What is your honest opinion on MQA sound quality vs Hirez(Amazon UltraHD)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 1139 times.

Huck

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 554
Hi: This is for people who have actual gear that can support MQA and have compared same song to same song using MQA and Hirez.
My existing external DAC does not support MQA,but I would like to try it and see if I can hear any difference between Amazon Ultra HD and MQA.
I also have Radio Paradise which offers MQA music.Tidal has MQA,which I may subscribe to if I like the MQA sound via Radio Paradise.
So,with your gear and with your ears,what score (out of 10)...10 being the highest,what score would you give MQA generally?.Thanks,Huck :popcorn:

newzooreview

When you say "MQA and Hirez" do you mean only streaming the same track from Amazon, or do you include locally stored high resolution files played back locally (e.g., from a networked storage device to a local streaming box to a DAC?).

I've never heard an MQA track that sounded better than the same release as a normal high resolution track on Tidal. I have not tried MQA on Amazon, but I would not expect a different outcome.

Once I saw the technical testing of MQA and realized that it was lossy compression with fraudulent marketing about being sourced from master tapes and approved by the artists as a definitive version, I cancelled Tidal altogether and switched to Qobuz.

Technical testing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRjsu9-Vznc

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHkqWZ9jzA0

When comparing the same release streaming from Qobuz and the same release and resolution of the music purchased from Qobuz, the locally streamed file always sounds better. Whenever I find something on Qobuz that I really like, I often buy the music from Qobuz so that I can play it back locally. The locally played tracks have more fine detail and spaciousness every time. Qobuz streaming sounds just fine unless I directly compare, and now I know that if I really like the music I will enjoy the locally streamed version better. Whether Qobuz or from the NAS, the music is coming through the same network switch to the same Roon ROCK NUC server out to the same DAC with no processing of the signal.

I'm not the only one who hears better sound from locally streamed files, and there will be folks who swear there's no difference in their systems, or that they don't hear a difference, or that it is impossible that there is a difference. C'est la vie.

Huck

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 554
When you say "MQA and Hirez" do you mean only streaming the same track from Amazon, or do you include locally stored high resolution files played back locally (e.g., from a networked storage device to a local streaming box to a DAC?).

I've never heard an MQA track that sounded better than the same release as a normal high resolution track on Tidal. I have not tried MQA on Amazon, but I would not expect a different outcome.

Once I saw the technical testing of MQA and realized that it was lossy compression with fraudulent marketing about being sourced from master tapes and approved by the artists as a definitive version, I cancelled Tidal altogether and switched to Qobuz.

Technical testing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRjsu9-Vznc

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHkqWZ9jzA0

When comparing the same release streaming from Qobuz and the same release and resolution of the music purchased from Qobuz, the locally streamed file always sounds better. Whenever I find something on Qobuz that I really like, I often buy the music from Qobuz so that I can play it back locally. The locally played tracks have more fine detail and spaciousness every time. Qobuz streaming sounds just fine unless I directly compare, and now I know that if I really like the music I will enjoy the locally streamed version better. Whether Qobuz or from the NAS, the music is coming through the same network switch to the same Roon ROCK NUC server out to the same DAC with no processing of the signal.

I'm not the only one who hears better sound from locally streamed files, and there will be folks who swear there's no difference in their systems, or that they don't hear a difference, or that it is impossible that there is a difference. C'est la vie.
Hi: I am not 'up' on all the digital speak,but I was using the term "streaming the same track from Amazon".
Qobuz is not available in Canada as far as I know.
Sorry,I am jumping in on this hirez stuff a little late. I have (my wife did it for me) JRiver where I have some CD's ripped there.
I have an old license (23)so are you saying I can buy hirez tracks and place into JRiver and is that what you call "local"?......Sorry,analogue man here!.Thanks,Huck
« Last Edit: 20 Feb 2023, 07:48 pm by Huck »

mr_bill

"I would like to try it and see if I can hear any difference between Amazon Ultra HD and MQA."

I take that as streaming both.  I'd be curious if anyone has opinions on that as well or MQA vs Apple Hi Res - both streaming

Huck

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 554
"I would like to try it and see if I can hear any difference between Amazon Ultra HD and MQA."

I take that as streaming both.  I'd be curious if anyone has opinions on that as well or MQA vs Apple Hi Res - both streaming
Correct....streaming both.Huck

newzooreview

…so are you saying I can buy hirez tracks and place into JRiver and is that what you call "local"?......Sorry,analogue man here!.Thanks,Huck

Yes, by local I meant a file on a hard drive that is transmitted strictly within your home network to a DAC. There are a lot of ways to do that, and lots of places to get high resolution files (Presto Music, Native DSD, HDTracks, etc.).

I think one can get a lot of enjoyment from streaming music services and depending on the setup and what a person is listening for the difference between streaming from the internet and locally may be inaudible or irrelevant. My preferences are just one data point.

Also, yes, I just double checked, and Qobuz is not available in Canada.


Huck

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 554
Yes, by local I meant a file on a hard drive that is transmitted strictly within your home network to a DAC. There are a lot of ways to do that, and lots of places to get high resolution files (Presto Music, Native DSD, HDTracks, etc.).

I think one can get a lot of enjoyment from streaming music services and depending on the setup and what a person is listening for the difference between streaming from the internet and locally may be inaudible or irrelevant. My preferences are just one data point.

Also, yes, I just double checked, and Qobuz is not available in Canada.
Thanks,Huck

zoom25

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 983
I tried several Tidal's MQA tracks and albums that were labelled 'Master' against their native lossless Amazon Music HD/UltraHD counterparts. I preferred Amazon Music HD and have stuck with it. There is a difference in sound between the regular lossless and MQA. I can understand why MQA might sound appealing to listeners, especially at the start of a session, but to my ears it doesn't sound right. Regular lossless sounds correct to my ears and brain, especially over longer sessions. I have zero interest in giving MQA a shot again. Of all the things I flip flop back and forth with, this was not one of them. It was actually a pretty easy decision....aside from it lacking in sonics, it doesn't make sense to use MQA when you already have lossless as the artist intended available on Apple, Qobuz, or Amazon. Why go for a version that the original artist/engineers did not intend? Anyways...

Amazon was the best option for me as a Canadian. Qobuz not in Canada. Tidal has MQA applied. Apple Music is lossless but doesn't have the best support for Windows (NUC) and older Macs. Amazon Music worked on all my devices, including older Macs and NUC. The playlists are decent on Amazon. I still have Spotify Premium for family, so I have a baseline for curated playlists. Lastly, pricing is also the best for Amazon Music HD, especially if you pay for a year upfront and/or have Prime.

Huck

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 554
I tried several Tidal's MQA tracks and albums that were labelled 'Master' against their native lossless Amazon Music HD/UltraHD counterparts. I preferred Amazon Music HD and have stuck with it. There is a difference in sound between the regular lossless and MQA. I can understand why MQA might sound appealing to listeners, especially at the start of a session, but to my ears it doesn't sound right. Regular lossless sounds correct to my ears and brain, especially over longer sessions. I have zero interest in giving MQA a shot again. Of all the things I flip flop back and forth with, this was not one of them. It was actually a pretty easy decision....aside from it lacking in sonics, it doesn't make sense to use MQA when you already have lossless as the artist intended available on Apple, Qobuz, or Amazon. Why go for a version that the original artist/engineers did not intend? Anyways...

Amazon was the best option for me as a Canadian. Qobuz not in Canada. Tidal has MQA applied. Apple Music is lossless but doesn't have the best support for Windows (NUC) and older Macs. Amazon Music worked on all my devices, including older Macs and NUC. The playlists are decent on Amazon. I still have Spotify Premium for family, so I have a baseline for curated playlists. Lastly, pricing is also the best for Amazon Music HD, especially if you pay for a year upfront and/or have Prime.
WE have Prime and we paid up front for the year.Too bad the majority of tracks on AMZ are lousy recordings,musicianship excellent,but the the 'end package' not so good. I would like to hear what MQA has to offer sonically,but I need a DAC that supports it,which my current DAC does not.Thanks,Huck

newzooreview

It has always seemed to me that any of the streaming services is licensing the use of the files that the music companies provide. None of them is remastering anything from the original tapes.

What they might do is a) compress the music like MQA on Tidal or MP3 files on Spotify or b) upsample a standard CD-quality file to be a high resolution file, with zero if any benefit other than marketing.

It's also possible that Service A is streaming a newly remastered (by the music company) version of an Album, and Service B is streaming an older file used in producing a CD from 20 years ago. The newly remastered version may also be a high resolution file (e.g., digitized at a high bitrate and sample rate from the master tapes rather than being digitized from analogue as standard CD quality and then being upsampled later on. You can't add information that isn't there in the first place, but the upsampling can improve the number of high-definition files the service can claim to have.

In some cases the original analogue to digital transfer from 20 or 30 years ago sounds better. In other cases a new remastered version sounds better. And for any given album people may be divided on that point.

So, even if an album sounds better to you on Service A compared to Service B, it is likely that you might find the reverse is true for a different album.

What music sounded like a bad recording, if I might ask? I can check it out on Qobuz and see if it sounds poor there (although sticking with my points above that may not mean much overall).

Huck

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 554
It has always seemed to me that any of the streaming services is licensing the use of the files that the music companies provide. None of them is remastering anything from the original tapes.

What they might do is a) compress the music like MQA on Tidal or MP3 files on Spotify or b) upsample a standard CD-quality file to be a high resolution file, with zero if any benefit other than marketing.

It's also possible that Service A is streaming a newly remastered (by the music company) version of an Album, and Service B is streaming an older file used in producing a CD from 20 years ago. The newly remastered version may also be a high resolution file (e.g., digitized at a high bitrate and sample rate from the master tapes rather than being digitized from analogue as standard CD quality and then being upsampled later on. You can't add information that isn't there in the first place, but the upsampling can improve the number of high-definition files the service can claim to have.

In some cases the original analogue to digital transfer from 20 or 30 years ago sounds better. In other cases a new remastered version sounds better. And for any given album people may be divided on that point.

So, even if an album sounds better to you on Service A compared to Service B, it is likely that you might find the reverse is true for a different album.

What music sounded like a bad recording, if I might ask? I can check it out on Qobuz and see if it sounds poor there (although sticking with my points above that may not mean much overall).

Nothing really specific on the "bad recording",just some (most) sound thin,lifeless,no bass,no stereo seperation. I listen for the first 20 seconds and then hit 'NEXT'. and try another.Thanks,Huck

newzooreview

Ok.

I should add to the above that Tidal does have a handful of MQA "White Glove" albums. These were remastered by MQA in partnership with music publishers as a marketing exercise. 99% of the files on Tidal are not remastered by MQA and are identical to what the publishers provide to the other services, just with the addition of the lossy compression of MQA. In addition, the publishers make these MQA remastered versions available on other streaming services (without the lossy MQA compression). I'm listening the MQA "White Glove" remaster of the Fairytales album in 192/24 streaming from Qobuz as a type this.

Best wishes with your investigations.

Huck

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 554
Ok.

I should add to the above that Tidal does have a handful of MQA "White Glove" albums. These were remastered by MQA in partnership with music publishers as a marketing exercise. 99% of the files on Tidal are not remastered by MQA and are identical to what the publishers provide to the other services, just with the addition of the lossy compression of MQA. In addition, the publishers make these MQA remastered versions available on other streaming services (without the lossy MQA compression). I'm listening the MQA "White Glove" remaster of the Fairytales album in 192/24 streaming from Qobuz as a type this.

Best wishes with your investigations.
Thanks,Huck


rollo

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 5460
  • Rollo Audio Consulting -
   Not a fan of either. Streaming 24/192 from Blue Coast Records which was recorded in 24/192 bests any High Rez or MQA for me. Prefer music that is not up sampled.


charles

Tyson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 11103
  • Audio - It's all a big fake.