With respect to comparing MQA coded music to uncoded high resolution masters, I have it on good authority (from a commercial recording engineer of very high standing) that at least with some recordings, they have been remastered differently and cannot be compared directly. To the extent that this is the case in some MQA releases, this represents an uncontrolled variable in making valid comparisons. How often this represents a sonic and marketing deception is hard to estimate. However, the fact that some forum members report results with different recordings that are sonically worse, about the same, or better suggests that there may be something “rotten in Denmark” (or possibly England). Other uncontrolled variables in reporting subjective impressions is obviously the equipment accuracy (i.e. how little a system distorts the original recording) and the subjective preferences of the listener which may be incomplete in assessment of all sonic variables.
I have been told by a representative of a streaming service that MQA is not really meant for audiophiles (a non-significant proportion of intended users) but rather for the mass majority of those listening to music on their phones or others who are used to listening to MP3 sound quality. Others have pointed out that if recording companies are interested in adopting MQA in order to protect the marketing potential of their original masters, then we as audiophiles may turn out to be the losers and hi res download sites are doomed. The only way I see to fight this possibility is to continue investigating and exposing the potentially deceptive practice of remastering via subtle EQ changes. Again, as others have argued elsewhere, streaming bandwidth is no longer the problem it once was unless new internet FCC rules interfere!
If MQA isn’t intended for Audiophiles, I wonder why they keep showing up and making major announcements at all the big audiophile shows? And why they are spending money advertising in magazines that are only read by audiophiles?
Based on where they are spending at least a meaningful percentage of their time and marketing dollars, I’m not sure MQA would agree with the representative of this opinion of the streaming service rep.
If I understand correctly the inventors of MQA are audiophiles (past and present) so I am not sure that they only show interest in a market that doesn’t care much about SQ anyway. I do understand that the marketing hype has to do with selling and that MQA is beneficial for streaming.
hifidr@gmail.com said
I have it on good authority (from a commercial recording engineer of very high standing) that at least with some recordings, they have been remastered differently and cannot be compared directly . . . .
I believe that ALL MQA can essentially be thought of as one thinks of a traditional remaster. As such, it makes sense some would be same-ish, better or worse than the source. Especially when you consider that it typically is not being done on a case by case basis by a human, but by an algorithm. Perhaps certain Properties get specialized human treatment.
Add to this that we don’t know what the sources are - and so folks comparing MQA and non-MQA tracks on Tidal, for example are involved in an exercise in futility. It’s a meaningless comparison, if you try to infer from it that MQA is responsible for it being EITHER better or worse.
Karl - MQA did not show up for a panel discussion on MQA at Axpona here in Chicago this year. Assumedly, no one from the company wanted to be in the firing line with industry experts, some of whom are known Doubters.
Yes, and MQA is vague as to their claim search for the “best” version/master of a given recording to which they subsequently apply their secret sauce. If they are truly hunting down and using a specific master it would be interesting to know what they are using as their source.
Yes, and MQA is vague as to their claim search for the “best” version/master of a given recording to which they subsequently apply their secret sauce. If they are truly hunting down and using a specific master it would be interesting to know what they are using as their source.
badbeef said
Add to this that we don’t know what the sources are - and so folks comparing MQA and non-MQA tracks on Tidal, for example are involved in an exercise in futility. It’s a meaningless comparison, if you try to infer from it that MQA is responsible for it being EITHER better or worse.
I'm just starting to explore Tidal's MQA library and there is a lot to listen to. It seems pretty safe to me to presume that at least a good portion of the Flac and MQA albums are from the same master-- particularly of more recent releases. So I'm not too worried about that. I'm simply going through music that I already know, or that I want to explore, and listening to the Flac and MQA versions to see if I can conclude if they are better, worse, or about the same to my ears. If after to carefully listening to say 100 comparisons I think I'll have enough to form my own conclusions.
… It seems pretty safe to me to presume that at least a good portion of the Flac and MQA albums are from the same master-- particularly of more recent release…
I think you are right when it comes to new releases as there is just no reason to make different masters before putting them on the market in cd, MQA or whatever. In my opinion new recordings would be fair for comparison streaming Flac vs MQA (however me for myself I prefer to stream the native HiRes versions in Qobuz ;-)
So when you say you are astonished - by what, and compared to what? Know what I’m sayin’?
I realize that I hadn’t responded to this…my bad.
I’ve found a few things with MQA recordings (all streamed by Tidal, using Mconnect Control) that differ from my non-MQA experience. One is presence, that even extends to hearing my system from outside the room. I experience a stronger sense that there are musicians in my room, playing. I listen primarily to acoustic jazz, so the notion that there are musicians playing live in my house is not entirely absurd. I also experienced it with orchestral recordings, to the extent that I instantly connected with the memory of walking in the corridor of Minneapolis’ Orchestra Hall while the MN Orchestra was playing just beyond the doors.
Instrumentally, I find that acoustic bass sounds punchier and has more of the body and resonances of various parts of the instrument represented. It can be almost a “reach out and touch” feeling. Other instruments with a percussive leading edge also distinguish themselves in ways that I associate with live music, including piano and drums. One of the remarkable sensations is with cymbals. My non-MQA experience is that they either sound mushy or splashy. Better recordings, better sound, but primarily various shades of one or the other. With some MQA recordings (not all), there is a “rightness” about the way cymbals (crash, ride, high-hat, splash) that are consistent with my experience playing as a musician. That was years ago, but I spent plenty of time standing closer than I necessarily wanted to drummers, and the flashback sensation was intense.
Finally, I saw Brad Mehldau and Joshua Redman perform live at the Dakota in Minneapolis a few months back. I was seated very close to the stage and could literally have stood up and reached for Joshua’s tenor. The next weekend, I played their recording, Nearness, which is MQA encoded. The reproduced version in my listening room was so close to my memory of the live performance, in every audible respect I could discern, I had to shake my head in (near) disbelief.
willco said
It seems pretty safe to me to presume that at least a good portion of the Flac and MQA albums are from the same master-- particularly of more recent releases.
Given MQA unequivocal statements that they seek out the "best" version to work from, including pre-mastered, I do not find this safe to assume. It may be the same, it mat be entirely different. The MQA file It may also be sourced from a higher resolution file even if it is the same mastering (remember, they claim to be able to encode high frequency information into lower bit-rate files). MQA has been very cagey and unwilling to provide specific information as to what they are using as a source and even less willing to provide exemplar comparison files. We simply do not know anything about the provenance of MQA files
christophervalle said I was seated very close to the stage and could literally have stood up and reached for Joshua's tenor.
Yes - EVEN IF the files you are listening to have been made from the same master (which we do not know - nobody does), MQA is a remaster.
So attributing what you perceive as positive qualities of the MQA version to the MQA process is wishful thinking. If all of these were simply touted as traditionally “remastered” versions of the tracks/albums, would there have been all this hoopla aside from the usual, “This remastered version of this record is better IMO”?
As Elk and I have mentioned on more than one occasion, you could give us a file, and we could give you back one made from it that most people would prefer.
I perhaps should point out that I have listened to a lot of MQA files on Tidal that sound just great. I don’t think “the sound of MQA sucks” or is necessarily inferior…or for that matter, better or worse than anything else. Though when I listen to an MQA file that sounds great that I own on disc, and I listen to the disc, it tends to sound better on the disc. But that’s a meaningless comparison/not a fair fight to compare a streaming file with a CD on the DMP.
What bugs me is that I’ve spoken with folks who say they simply “Prefer MQA” or “like the sound of MQA files better”.
It sure has been a log slog. Hopefully this will have some power to affect things. Though it’s just a hope. It does make me feel more hopeful that something along these lines could be put together by “regular folks” on the internet, rather than more of the typical bickering.
I would be curious to read that article referenced in footnote 10. Has anyone bought it or found it/read it? The link is to an abstract. Though it’s not the sort of thing I would ordinarily be drawn to (seemingly a scientist outlining how audiophiles delude themselves), in the context of the Great MQA Debate, I have personally argued with audiophiles in our group who simply insist MQA is “better”, and no rational argument or question has any impact. As another member quipped, “Don’t bother - he’s drunk the Kool-Aid”.
IMO, what MQA has done is market well so that people go into their listening sessions with preconceived ideas that MQA is “better.” The result is that MQA sounds clearly “different” but that doesn’t mean it’s better. I don’t believe most critical listeners have experienced how resampling their music collections and listening to the differences between linear and min phase filters really change the music. At first it’s easy for everyone to make the sound different and get excited, I have done this a ton my whole life. This requires re-evaluation however, often you gave up trade-offs for the price of different. If you get it in your head that something is “better,” there is a tendency to ignore trade offs.
Yeah - MQA’s marketing started out with a bang, certainly, (and got LOTS of help) but it hasn’t held up to scrutiny. I just keep wondering about what conversations went on in the listening sessions between the MQA folks and the select few in the audio press who were initiated into the cult, while the rest of us were excluded - (at least until the software and hardware was availble and we had paid the price of admission).
Did they ask the hard questions, and were they told the truth - or were they just as gullible as the next guy? They at least sold a lot of MQA-capable DACs. Thank Jah Paul held onto his principles.
