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
I agree though, it's unlikely that Julf has got a Tidal subscription.
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.
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.
I want to make sure we are all talking about the same experiences, not just a theory-based discussion on "file and measurement differences".
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).
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.
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.
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.
Might I suggest some listening with headphones - the effect is clear there too I've found.
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.
Did I miss the post where you've answered my question about what setup you're using?
Harry
Please spark up your old lap top as mentioned earlier I think and play the masters Otis Redding as I am doing it may work.
NLB
At what price though? - does anyone know the cost of this upgrade?
Grow up.