Amazon UHD vs Tidal MQA

[WiimFan]

Now that WiiM Pro has been available for some time, and bit-perfect playback of Amazon UHD is finally possible, I wonder if people have tested or experienced the sound quality difference Amazon UHD vs Tidal MQA for tracks above 48kHz in 24 bit.

What I found is for tracks in 96/24, Amazon tracks have HIGHER bit rate, sometimes almost double than Tidal. Not sure why Tidal file sizes are much smaller, perhaps due to MQA unfolding?

In any case, for the same tracks that I have heard, Amazon UHD actually sounds better than MQA to me. Amazon UHD just seems “fuller” and more lively.

However, after I output to external DAC, then Tidal MQA is better with more precise imaging and sensitivities in the higher range.

I wonder if anyone else finds the same?

 

[kevinek]

Does Your DAC make full mqa processing? I am thinking about buying one. Does it sound better than only first unfold? Also what DAC do You have?

 

[onlyoneme]

Now that WiiM Pro has been available for some time, and bit-perfect playback of Amazon UHD is finally possible, I wonder if people have tested or experienced the sound quality difference Amazon UHD vs Tidal MQA for tracks above 48kHz in 24 bit.

What I found is for tracks in 96/24, Amazon tracks have HIGHER bit rate, sometimes almost double than Tidal. Not sure why Tidal file sizes are much smaller, perhaps due to MQA unfolding?

In any case, for the same tracks that I have heard, Amazon UHD actually sounds better than MQA to me. Amazon UHD just seems “fuller” and more lively.

However, after I output to external DAC, then Tidal MQA is better with more precise imaging and sensitivities in the higher range.

I wonder if anyone else finds the same?

It's quite obvious that 48/24 Tidal flac file has lower bitrate than 96/24 AM one.

 

[WiimFan]

Does Your DAC make full mqa processing? I am thinking about buying one. Does it sound better than only first unfold? Also what DAC do You have?

Yes I had the SMSL DO200 MKII with full MQA. It's a good value, but right after I bought it, they came out with the MKIII version and their new AKM-chipped D400EX has been receiving fantastic reviews, so I may upgrade to one of those two.

 

[Pcryan5]

Serious question - why mud wrestle with MQA when Qobuz delivers excellent quality for less $?
I have used both Tidal and Qobuz and find their interface equally fine. (As opposed to Amazon’s hideous app.)

 

[Smartplug]

Mqa sound from tidal vs qoboz flac which sound better on your ear?

 

[Pcryan5]

Mqa sound from tidal vs qoboz flac which sound better on your ear?

No difference. Did a blind test with 3 friends. All could not tell.

 

[Smartplug]

No difference. Did a blind test with 3 friends. All could not tell.

This just my take and everyone’s ear is different. Qoboz seems to have longer decay and reverb which make the sound more 3d.

 

[WiimFan]

Serious question - why mud wrestle with MQA when Qobuz delivers excellent quality for less $?

Because Qobuz is not available in smaller countries like mine.

 

[Pcryan5]

Because Qobuz is not available in smaller countries like mine.

Ah, that is a very good point. (Duh!) I used a US CC to get it from

 

[kevinek]

Serious question - why mud wrestle with MQA when Qobuz delivers excellent quality for less $?
I have used both Tidal and Qobuz and find their interface equally fine. (As opposed to Amazon’s hideous app.)

Unavailable, limited catalogue, horrible app.

 

[WiimFan]

No one else has compared Tidal MQA to Amazon UHD?

 

[kevinek]

I was. Amazon sounds better but the app is piece of sh#t.

 

[dudu]

Comparing MQA (first unfold on WiiM Mini) to Amazon Music UHD I would agree with your impression "However, after I output to external DAC, then Tidal MQA ... with sensitivities in the higher range." If I got this right this may be caused by the way MQA works. They alias frequencies above 48 khz below 48 khz which tends to produce this impression in the higher range.
But I'm not sure whether I could pass a successful blind test. ;-)

 

[Pcryan5]

No one else has compared Tidal MQA to Amazon UHD?

Yes as a few of us posted - the Amazon app is so bad it's not worth saving some bucks to use.

 

[Smartplug]

Yes as a few of us posted - the Amazon app is so bad it's not worth saving some bucks to use.

Not just that, it doesn’t good on my ear despite its loseless. It sound flat and 2 dimensional.

 

[Klipscher]

Thanks for these impressions was debating about getting amazon music this thread makes me think it’s not worth it. I like how easy it is to find new music with tidal. Plus I’m using a R2R dac and it doesn’t do MQA.

Ran across a new tidal searching app. It’s still needs some work but thought I’ll share it anyways.

Get the app for free on Android (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.zh.musictimetravel&hl=en&gl=US) and iOS (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/rewind-music-time-travel/id6444778869

 

[cc_rider]

I use Tidal HiFi, without MQA. Can't hear any difference at all between this and Amazon UHD, as I would expect - CD quality was designed from the start to be better than our ears can discern. As a Veteran, Tidal HiFi is only $5.99/mo, so it's cheaper than Amazon Music. Student discount is even better.

 

[Smartplug]

Even a music file get extended to 768kkhz which dac max out would be hard to tell difference between 96khz or even 44.1 for that matter. One thing I can say there’s was no wow factor like what I experienced when technology move from vhs to Blu-ray.

 

[Al Lee]

Adding audio frequencies above 20 kHz is like adding ultraviolet light signals to the media sent to a TV: You cannot see it, and the TV likely cannot reproduce it. That is why high sample rate audio does not lead to "wow" improvements as one saw going from VHS to blu ray. In that case, a tremendous amount of additional *visible* frequency information was added to the information feed to the TV.

Of course, if you still had a crappy 1970s color TV, none of that would show up on the screen, because the TV couldn't reproduce it.

As Claude Shannon proved back in the 1940s, *all* the information present in the original audio signal below 22 kHz is present in a digital sample with a frequency of twice that, like the CD standard 44.1 kHz.

Humans cannot hear frequencies above 22 kHz, even if musical instruments produce them. Violins do put out significant energy up to about 26 kHz, but laboratory tests show that humans cannot consistently distinguish music with content above 20 kHz from music without. We simply cannot hear it, as we cannot see ultraviolet light.

As for me, my max audible frequency is 16 kHz, because I am old.

If there is *any* point to all the bit rates above the 44 kHz of CD quality, it is because *DACs* have an easier time decoding the higher bit rates into the original sound. Potentially DACs have to do less work to interpolate the output voltage values between the samples, not to produce higher frequencies, but to get the audible frequencies below 20 kHz right.

This was the motivation for the 1 bit sample by 2822.4 kHz sample rate of SACDs back in the 1990s. This kind of sample was easier fro DACs of that era to turn into analogue audio output.