While not a fan of MQA I think you will find it to be universally acknowledged that DCS’s implementation stands head and shoulders above anyone else’s.
And before anyone comments on my statement above let me say that it is not based on my own opinion but rather on the myriad of professional audio reviews I have read. The majority of reviewers go out of their way to complement dCS on their MQA implementation.
And no please do not ask me to link to said reviews. Google is your friend.
As for myself I prefer to search out non MQA files.
I think also that most users at Rossini level prefer to stream locally stored files. Because they sound better than online streaming platforms.
Just a thinking.
Keep in mind that even if you play the same “song” on both Tidal and Qobuz, there is no guarantee that you are listening to the same mastering for both services.
In my experience both Tidal and Qobuz can sound excellent. Hopefully more users will be able to enjoy high quality streaming over time, from these and other sources.
I buy maybe 30 or 40 euros tracks or albums per month. So not a great difference vs Qobuz or Tidal.
And a majority on Bandcamp. 50% of these albums don’t exist on Qobuz.
Most tracks on each service come in many variants.
That’s why I mentioned above that comparing hires Qobuz vs Tidal on any particular track would take effort.
And even after sifting thru the debris on each service you’ll often not be certain you have the exact same version of a track, unless you can actually hear that they are the same.
Which means that making a reliable comparison of Qobuz hires vs Tidal hires would require the user to listen to a lot of carefully selected tracks - mainly live tracks of acoustic music or studio recordings done in one take with no overdubs - to get a sense of whether there’s a consistent difference.
What is it about dCS’s implementation of MQA that makes it so special? Are you suggesting that it is better than that of Meridian, who originated MQA; and Roon surely know a lot about MQA from when they were Sooloos and part of Meridian?
FWIW Bob Stuart claimed ‘the MQA and dCS teams were able to work together to develop
code which accurately matched the MQA hierarchical ideal reconstruction to analogue. This
MQA implementation is unique, as it is the first opportunity to enable a DAC which, by providing
exact rendering to beyond 16x (768 kHz), matches the desired temporal response with very low
modulation noise.’
EXACTLTY what @andyl just said
Don’t shoot me - I’m only the piano payer
Simply posting what Mr. MQA Bob Stuart himself said.
That is why I posted that most professional reviewers always made mention of that
With that said I still do not like MQA - however in all sincerity with this recent banter I may have to start listening to some MQA tracks on Tidal again via my Rossini.
Home demos don’t happen in Canada either.
If I want a home demo of a piece of equipment, I have to wait till it’s been out for 3-4 years, then wait for a well-priced one to come along, and then buy it. Then if I don’t think it sounds any better than what I have for the additional cost, I sell it.
Lousy way to do business … mais, c’est la vie a Canada.
Not all of Canada, I have built a good relationship with my local dealer in Windsor (Audio two), and have home demoed lots of speakers and gear over the years, including Naim. I see you are in Toronto, I have also bought gear from Audio Eden, but because of physical distance to my home, I paid up front.
That post by Andyl doesn’t say that Bob claimed it was the best implementation - only that it was a unique implementation.
It suggests that the unique aspect was that the dcs dac had a higher sampling frequency than previous dacs they made compliant with MQA processing.
Bob doesn’t say it sounded better than any other implementation.
He does suggest that its timing is very accurate, etc - but then dcs is famous for generally being accurate, but sounding quite dull, or failing to capture the coherence of the music as a whole.