Tidal MQA vs. Qobuz, my impressions

[artto]

1 hour ago, Shakeydeal said:

 Your argument was somewhat cogent until your last statement, which I must say is utter bull shite.

 

 

 

So by your proclamation, if someone had the "perfect" system and the "perfect" room, then it's still their issue and not the recording or the format?

 

Agreed about the importance of the room. But if one streaming service sounds better in MY system and MY room to MY ears, then that's apples to apples. Much different than hearing Tidal in your room and hearing Qobuz in my room and declaring one the winner over the other.

You have missed the point. Which is understandable, especially if you haven't "done the study", so to speak, or at least not very much.

 

First of all, there is no such thing as "perfect" system or "perfect" room (or, IMO, "perfect" anything).

 

I referred to an audio playback system as needing to be "neutral" (unbiased). as a much as possible, in order to get beyond the beyond the format, component matching, blame it on the recording, etc crap.

 

However, IF, one's desire is to only listen to certain "things", and have it sound how they want it to, without regard to reproducing an extremely good facsimile of the original performance/sounds, that's OK. Go for it. But don't blame it on the recording, or how it was recorded, or this is better than that, etc.

 

What I'm saying is that, IMO, most people tend to unintentionally, even unknowingly, "bias" their audio system, to their liking, which is ok. It's your ears and your money. It only has to please YOU, no one else. But this has nothing to do with all the things I mentioned.

 

Pick a popular recording that you like. Do some research on it. Where it was recorded, and by who. Take a look at a music database like disorgs.com and see how many "versions" of that recording there are. And then tell me which one Tidal, or Qobuz, or HD Tracks, whatever, is using. The fact of the matter is, we don't know.

 

All I'm saying is that, I used to be a "purist". No tone controls. Continually swapping equipment trying to optimize something that can't, and shouldn't be "optimized" per se, but rather "neutralized". I'm passed that now. It doesn't matter whether I'm listening to a recording taken from a 1890's Edison cylinder phonograph, or current state-of-the-art whatever. It's still enjoyable. It sounds like what it is. And it has its own special qualities, some of which, IMO have been lost in translation (because nothing's "perfect").

[KT88]

My modest 2 cents. Let's assume that we are listening to the same mastering, really the same music file. Let's listen through headphones to exclude this whole room and hi-fi discussion. Then I have to say that MQA has technical shortcomings compared to a real FLAC file. I hear it. No philosophy of mix intention etc. can make me know that technically MQA file would be better than a FLAC with high resolution. No matter if this file is received from Qobus or from elsewhere. My original intention of this thread was to communicate that I can hear the data reduction of MQA compared to FLAC. Nothing more, nothing less.

[artto]

21 minutes ago, KT88 said:

My modest 2 cents. Let's assume that we are listening to the same mastering, really the same music file. Let's listen through headphones to exclude this whole room and hi-fi discussion. Then I have to say that MQA has technical shortcomings compared to a real FLAC file. I hear it. No philosophy of mix intention etc. can make me know that technically MQA file would be better than a FLAC with high resolution. No matter if this file is received from Qobus or from elsewhere. My original intention of this thread was to communicate that I can hear the data reduction of MQA compared to FLAC. Nothing more, nothing less.

How do we know that we're listening to the same music file? We don't. We may believe it's the same music file, but that fact is, we don't know. Nor do we know if, or what, any of these sources did on their own (to enhance THEIR product).

 

If you think you can actually hear the data reduction of MQA compared to FLAC I would have to say you (or anyone else) is sadly mistaken. AND, I would also challenge you or anyone else to put your money where your mouth is. You may indeed be hearing a difference. But I seriously doubt it's what you believe it is.

 

Let take this one step further.

Have you, or anyone else, been present at a listening session, with some very well-respected, unfortunately extremely expensive audio system, where you were able to audition 3 different recordings, all made by the same recording engineer, one who has a well regarded reputation, and you, at the time don't even know this, you don't know who this recording engineer is (or even know that he is one at this point - he could just be "one of us"), and unknowingly, do not know, are completely unaware (as in a totally blind test comparison), of what was being compared? By this I mean, you don't even know what MQA is (for instance) - never heard of it. You're just supposed to listen to two versions of each of the three recordings, and decide if there's a difference, and if so, what it is?

[KT88]

1 hour ago, artto said:

How do we know that we're listening to the same music file? We don't. We may believe it's the same music file, but that fact is, we don't know. Nor do we know if, or what, any of these sources did on their own (to enhance THEIR product).

 

If you think you can actually hear the data reduction of MQA compared to FLAC I would have to say you (or anyone else) is sadly mistaken. AND, I would also challenge you or anyone else to put your money where your mouth is. You may indeed be hearing a difference. But I seriously doubt it's what you believe it is.

 

Let take this one step further.

Have you, or anyone else, been present at a listening session, with some very well-respected, unfortunately extremely expensive audio system, where you were able to audition 3 different recordings, all made by the same recording engineer, one who has a well regarded reputation, and you, at the time don't even know this, you don't know who this recording engineer is (or even know that he is one at this point - he could just be "one of us"), and unknowingly, do not know, are completely unaware (as in a totally blind test comparison), of what was being compared? By this I mean, you don't even know what MQA is (for instance) - never heard of it. You're just supposed to listen to two versions of each of the three recordings, and decide if there's a difference, and if so, what it is?

 

Okay, let's make it as simple as possible. Let's compare the latest recordings. For example, we go to Tidal and Qobus for the new releases of the record industry. It's definitely the same mix and, unlike vintage recordings, we don't have the risk of not knowing if we're listening to the same remastering.
For example, from the Rolling Stones there are 20 different remasterings of songs from the 1960s and we do not know if we hear the same.
But when I see the new releases in the classical genre, it's the same master. Nobody had time to create another master in one day.
By the way, I just noticed a difference in quality that has nothing to do with our topic. On Tidal there are almost only new releases in CD quality and only very few MQA. At Qobus, with very few exceptions, the same recording is in high resolution and only very few are in the poorer CD quality. It seems to be the swan song of the bankrupt MQA company.
But as I said, this is not our topic now.
So I'll have to search Tidal to see which of the new releases are even in MQA.
One of the few new MQA releases on Tidal is Carl Nielsen, The Simponies, Danish National Symphony Orchestra by Deutsche Grammophon.
It just came out and is guaranteed to be the same mix. It just sounds better with Qobus in high resolution. Everyone here on the forum can compare it themselves.
Tidal MQA sounds sweeter on this recording and maybe a bit softer and more spacious. But the sound of the instruments is a bit falsified. Qobus sounds a bit more sober at first but it has fuller dynamics and more authenticity. In the end, everyone should choose what he likes better.

[artto]

1 hour ago, KT88 said:

 

Okay, let's make it as simple as possible. Let's compare the latest recordings. For example, we go to Tidal and Qobus for the new releases of the record industry. It's definitely the same mix and, unlike vintage recordings, we don't have the risk of not knowing if we're listening to the same remastering.
For example, from the Rolling Stones there are 20 different remasterings of songs from the 1960s and we do not know if we hear the same.
But when I see the new releases in the classical genre, it's the same master. Nobody had time to create another master in one day.
By the way, I just noticed a difference in quality that has nothing to do with our topic. On Tidal there are almost only new releases in CD quality and only very few MQA. At Qobus, with very few exceptions, the same recording is in high resolution and only very few are in the poorer CD quality. It seems to be the swan song of the bankrupt MQA company.
But as I said, this is not our topic now.
So I'll have to search Tidal to see which of the new releases are even in MQA.
One of the few new MQA releases on Tidal is Carl Nielsen, The Simponies, Danish National Symphony Orchestra by Deutsche Grammophon.
It just came out and is guaranteed to be the same mix. It just sounds better with Qobus in high resolution. Everyone here on the forum can compare it themselves.
Tidal MQA sounds sweeter on this recording and maybe a bit softer and more spacious. But the sound of the instruments is a bit falsified. Qobus sounds a bit more sober at first but it has fuller dynamics and more authenticity. In the end, everyone should choose what he likes better.

"In the end, everyone should choose what he likes better."

 

Isn't that what I said?

 

The problem here, as I've said, is that MQA does not make or break the sound quality of a recording. In fact, as per my participation in the afore mentioned listening session, afterward I asked the following question of the recording engineer - "So, it seems that the better the recording, the more improvement, realism, can be achieved?"

The answer was "Yes, exactly".

 

 So it still boils down to how the original recording was made. What was the recording process? And that is what most audio"philes" lack, an understanding of the recording process. It's one of those things (the "art" part) where only through experience (in the recording process) can you really have any understanding of what's going on.

To quote Mark Levenson: "to become a master in the art of music reproduction you have to approach it the same way you approach the art of photography—to not only know what the picture looks like, but also to know the process by which the photograph is made. You have to know what goes into the recording before you are in the position to evaluate what it sounds like coming out of a hi-fi system."

EDIT: Paul Klipsch knew this, and practiced it too.

 

MQA is supposedly "artist (producer) approved". But what if I don't like what the artist likes (sound quality wise)? Well, in my experience, I don't have to use it. I can play a non-MQA version of the file, either by streaming/playing it back on a non-MQA device, or from my own non-MQA CD rips or other recordings. I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. Also, I've never been "forced" to pay extra, outright, for anything MQA simply because the device or recording has MQA encoding available. The MQA license fee, regardless of where it is in the "chain" is far, far less significant than the streaming service cost, the product cost, whatever. Companies will charge what ever the market will bare. The "cost" of MQA to the end user is essentially inconsequential.

[ClaudeJ1]

6 hours ago, artto said:

If you don't like something you're hearing, on your system (which includes the room) - it's your system. Not the recording, not the format, not whether it's MQA or not, or something else.

 

Headphone listeners would disagree about the room. MQA is a distorted format, but nothing is ever PURE, as you have so well stated. Dr. AIX pretty much settled (even to himself) with 500 participants that there is Zero advantage to using HI REZ formats because no one could tell the difference between any of them beyond good old Redbook CD. It's the MASTERING!

[ClaudeJ1]

Read and watch the video. I met Dr. Waldrep and bought some of his recordings. Very good work. Even he changed his mind about hirez being better. It's the Recording Engineer and Mastering, so I agree with Artto on this.

 

ALL HiFi is an ILLUSION, since you can't replicate the sound of any acoustic instrument with varying fundamentals and harmonics with varying 3D dispersions in different recording spaces with only 1 or 2 microphones! It's all an Illusion, so pick your favorite ones!

 

https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=7258

[Bubo]

The coder sw and decoder sw results can vary substantially by protocol.

IF you take the same bit stream and code and decode it, the differences by protocol and bit rate can be dramatic.

We evaluated 8 protocols years ago, mp3 was beta quality.

As to the competing services, lots of database features, catalog and quality.

Some record labels put out better Quality consistently

Some remasters are loudness wars dogs

A service could curate all of catalog, would be a herculean effort.

Approx 30% of the CDs I listen to get donated. The rest I rip 200 every winter