MQA•Foolish New Algorithm? Vote!

@jon2020,

I don’t feel the need to further investigate or loose my sleep over $54.99 MQA Core Decoder upgrade. To my ears, most MQA coded files easily yield audible improvements in my system over Tidal 16bit/44.1kHz files.

And to answer your earlier question about why not compare MQA 96 vs non-MQA 96 PCM coded files is pretty simple...why pay for 96 PCM files when I can enjoy just as good MQA 96 files at no additional charge.

As you said, “It is never necessary to compare what you are enjoying with anything else :)”

@jon2020 
“So you are comparing MQA 96 to non-MQA 44.1?
A more valid comparison would be between MQA 96 and non-MQA 96 PCM.”

Why? I’m looking for an improvement over cd quality streaming. I agree that MQA may not be the equal of high resolution downloads (I don’t know for sure, I have not compared) but why is a comparison with non MQA 44.1 not as valid if my objective is to receive better than cd quality sound? My comparisons have been my cd collection saved to hard drive vs. same titles on Tidal with MQA processing. MQA sounds better on my system (PS Audio Directstream jr). If my PS Audio is now doing something to 44.1 files that make them not sound as good pre MQA then yes I want to know that.

“However, I would hazard a guess that maybe, after paying for the MQA download, one would prefer not to investigate further just in case the new findings invalidate the purchase.”

That is certainly true with many things audio but not really relevent to Tidal users. You pay your 20 bucks a month and you get cd quality streaming, oh and by the way you get a bunch of MQA titles as well. Happy listening.

When streaming Tidal, I prefer the sound of MQA Masters over non-MQA. My problem is that there needs to be more MQA albums available on Tidal that I would actually listen too. 

After having downloaded the new Aurender Conductor App along with an MQA license earlier today (first unfold only) into my N100H and then reading the above challenges to compare the sound quality of the MQA files via Tidal to a bonified 24/96 “hirez” file, I realized that I had such a HDTracks 24/96 download of Diana Krall’s “Stepping Out” album (2016 remaster) and the same album and remaster is available on Tidal Masters (MQA).

So I decided to compare my two favorite tracks from that album,”Body and Soul” and “Jimmie”, between the 24/96 version stored on my N100H’s hard drive and the Tidal MQA version streamed through the same unit. DAC used is Denafrips Terminator, so same music server, USB cable, and DAC for each version (also the same rest of the system), so this is about as perfect an “apples-to-apples” comparison as can be staged.

After several rounds of swapping back and forth, I am confident that the differences is sound quality are absolutely minimal. Perhaps the 26/96 download was a touch more resolved than the MQA version but not enough to be able to select one from the other consistently, nor to alter the enjoyment of the music in any significant way.

Two other things that I feel confident in laying to rest: 1) the MQA update is not affecting the sound quality of the downloaded files in my N100H’s hard drive (I listen to both of these tracks from the 24/96 download multiple times as evaluation tracks when comparing components so I am intimately familiar with them) and, 2) both the 24/96 and the MQA version sound so much better than the non-MQA “Redbook” version on Tidal that even the most hearing deficient among us would have no difficultly hearing the superiority of the MQA version over the Redbook.

I have close friends that are very strongly polarized about MQA, both pro and con, as to its potential impact on the music industry and component manufacturers, etc., but personally I don’t give a flip about anything but sound quality and I am satisfied that MQA is a blessing to those of us that are heavy Tidal users and value best possible sound quality.

Dave

 No