GoldenSound MQA testing video

Depends what you mean by sounds better.

 

Your claim depends on three very common assumptions in audiophile discussion:

1. Because nothing is strictly 100% impossible, everything must therefore be plausible (and more or less equally so);
2. The scientific limits of what you or I understand are the limits of what is understood by experts and professionals; and
3. High fidelity is not a sufficient standard by which to gauge the performance of audio equipment.

The first assumption leads to the idea that something that's highly implausible is just as possible as something that is highly probable or even just accepted as fact.

The second assumption leads to the idea that if you or I cannot explain why an audiophile vendor's claim is false or implausible, then we should not accept anyone's explanation for why it's false or implausible. On that basis we remain open-minded to the claims of the vendor but close-minded to the claims of the vendor's critics - and sometimes we even accuse the critics of being close-minded and "not listening with their ears" simply because they point out that there are well-established and well-known scientific reasons why the vendor's claim cannot be true.

The third assumption leads to the idea that particular colorations in the sound - euphonic distortions aka "voicing" - are not only more pleasing to some people with some recordings/music, but are also higher fidelity and simply better-sounding than more accurate sound reproduction.

My view is that all these assumptions are unwarranted.

I have no doubt that MQA content sounds better than regular PCM to some people, worse to other people, and more or less indistinguishable to a lot of people - an impression which is backed up by the available empirical evidence.

But as to why anyone would find MQA better-sounding than PCM, I am not persuaded - at all - by the claim that it's because MQA is allegedly "better than lossless." For one thing, MQA has begun making that claim only in the last few weeks, as a direct result of GoldenSound's video and the discussion it generated. For the approximately 5 years before that, they fraudulently claimed MQA was lossless.

More importantly, though, what MQA means by "better than lossless" is well-known, and their claims for why and how MQA is "better than lossless" are lacking in evidence and in at least some respects have been actively disproven.

So as a practical matter, some things are in fact impossible when talking about what sounds better.

 

Not everything is lost. Qobuz has this album as 24/96 Flac.

 

The only valid test is to take record released only as 24/192 PCM, run it through MQA encoder and then play resulting MQA file side by side with original PCM. Unfortunately MQA makers consistently refuse to do any public testing like that.

 

And we can make an educated guess as to why.

 

Bingo. This is why I don't trust them. I don't even care if it sounds good. They absolutely and utterly resist any attempts to figure out what is going on under the hood.

 

yes.. I have a free trial with Qobuz, and I’m pretty happy with it.

Does Qobuz offer software control over Win WASAPI? I mostly stream from my smart phone to headphone amp to headphones, so I’m not too concerned. On some occasions I stream from a laptop, but not so much

 

100% agreed

 

"GoldenSound" is one person, right? I didn't know how to figure out if this person chimed in here (as an SH Forum member).

My household has always been Apple free. Likewise, there will be no MQA streaming or downloads. Qobuz is the alternative to Tidal. Roon integrates it very nicely.

Qobuz should go on the offensive to cast Tidal as the villain. I don't know whether or not this YouTube video achieves anything but DRM is a threat that cannot be allowed to spread!

 

You dont think Qobuz uses DRM?

 

Purchased albums are DRM free.

 

is that what the discussion is? Purchased files?

who sells DRM’d files for purchase?

 

You forgot the other valid test - take record released as 192/24 PCM, and run it through a high-quality 44.1/16 downsampler and play it side-by-side. If one cannot distinguish this, then celebrating the "transparency" of another encoding scheme is moot.

 

Or changing the filter type on the DAC from a good linear phase (aka God's filter) to minimum phase apodizing (aka Devil's filter). If one cannot hear a difference then their opinions on digital resolution and digital design is moot.

 

MQA is nothing more than DRM cloaked in the promise of better sound. Quit your Tidal subscription and join the good guys.

 

I can hear the difference in downsampled record. So this won't help. I also do hear specific signature of DSD64 vs. high-res PCM. Do not try to convince me that 16/44 is enough. And that is not related to topic discussed here.

 

24/44 is the point that I can hear ( at least I think I can) differences over 16/44. The Beatles usb sounds more “ free flowing” ( floabt) than the red book versions using same dac and system. Low end seems to have more depth as well

 

Other than a very minor additional limiting used in CD mastering this is all the difference between 24-bit (USB stick) & 16-bit (CD) audio of 2009 remasters of The Beatles stereo albums (it sounds like a faint hiss if you crank up the volume to 11):