First of all, as mentioned by others, any comparison is meaningless unless from the same master and high res file, with the 16/44 version simply derived from that. For a fair comparison of different resolutions there used to be a great resource of high quality files in various resolutions from the same source, specifically to enable real comparison (see DSD, where and why do we use it? - #11 by Innocent_Bystander), but having just checked I note it is currently unavailable, with return uncertain.
From reading numerous descriptions over several years, the consensus of opinion where files are from the same high resolution master seems to be that there is a subtle difference, in terms of more “air” or better ambience to recordings, rather than anything more distinct like increased detail or altered soundstage. My own impression varies from something consistent with this to, sometimes, no discernible difference at all. As I have yet to run out of storage space I do tend to buy the highest resolution files that are available, unless a silly premium price, on the basis that they could sound better and won’t sound worse. However if the mastering is different, which seems not to be uncommon, either could sound better.
The same of course is true when comparing, say, vinyl with CD- and the futility of direct comparisons unless mastering is known to be the same was brought home to me some years ago when a friend and I had apparently identical CD releases of the same album, which sounded distinctly different: scrutinising the discs and liner the only discernible physical difference was that one said made in UK, the other made in Germany. They must have been mastered differently.
N.B. In terms of serious listening and sound quality I only stream from my own local store, online streaming only being for sampling new material to decide whether or not to buy, when sound quality is not a major consideration, the free services being quite adequate.
I don’t get too hung up on the technical aspects of MQA, FLAC or WAV etc, to me they are just the vehicles that transmit the audio signals and what’s more important to me is the end result, which is the sound quality coming out of the speakers.
Others on this thread and on other threads have said that the mastering of the source material has a significant influence on the sound quality and my experience agree’s with that after comparing internet streamed music to my CD’s and Hi-Res Pure Audio BluRay discs.
I stick with Tidal because in addition to Hi-Res they also stream music video’s and songs from concerts which I really enjoy.
However, if Qobuz or another streaming service also streamed video’s, I would re-evaluate my Tidal subscription as currently Qobuz is way cheaper for a Hi-Res subscription than Tidal.
Unfortunately MQA get’s a lot of criticism on the forum, some of it fair enough and some of it not. If those critic’s took the time and effort to listen to MQA and fairly compared it to other Hi-Res internet streaming, I think they would be surprised to find that the sound quality of MQA is actually very good, although I would be very surprised if many people would bother to make the effort.
As has previously been said, each to their own.
After a few days of intense shuffling and optimizing, I have come to the conclusion that my initial statement is not pertinent.
Of course masterings can vary across resolutions, as many other parameters, so that you always compare dissimilar items.
Additionally my mistake was to assume that my “system” plays both hirez & cd quality equally like when you play 2 cds one after the other and compare…
My conclusion is that remote hirez is much more sensitive to all the “electromagnetic” noises, cable dressing, plug order, entreq grounding etc, than cd quality.
So in a moderately optimal setup local streaming which is less « sensitive » is better “served” and wins.
After I went through all the naim set up basics, corrected a few, tweaked some cable chaining, spaced the plugs in the right order, my system is now much more transparent than when I started the post. And now in fact I take back my initial statement, and agree that hirez is superior or equal to cd 44/16. In fact, it is a good test of one’s system: if hi rez doesn’t sound better then probably there is a gremlin lurking somewhere in your system causing underoptimization, and you need to catch it. At least it was the case for me!
Maybe not the best MQA DAC, but I did have the chance to use an iFi MQA DAC for a period of time, the soundstage is altered, the sound is changed compared to high resolution FLAC and LP records. My record deck is a Pink Triangle, AO modified RB300, Mitchel Tecnoweight, Rega Elys 2 Cartridge. I have yet to hear a digital source, in my home, that beats the LP, although, there isn’t much in it with DSD.
MQA was designed at a time when bandwidth, memory, storage and other components where at a premium, it is not needed today. It was for the last century, not this one.
If MQA was as good as people rave then why has Linn/Naim not produced a device to stream it?
Archimago has done what looks like a reasonable analysis of MQA:
Also,
Goldensound did some work where he produced a file and managed to get it published, which gave some insight into the production methods:
Does any of this impact on your impressions when you listen to it. Bob Stuart will talk about Psycho Acoustics, which some will call just Psycho Babble.
I confess I have not chased this down simply because it is a closed standard and I enjoy the music I get via Qobuz.
The problem is that all reviews, be it Stereophile, Absolute Sound, Hificritic, and many more which are generally reliable, point generally the superiority in sound of MQA vs 16/44 Flac , when the DAC is fully MQA capable. Sometimes MQA are not better, like Hires, but more often reviewers point that they sound better.
Yes. If I was using a Meridian DAC it might attract me a bit more. Frequently with any technology it comes down to the software that is available in the format. That is why I prefer open standards, there is likely to be more music that I like available.
I use the Lumin P1, same as @MoonDrifter. I also have the Tidal Hifi subscription, which gives me full MQA playback.
It’s hard to say if it’s the MQA, or just the Lumin that is really good, but it sounds great to me.
I don’t worry about lossless, or lossy when I listen to it.
I have no option to subscribe to Qobuz in Canada, so until Spotify or Apple go Hi- res, or just 16/44.1…it works for me.
It’s widely acknowledged amongst the audio reviewer community and I suspect a large part of the manufacturer community too that the only reason MQA exists is as a licensing revenue stream or pension fund for Bob Stuart when he tired of designing new Meridian hardware (most of which was excellent by the way)…
With high bandwidth internet now ubiquitous and data storage capacity essentially free there’s simply no use case for a lossy compression algorithm. Why wouldn’t you want to play or download the lossless WAV or FLAC file given high bandwidth and almost no storage cost?
The truth is MQA sounds better than MP3 usually but it’s a solution looking for a problem in today’s world.
When I had Tidal, I found not just MQA but even their flacs to sound ‘exciting!’ and ‘hifi!’ Sounds fun at first, but grew fatiguing (and that was with a full MQA unfold DAC I had at the time). I much prefer Qobuz, which sounds neutral to me, not to mention their curation vs Tidal. YMMV of course.
I think the best test is for the individual to go and listen themselves to the sound quality coming out of the speakers when they are comparing MQA to other Hi-Res test tracks using a fully MQA compatible streamer/dac, switch between the two and decide, which they prefer.
I have done this with a NAD C658, HiFi Rose 150B, Lumin P1 and Moon 780D when I was demoing to select a new streamer/dac switching between MQA and Qobuz Hi-Res using the same test tracks.
As said before sometimes I marginally preferred Qobuz and sometimes MQA and probably the difference was the mastering of the original source material and it was a personal preference, nothing more than that.
I very much doubt that in a blind test fairly comparing between MQA and Qobuz Hi-Res that people could consistently tell the difference between the two.
There maybe some people with exceptional hearing that could consistently tell the difference, however, the vast majority of people would probably not be able to tell the difference, however, I am happy to be proved wrong.
I will also add that any old Dac that plays MQA might sound inferior…if it is just a relatively cheap unit.
The Lumin P1 is a high end streamer/Dac. A few years back I remember a guy on this forum heard and bought a high end streamer/Dac from Meridian I believe. He got dragged across the coals too because he preferred it over an ND555 I think it was.
I forget his name now, but I recall looking up the unit he bought and it was over$20 k.
I am not a poster boy for MQA, but I now use Tidal as my only source for 99% of my listening.
Why bother buying, downloading, storing my own music, when Tidal sounds just as good.
I do have my own music on a hard drive that I can access with the P1, but never do anymore.
Yes, the Moon 390 does full MQA and I have used that machine. I also attended various MQA demos over the years and still remain unconvinced.
If people enjoy it, fine - but I prefer my music delivered in a lossless open source format without the need for proprietary and slightly mysterious folding, unfolding and tampering.
I find it very hard to believe that every album available in MQA has had a mastering engineer in any way involved in the production of the MQA version, despite what MQA would have us believe. For Tidal to do this for their entire back catalogue would probably keep every competent engineer on the planet busy for years. I’d be willing to bet that a fair bit of straight transcoding of FLACs has been going on.
I fully agree with you that the licensing and business model of MQA is wrong and also does not benefit the musical artists.
Hopefully Tidal will drop it when their agreement with MQA Ltd expires.
