MQA, Tidal and Sonos?



Show first post
This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.

142 replies

Userlevel 5
Badge +11
What jgatie said.

Your explanations all come back to the same point. Personal preference.
Can you tell the difference between different redbook lossless codecs on your Sonos. I can. I'm sure you can on your non-Sonos setup. They sound different. If you can discern differences in this then is the higher bitrate "differences" also down to codec?
Userlevel 6
Badge +10
Whoops, I was mistaken. I just dug up some emails from back in the day. That should have been 80% (actually it was 75%) on 24/96 over 256 and 320 bitrate. Sorry about. My memory is apparently failing along with my ears.
Whoops, I was mistaken. I just dug up some emails from back in the day. That should have been 80% (actually it was 75%) on 24/96 over 256 and 320 bitrate. Sorry about. My memory is apparently failing along with my ears.

A rather large oops, lol. Although AAC at 256 and above has gotten really good, with only a couple of known samples with audible artifacts.
Userlevel 6
Badge +10
What jgatie said.

Your explanations all come back to the same point. Personal preference.
Can you tell the difference between different redbook lossless codecs on your Sonos. I can. I'm sure you can on your non-Sonos setup. They sound different. If you can discern differences in this then is the higher bitrate "differences" also down to codec?

That's a good question. Unfortunately at the moment here in Brasil I have only Sonos speakers (5s new generation and 1s) and headphones/DACs. So I can't compare different speaker setups. Back in Canada, where I won't be until April, I have a similar Sonos speakers and a non-Sonos speakers.

Yet some believe that only a 95% success rate in identifying X is statistically meaningful. Those ABX objectivists are a tough crowd, lol!


Depending on the sample size, those people would be wrong. Funny thing is, I'd be the first one to tell them they were incorrect and unscientific, blasting them as hard as I blast Hires fans. If only the subjectivists would be as critical of their own. But alas, on this very forum I've seen the same jagged sine wave used over and over again to "prove" there was something missing in a Nyquist-Shannon wave sample, long after every subjectivist knew it was incorrect (and Sony got sued for using it in advertising).

Too bad about your ears, though. Guess we have to trust you on the fact yours were the only pair in history to achieve this remarkable feat. 😉
Userlevel 6
Badge +10
Whoops, I was mistaken. I just dug up some emails from back in the day. That should have been 80% (actually it was 75%) on 24/96 over 256 and 320 bitrate. Sorry about. My memory is apparently failing along with my ears.

A rather large oops, lol. Although AAC at 256 and above has gotten really good, with only a couple of known samples with audible artifacts.


It is, lol. But this was quite a few years ago so my memory was fuzzy. I know I did ABX testing with redbook as well, but I can't find the results. I have notes, so they may be in my Canadian place. The tests were in Canada. (I'm in Brasil at the moment.)
Userlevel 6
Badge +10

Yet some believe that only a 95% success rate in identifying X is statistically meaningful. Those ABX objectivists are a tough crowd, lol!


Depending on the sample size, those people would be wrong. Funny thing is, I'd be the first one to tell them they were incorrect and unscientific, blasting them as hard as I blast Hires fans. If only the subjectivists would be as critical of their own. But alas, on this very forum I've seen the same jagged sine wave used over and over again to "prove" there was something missing in a Nyquist-Shannon wave sample, long after every subjectivist knew it was incorrect (and Sony got sued for using it in advertising).

Too bad about your ears, though. Guess we have to trust you on the fact yours were the only pair in history to achieve this remarkable feat. ;)


Please see my correction above. Apparently I was not the only person to do this, lol. Also, after looking at my emails from a few years ago what i should have said was "95% confidence rate," which is different. It has been awhile since I fiddled with this stuff.
(I'm in Brasil at the moment.)

Well, enjoy those topless beaches!
Whoops, I was mistaken. I just dug up some emails from back in the day. That should have been 80% (actually it was 75%) on 24/96 over 256 and 320 bitrate. Sorry about. My memory is apparently failing along with my ears.

So not even relevant to the thread at all, and also not that special considering there are numerous studies featuring lossy codecs vs. plain old 16/44.1 which show the same results
Userlevel 6
Badge +10
(I'm in Brasil at the moment.)

Well, enjoy those topless beaches!


Contrary to popular belief, Brasil doesn't much in the way of topless beaches--except the odd secluded one. However, it does have topless carnaval dancers. It's one of the paradoxes of this country. Highly permissive, yet at the same time highly conservative (religious Roman Catholic population).
Userlevel 6
Badge +10
Whoops, I was mistaken. I just dug up some emails from back in the day. That should have been 80% (actually it was 75%) on 24/96 over 256 and 320 bitrate. Sorry about. My memory is apparently failing along with my ears.

So not even relevant to the thread at all, and also not that special considering there are numerous studies featuring lossy codecs vs. plain old 16/44.1 which show the same results


Fair enough, and I apologize for the error. But it's worth pointing out that there are those who claim they can't hear a difference between 320 and redbook. They might make the same argument about 320 that some make about redbook. In any event, as I said above I know I have notes from redbook-24/96 ABX tests, I'm just not sure which country they're in.
Userlevel 5
Badge +11
I can tell the difference between 320 and redbook. But only on some classical recordings and only when i am listening very hard, a quite unnatural experience (a random play of a largish playlist with a few tracks repeated)
Otherwise there is no, or anything noticeable, difference.
But there are scientific reasons for why someone might hear a difference between 320 and Redbook. The differences are present in the auditory spectrum of a normal human being, the question is if they can discern them or not, not whether it is biologically impossible. There is absolutely no biological evidence for one being able to hear above ~20 KHz. None. Zero. And the only thing a codec like MQA allows you to do is increase the upper frequency limit to > 22 KHz.
Userlevel 5
Badge +11
But only on some classical albums. Again, that is likely due to codec
Badge
god the conversation is such meaningless. of course the reason is cause nobody really can say anything anyways.
obviously for sonos to do this they would have to pull of some magic tricks, and do for whom right? I don't even know anybody personally who has or even heard about Tidal.. the selection is pretty small of MQA albums right now.. so why would Sonos invent new things for this? Who knows that even maybe Tidal will stop using them..
Well, here is what's going on.. (as somebody who cares about enjoyment from music and that's all and none of the audiophile bs)... I have Sonos + Tidal, imagine how much problems it solved for me.. I can stream almost any music in it's original cd quality without anything being lost in cables and such.. it's beautiful.. but now I actually go to concerts that I know will have good sound.. cause I don't get any magical feelings with just cd quality, it's just good.
Now the only question I have is, can Sonos hardware (from Play 1) support MQA theoretically?
If yes, I am sure Sonos engineers can figure this out somehow.. MQA does few things and all in all in the end it's who releases that approves that yes the song is like it was recorded in studio, so just by Sonos figuring this out, anybody in the world can play (for price of HQ streaming music service) music as intended by recording studio.. and I am sure Sonos cares about it.
If no (hardware is not enough), then this conversation is useless.
If yes and Sonos wouldn't want to do it, then instead of gifting and suggesting Sonos I think I would not even gift mine and throw them away.
Cause honestly I now enjoy Tidal Masters music even on 20$ bluetooth earphones more than Sonos with Tidal Hifi.
Cause honestly I now enjoy Tidal Masters music even on 20$ bluetooth earphones more than Sonos with Tidal Hifi.
TL;DR -- Any difference is in the mastering, nothing to do with MQA. Either that or the Bluetooth earphone is miraculously able to reproduce 40kHz. I don't think so.
Archimago's latest comments on MQA (scroll down).

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/01/measurements-raspberry-pi-3-as-usb.html
Badge
Cause honestly I now enjoy Tidal Masters music even on 20$ bluetooth earphones more than Sonos with Tidal Hifi.
TL;DR -- Any difference is in the mastering, nothing to do with MQA. Either that or the Bluetooth earphone is miraculously able to reproduce 40kHz. I don't think so.


no, I realize that, I can't wait for new headphones to come, finally it will be useful.
MQA says they make it so that you feel like you are there in recording studio, the sound is like 3D, so you can tell where the instrument is, and I mean I can't comment much, but I could feel it.
whatever they did is approved by the people who released the music. I have been to Muse concert and I listened to Muse with MQA, I believe if Sonos could play it I would now enjoy almost concert level sound.
I mean there so many songs I just play that I know and then it continues playing other songs in the album and I would probably skip them before, and I just keep enjoying them, it's cool.

I would say at least 50% of people here, would be able tell the difference (in a good way) if they try tidal trial and try MQA.
And 0% would be able to tell the difference if you converted the MQA master over to regular old 16/44.1. Which is why Meridian doesn't allow you to unpack it or convert it, because then you would see that the Emporer has no clothes.
Badge
And 0% would be able to tell the difference if you converted the MQA master over to regular old 16/44.1. Which is why Meridian doesn't allow you to unpack it or convert it, because then you would see that the Emporer has no clothes.

ok, go play from tidal and let me know if you have better (or same) options

ok, go play from tidal and let me know if you have better (or same) options


I don't have Tidal, so I've no idea what you are talking about. What I mean with my post is the difference in what you hear has nothing to do with the super duper hires MQA codec, and everything to do with the remastering done by Meridian when they encoded the track. So, like every other difference ever heard on "hires" recordings, the track would sound exactly the same if they took that remaster and put it out as plain old CD quality FLAC.
Badge

ok, go play from tidal and let me know if you have better (or same) options


I don't have Tidal, so I've no idea what you are talking about. What I mean with my post is the difference in what you hear has nothing to do with the super duper hires MQA codec, and everything to do with the remastering done by Meridian when they encoded the track. So, like every other difference ever heard on "hires" recordings, the track would sound exactly the same if they took that remaster and put it out as plain old CD quality FLAC.


(you can try Tidal for 30 days for free)
I mean I can play Tidal Master through Sonos and it will be what you said.
Now if what you are saying is no person in the world can hear anything after CD quality.. I mean it's kinda cringingly laughable.. as an opinion it's fine, but as stated fact? wow
Not cringingly laughable, it's established science:

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Now if what you are saying is no person in the world can hear anything after CD quality.. I mean it's kinda cringingly laughable.. as an opinion it's fine, but as stated fact? wow


So you have irrefutable evidence that someone has passed a controlled, peer reviewed ABX test, using the same masters? Please offer it, or i'm afaid you are "cringingly laughable".
Userlevel 5
Badge +11

ok, go play from tidal and let me know if you have better (or same) options


I don't have Tidal, so I've no idea what you are talking about. What I mean with my post is the difference in what you hear has nothing to do with the super duper hires MQA codec, and everything to do with the remastering done by Meridian when they encoded the track. So, like every other difference ever heard on "hires" recordings, the track would sound exactly the same if they took that remaster and put it out as plain old CD quality FLAC.


(you can try Tidal for 30 days for free)
I mean I can play Tidal Master through Sonos and it will be what you said.
Now if what you are saying is no person in the world can hear anything after CD quality.. I mean it's kinda cringingly laughable.. as an opinion it's fine, but as stated fact? wow


Can you tell the difference between lossless codecs on Sonos?
Yes? Your MQA points are answered.
If you can't then you prove MQA is the Emperor's Clothes