Derimod lyder Tidal 24 bit MQA filer en smule bedre end AIFF filer fra harddisk. Ikke meget, men når jeg
kan finde en 24 bit MQA fil af det musik jeg ønsker at høre, bliver den foretrukket. Jeg har ingen indsigt i MQA teknikken og har
kun brugt ørerne til at vælge.
Når Du sammenligner skal DU være opmærksom på to ting.
Alle MQA filer er "remastered" af MQA, det er påvist at alle MQA filer er EQ'ede
De "få tusinde" MQA jeg har sammenlignet er alle "boostede" dvs de afspilles en smule højere end originalen
Currawong, kendt anmelder fra Head-Fi har fornyligt skrevet følgende, som Du måske ved en ekstra gennemlytning vil kunne
I have spent some time recently listening to a variety of TIDAL MQA albums, both the originals (some which required listening via
Qobuz) and the MQA versions. I've also done a bit of file analysis, as I have been able to capture the digital output, or get the
original TIDAL file (with help from a software developer). I haven't looked at the new MQA 16-bit files on TIDAL yet though.
After a long, heated discussion with a friend, who is or was pro-MQA (he didn't know about many of the things discussed here) he
discussed some of the issues brought up with friends in pro audio, and there are some issues with some of the arguments here,
which I'll leave for another time. However, he did suggest to me some albums he felt were improved by MQA, which I had a listen
through a Chord Hugo 2 direct to headphones (Focal Utopias or Final D8000s) or through my speaker system which, while not
super high-end, was enough to determine what I'm about to write about. I do have MQA DACs here I can listen with also, but
listening with those didn't change what I experienced.
The one album that sounded better with MQA was the Beatles Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club. Whatever processing they did
brings some quieter sounds more forward, which was pleasant. However, the album itself isn't super high resolution in terms of
what subtleties are noticeable in the recording, so no loss from the processing.
Various classical albums (there are a variety) were wrecked by MQA, the subtle atmospheric details around the instruments
obliterated, making everything sound more "one-note". This was very obvious through headphones direct out of the Hugo 2, and
may not be noticeable through a complex speaker system that loses some resolution through having multiple components and
With regards to timing information being improved by MQA, that is categorically bullsh*t. With correct timing information, I can
hear a good-quality, standard stereo recording of classical appear to come from behind my speakers, which are ~2.5m away from
me, with the instrument locations correct in two dimentions. The depth and width of the stereo image are both preserved
extremely well with Chord DACs, unlike with others, where the "space" of the stereo image is often compressed front-to-back to
one degree or another. When the timing information is preserved, so is the stereo image! Timing is how our brain interprets the
location of objects around us.
The MQA filters are all short filters of one type or another, and they cannot reproduce a correct spacial representation of a
recording. This, both from the science of filters, as well as what is clearly audible when comparing with digital equipment that
does it correctly. For example, when you use the short filters with an iFi DAC like the Pro iDSD, even on a non-MQA album,
instead of a correct, deep stereo image from this music, instead the instruments are brought unnaturally forward -- on my system
it sounds like they are coming from in front of the speakers. While this is more exciting to listen to, especially on headphones, it
isn't a proper reproduction. Again, it's enjoyable, but the actual stereo image is clearly not real. A full MQA chain doesn't change
this at all!
So there isn't a question of "What if Stuart's theory is correct" because there is no "if" involved -- he's abusing a valid science to
justify something that has the opposite effect.