advertisement


MQA arrives on Tidal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just been out doing some work in the garden, so I haven't been keeping up with this thread.

I hadn't thought about listening to the node straight into my pre-amp, bypassing the Rega.

I will give it a go later on today and report back my findings.
 
cporton said:
Julf,

Here are your initial posts on this thread...

1. Shame that they don't have the same mastering version in both MQA and non-MQA - are they afraid to allow direct comparison?
2. It could still be a con. Do we know the versions are from the same originals, at the same level, and EQ'd the same?
3. Don't confuse sceptical with miserable. Just because I don't happen to be naive and gullible doesn't mean everything is gloom and doom. And in any case, if you expect the worst, you are always positively surprised
4. Worth re-reading: Archimago's blog: MQA
5. I have heard similar things said about some simple EQ too...

So we reach that point without any indication that you've got listening experience. Then, a range of other posts until we reach...

"I haven't said I can't hear a difference - it is just unclear what is causing the difference (and if it is an actual improvement). As I have written, I can also see a difference (that supposedly shouldn't be there)."

Again, you actually don't say you can hear a difference. I haven't seen on this thread posts from you (or Jim) that talks about your actual experience of listening to the Tidal service.

What are you hearing? How would you describe the differences you're then trying to explain? Once we understand what you are hearing, then it would great to get your view on what might be causing this.

The reason I think this is important? Because the "soundstage" is, for me, one of the most impressive differences with the MQA in place. And the discussion would include reference to timing differences in the playback and accept that Frequency Response graphs might not provide the full picture.

Seanm said he wanted "to hear from people who have some insight into what might be behind those experiences". I want to make sure we are all talking about the same experiences, not just a theory-based discussion on "file and measurement differences".

Hope that makes sense.

Chris
Click to expand...

I worry about people who have got the time to make posts like this! ;)
I agree though, it's unlikely that Julf has got a Tidal subscription.
 
Harry, it's pretty straightforward. One hidden setting that I found could do with being a lot more visible. Once set up it's a doddle.

I'm impressed with it as a service. Couple of caveats.

I would need to find a way of getting it through my iRC room correction, because it compares fine to my computer audio if I just use it straight but the room correction makes a far bigger difference.

Taking the room out of it and using headphones. I am comparing some 'Masters albums' to some copies from my hard drive - Blue DCC CD, Minute By Minute (24/96 US Vinyl Rip) and Zep 4 (24/96 US Vinyl Rip).

The Tidal copies are not mastered as well as these - so I tried a couple of others of more recent vintage and here the Tidal versions compared favourably. So where you have basic CD copies and haven't bothered to source better versions I can see this service being more of a revelation. For those with top sounding source files - unless Tidal use some of them I can't see it being quite as beneficial.

But it does strike me as a very impressive package.
 
Ian M said:
I agree though, it's unlikely that Julf has got a Tidal subscription.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I don't have a Tidal subscription myself, so I have to rely on friends who do. Most of my MQA listening has been done with downloads, not streaming (especially with the 2L samples).
 
HarryB said:
What is obvious from my own experiences, the experiences of others and the general tenor of this thread this is a right fcuk about and even very computer savvy bods seem to be having issues.

To go down this route I'd need to buy a Mac (I detest PCs of any kind), an MQA DAC, various cables and a subscription to Tidal. So, an initial investment of a few grand and a £20 a month subscription which will obviously rise when tidal introduce three levels to their pricing.

What will I get for this? A load of technical hassle and stress that I don't need, an empty bank account and SQ that may or may not sound significantly better than I get ATM.

On the other hand, sticking a CD in my machine is stress free and some of them sound brilliant (depending on mastering and original recording). Best of all I can but CDs for as little as 1p from Amazon.

I realise this might seem a cynical view but I really don't want to fanny about with computers, software etc. I just want to listen to music.
Click to expand...

I used an old dell optiplex thingy, cost me 30 quid on ebay sometime ago for another task but has been languishing. And a sign up to tidal. Certainly no more complicated than dismantling a hifi to 'clean the contacts'
 
cporton said:
What are you hearing? How would you describe the differences you're then trying to explain? Once we understand what you are hearing, then it would great to get your view on what might be causing this.

The reason I think this is important? Because the "soundstage" is, for me, one of the most impressive differences with the MQA in place.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that clarification - in that case I am not really the best person to judge the soundstage, as my main speakers are Isobariks - not the most precise tools for pinpointing soundstage issues.

What I do think I hear is some additional brightness and emphasis on transients.

I want to make sure we are all talking about the same experiences, not just a theory-based discussion on "file and measurement differences".
Click to expand...

Fair enough - not sure we can get there, as people have different equipment, use different settings and listen to different samples. I am more interested in understanding what is really going on with the signal rather than reading about how different people happen to perceive it - but that is my personal interest, and I realize it is not shared by everyone here.
 
Julf said:
Indeed. I don't have a Tidal subscription myself, so I have to rely on friends who do. Most of my MQA listening has been done with downloads, not streaming (especially with the 2L samples).
Click to expand...

If you have not tried tidal you should try the 30 day free trial. I've only just noticed as well that if you pay 6 months up front it's 16.99 a month, I don't know when that started.
 
Julf said:
Thank you for that clarification - in that case I am not really the best person to judge the soundstage, as my main speakers are Isobariks - not the most precise tools for pinpointing soundstage issues.

What I do think I hear is some additional brightness and emphasis on transients.

Fair enough - not sure we can get there, as people have different equipment, use different settings and listen to different samples. I am more interested in understanding what is really going on with the signal rather than reading about how different people happen to perceive it - but that is my personal interest, and I realize it is not shared by everyone here.
Click to expand...

Julf,

I understand that's your personal interest - no problem with that - hence my suggestion in post 202 to use two threads (and noting in post 259 that someone else had the same idea and had revived the MQA thread, to allow the discussion about the "behind the scenes" processes to flourish on its own).

And I'd certainly be interested if the analysis went beyond the FR perspective and started answering the questions about how the soundstage has been improved to this extent, based on such comments as :

garyi : Much wider sound stage and stuff far more clearly defined. / It's just really weird hearing instruments in their own space absolutely rock solid.
pedro83 : I am hearing all sorts of new things, and as you say, the detail to instruments, and the soundstage is remarkable.
Stunsworth : the soundstage on the MQA albums has been rock solid with instrument's locations precise

But, as an ex-Isobarik user, I understand that soundstage are not the most precise tools for the job. Might I suggest some listening with headphones - the effect is clear there too I've found.

Chris
 
SteveS1 said:
Harry, it's pretty straightforward. One hidden setting that I found could do with being a lot more visible. Once set up it's a doddle.

I'm impressed with it as a service. Couple of caveats.

I would need to find a way of getting it through my iRC room correction, because it compares fine to my computer audio if I just use it straight but the room correction makes a far bigger difference.

Taking the room out of it and using headphones. I am comparing some 'Masters albums' to some copies from my hard drive - Blue DCC CD, Minute By Minute (24/96 US Vinyl Rip) and Zep 4 (24/96 US Vinyl Rip).

The Tidal copies are not mastered as well as these - so I tried a couple of others of more recent vintage and here the Tidal versions compared favourably. So where you have basic CD copies and haven't bothered to source better versions I can see this service being more of a revelation. For those with top sounding source files - unless Tidal use some of them I can't see it being quite as beneficial.

But it does strike me as a very impressive package.
Click to expand...

In your case Steve, assuming you move forward with it, it will be a case of picking what is better than you currently have. Should the picks from Tidal be enough to warrant the outlay(s), only you can decide but for the masses, I can see why this is such a revelation. Those who haven't spent decades seeking out the best pressings etc. As such it becomes a quick, easy fix to access what is great sounding material, even if it isn't the absolute best out there.

As things stand, unfortunately your set up isn't as straight forward in that to move forward with MQA, subject to Amarra's move, it is likely going to cost you an iRC box and IMO, another chunk of money to Amarra to access the files, oh and £20 a month for the pleasure. I would prefer it in one package, under no circumstances would I want to be changing from the Tidal osx app to Audirvana. I want all my music accessible from one place - thankfully 3.0 will be out soon to make this possible, albeit at a cost to upgrade and access the Master files. At what price though? - does anyone know the cost of this upgrade?

Lots of interesting posts on here. I am guilty of missing the Exclusive mode!

I look forward to seeing what other material is released as they appear to be on the case with this, and, what is being put up there, is exactly what I would ask for - no complaints thus far.
 
Julf said:
Chris,

What makes you think Jim and I haven't experienced what we are "theorising" about? I have stated that I both see and hear a difference. It's just that I don't have the arrogance to claim I can tell by just listening exactly what is causing the difference.
Click to expand...

Did I miss the post where you've answered my question about what setup you're using?
 
cporton said:
Might I suggest some listening with headphones - the effect is clear there too I've found.
Click to expand...

Good suggestion - will have to dig out my Sonys - I am pretty sure my everyday Sennheiser Momentums (for mobile listening) aren't up to it.
 
vln said:
As I understand it - please correct me if I have got it wrong:

The software-based MQA decoding we got via the Tidal Desktop app upgrade is for the D/A conversion in the computer,

The signal coming out your USB socket still has MQA encoded (unless you explicitly switch it off in the app), and then it's up to the DAC if it can decode the MQA part. Even if you have a non-MQA DAC, it would still profit from the MQA process applied to compensate for any artefacts (temporal blurring, as MQA calls it) during the A/D conversion*, but obviously it cannot compensate for any artefacts during the D/A conversion.

*MQA claims they can apply their process retroactively to older recordings, if they know what kind of A/D conversion was used during the recording.
Click to expand...

That raises the question of using a computer that has an spdif output. Does *that* get MQA decoded? - either 'partially' or 'fully'?

I'm using my (Linux) boxes with USB DACs that have an spdif output. Would those output fully decoded LPCM? My guess is, no, but maybe it is yes (except for the claimed alterations to deal with the end-ADC behaviour, I assume). If, yes, that would be handy for test purposes sometime.

In principle, all that MQA claims it does can be done in software or in hardware. The question there is knowing how to do it, and then doing it correctly.

However MQA involves various aspects inc:

1) folding/origami

2) bitstacking

3) Trying to fiddle with the data / system to 'correct' in some way for your DAC. (But not, for some odd reason, your loudspeakers IIUC. Which would probably have far more effect on the wideband timing group delays, etc.)

So what gets sent out could decode (1) but not (2), or vice versa, if both were employed.

And my guess is that the end-listener's speakers and listening room setup will usually have *much* more effect on ultrasonic range temporal coherence than any decent modern ADC or DAC.

I'm also wondering about old analogue master tapes. Again, their timing alignment may be lousy compared with a modern ADC. Indeed, I wonder if they varied during a recording when you consider the timescales MQA talks about being involved.

Just for the avoidance of doubt and misunderstanding:

None of what I've been saying is about questioning if the result 'sounds better' or is preferred by someone to a comparison with a non-MQA-decoded version. I'm quite happy to accept that people have found it sounds preferrable to something else. My interest is in

1) what is really happening here under the layer of secret sauce, and the reasons why. Being able to hear a difference doesn't always ensure you correctly identify the real cause.

2) In the possibility that we'd benefit more from knowing this more clearly. May help more people to enjoy more music with less bother, expense, or mystery.

e.g. because if this is an 'effect' it might then be applyable by the end-user to, say, the Red Book Audio CDs which people already own. Giving their owners a 'free upgrade' in perceived sound quality without having to re-buy or re-rent any new versions or kit. And also allowing more recordings to be streamed or stored with smaller bitrates and file sizes. Also avoids putting DAC designers and makers into situations like the ones that JohnW has expressed concerns about.
 
I would really wish a few mixing sessions for each "I just listen with my ears" audiophile here. :) Maybe then we wouldn't have headphones as HD800 marked as "very revealing" (treble spike) and "sounds better" could have a more specific meaning (more compressed vocals to lift the details up in quiet parts?) and "analogue sounding" could have a more specific definition of "tape saturation".
Maybe then people would evaluate MQA for what it is.
 
iam right .limited albums.... around 600 vega dac locks perfectly at 96k, some albums sound alittle bright compared with standard 44k
 
Pedro83 said:
At what price though? - does anyone know the cost of this upgrade?
Click to expand...

Damien has said that for anyone who bought v2 in December or later it will be free, for anyone who bought it before then it will be the same cost as upgrading from v1 to v2 - so 30€ or so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top