emovac
Emo VIPs 
Saeed al-Sahhaf
Posts: 2,456
|
Post by emovac on Jan 21, 2017 13:42:20 GMT -5
I think I may be getting a better picture of what is happening here. Tidal crap vs MQA processed. What is Tidal sending ? MP3 stuff or some other sort of compression ? I have never heard Tidal and know nothing about it but its over the internet if I am correct. It takes a CD with an good recording and mastering through a good CD player and DAC to get just good sound. It sseems to me that if you are piping music files to millions over the internet then something got to give. I suggest you give a try. It is far from crap. Most titles (non MQA) are full 16 /44.1 CD quality flac files. If it's not full CD quality, it so close I can't tell the difference on relatively high end equipment. |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Jan 21, 2017 13:58:38 GMT -5
Could MQA use an equalizer to make the music distinct from each other ? I was thinking the same. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 21, 2017 14:17:04 GMT -5
Tidal streams in two resolutions, regular mp3 and CD quality. You pay a premium for the latter, which they call "hi-fi quality" and is lossless. From what I understand, you can upgrade to MQA and still pay the same premium price, $19.99 a month. I think you can sign up for a free month trial so maybe you can try it and see what you think. I was a Tidal hi-fi subscriber but canceled because I just didn't utilize the service enough to justify paying that each month. I'd rather just buy my own CD's, then rip them to files and stream them. Kind of doesn't make sense but that's me. There was nothing wrong with Tidal's service or the quality of the streaming. It sounded like CD quality to me. With the CD quality subscription it sounded like CD quality to you. If you are receiving the mp3 version I am guessing,  not so CD quality. I believe Monku would actually get a CD out and compare it to his Tidal. I just can't buy that they are sending music files over the internet and they are saying that they can improve over CD quality. They are saying that they improve music file sound quality if you spend money and buy there music and dacs ? I can not buy this. I didn't sit there and strain my ears to try and determine if what Tidal streamed was different from what a CD offered. They sounded similar to me and I don't think I could tell the difference; supposedly they are the same so you really shouldn't be able to hear a difference. When it comes to MQA, everything I read seems so fuzzy I am skeptical. Keith's synopsis of it said pretty much what I was able to find by reading on the internet, including on the manufacturer's site. It makes me think of what someone in the Lounge said, about how if you can't describe something so it makes sense to people then it probably isn't legit. Many are reporting how their MQA files sound better than non-MQA files but like I said, I am skeptical. Who knows if they are comparing apples to apples, or if it is the placebo effect, etc. Plus, what exactly does "better" mean? To me, "better" means more closely approximating the original performance. Anything else, like widening the soundstage, changing the timbre of the instruments, adding reverb, etc., is an alteration of the file and maybe it will sound "better" to some but then "worse" to others. One person's "more bass" can be an improvement or it can be a detriment. To paraphrase Tom Hulce as Mozart in Amadeus, his compositions need only as many notes as needed, neither more nor less. |
|
hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,950
|
Post by hemster on Jan 21, 2017 14:55:26 GMT -5
Could MQA use an equalizer to make the music distinct from each other ? I was thinking the same. Equalizers typically boost or attenuate selective frequencies. This in and of itself is highly unlikely to result in perceptible SQ improvements. Just try an equalizer with a piece of music that you are VERY familiar with. You'll see what I mean. |
|
emovac
Emo VIPs
Saeed al-Sahhaf
Posts: 2,456
|
Post by emovac on Jan 21, 2017 15:34:58 GMT -5
With the CD quality subscription it sounded like CD quality to you. If you are receiving the mp3 version I am guessing, not so CD quality. I believe Monku would actually get a CD out and compare it to his Tidal. I just can't buy that they are sending music files over the internet and they are saying that they can improve over CD quality. They are saying that they improve music file sound quality if you spend money and buy there music and dacs ? I can not buy this. I didn't sit there and strain my ears to try and determine if what Tidal streamed was different from what a CD offered. They sounded similar to me and I don't think I could tell the difference; supposedly they are the same so you really shouldn't be able to hear a difference. When it comes to MQA, everything I read seems so fuzzy I am skeptical. Keith's synopsis of it said pretty much what I was able to find by reading on the internet, including on the manufacturer's site. It makes me think of what someone in the Lounge said, about how if you can't describe something so it makes sense to people then it probably isn't legit. Many are reporting how their MQA files sound better than non-MQA files but like I said, I am skeptical. Who knows if they are comparing apples to apples, or if it is the placebo effect, etc. Plus, what exactly does "better" mean? To me, "better" means more closely approximating the original performance. Anything else, like widening the soundstage, changing the timbre of the instruments, adding reverb, etc., is an alteration of the file and maybe it will sound "better" to some but then "worse" to others. One person's "more bass" can be an improvement or it can be a detriment. To paraphrase Tom Hulce as Mozart in Amadeus, his compositions need only as many notes as needed, neither more nor less. Now this isn't scientific, but I grouped two Roon endpoint devices in my main system (both fed via USB) and simultaneously played the same Tidal Master album. Using the Bryston BDP-1 media player in Roon Ready mode, feeding the $200 Meridian Explorer 2 DAC I compared it to a Sonore microRendu in Roon Ready mode, feeding an original version Wyred4Sound DAC-2 with femto clock upgrade, I compared the two deliveries. The Explorer 2 MQA conversion was 24/192, the W4S was 24/48. It wasn't even close, the $200 cheap MQA DAC sounded better (to me IMO_) converting the Tidal Master album. Once Roon updates the software supporting MQA, the W4S (and other existing non-MQA DACs) will deliver 24/96, but nonetheless it was pretty impressive. I see a lot of skepticism on the boards about MQA. Don't knock until you try it. For $200 you can buy a Meridian Explorer 2 USB DAC; other companies will have similar offerings. Most places have a 30 day return policy. If you don't like it return it. I was pleasantly surprised. Now, if I had to buy all new music, I probably don't go down that road, but Tidal is distributing it (at least at this point) for no additional charge above what I pay for Tidal hi-fi ($20/month). If you use Tidal on your desktop PC or MAC, drop by the What's New Tab, select Albums and Masters, and listen to your favorite albums in 24/96 with your existing equipment. Doesn't cost you a dime. YOU CAN DECIDE. Enjoy the music. |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 21, 2017 16:07:06 GMT -5
Equalizers typically boost or attenuate selective frequencies. This in and of itself is highly unlikely to result in perceptible SQ improvements. Just try an equalizer with a piece of music that you are VERY familiar with. You'll see what I mean. I was not thinking SQ but boost or attenuate frequencies. Like the Loudness war where they increase the audio levels in a recording, maybe they put a little boost in there. I see people report that before MQA the sound was thin. In my words.  |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 21, 2017 16:10:44 GMT -5
I think I may be getting a better picture of what is happening here. Tidal crap vs MQA processed. What is Tidal sending ? MP3 stuff or some other sort of compression ? I have never heard Tidal and know nothing about it but its over the internet if I am correct. It takes a CD with an good recording and mastering through a good CD player and DAC to get just good sound. It sseems to me that if you are piping music files to millions over the internet then something got to give. I suggest you give a try. It is far from crap. Most titles (non MQA) are full 16 /44.1 CD quality flac files. If it's not full CD quality, it so close I can't tell the difference on relatively high end equipment. I have no reason to try it. I have all my music on CD's, portable player or I can hear it on YouTube on my PC. I listen to music all day almost everyday and never get tired of my selection. |
|
emovac
Emo VIPs
Saeed al-Sahhaf
Posts: 2,456
|
Post by emovac on Jan 21, 2017 16:20:56 GMT -5
I suggest you give a try. It is far from crap. Most titles (non MQA) are full 16 /44.1 CD quality flac files. If it's not full CD quality, it so close I can't tell the difference on relatively high end equipment. I have no reason to try it. I have all my music on CD's, portable player or I can hear it on YouTube on my PC. I listen to music all day almost everyday and never get tired of my selection. You are lucky - as am I. I get to listen to music for many hours a day, every day. That in and of itself is a great thing. I still kept my CDs (in storage), but everything is on flac. Have you tried Roon??? Enjoy..... |
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,950
|
Post by hemster on Jan 21, 2017 17:15:25 GMT -5
Equalizers typically boost or attenuate selective frequencies. This in and of itself is highly unlikely to result in perceptible SQ improvements. Just try an equalizer with a piece of music that you are VERY familiar with. You'll see what I mean. I was not thinking SQ but boost or attenuate frequencies. Like the Loudness war where they increase the audio levels in a recording, maybe they put a little boost in there. I see people report that before MQA the sound was thin. In my words. I thought on one track the sound was more... clear. It seemed to have more clarity. Mind you, on another song I was hard pressed to tell a difference. Could be the recording. I really need to try more tracks with and without MQA. Until then, the jury is out. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by DYohn on Mar 2, 2017 9:42:49 GMT -5
MQA is just another money-grab in the mold of Dolby or HDMI or my old company THX. It is an imposed standard that must be licensed and it gives Meridian control of DAC and perhaps preamp design. It is doomed to fail unless they open the standard and remove the profit motive from their specs. Besides it is as lossy as MP3 and perceived sound quality improvements are likely due to EQ.
Now I will go back to hiding under my rock. Do your research on what MQA really is, and the motivation behind creating it, and you might also see it as the blatant money grab it is.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 2, 2017 10:29:52 GMT -5
My problem is that the MQA group has chosen to inextricably intertwine the MQA process for remastering music with the MQA process for distributing music. One part of the process performs some sort of audio processing to "correct flaws" in the original digital master. From the various reviews and accounts, at least some of the time these modified files sound better than they did before (at least according to some people). The MQA folks are claiming that they are actually "more accurate to the analog original". This may also be true, but, without access to the analog originals to compare them to, it's going to be hard to tell. However, at this point, we have a remastered album. (I've heard lots of remastered albums that sound better than the original production versions - and many that don't.) They have then tied this to the second part of the deal; in order to properly decode this processed content you need an MQA certified DAC to play it on. The part that I'm not totally convinced about is where the biggest part of the actual difference lies. In other words, accepting that certain albums offered in "MQA Master" on Tidal do in fact sound better....... Do they sound better because they're being distributed in the MQA format and played on an MQA DAC? Or do they just sound better because they were remastered well - and some or all of the credit for that goes to the "MQA repair process"? And are they really closer to the analog original, or have they just been "processed to sound better", using some cool new euphonic processing algorithms? In other words, could they have offered those same nice sounding remasters as 192k FLAC files IF THEY WANTED TO? Is delivering them in MQA format an essential part of maintaining the full quality of the new master? Or is it simply, as some people suggest, a scam to force people to BOTH buy the new remaster AND play it on MQA certified equipment? Note that there is also a third dimension to this question. As a streaming CODEC, the MQA CODEC is claimed to be more efficient - to give you better quality for a given amount of bandwidth, especially at low bandwidths. This means that, for example, it's quite possible that, GIVEN THE CONSTRAINT OF A STREAM THAT OCCUPIES NO MORE SPACE THAN A 16/44k PCM STREAM, Tidal is able to use MQA to deliver better quality. They DO claim this and, assuming it's true, then MQA would clearly be the best method for delivering streaming content over limited bandwidth. (And, if it's true, it would be interesting to know if using an MQA DAC is really essential to the process, or whether they've just "reserved" part of the decoding to take place in the DAC to force you to buy one.) HOWEVER, even assuming that this is true, and that you're willing to buy an MQA DAC to improve your Tidal performance..... This does not specifically suggest whether the MQA CODEC is necessary to deliver MQA remastered content to an ordinary DAC at 24/96k or 24/192k (where bandwidth is NOT a concern).... Or whether this requirement is simply a trick to force you to buy more hardware. Another "middle ground" possibility is that the certification doesn't ensure any sort of exceptional quality in the DAC, but merely assures a DAC that is "clean and neutral" and won't impart any odd coloration to the result. (Sort of like certifying that the glass people put in front of your paintings is transparent and not oddly tinted.) If that's the case, then presumably they could simply specify a set of requirements, without actually charging to certify them.... if they wanted to. My point is that I would very much like to be able to compare "an MQA remaster", at its full remastered quality, to the original version of an album, on my current DAC, all else being equal.... But they seem to have deliberately chosen to make this option unavailable. They have essentially created a separate MQA ecosystem which you cannot directly compare to the regular PCM ecosystem... which seems to be their goal. And, to be totally honest, since I already have a DAC which I think works very well, they haven't managed to convince me that I really need to buy a new one. And, once you ignore the "deep technical details", what you're left with is: "We have these new remasters that sound great, but you WILL have to buy this new decoder to play them". And we've all heard that line before ...and sometimes it has turned out to be worthwhile ...and sometimes not so much...... I didn't sit there and strain my ears to try and determine if what Tidal streamed was different from what a CD offered. They sounded similar to me and I don't think I could tell the difference; supposedly they are the same so you really shouldn't be able to hear a difference. When it comes to MQA, everything I read seems so fuzzy I am skeptical. Keith's synopsis of it said pretty much what I was able to find by reading on the internet, including on the manufacturer's site. It makes me think of what someone in the Lounge said, about how if you can't describe something so it makes sense to people then it probably isn't legit. Many are reporting how their MQA files sound better than non-MQA files but like I said, I am skeptical. Who knows if they are comparing apples to apples, or if it is the placebo effect, etc. Plus, what exactly does "better" mean? To me, "better" means more closely approximating the original performance. Anything else, like widening the soundstage, changing the timbre of the instruments, adding reverb, etc., is an alteration of the file and maybe it will sound "better" to some but then "worse" to others. One person's "more bass" can be an improvement or it can be a detriment. To paraphrase Tom Hulce as Mozart in Amadeus, his compositions need only as many notes as needed, neither more nor less. Now this isn't scientific, but I grouped two Roon endpoint devices in my main system (both fed via USB) and simultaneously played the same Tidal Master album. Using the Bryston BDP-1 media player in Roon Ready mode, feeding the $200 Meridian Explorer 2 DAC I compared it to a Sonore microRendu in Roon Ready mode, feeding an original version Wyred4Sound DAC-2 with femto clock upgrade, I compared the two deliveries. The Explorer 2 MQA conversion was 24/192, the W4S was 24/48. It wasn't even close, the $200 cheap MQA DAC sounded better (to me IMO_) converting the Tidal Master album. Once Roon updates the software supporting MQA, the W4S (and other existing non-MQA DACs) will deliver 24/96, but nonetheless it was pretty impressive. I see a lot of skepticism on the boards about MQA. Don't knock until you try it. For $200 you can buy a Meridian Explorer 2 USB DAC; other companies will have similar offerings. Most places have a 30 day return policy. If you don't like it return it. I was pleasantly surprised. Now, if I had to buy all new music, I probably don't go down that road, but Tidal is distributing it (at least at this point) for no additional charge above what I pay for Tidal hi-fi ($20/month). If you use Tidal on your desktop PC or MAC, drop by the What's New Tab, select Albums and Masters, and listen to your favorite albums in 24/96 with your existing equipment. Doesn't cost you a dime. YOU CAN DECIDE. Enjoy the music. |
|
|
|
Post by saru on Mar 2, 2017 11:31:50 GMT -5
Now this isn't scientific, but I grouped two Roon endpoint devices in my main system (both fed via USB) and simultaneously played the same Tidal Master album. Using the Bryston BDP-1 media player in Roon Ready mode, feeding the $200 Meridian Explorer 2 DAC I compared it to a Sonore microRendu in Roon Ready mode, feeding an original version Wyred4Sound DAC-2 with femto clock upgrade, I compared the two deliveries. The Explorer 2 MQA conversion was 24/192, the W4S was 24/48. It wasn't even close, the $200 cheap MQA DAC sounded better (to me IMO_) converting the Tidal Master album. Once Roon updates the software supporting MQA, the W4S (and other existing non-MQA DACs) will deliver 24/96, but nonetheless it was pretty impressive. I see a lot of skepticism on the boards about MQA. Don't knock until you try it. For $200 you can buy a Meridian Explorer 2 USB DAC; other companies will have similar offerings. Most places have a 30 day return policy. If you don't like it return it. I was pleasantly surprised. Now, if I had to buy all new music, I probably don't go down that road, but Tidal is distributing it (at least at this point) for no additional charge above what I pay for Tidal hi-fi ($20/month). If you use Tidal on your desktop PC or MAC, drop by the What's New Tab, select Albums and Masters, and listen to your favorite albums in 24/96 with your existing equipment. Doesn't cost you a dime. YOU CAN DECIDE. Enjoy the music. This was a pretty good exercise, but with the number of variables between your two options, I think some additional tests would be very informative. Have you tried comparing sources other than Tidal Master albums between these two set-ups? Have you tried swapping which streamer feeds into which DAC? What are you using for the power supply on the microRendu? From my experience, switching from the recommended iFi PS to the LPS-1 yielded a big jump in sound quality on the microRendu. I've done a similar comparison to yours -- Tidal Master files fed into (1) microRendu in RoonReady mode > Schiit Gumby and (2) Mac Mini > Meridian Explorer 2 -- and found that the ME2 edged out the Gumby, but when I did the same test on typical MQA-less 16/44.1 files, the Gumby took the lead. I haven't yet tried swapping around the DACs though. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Mar 2, 2017 12:47:38 GMT -5
And again, as I mentioned earlier, if they've truly come up with something better, just go and patent it and open up the process in a scientific/mathematical paper so we can all see that it has a basis in reality and agree that it's technology that we want to pay for. Till then, it smells bad.
Casey
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 8, 2017 11:17:28 GMT -5
I posted this as a reply to a post in anohter thread - but it seemed appropriate here as well...
=====================================================================>
OK, since I've been mostly down on MQA it's only fair that I chime in here on their side.....
Other than the smoke and mirrors about "origami" and "folding" and "lossless"..... which I find annoying....
The basic premise of MQA is "technically reasonable".
The idea that you can repair certain types of errors using post processing is reasonable (if you've ever used "sharpening" in Photoshop you know that it does frequently make images look better).
Likewise, the claim that they've developed a BETTER lossy compression, which may be audibly better than lossless compression at a given bandwidth, is also not unreasonable.
I's also not even unreasonable to suggest that, if we're willing to give them control of the entire signal chain, they can do a better job of ensuring that they deliver what they promise.
I can also understand why, in a market where "high-res" is the latest wunderkind, and "lossy compression" is looked down on, they didn't want to simply say something like:
"we've got a new form of lossy compression that's really good this time around AND we've invented some cool post-processing that can make many existing masters sound better AND they work really well together".
I do in fact agree that their whole process and the premise for its design is difficult to explain in technical terms - and explaining why it "should" work falls short of proving that it does.
The problem is that they're asking us to invest a lot in what is essentially an unproven process whose usefulness isn't going to be proven by any explanation that most people can understand.
They're also hoping or expecting us to invest in THE ENTIRE MAGILLA (err ECOSYSTEM) in one shot.
For example, they COULD have used their post-processing "repair technology" to produce better sounding remasters of popular albums, and issued them as 24/192k FLAC files.
(I would personally welcome remasters that really sound better than the previous ones...... and it might offer a compelling reason to buy new versions of albums whose "high-res remasters" were less than exciting.)
Then, AFTER DEMONSTRATING THAT THEIR REMASTERED FILES REALLY DID SOUND BETTER, they could have offered their streaming compression CODEC as a way to preserve most of that quality in low-bandwidth streaming.
They could then have offered the high-quality version as a way to preserve even more of the quality in high-resolution audiophile applications.
And they could have offered the option of licensing or certifying DACs (think THX).
Then, finally, after the format was widely accepted, they could have approached studios with the option of mastering new albums in their format from the get go.
Instead they've chosen to try to convince everyone to invest in the various pieces they offer all at once....
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Mar 8, 2017 11:25:36 GMT -5
...The problem is that they're asking us to invest a lot in what is essentially an unproven process whose usefulness isn't going to be proven by any explanation that most people can understand... But we use technologies EVERY DAY that haven't any explanation that "most people can understand." They include cell phones, televisions, automobiles, airplanes, etc. Just because the technical explanation is beyond most people's understanding doesn't mean that the technologies don't work. This isn't a critique of your entire post (that I, generally agree with), just that one idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Mar 8, 2017 11:57:36 GMT -5
That argument is specious. I may not understand the exact details of how a cell phone works, but someone does and it's an industry standard. In fact, lots of people in the industry know and there are papers written up about it to allow someone to design a cell phone which will operate in the network.
The problem with MQA is certainly minimally one of them doing an incredibly lousy job of clearly explaining what they're doing. It should be possible to explain in a very clear manner what they're claiming in just a few sentences ... and then back it up with a detailed specification which would allow anyone to reproduce the claimed result. Sure, go ahead and patent it: if they're truly invented something better, they should reap those rewards. But there should be a very clear description of the process along with an analysis of why it's better. Right now because of the incredibly bad job they've done promoting this, it just feels like someone trying to pull a fast one on me.
Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Mar 8, 2017 12:12:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Mar 8, 2017 12:42:25 GMT -5
You mean like reading 20,000 pages to understand the Affordable Health Care Act. I think what MQA expects is the same as what we were told regarding the Health Care Act - don't bother reading it, just vote for it and pass it. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Mar 8, 2017 12:54:11 GMT -5
You mean like reading 20,000 pages to understand the Affordable Health Care Act. I think what MQA expects is the same as what we were told regarding the Health Care Act - don't bother reading it, just vote for it and pass it. Hey the senate allegedly read and review the document on its entirely in less than three days so if they can do it so can you...lol |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Mar 8, 2017 13:05:33 GMT -5
You mean like reading 20,000 pages to understand the Affordable Health Care Act. I think what MQA expects is the same as what we were told regarding the Health Care Act - don't bother reading it, just vote for it and pass it. Hey the senate allegedly read and review the document on its entirely in less than three days so if they can do it so can you...lol "allegedly" |
|
not so CD quality. 
