Tidal MQA vs Qobuz

[Guitarking]

Hi everyone,

I just don't understand the fuzz about the Tidal MQA files. They are advertised as being very good quality but I also keep reading about the fact that it's lossy? And that this has to do with a two fold unpacking procedure?
I'm listening music on my PC with a RME Babyface pro fx. Can this device decode the MQA completely or do I need another device to do this?
So is MQA something to be avoided and better use CD's or Qobuz?

Thanks!

[Hugh Robjohns]

It's complicated...

In essence, MQA files are packaged to look like standard 44kHz/16bit CD files and can be replayed in that format on legacy equipment -- including on your Babyface.

However, data buried in the dither can be extracted by a proper MQA decoder (which is usually in the form of a commercial converter running licensed firmware) and that data used to add on an extra octave or two above the standard bandwidth — effectively emulating a 96 or 192kHz sample rate file.

There are also some shenanigans involved in encoding the MQA file which allow the time-domain performance to be improved over that of conventional D-As when replayed through an MQA decoder — removing the pre-ringing effects associated with standard brickwall reconstruction filtering.

Yes, some of the high frequency encoding parts of the MQA codec are technically 'lossy', but other parts aren't, and is isn't as black and white a situation as a lossy codec like MP3. MQA claim that the overall system offers audible improvements over more familiar linear audio formats.

Although the technology is undoubtedly very clever and is addressing some genuine technical issues associated with more conventional digital audio formats, I'm not personally convinced they are relevant to most consumers, and I struggled to reliably hear an overall improvement. I was made more skeptical when MQA declined to work with me (SOS) in more thorough auditions and testing of the system involving the encoding of a bespoke high quality audio recording of our own so we could accurately compare versions.

I tried to explain the technological claims and concepts, as well as the pros/cons, of MQA here: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques ... io-quality

The replay equipment needs to be 'MQA certified' to decode the embedded data stream correctly, which involves paying MQA a licencing fee and running bespoke decoding software in the converter.

As far as I know, RME has not entered into an agreement to do that, and so RME interfaces — including your Babyface — cannot decode MQA files. They will play MQA-encoded files in legacy mode, though... meaning you get the wanted audio at CD resolution with an (inaudible?) chunk of extra noise as part of the dither. It is also claimed that legacy players will benefit from partially improved time-domain performance...

In your case, I'd avoid the Tidal MQA files. You'll gain no benefit.

As I understand it, Qobuz uses standard 24 bit FLAC files at standard, double, or quad sample rates with 'lossless' coding. The service's website illustration of the improvement from MP3 to CD to Qobiz is just plain wrong in so many ways, though, so I have little confidence.

Personally, I find standard 44.1/16 bit lossless files perfectly acceptable for domestic consumption. The format is almost never the weakest link in the chain. Bad mastering, bad recording, and disappointing performances are regularly far more damaging to musical enjoyment IMHO! And that's assuming your playback system and room acoustics (or headphones) are as good as they can be!

[RichardT]

Hugh, the Tidal client software is capable of doing the MQA decode to 96kHz itself, there no need for any MQA capability in the audio interface or DAC. It can’t decode to 192kHz or above though - for that MQA-certified hardware is needed.

However, as you say, the quality of the musicianship and engineering are far more important. Plus the quality of the playback system and listening environment almost always compromise the sound much, much more than the sampling rate of the audio.

For the OP - I did some blind testing of 96kHz vs 44.1kHz audio and I couldn’t reliably tell which was which. It’s really quite a small difference!

[Hugh Robjohns]

Hugh, the Tidal client software is capable of doing the MQA decode to 96kHz itself...

Ah. Not a Tidal user and I didn't know that. Thanks — it makes sense from a Tidal customer point of view.

I stand corrected.... but still wouldn't bother with it myself.

[sonics]

It's complicated...

I'm not personally convinced they are relevant to most consumers, and I struggled to reliably hear an overall improvement.

As I understand it, Qobuz uses standard 24 bit FLAC files at standard, double, or quad sample rates with 'lossless' coding. The service's website illustration of the improvement from MP3 to CD to Qobiz is just plain wrong in so many ways, though, so I have little confidence.

Thanks for another excellent overview, Hugh. I'll be sending that link to a couple of colleagues who are being tempted into spending money for an "improvement" they can't hear and don't need.

In horror, I imagined Qobuz using the old "stair step" diagram, then I checked the website and they are! As you say, so wrong in so many ways...

I upgraded from Spotify to the noticeably-better Tidal and usually play the regular lossless files. Great value and all I'll ever need.

[Guitarking]

Thank you!

Hugh, I can't really follow what you say concerning Qobuz. Do you mean that there written information (their explanation of the theory) on the site is not good? Does this per se mean their files are not real hi-res files?

Thanks!

[sonics]

If I may answer, I believe the files are genuine hi-res audio, but the advertising used to sell the service technically incorrect.

[Guitarking]

I'm seeing whether I can hear the difference between Tidal master vs Tidal hifi.
Say I'd want to record a snippet of a Tidal Master file. Should I record in 96-24, 48-24 or 44.1-16?

[Guitarking]

Or also. When listening to Master, should i put my rme babyface to 96000 24 or would 44.1 16 suffice. Or dont i get the full playback resolution then ?

[Audioisnobiggie]

With MQA, regardless of whether or not your playback becomes identical to the original, the plan is for you to pay twice as much for your subscription, and buy new gear with an extra chip for everything to go through, so that Jay-z can save money by not using any more bandwidth, for the tracks available in higher rez.

[Audioisnobiggie]

Qobuz finally opened in Canada today. In the same best player, Audirvana, higher bitrates immediately sound more rich. It's only 70% of the MQA fiasco's cost, too.

[Martin Walker]

Personally, I find standard 44.1/16 bit lossless files perfectly acceptable for domestic consumption. The format is almost never the weakest link in the chain. Bad mastering, bad recording, and disappointing performances are regularly far more damaging to musical enjoyment IMHO! And that's assuming your playback system and room acoustics (or headphones) are as good as they can be!

A hearty +1 to this thought!

[RichardT]

Personally, I find standard 44.1/16 bit lossless files perfectly acceptable for domestic consumption. The format is almost never the weakest link in the chain. Bad mastering, bad recording, and disappointing performances are regularly far more damaging to musical enjoyment IMHO! And that's assuming your playback system and room acoustics (or headphones) are as good as they can be!

A hearty +1 to this thought!

Exactly! I tested myself to see whether I could tell whether recordings were 44.1 or 96kHz - and I found I couldn’t, at least not consistently.