Hi-Res/MQA debate

[Bonky]

Please see this:

http://secure.campaigner.com/csb/Public/show/566i-2456uw--qlimx-dwat4ud0

Anther article on our inability - apparently - to distinguish the difference between RedBook and Hi(gher) -Res Music. ("it's all in the mastering").

What are your thoughts on MQA? So many people -including Linn I believe - have dismissed it as a hoax.

Best wishes to you all. How are the hangovers?

Bonky

[Pete812]

MQA is the wrong direction to go; it has been in development for years and people want their development investment money back. So to license it will cost everybody, there are already alternatives.
Is Cd Redbook worse than High-Res; a really good/made/produced etc is of a very high quality sound, a poor one is always a poor one and once the master tape is made shurly there is only so much you can do to improve it.
Logic says that if you sample at two different rates the lower rate is going to have less information than the higher rate, and also at what point does the playback equipment fail to pick up the difference?
It seems that most of the general public are happy with MP3 and phones to listen to music on, Higher resolution already costs more for the lower percentage of people that want it and MQA will cost even more with no proven benefit to the sound quality.
Streaming services and the internet bandwidth can cope with high-res files so why is there a need to compress/code them and then have to decode/uncompress them, which will presumably reduce the sound quality.

So basically I'm saying that someone has spent a lot of time/money solving a problem that doesn't exist and now wants their money back.

No hangover here!

[Bonky]

Thanks Peter,

I think I'd agree with all that.

The only other issue I would have is whether one can perceive the differences between a well-mastered RedBook version and the same recording as a hi-res file.

We need even more blind tests with all age-ranges on some excellent equipment.

Not everyone's cup of tea I know.

I'm 72 and think that a 24/48 file I downloaded was better than the CD equivalent - but there wasn't much in it! (A bit more 'space' around the instruments rather than an increase in frequency range).

Thanks,

R

[struth]

I dont know if its better in all cases, but can be(hi-rez) as for mqa, im overall not a big fan although it can sound good im pretty sure its not higher rez, and just an adjusted eq

[StingRay]

Please see this:

http://secure.campaigner.com/csb/Public/show/566i-2456uw--qlimx-dwat4ud0

Anther article on our inability - apparently - to distinguish the difference between RedBook and Hi(gher) -Res Music. ("it's all in the mastering").

What are your thoughts on MQA? So many people -including Linn I believe - have dismissed it as a hoax.

Best wishes to you all. How are the hangovers?

Bonky

I don't like MQA because many devices and DACs are not compatible. Why not just have HiRes, 24 bit. I agree the mastering makes the most difference. Hearing the difference between 24 bit and 16 bit is difficult, I thought I did hear some on Qobuz but could have been the mastering or my imagination. Tidal has MQA which is a negative for me, as my DAC is MQA compatible.

Here is a link to the test:

https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6713

I'm not keen on the music he has used, 6 classical and 7 jazz out of 20. I would have expected a wider selection of genres. Classical and Jazz account for only about 2% of music sales.

[StingRay]

I dont know if its better in all cases, but can be(hi-rez) as for mqa, im overall not a big fan although it can sound good im pretty sure its not higher rez, and just an adjusted eq

MQA is 24 bit so it is HiRes.

[AJSki2fly]

Please see this:

http://secure.campaigner.com/csb/Public/show/566i-2456uw--qlimx-dwat4ud0

Anther article on our inability - apparently - to distinguish the difference between RedBook and Hi(gher) -Res Music. ("it's all in the mastering").

What are your thoughts on MQA? So many people -including Linn I believe - have dismissed it as a hoax.

Best wishes to you all. How are the hangovers?

Bonky

There have been several threads on the pros and cons of different resolutions of digital and what was good or bad and it is the proverbial can of worms in my opinion, and caused extensive debate and argument as to what is correct.

If I recall correctly MQA is effectively an encoding compression technique to get hi-res digital into a smaller packet (file) of data without loosing SQ. I can't quite remember but I think the controversial as it removes parts of the original data stream and encodes these in such a way that on replay they can be re-built and re-produce the origianal. I think Meridian were/are heavily involved in its development and I think some of the publicity for it even tried to say that it improved on what the end user heard compared to the original data stream, irrespective of the quality or equipment used, a very big statement to make. Personally at the time having read many articles and technical stuff about it and hi-res digital music and how accurate the reproduction is in comparison to the master recording I think it is not worth worrying about. I personally am not that keen on MQA which I have listened to and IMHO to my ears it changes the end result subtly, is it true to the original I doubt it.

I come from an IT background of over 40 years and got sucked into digital music on CD form as an early adopter, back in the 80's I gradually learnt it was rather hit and miss from a SQ point of view, the issue of the transfer from Analogue to Digital (AAD,ADD, DDD) and just how sympathetically and accurately this was done had major impacts. Also the sampling rates and digital equipment back then was no-where as good as it is today. Then good old MP3, AAC, and Ogg Vorbis files came along often erroneously spouted as lossless, in fact all Lossy, so data is removed when the file is created from a higher resolution audio file type and this saves space. There are many, many debates as to at what point you can and cannot hear any difference from the original, many argue that at the highest resolution of MP3 or AAC you cannot hear any difference to music at CD level of resolution. Personally I think this is rubbish, even I with my 60 year old ears can generally detect the difference on good equipment, it may take several blind listens but usually I can. Having said that if the original master is poor then the ability to detect any difference can become very difficult, if not impossible.

You quote "it's all in the mastering" this also has a great deal of truth in it IMO, I would offer the old adage "put crap in, get crap out", or putting it another way, basically the better the starting point the more likely the end result will be good. I have also listened to several recordings of the same material taken from the same original master, and in some cases the SQ on some is noticeably poorer than on others, this goes for digital and analogue black vinyl, obviously when it is not good something is not right in the transfer or production process.

I have come to the conclusion rightly or wrongly that it is best to aim for the better end of the resolution spectrum as much as possible and hopefully this will result in a good end listening experience if your equipment is reasonably good and set up properly. I do not limit this to digital, analog or vinyl can and does suffer from the same issues, on several occasions I have purchased several copies of the same album from different pressing runs until I found the one that I think sounds best. Even vinyl re-masters from the original master tapes, be them analogue or digital can be not that great, although there are some very good ones as well. So as I said earlier a can of worms.

[Clive197]

I gave up on Tidal and MQA files quite a while ago and stick to Qobuz for my streaming. I agree with the general consensus here that MQA is a failure as 24 bit files end up as 17/18 bit files which makes the whole issue complete nonsense. I suspect that Tidal get MQA rights free or at a very low rate so that it would gain some momentum. I think that is backfiring on the the original licensee, as there are more and more negative reviews.

[Macca]

I come from an IT background of over 40 years and got sucked into digital music on CD form as an early adopter, back in the 80's I gradually learnt it was rather hit and miss from a SQ point of view, the issue of the transfer from Analogue to Digital (AAD,ADD, DDD) and just how sympathetically and accurately this was done had major impacts. Also the sampling rates and digital equipment back then was no-where as good as it is today.

.

Agree with the rest of your post but not this part. Even the early 3M and Sony digital recorders were transparent to the source, and lots of great sounding albums were recorded on them. Higher sampling rates and dynamic range on modern recording equipment do make life easier in the studio but make no difference to replay.

As for transferring analogue master tape to digital how hard can it be? Cue up your tape and press play. How many non-professionals have recorded their vinyl to digital? Must be tens of thousands of people if not hundreds of thousands, never seen anyone complain that it was complex to do, or that they didn't get good results. The idea that an experienced studio engineer would have problems with it just doesn't make sense.

It's often stated that some early transfers were no good but I've yet to find one and I generally seek out the early cd releases over the more recent masters. I've never seen anyone who worked in studios back then say there were problems recording analogue tapes to digital either. I don't know for sure but I strongly suspect that it's just another 'audiophile myth'.

[AJSki2fly]

Agree with the rest of your post but not this part. Even the early 3M and Sony digital recorders were transparent to the source, and lots of great sounding albums were recorded on them. Higher sampling rates and dynamic range on modern recording equipment do make life easier in the studio but make no difference to replay.

Hi Martin, how you doing, nice to hear from you.:)

Well I will have to bow to you as I have not personally experienced the results of either a £M or Sony digital recorder, not knowingly anyway.


As for transferring analogue master tape to digital how hard can it be? Cue up your tape and press play. How many non-professionals have recorded their vinyl to digital? Must be tens of thousands of people if not hundreds of thousands, never seen anyone complain that it was complex to do, or that they didn't get good results. The idea that an experienced studio engineer would have problems with it just doesn't make sense.

Yes I tend to agree, one would certainly think that as you describe it then it should be relatively simples. However as I have said before I have had various CD's which have be transferred from analogue tape to digital onto CD and they just do not sound right, just as if something/somebody has ad a bit of a remix along the way. Yes I agree that it does not make sense but that is what I have experienced.


It's often stated that some early transfers were no good but I've yet to find one and I generally seek out the early cd releases over the more recent masters. I've never seen anyone who worked in studios back then say there were problems recording analogue tapes to digital either. I don't know for sure but I strongly suspect that it's just another 'audiophile myth'.

Not so sure as I said above and on the other very long thread on this topic I did several comparisons of versions of CD's and Vinyl supposedly from the same master of several alums, very difficult to get a concise picture of that in most cases, maybe they were supposed to be the same master but were copies of the original, I never really go to the bottom of that chestnut. If the mixing and wall of sound crap that goes on today is any indication of what engineers think is right, I would not be at all surprised of similar lack of care happening back in the 80's.

[AJSki2fly]

I gave up on Tidal and MQA files quite a while ago and stick to Qobuz for my streaming. I agree with the general consensus here that MQA is a failure as 24 bit files end up as 17/18 bit files which makes the whole issue complete nonsense. I suspect that Tidal get MQA rights free or at a very low rate so that it would gain some momentum. I think that is backfiring on the the original licensee, as there are more and more negative reviews.

Yes Clive I have done the same, and actually at the moment prefer Qobuz, I noticed a few others on AoS seem to have moved onto it as well. I am not an avid streamer, but it is a convenient medium.

[Macca]

Hi Martin, how you doing, nice to hear from you.:)

Well I will have to bow to you as I have not personally experienced the results of either a £M or Sony digital recorder, not knowingly anyway.


.

Donald Fagen 'The Nightfly' was done on the 3M
Dire Straits 'Brothers In Arms' was done on the 3M or the Sony, can't remember which now.

'The Nightfly' is regarded as a masterclass of recording quality and gets used by engineers to test front of house PA systems because of that. Yet it's not just an early digital recording, it's one of the very first.

Which sort of also puts lie to another audiophile myth that the engineers didn't know what they were doing with the early digital recorders. Maybe there were one or two who struggled but I don't see why that would be.

[StingRay]

Donald Fagen 'The Nightfly' was done on the 3M
Dire Straits 'Brothers In Arms' was done on the 3M or the Sony, can't remember which now.

'The Nightfly' is regarded as a masterclass of recording quality and gets used by engineers to test front of house PA systems because of that. Yet it's not just an early digital recording, it's one of the very first.

Which sort of also puts lie to another audiophile myth that the engineers didn't know what they were doing with the early digital recorders. Maybe there were one or two who struggled but I don't see why that would be.

The digital recordings maybe ok but some of the analogue conversions were not, I have 2 that I think were poor, Jeff Healey See the Light and U2 Rattle and Hum, the more recent remaster of See the Light is considerably better.

I have read about Brothers In Arms recording, this is what they did to it, after it was recorded: " Once recorded, the files were downmixed to two-track stereo, then transferred to CD after running through as many as 20 Neve Modules (a type of analog preamplifier and equalizer) in a row, to reduce what Dire Straits’ Mark Knopfler and recording engineer Neil Dorfsman referred to as “digital harshness.” Passing through so many analog “helpers” sweetened digital’s hard sound—each successive Neve reshaped the sound by gently rolling off the ultrasonic frequencies."

[Macca]

The digital recordings maybe ok but some of the analogue conversions were not, I have 2 that I think were poor, Jeff Healey See the Light and U2 Rattle and Hum, the more recent remaster of See the Light is considerably better.

I have read about Brothers In Arms recording, this is what they did to it, after it was recorded: " Once recorded, the files were downmixed to two-track stereo, then transferred to CD after running through as many as 20 Neve Modules (a type of analog preamplifier and equalizer) in a row, to reduce what Dire Straits’ Mark Knopfler and recording engineer Neil Dorfsman referred to as “digital harshness.” Passing through so many analog “helpers” sweetened digital’s hard sound—each successive Neve reshaped the sound by gently rolling off the ultrasonic frequencies."

Well they would get rid of any ultrasonics as there wouldn't be any with 16/44.1 but I know what you mean. That's all about getting a sound they wanted though, it's not because there is anything wrong with the recorder. It's not uncommon to run various tracks or even the whole mix through an RTR and back to the desk just to get that 'analogue' feel on it. It's just compression and noise of course but it's part of the artistic process same as deciding what mic or guitar to use.

[Boyse6748]

Reluctant to join the debate but MQA is either good or not so good. Fortunately or Unfortunately I've spent the money on an MQA dac and I'm in complete confusion about it all.

For those making coment about the quality of MQA without the hardware unfold are talking nonsense.

All I can say is this, sometimes MQA can sound a little unjointed but can also sound as good as it gets..... It really does depend on the recording and how it's been mastered.

High res it is! However, being a Tidal and Qobus devote, 24 bit tracks sound equally as good.

Roon is for me as good as is gets (thus far) and MQA has its place, as does any 24 bit track.

Have I wasted my money on an MQA dac... Who knows? It's just to have both options.

I've Read all the previous posts, some right, some wrong and I'm a vinyl man but open to something new.

MQA, Good or bad..... Who knows?

Me.... I love it and hate it... But yer can't please all the people all the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sanchezxxx]

Just spent the last month or so switching between Spotify, Qobuz, Tidal and Amazon Music HD using an Audioquest Dragonfly Red MQA on downsizing system.

I’m no pro but I can pick up the difference on my fave tracks between Spotify and hi-res versions on Tidal / Qobuz. I find it harder/impossible to tell the difference between Tidal MQA and Qobuz hi res. Both apps have really annoying UI issues.

Tidal’s MQA catalogue is tiny and not worth dedicated hardware in my opinion.

Sticking with Qobuz and getting rid of MQA DAC.

[StingRay]

Just spent the last month or so switching between Spotify, Qobuz, Tidal and Amazon Music HD using an Audioquest Dragonfly Red MQA on downsizing system.

I’m no pro but I can pick up the difference on my fave tracks between Spotify and hi-res versions on Tidal / Qobuz. I find it harder/impossible to tell the difference between Tidal MQA and Qobuz hi res. Both apps have really annoying UI issues.

Tidal’s MQA catalogue is tiny and not worth dedicated hardware in my opinion.

Sticking with Qobuz and getting rid of MQA DAC.

What were the UI issues? Only used Qobuz on my desktop and I had problems, the search function is poor, Tidal had no issues apart from their recommended music which was not to my taste at all. Now I use a Bluesound Node, at the moment I'm using Deezer HiFi which is fine, Tidal is also very similar. A few people have mentioned UI issues but I don't really understand what they are.

[sanchezxxx]

Biggest UI issue for me in Qobuz are player controls / timeline disappearing in the iOS App while moving through different views, requiring sometimes going bk 2 steps to skip a song. Button, menu placement etc is frustrating, requiring 2x effort vs Spotify. Few bugs re adding songs to play queue / play next. That said the are recruiting for a much needed project manager so I have faith they will be fixed. I like their curated playlists vs algorithm recommended me more of the same music I already listen too. Reminds me of an old school record shop. Like to support the underdog if they have potential to improve.

Tidal UI bug for me - they will probably say it’s a feature: Search for a song on desktop > Click song > add it to playlist > it will add the whole album as it brings up the song in the album rather than just the song. You have to scroll down to the song in the album and add it alone despite having searched for the song.

Making / editing playlists in both is a bit of a pain.

Amazon HD seemed very pop focussed during my trial period and had nothing major for or against.

In everyday use many little things like this are frustrating. Spotify are not perfect but have done an awesome job for day to day use via smartphone.

One other thing I notice is that over all recording Qobuz appears to have a certain liveliness vs Spotify. Maybe that is what people call PRAT but it’s def there.

Back to MQA I read it’s just as much about mastering tools as it is compression and playback. Nothing against it if everything is in that format when getting charged for it. Right now it seems more of a demo than a product without the demo price point. Interesting to read what Linn and Chord say about the matter. I’ve made my decision for the medium term. Will be interesting to see where it ends up in another 3 yrs time.

More 24bit audio and genuine innovation in hifi is a win for us all.

[Qwin]

MQA

This is my contribution and should be considered as just one point of view amongst the many which have been offered, to give a balanced overall view on the subject.

As I understand it......
You have to buy all your digital gear/music again as MQA files are not compatible with non MQA gear, so forget about RPi streamers etc. There is a limited catalogue and streaming options available at present.

DSP is not compatible with MQA files, that's the whole point of it, your locked out of any digital post processing or copying. So the likes of minidsp, active filters or room correction, even subs with digital filters etc, won't work with it. If I'm wrong about this, someone speak up, but that's what I'm taking from what I've read.

It's a solution to a problem that does not exist from the consumers point of view, the small reduction is file size is not relevant these days, as storage is cheap. It's a loss'y process, how can this sound any better than a non loss'y file of the same resolution? It's more about publishing right's, copy protection and control within the industry. Don't think for one moment, that if it was to become established, the industry would not enable this element, which has been there from its inception, Why so?

I won't touch anything that is linked to MQA, hardware or software. I recently purchased a Topping D90 DAC, but went for the non MQA version. If the only option had been with MQA, I would have shopped elsewhere. This is my way of expressing my absolute opposition to MQA the only way I can.

As far as HiRes goes, the highest level I take things to is 24/96 lossless. A well mastered recording at this resolution sounds superb, I feel taking it any higher is just eating up disc space, without any audible (to me) improvement. Even a 320kbs MP3 sounds pretty impressive, if the mastering was good in the first place.

YMMV

Edit: Another fan of Qobuz here, accessed through a Pi4B/LMS with Qobuz plugin.
The Windows App used to be terrible, it would lock up frequently. They improved it when they entered the USA market, but it still occasionally runs into problems on that
platform.

[StingRay]

Biggest UI issue for me in Qobuz are player controls / timeline disappearing in the iOS App while moving through different views, requiring sometimes going bk 2 steps to skip a song. Button, menu placement etc is frustrating, requiring 2x effort vs Spotify. Few bugs re adding songs to play queue / play next. That said the are recruiting for a much needed project manager so I have faith they will be fixed. I like their curated playlists vs algorithm recommended me more of the same music I already listen too. Reminds me of an old school record shop. Like to support the underdog if they have potential to improve.

Tidal UI bug for me - they will probably say it’s a feature: Search for a song on desktop > Click song > add it to playlist > it will add the whole album as it brings up the song in the album rather than just the song. You have to scroll down to the song in the album and add it alone despite having searched for the song.

Making / editing playlists in both is a bit of a pain.

Amazon HD seemed very pop focussed during my trial period and had nothing major for or against.

In everyday use many little things like this are frustrating. Spotify are not perfect but have done an awesome job for day to day use via smartphone.

One other thing I notice is that over all recording Qobuz appears to have a certain liveliness vs Spotify. Maybe that is what people call PRAT but it’s def there.

Back to MQA I read it’s just as much about mastering tools as it is compression and playback. Nothing against it if everything is in that format when getting charged for it. Right now it seems more of a demo than a product without the demo price point. Interesting to read what Linn and Chord say about the matter. I’ve made my decision for the medium term. Will be interesting to see where it ends up in another 3 yrs time.

More 24bit audio and genuine innovation in hifi is a win for us all.

I see, I don't use iOS App. I play albums not just tracks and I don't do playlists.

Qobuz webplayer did not do gapless and had a long gap. I could not get the desktop app. to download for weeks due to errors.

Tidal I did not have any issues.

Deezer HiFi had many issues on desktop but these have gone on the Bluesound App. but the Flow has gone, this was after each album you selected had finished, was like a radio based on your listening experience but had new similar artists, it was good, now it just reverts to the same album all the time.
I will try Tidal again as only used that on my Windows desktop. But it's £20pm so too expensive compared to the others.

I may even try Amazon HD. I think most of these streamers do tweak the sound, Qobuz I believe does not.

I don't want MQA, my Bluesound Node can unfold it but my DACs are not compatible so it's pretty pointless for me.

I wish Qobuz had the same choice as Spotify or Deezer or Tidal.

[Mr. C]

MQA is a solution to a problem that does not exist

[sanchezxxx]

Haha,

Doesn't solve a problem to anyone at home with decent broadband and high end hifi (most of us). To a degree it could be argued that it helps streaming live on mobile devices in areas with poor signal. I'm sure from a licensing / protection perspective it solves some contractual issue somewhere for record co's / rights holders.

Will be interesting to see the way Apple moves forward. Looks like they are going to be dropping all physical ports from future iPhones and have taken optical off MacBooks - Aghhhhh. If Apple don't adopt MQA I don't see it going anywhere.

[StingRay]

Haha,

Doesn't solve a problem to anyone at home with decent broadband and high end hifi (most of us). To a degree it could be argued that it helps streaming live on mobile devices in areas with poor signal. I'm sure from a licensing / protection perspective it solves some contractual issue somewhere for record co's / rights holders.

Will be interesting to see the way Apple moves forward. Looks like they are going to be dropping all physical ports from future iPhones and have taken optical off MacBooks - Aghhhhh. If Apple don't adopt MQA I don't see it going anywhere.

MQA is available on iphones and iOS. Tidal is the only streaming service using it I believe and that maybe putting more people off than attracting them. As broadband speeds have increased then there is less need for it. I don't like some of the marketing either, I think it is misleading.

[Mr Neds]

I’ve heard people say ( on HUKD of all places ) that they could tell the difference between Tidal hi fi and Tidal Masters on their car stereo etc., which is interesting as these are people that know nothing about MQA
and it’s “unpacking”. So back to the notion of people hearing what they want?

[Qwin]

I’ve heard people say ( on HUKD of all places ) that they could tell the difference between Tidal hi fi and Tidal Masters on their car stereo etc., which is interesting as these are people that know nothing about MQA
and it’s “unpacking”. So back to the notion of people hearing what they want?

Or maybe the masters for each version are different and that's the difference they are hearing. There can be several versions of an album/track, especially with older material. This was true with Vinyl/Cd so why should MQA source material be any different.
You can't be certain Oranges were being compared with Oranges.

I have experienced a couple of instances with Qobuz downloads, were a 16/41 cd quality download sounded better, much better, than a HiRes version of the same album. Even the streamed 320kbs MP3 sounded better than the HiRes download. Mastering is everything and a turd is a turd, no matter how much you polish it. :)