TIDAL MQ

[Sherwood]

I know that there are those on this forum who dispute any benefits to HiRes Digital Audio. I have been listening to a lot of albums on Tidal in their MQ section (i.e. 96/24 and above).

I have to say that I am hearing things for the first time on albums that I know very well and have played many times on a high quality vinyl front end. For example, I have just been listening to Roberta Flack's first two studio albums. I have always been impressed with how the instruments and studio acoustic were captured on the original vinyl pressings, albeit with quite a bit of tape hiss. The MQ versions of these albums on Tidal sound fantastic to me whilst retaining an analogue vibe.

Geoff

[Bourneendboy]

Geoff,

Are you accessing Tidal MQA through Bubble and then onto Volumio?

[Sherwood]

Geoff,

Are you accessing Tidal MQA through Bubble and then onto Volumio?

I'm using several methods actually.

a) Yes, one is Bubble/Volumio on a rPi/Digione into a Caiman SEG
b) On my desktop PC
c) In the bedroom using the Tidal app on my Amazon 4k firestick
d) In the lounge through my 4K LG TV app

I find it very easy to set up and run.

Geoff

[Macca]

I know that there are those on this forum who dispute any benefits to HiRes Digital Audio. I have been listening to a lot of albums on Tidal in their MQ section (i.e. 96/24 and above).

I have to say that I am hearing things for the first time on albums that I know very well and have played many times on a high quality vinyl front end. For example, I have just been listening to Roberta Flack's first two studio albums. I have always been impressed with how the instruments and studio acoustic were captured on the original vinyl pressings, albeit with quite a bit of tape hiss. The MQ versions of these albums on Tidal sound fantastic to me whilst retaining an analogue vibe.

Geoff

First album by Roberta Flack was recorded in 1969 so cannot be 'hi-rez' no matter what the carrier. MQA sounds different because they add some eq. But if you're liking it then you're liking it.

[Sherwood]

First album by Roberta Flack was recorded in 1969 so cannot be 'hi-rez' no matter what the carrier. MQA sounds different because they add some eq. But if you're liking it then you're liking it.

I know how old the recording is and the imperfections of the original vinyl pressing. That is why I chose this album to comment on. What I don't know is how they have managed to take the original tapes and make it sound so good.

I would be interested to hear the impressions of other Tidal users on these and other MQ titles.

Geoff

[Bourneendboy]

Trialling Tidal through Bubble now using a Dragonfly Red plugged into a Pi.
All works a treat, but can't see how to get any MQA stuff.

[Manicatel]

MQA is an incredibly divisive topic.
For some, it really is a superb way of accessing material in hi res.
For others it’s a total con.
Unless you’ve got an MQA enabled DAC you won’t be getting the full effect of what it does & there aren’t that many about.
So for most people, they’ll be getting a diet version, no the full fat variety, to be a bit crass about it.
I listen to it via Tidal/Audirvana with a non-MQA DAC & I tend to opt for the MQA version of an album if it’s available.
The tech behind it is way beyond my understanding, so I just tend the trust my ears. As it’s a no cost option for me with my Tidal subscription I’m happy with it.
I don’t see that many big Hifi companies jumping on the MQA bandwagon, it’s been around for a couple of years or so now & Bluesound/Nad & some other niche companies seem to be the main proponents. It would take a big hitter such as Naim, Yamaha, Denon, etc to adopt it for it to become successful in the long term, I’d have thought.

[Sherwood]

MQA is an incredibly divisive topic.
For some, it really is a superb way of accessing material in hi res.
For others it’s a total con.
Unless you’ve got an MQA enabled DAC you won’t be getting the full effect of what it does & there aren’t that many about.
So for most people, they’ll be getting a diet version, no the full fat variety, to be a bit crass about it.
I listen to it via Tidal/Audirvana with a non-MQA DAC & I tend to opt for the MQA version of an album if it’s available.
The tech behind it is way beyond my understanding, so I just tend the trust my ears. As it’s a no cost option for me with my Tidal subscription I’m happy with it.
I don’t see that many big Hifi companies jumping on the MQA bandwagon, it’s been around for a couple of years or so now & Bluesound/Nad & some other niche companies seem to be the main proponents. It would take a big hitter such as Naim, Yamaha, Denon, etc to adopt it for it to become successful in the long term, I’d have thought.

Just to clarify, I am talking about the Tidal Master Quality files not MQA per se. I am listening to these files through my pc as 96/24 files rather than as MQA per se. All I can say is that they sound very good through my HiFiMan 400i headphones as well as through my Maggies 1.7 speakers.

I do not have an MQA DAC or streamer so cannot comment on how these files would sound otherwise.

Geoff

[Crackles]

I've always been put off Tidal in the past because I think Jay-Z is a tit, but I could probably get over that. The thing is at the moment I am paying for Qobuz (for quality) and Deezer (for more variety and because my missus sometimes uses it at the same time) but it is costing me £30 a month. Tidal may well be a solution to replace both?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[George47]

Just to clarify, I am talking about the Tidal Master Quality files not MQA per se. I am listening to these files through my pc as 96/24 files rather than as MQA per se. All I can say is that they sound very good through my HiFiMan 400i headphones as well as through my Maggies 1.7 speakers.

I do not have an MQA DAC or streamer so cannot comment on how these files would sound otherwise.

Geoff

Bit of confusion here. Qobuz streams its music at 16/44.1. It is CD Quality and costs £20/month. They also stream music in Hires at 'full fat' unprocessed 24/96 at £30/month.

Tidal also streams music at 16/44.1 It is also CD quality at £20/month. They also stream MQA which they call Master Quality. It is free to those using CD streaming. Using the PC prog you can 'unfold' the MQA stream, which becomes higher rate data. This MQA data becomes 24/96 data for your DAC. Some DACs will also do this unfold as well and to get the full effect you need an MQA enabled DAC to retrieve the full data. Their Master Quality is MQA.

So basically only Tidal streams MQA and the PC programme allows a first unfold to generate a 24/96 stream. You are not hearing original 24/96 data as only Qobuz does that at an extra cost. No big deal as you are getting MQA for free.

As others have said MQA is controversial and there is debate whether the process works. In my view I found MQA helped with some albums but ultimately it was not as good as 'original' 24/96.

[Ali Tait]

I had a Mytek dac which does MQA, as above results were variable, but some sounded very good indeed.

Best dac I’ve heard in my system, not the cheapest though. Using a SEG at the moment, which gives the Mytek a serious run for its money.

[NickB]

Just for interest if you play music through Roon it has the ability to unfold MQA to 96/24 built in to the software so will do so with any DAC.

[Gazjam]

Just for interest if you play music through Roon it has the ability to unfold MQA to 96/24 built in to the software so will do so with any DAC.

Great point.

Tidal/ Roon user here, but my dac does MQA so dont use this feature.
Verdicts still out in MQA here, results can vary and to me MQA 24/96 doesnt sound as good as the same album in native 24/96...it IS a lossy format after all?
24/192 MQA is another thing altogether, sounds soopadoopa, but not as good as straight DSD.

Also, maybe the old mastering/ EQ quality chestnut is raising its head again?

I noticed the EQ on MQA of Roberta Flack first album too, I dont worry about it that much though, as the same track at 16/44 can sound different on a ‘best of’ album compared to the original...Just one of these things.

I always go for MQA versions of albums I dont have in 24/96 though, even though to me the difference from 16/44 isn’t that major its worth it.

MQA thrown in with Tidal subscription...hundreds of 24/96 albums I dont already own..?
I’d buy that for a dollar!

(or 20)

[Sherwood]

I have an original vinyl pressing of the Roberta Flack album as well as two different cd copies. I thought the cd copies were OK but preferred the vinyl pressing (despite the tape noise) for the space around voice and instruments. I think the MQ version is the best of all three formats.

Geoff

[Gazjam]

I have an original vinyl pressing of the Roberta Flack album as well as two different cd copies. I thought the cd copies were OK but preferred the vinyl pressing (despite the tape noise) for the space around voice and instruments. I think the MQ version is the best of all three formats.

Geoff

Weirdly, the one I prefer to listen to (at least “Compared to What” is the version from the Man From Uncle soundtrack... :)

[lovejoy]

My 2 cents on MQA...
I dived into it pretty early on after having a demo of it way back in 2014 when there was nothing more than a few demo titles floating around. Bought a Meridian Explorer2 DAC to try it out on and eventually moved to a Pioneer portable player with MQA built in and rather fortuitously it came with all of the demo tracks (I guess it must have been used by their sales rep who managed to forget to delete them all). A selection of Roberta Flack, Dire Straits, The Eagles, Bob Dylan, Steely Dan, Led Zeppelin and a load of other classic tracks all of which sounded absolutely sublime to me and the best I'd ever heard any of them on any digital format. My next amp/DAC change was to move to something MQA compatible, so sure I was that this was the future...
Then nothing happened for ages, save for the tiny trickle of MQA releases by independent artists (most of which I couldn't stand) and it remained like that until Tidal suddenly unleashed its Master Quality catalogue which was, after so much waiting with what essentially already felt like obsolete equipment, a very exciting day indeed.
The excitement was pretty short lived however. Whereas the early demo masters had me spouting hyperbole about every single track, after just a couple of hours listening to the Tidal Masters, something struck me - everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, sounded exactly the same. It was almost as if, in the rush to get a large catalogue prepared for release by Tidal, there was no 'mastering' as such, and it was more like everything had been taken from whatever source it was and run through a Pro-Tools plug in. Everything seems to have this bump in the upper mid frequencies, so there's clearly some EQ going on - Whether Tidal has any hand in this I don't know, but then my DAC is doing all of the MQA unfolding and it's the same on both my Pioneer portable and NAD Masters/BlueOS kit.
What put the final nail in the coffin for MQA for me was coming across a couple of recordings - Sergio Mendes & Brasil '66 was one of these - I have a number of copies of this album, vinyl and CD and the MQA version is the only version I've ever had where left and right has been swapped. Another example was one of Beck's albums (though I forget which one now) which has a massive digital glitch in one of the songs - Possibly a corrupted file on the Tidal server maybe, but you couldn't explain the Sergio Mendes away like that. To me that's pretty shoddy QC work and given that MQA is supposed to be built on 'provenance', those examples hardly fill me with confidence.

[Macca]

Interesting post that, Richard.

[Yomanze]

I know how old the recording is and the imperfections of the original vinyl pressing. That is why I chose this album to comment on. What I don't know is how they have managed to take the original tapes and make it sound so good.

I would be interested to hear the impressions of other Tidal users on these and other MQ titles.

Geoff

It’s all in the (re)mastering.

[Sherwood]

It’s all in the (re)mastering.

I'm sure that's the case. What intrigues me is how they manage to improve on 50 year old mastertapes which must be a bit ropey by now. I have to say that most of the Tidal MQ files I have listened to have sounded pretty good on my main system which is highly revealing of fine detail.

Geoff

[Yomanze]

I'm sure that's the case. What intrigues me is how they manage to improve on 50 year old mastertapes which must be a bit ropey by now. I have to say that most of the Tidal MQ files I have listened to have sounded pretty good on my main system which is highly revealing of fine detail.

Geoff

There is advanced DSP available today, something that can rescue, or ‘fill in’, the gaps, get rid of the hiss, and more. [emoji4]

[Yomanze]

I too have heard lovely results from Masters, on a non-oversampling 16 bit DAC, also 24/96 work well in my case as the NOS treble droop around is corrected (-3db at 20kHz). Not that I care when it’s not, it is a small difference. All that happens with regard to bit depth is that the bits 17-24 are truncated, but as I don’t listen past the dynamic range of my DAC, 97db, this makes no difference at all.

[Sherwood]

I too have heard lovely results from Masters, on a non-oversampling 16 bit DAC, also 24/96 work well in my case as the NOS treble droop around is corrected (-3db at 20kHz). Not that I care when it’s not, it is a small difference. All that happens with regard to bit depth is that the bits 17-24 are truncated, but as I don’t listen past the dynamic range of my DAC, 97db, this makes no difference at all.

I'm currently using an RPi/Digione into a Caiman SEG. Sounds fantastic and way better than any CDP I have used.

Geoff