.
jandl100
08-01-2017, 18:05
Just done the main system test with an SPL meter, the same track, and my wife and myself.
We hear no difference between MQA and CD. Both versions output the same SPL level.
This from another forum ..."The detail, openess and 3D space are in a different league, in fact include any hifi term you care to, yet the musicality is still there, in fact more emotional. "
Expectation bias, or is Justin now deaf and about to declare he is happy with Spotify Premium? :D
Different albums, though - maybe it's variable?
I'm still signed up with Tidal but I can't be arsed to see if there are any MQAed classical albums.
This from another forum ..."The detail, openess and 3D space are in a different league, in fact include any hifi term you care to, yet the musicality is still there, in fact more emotional. "
Expectation bias, or is Justin now deaf and about to declare he is happy with Spotify Premium? :D
Different albums, though - maybe it's variable?
I'm still signed up with Tidal but I can't be arsed to see if there are any MQAed classical albums.
is there any plans for tidal to develop their own "Connect" system Jerry that youve heard. I might have been interested if they had it but without it its not gonna work well for me.
Time_Lord
08-01-2017, 18:17
Have to say I think the Tidal MQA albums that I have heard so far sound fantastic and are instantly (okay within 5 secs) recognisable as better. More realism, more engaging sound, more holographic, but most importantly just a more musical presentation. Tidal has won me over.
Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk
This from another forum ..."The detail, openess and 3D space are in a different league, in fact include any hifi term you care to, yet the musicality is still there, in fact more emotional. "
Expectation bias, or is Justin now deaf and about to declare he is happy with Spotify Premium? :D
Different albums, though - maybe it's variable?
I'm still signed up with Tidal but I can't be arsed to see if there are any MQAed classical albums.
It is so easy to convince yourself you can hear a difference. Yet go back and forth over and over again on the same track. And then do it again.
I will personally bet anyone £500 that they are unable to reliably detect which is which with better than 80% accuracy over a sample set of 10 tracks under a well controlled blind test using my pretty capable system.
Anyone up for it? I didn't think so LOL.
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?
jandl100
08-01-2017, 19:50
..... using my pretty capable system.
Anyone up for it? I didn't think so LOL.
I've not heard a more resolving system than yours, Justin.
If you can't hear a difference then I strongly suspect there isn't one.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
All good til the graphic equaliser bit? What do you mean?
I'm theorising that MQA adds some sort of sophisticated EQ to the sound. So they didn't sit down and painstakingly remaster 600 albums, they just run them through MQA and they are equalised to sound 'better' when decoded via MQA.
Thing is that isn't technically the original recording. But then I suppose you could argue that any re-master isn't either. But I sort of draw a personal line at 'jazzing up' the sound. If that is what MQA does, I'm speculating here obviously.
British high fidelity
08-01-2017, 22:51
Hmmm interesting, i thought that they have the masters and just compress them using the MQA algorithm, but i really am not sure,
Sent from my LG-H961N using Tapatalk
One of the claims is that with the old recordings, if they know which specific analogue to digital converter was used to make the digital master, they can correct for its deficiencies and this improves sound quality. But I've not read any proper explanation of how that works. There isn't one on the MQA video, old Bob basically says two things, it is a smaller file but it is still 'hi rez', no mention of the ADC thing.
Some info on the MQA format here:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/what-is-mqa-meridian-s-digital-audio-format-explained
Linked if for no other reason it has the phrase "audio beardies who only buy music from studio master portals that basically only sell jazz albums" in it.
British high fidelity
08-01-2017, 23:51
Some info on the MQA format here:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/what-is-mqa-meridian-s-digital-audio-format-explained
Linked if for no other reason it has the phrase "audio beardies who only buy music from studio master portals that basically only sell jazz albums" in it.
Ok well that didnt explain anything we dont already know, hopefully someone can explain if the masters are actully the original studio recording masters being reformatted to a data transferable package, or is the MQA software adjusting eq and repackaging?
Sent from my LG-H961N using Tapatalk
Some info on the MQA format here:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/what-is-mqa-meridian-s-digital-audio-format-explained
Linked if for no other reason it has the phrase "audio beardies who only buy music from studio master portals that basically only sell jazz albums" in it.
LOL quick everyone, shave your beards off, delete your jazz downloads and we'll do a class action lawsuit.
not sure how you can hear any difference without the dac software installed. say it will just come out at 16 44 if you dont have it.?
No, it decodes in the pc application. There is an option to decode it in the DAC instead, Doesn't seem clear as to whether one way is better than the other, you need an MQA ready DAC of course.
not sure how you can hear any difference without the dac software installed. say it will just come out at 16 44 if you dont have it.?
Will be 24bit Grant, so will be "improved" even if the MQA processing doesn't kick in on normal dac.
Plays fine on my non MQA Young Dac through Roon, shows as 24/48 or whatever the higher rate of the track is.
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.
Bolded bit - I do. But it is really fractional. And I defo prefer TIDAL to Qobuz. A while back I tried to find out why by trapping the bytes being sent to the USB port. They aren't the same BTW for the same tracks. Which is interesting. I just didn't have the willpower to absorb the specs and fully decode it. It would have taken hours if not days to suss it. Possibly more than a week with no definitive answer is the most likely outcome.
It is interesting that playing non-streamed .WAV 44.1/16 bit files takes about 1% CPU, whereas streamed TIDAL FLAC decoding takes 10 times the amount and streamed MQA 20 times the amount. You can't help but wonder if somehow this overhead has some sort of detrimental affect, but it is well within the capabilities of the hardware so I can't see why it should, really.
The difference I hear may well be due to JRiver messing around doing everything differently maths wise i.e. using 64 bit floating point maths internally for non-streamed data. As I say though the SQ is so fractionally different imagination and expectation bias may well be what is happening.
Spotify Ogg Vorbis 320KBps is definitely audibly worse than Qobuz or TIDAL with full bit rate subscriptions, though. Even so, scoring 90% correctness between that and TIDAL would be beyond the realms of anyone. Just because you can identify a difference doesn't enable you to always guess which is better purely because sometimes the lower bit rate actually sounds better. It is just that overall, over a wide range of programme, the lower bit rate doesn't sound better.
Anyway my freakin' ear infection is back after appearing to go. Went to the doctor to get the emissions tested, so to speak. £55.63 to get it tested. I've gone private these days as I find it is about the same price as the NHS or better!!! Really. Obviously that depends on what is wrong with you, though. I also personally know this private doctor.
Time_Lord
09-01-2017, 20:44
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.
Interestingly that mirrors my experiences. I was disappointed with Tidal at first because, for the most part, it didn't sound as good as my CD rips.
However, I'm pleased to say that the MQA stuff has the edge on the CD rips and so Tidal has won me over. I'm looking forward to seeing what the MQA range is like in 6 months time.
Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk
Leftfield
10-01-2017, 23:01
I'm going to activate my free 90 days Tidal subscription and try the MQA, however can anyone clarify how you are connecting your laptop to your streamer/DAC? Is it a wired connection or wireless network link? Thanks.
I'm going to activate my free 90 days Tidal subscription and try the MQA, however can anyone clarify how you are connecting your laptop to your streamer/DAC? Is it a wired connection or wireless network link? Thanks.
That would be easier to answer if you told us what the streamer/DAC is? But i always recommend wired connections for streaming audio, particularly high rez.
Simplest would be over USB.
1. Install Tidal application.
2. Log in with your trial account, make sure it says Hifi under your username top left.
3. Go to settings, streaming. Select your USB connected DAC and most important, click the little cog-icon to the right of it's name and there select Exclusive mode. (If you adjust volume elsewhere than inthe computer also select Fixed volume)
4. Go to New albums, select Masters in the categories. Then Show all..
5. Select music, play and enjoy!
Leftfield
11-01-2017, 17:05
That would be easier to answer if you told us what the streamer/DAC is? But i always recommend wired connections for streaming audio, particularly high rez.
Simplest would be over USB.
1. Install Tidal application.
2. Log in with your trial account, make sure it says Hifi under your username top left.
3. Go to settings, streaming. Select your USB connected DAC and most important, click the little cog-icon to the right of it's name and there select Exclusive mode. (If you adjust volume elsewhere than inthe computer also select Fixed volume)
4. Go to New albums, select Masters in the categories. Then Show all..
5. Select music, play and enjoy!
Sorry yes that would have been easier if I'd outlined my set up. Currently have a chromecast audio and a pioneer n50 both connected to a Beresford Caiman mk2 DAC. The Pioneer is hardwired to me router. I then use a nexus 7 tablet and bubble upnp to render to the Pioneer music from my nas or previous subscription to Qobuz. I also use iPhone or iPad to cast Spotify (current subscription) to the chromecast audio.
Hope this makes sense?
Chromecast can only do 16/44, so that might limit you on tidal. Or you could use a long usb repeater cable from pc to dac if not silly distance away to get higher bit rates
Sorry yes that would have been easier if I'd outlined my set up. Currently have a chromecast audio and a pioneer n50 both connected to a Beresford Caiman mk2 DAC. The Pioneer is hardwired to me router. I then use a nexus 7 tablet and bubble upnp to render to the Pioneer music from my nas or previous subscription to Qobuz. I also use iPhone or iPad to cast Spotify (current subscription) to the chromecast audio.
Hope this makes sense?
Yupp, absolutely! Unfortunately, today you will need a computer running Mac OSX or Windows to run Tidals desktop application to exploit their software unfolding of MQA higher rez content.
That computer is best to connect to the Pioneer N50's excellent USB input in this case, as i s'pose the StanDac does not do USB?
The analog output from the N50 is not bad by the way! :)
Edit:
Oh, if you have an MQA aware DAC hifing somewhere it would do fine with any Tidal app steaming to it in bitperfect mode...
Sorry about this short answer but my battery is running out... ;)
Leftfield
11-01-2017, 20:26
Grant/Mike
Many thanks for the replies. The Caiman DAC does have a USB input so I'm guessing it would make sense to wire directly to that rather than through the N50. Ideally I don't want a wired connection from laptop to DAC but I'll give it a go to see whether the improvement in sound is worth the 'eyesaw' comments I will undoubtedly get for the cable trailing across the room...��
Try Muse's 2nd Law in hi-fi and master modes.
Definite difference here. For a given volume setting, the peak SPL for the introduction of Supremacy reads 86.5 DB in hi-fi mode, and 83.4 DB in master mode. Once volume compensated, master mode seems better - deconfused, if you like.
So it would appear that there are quite marked differences to be found.
I only checked it out because someone on another forum mentioned this.
Interestingly that mirrors my experiences. I was disappointed with Tidal at first because, for the most part, it didn't sound as good as my CD rips.
However, I'm pleased to say that the MQA stuff has the edge on the CD rips and so Tidal has won me over. I'm looking forward to seeing what the MQA range is like in 6 months time.
Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk
Is this because MQA addresses some of the time domain stuff that CD rips via your average DAC don't?
Is this because MQA addresses some of the time domain stuff that CD rips via your average DAC don't?
Would be my guess too.
Would be my guess too.
I think this is the biggest and most significant aspect of MQA but it can really only be fully resolved with an MQA encoded recording and playback hardware from beginning to end as it were. I have heard what correcting time domain / transient information has on digital material and it is profound. Personally I feel it allows the brain to work much less harder to resolve information in a recording that makes it sound real.
Maybe we are now at a stage in digital music reproduction where it truly has come of age and will deliver the promise it set out to do and provide a viable alternative to analogue music systems.
Personally I am still sitting on the fence as I feel there is maybe more to come and at a cheaper price but for now I am staying with my vinyl.
Is this because MQA addresses some of the time domain stuff that CD rips via your average DAC don't?
This time domain stuff is all a big fantasy. Sorry, but someone has to say it.
This time domain stuff is all a big fantasy. Sorry, but someone has to say it.
Hi Martin, when I get chance I will prove to you it isn't. Sorry haven't got back to you regarding a visit but I will sort something out at next opportunity.
Hi Martin, when I get chance I will prove to you it isn't. Sorry haven't got back to you regarding a visit but I will sort something out at next opportunity.
I have no idea how you are going to do that?
The thing with this hobby is, if you hear an improvement something the reason for that improvement is not necessarily what you have been told it is. A classic example is the DVD-A and SACD formats, we were told that the obvious improvements they delivered were due to extended bandwidth and dynamic range when in fact these aspects made no difference and the improvement was due to better mastering. That seems to be the case with this MQA, too.
This time domain stuff is all a big fantasy. Sorry, but someone has to say it.
Oh man! Without time there would be no music at all... ;)
WRT my earlier Muse post, it may just be that the louder hi-fi version is the "loudness wars" version complete with some digital clipping, and the quieter MQA version is just at a sensible level.
Just thought I'd say, like.
Thats a good thing with Roon, you can tell if its compressed at a glance.
You can see the waveform of the track and if its just a solid band across the track you think "Uh oh".
.,
WRT my earlier Muse post, it may just be that the louder hi-fi version is the "loudness wars" version complete with some digital clipping, and the quieter MQA version is just at a sensible level.
Just thought I'd say, like.
Just reducing the amount of overall compression on some masters would increase perceived quality on any decent system. If that was it you would expect to hear the least improvement where there was good dynamic range already on the master you are using to compare.
.,
Just reducing the amount of overall compression on some masters would increase perceived quality on any decent system. If that was it you would expect to hear the least improvement where there was good dynamic range already on the master you are using to compare.
Yup that is what I was saying.
Yup that is what I was saying.
Aye, I was just clarifying. So what we may well have is something that will tick all boxes. It is a smaller file so more economical to store and easier to stream, which is good news for the provider; it also unfolds to extended bandwith AKA 'Hi Rez' (where the recording can benefit, and the amp and speakers can reproduce, but it satisfies a niche), does not have the excessive compression applied to (some) other masters of the same recording, and most importantly does appear to sound the better for it on some stuff, and none the worse on others.
Bumping an old thread :D Here is some good news.
Tidal announced a new casting feature - 'Tidal Connect (https://www.audfree.com/news/tidal-connect.html)' which allows users to control MQA music streaming on compatible devices directly from the Tidal mobile app. https://tidal.com/connect
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.