Streaming vs traditional

Of course I listen as well. However, sighted listening tests are methodologically deeply problematic because there is potentially so much expectation bias. The blind test that I linked to suggests that there is little or on sonic difference between high resolution pcm and mqa. Even those who thought they could identify the differences could not. In fact, the same has also been argued for differences between red book and higher resolutions.
This sighted test bias problem is not uncommon, and is well documented in the methodological literature. As a personal anecdote, I once participated in a blind amplifier test by Peter Walker. I thought I could identify differences, but I was completely wrong: like everybody else, I was no better than random. It was a good lesson that I have not forgotten. For a recent demo video on comparing amplifiers: https://vimeo.com/137001237
So the good take home news of all such blind tests is that there are few if any sonic differences between properly designed electronics (that may exclude sonically tweaked audiophile stuff). These days even quite cheap gear can be sonically perfect. Those who claim otherwise are often commercially interested (cables make people millionaires), or as consumers suffer from expectation bias delusion. The real differences in audio are with speakers and room interaction. And here, of course, the differences are easily audible, even if measurements help identify issues. Professionals have known this for ages.
As for my music choices. Well, I choose music, not demo discs.

"The blind test that I linked to suggests that there is little or on sonic difference between high resolution pcm and MQA"

@willemj ~ The above assessment would be true if you’re comparing a audio file that has a higher sampling frequency and bit depth rate than CD - 16bit/44.1kHz.

Before we dismiss MQA, we need to understand why MQA success is important to many of us who cares for high resolution audio.

For many, including you, the CD quality streaming (Tidal, Quboz) is fine. MQA makes no such claims that each and every file is going to sound better than its CD counterparts. Technically they are supposed to sound better, but as we learned that’s not the case and there are many variables as to why (I won’t get into those here).

MQA is simply affording us an opportunity to stream high resolution files with a sampling frequency of 88.2kHz, 96kHz, 176.kHz or 192kHz at 24 bit depth rate. Whether they sound better than 16bit/44.1kHz that has been left up to the user to decide.

There is also debate going on the available MQA content but selection is growing steadily albeit not as fast as some of us had hoped for or like to see.

Personally, I don’t want to pay $15-$35 for each high resolution album downloads. With MQA success, it will force other giants like HDTracks to stream high resolution files which are currently available as pricey downloads only.

Of course, there are those with deep pockets that prefers to own their music than stream. For them, there are still plenty of choices to buy music.

In near future, I would like to see more choices with high resolution streaming so we can cherry pick our high resolution music provider and let them compete for our hard money.

High resolution streaming is here whether you like it or not.

Well, the comparison was between high resolution (i.e. 24/96) files and MQA, and (rightly or wrongly - there may be a discussion about the test design) the result was that there were no sonic differences. If true, this allows us to conclude that MQA is not better than Hi Res. However, this may be a correct conclusion simply because anything above cd red book is without additional sonic benefit, or because MQA is no better than Hi Res but both are better than CD.  That is not clear from this test.
I am not decided on the benefits of resolutions above cd red book. There have been blind tests and these do not seem to suggest a difference once the same source file is used (but downsampled). On the other hand, I have a number of BluRay opera discs and these are quite stunning. Is it because the format is superior, or because these recordings were simply done to high audiophile standards of dynamic range etc? Listening is not quite the simple thing it seems.

@willemj

CD is good enough - especially if upsampled and gentle filters are used. However 24 96KHz is usually a bit better quality and the modern DACs are approaching 21 bit resolution on the analog out which suggests you can benefit from 24 bits.

The biggest benefit from higher sample rates is that DAC non-linearities are randomized. Most DACs are rather non-linear between the different levels on an R2R or between the multitude of sigma delta converters on modern chips. This non-linearity is due to slight differences (order of 0.005 %)in the steps in the DAC. If you pass high sample rate music through these DACs then the inaudible high frequencies will help randomize distortion from non-linearity.

Of course, a well designed DAC will not care about sample rate as it will sound the same at all rates with the same source file (at least over the audible range)

@willemj

I think you’re missing the big picture.

I am not saying MQA is better than a high resolution downloaded file. Let’s assume for our discussion that MQA and a high resolution downloaded audio files sounds the same. What about the end user cost of high resolution audio? Would you rather pay $15-35 for each high resolution album, $2 per track (if available, most sites require you to purchase entire album) or pay $20-$25 per month for unlimited high resolution streaming?

As I said, MQA is affording us the opportunity for high resolution audio (currently available as downloads only) streaming at a static monthly fee. Well in case of Tidal, it’s available at no additional cost!!!