Reference Level System MQA Listening Results

I can report on between 8-10 hours of listening to MQA and Non MQA files

(When it is FREEZING out, plenty of incentive to get cozy with music, wine, and a great system).

The listening took place at a long time friend's East Side apartment. The system was beyond reproach:

-MSB Reference DAC / Roon / Tidal

-VPI Prime table / Audio Research PH9

-Audio Research Ref 6 Preamp

-Ayre MX-R Twenty Mono Block Amplifiers

-Wilson Alexx speaker system

-Wireworld cabling for all

-Audience power conditioning, Symposium Acoustics isolation devices and platforms

My host has a very large digital library stored on a NAS. And a decent size vinyl collection.

We listened to approx. 50 albums where we confirmed there was both an MQA version, and an official
24 bit digital download and where we could confirm the mastering was the same. We listened to quite a few new releases as well.

Volumes matched as close as possible.

I had my host select albums play MQA streams from Tidal, then the same tracks from his NAS without telling
me which was which, and we turned off the display of the DAC. We also muted the first 3 seconds of every track.

We repeated the process with me selecting tracks from Tidal and his NAS.

We also broke things up by playing tracks from his vinyl collection of some of the same albums.

Verdict:

In each an every, case, without exception, we both preferred the non MQA version. Some by a little, and some it was not even close.

The MQA version created a whole in the center and an artificial Left and Right Spread, and a digital sheen that was off putting to say the least. We both concluded MQA was DESTRUCTIVE to the music. It was quite an eye opener. It sounded like what happens when you hit the "3D" or "Loudness" buttons on mid level home theater receivers.

MQA was putting far too strong a stamp on the music. We even preferred his 24 bit vinyl rips to the MQA versions. MQA screws up the tonality and the soundstage. Period.

Bob Stuart, John Atkinson, Michael Lavorgna, Robert Harley, Jim Austin, John Darko (did I miss anyone?)..
you should all be ashamed of your selves.

MQA is by far the biggest farce ever perpetrated in "high end audio".

Couple this with all the data available on CA, the measurements, and looking behind the curtain at the financials, the motives, and the players, it is clear MQA is a wholesale fraud.

 

Nice system

 

Thanks. Note, I do not own this system. See my profile page for my gear.

 

Let’s put MQA aside for now.

Did you compare standard Tidal HiFi CD grade files against your pal NAS files?

I spent of few hours comparing and I experienced similar results as yours. I do not have the same setup as your pal but use a Bryston BDP (file player) and BDA (DAC) without Roon as my digital source. The music felt thinner and clinicaly asepticized... The music soul was missing...

The Tidal sound signature was over every recording I was listening to. Good for casual or discovery listening, no more.

 

nice system on your profile page - I assume you are in an outer Borough in order to have room for the 3.7i Maggies...

 

Good question. No, we did not. The focus was on MQA, to be honest.

Putting MQA aside as you say, I have no doubt a Tidal CD stream can vary in quality, possibly to due to noise on the network? Or maybe
another variable. I use Ethernet opto isolation plus a SOtM iso device right before the streamer. Probably crazy over kill.

 

Yes, correct!

 

Do you hear a similar affect with MQA on your system with the Mytek Brooklyn DAC?

 

Another good question. Because I do not have a large library of HD downloads, I was not able to do proper comparisons.

 

I can appreciate that. I'd be in the same boat if I tried to do an MQA comparison. I simply don't have enough high-res PCM to do a meaningful comparison. It's very expensive to have a large high-res PCM library that includes albums and masterings you can directly compare against MQA versions that have the same mastering. Plus, I don't own an MQA capable DAC, so that's even more expense in order to do a comparison.

 

Are you suggesting that MQA streaming will not be subject to the same technical challenges as the Tidal Hifi quality stream (FLAC)? My impression is that MQA would even be more sensitive to a less than optimal network performance due to the amount of bits/s streamed.

My understanding (as of a few months ago) was that Tidal MQA files were only available via the Tidal app installed on a PC. Is it still the case?

 

To me the biggest PIA with this stuff is a) getting levels right (somewhat controllable) and b) comparing like masters (less controllable). I do think you've hit on something that I had noticed occasionally but didn't really know how to articulate--the "hole" in the center.

I've been doing some of my own listening to (try and) compare some of this stuff and frankly I think I'm giving up. My rig is not up to what you were listening through by any stretch but I'm a big fan of it

I "compared" four versions of Herbie Hancock's "The Prisoner"--Tidal CD, Tidal MQA, my own CD rip (FLAC of the RVG cd remaster) and a super hi rez 192/24 from acoustic sounds (the grundman mastering). It's all over the place--I like my own rip and the Grundman the best but there are things I dislike about each and they all sound different. Some aspects good some not so good

 

Oh not at all. Any Tidal stream will have the same technical challenges. But I must say that Tidal CD streams do have the potential to sound quite good.

Yes, MQA being lossy, is even more sensitive as you say.

 

I prefer the Grundman remasters myself.

 

I wouldn't go that far. There are plenty more to choose from.

 

Nicely done

 

thanks!

 

Well at least they can't use that "your system is not resolving enough" chestnut on you.

 

Thanks for posting your results. It's somewhat refreshing to read an MQA bashing thread based on actual listening experiences for a change.

 

Came up with similar conclusions listening on various systems (and in a studio) with a Grammy-winning engineer using some files he actually worked on. The engineer was just laughing.

 

It is actually funny..but sad too...sad that they are trying to tell you that a DAC that does not decode a
lossy. DRM equipped, destructive to the music codec, it is "obsolete".

 

thank you as well.

 

Agreed. They'll have to go straight to accusing him of not having listening skills.

 

Thank you very much for the carefully set up listening tests. I realize it takes time to prepare everything and I particularly am impressed with the large number of comparisons.

 

Thanks for the review. My quick and dirty listen from Tidal left me with the same opinion (no Mqa amp). It just isn’t for me but I will happily except a mqa dac for free. All hat, no cowboy.