Amazon UHD vs Tidal MQA

[Al Lee]

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?

Since MQA is a lossy compression, it is possible for it to "color" the sound, doing the equivalent of applying a graphic equalizer to the music. You may like what MQA has done to the music, but that may not be because it is a more accurate reproduction of the original recording. It just modifies the frequency response in a way you like.

In my own testing A/B testing of high bit rate recording vs. CD quality, admittedly on a top of the Linn Klimax Organik DAC DSM, I cannot consistently hear a difference for either Qobuz high bit rate or Amazon vs CD quality. The Linn may simply be so good at extracting all the information present in the 44 kHz/16 bit recording, there is not much gain to be had by feeding it higher bit rates.

The thing I most frequently hear is the high bit rate versions are louder. Hence I have to turn up and down the amp as I go back and forth between recording with different sampling rates in order not to be simply finding I can hear a lot more detail when I play the music louder

 

[Pcryan5]

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.

Thanks for this Al. My learning for the day.

 

[Smartplug]

Anything above 44.1khz, I find the music soft and not realistic as I would hope for. This is why I prefer music on 44.1khz.

 

[Smartplug]

I’m not sure if those high resolution music above 44.1 are just up sampling and not native resolution the way recorded on studio.

 

[Sejonesy]

So I was having problems streaming from Wiim to Cambridge audio DAC magic 100 to Klipsch the sixes and switched to optical. No issues now. I am testing Amazon HD , QobuZ and Tidal. I think they all sound fine, but heavy rock tracks are just plain bad. Example; Lithium from Nirvana sound so good with vocal ma drums, bass, but when heavy guitar kicks in it is almost unlistenable. Any ideas on what is going on?

 

[Sejonesy]

No one else has compared Tidal MQA to Amazon UHD?

Amazon better in my opinion

 

[Klipscher]

So I was having problems streaming from Wiim to Cambridge audio DAC magic 100 to Klipsch the sixes and switched to optical. No issues now. I am testing Amazon HD , QobuZ and Tidal. I think they all sound fine, but heavy rock tracks are just plain bad. Example; Lithium from Nirvana sound so good with vocal ma drums, bass, but when heavy guitar kicks in it is almost unlistenable. Any ideas on what is going on?

Are you using the WiiM Dac or the Cambridge Dac?

 

[Sejonesy]

Wiim to Cambridge via optical Cambridge to Klipsch via rca to 3.5. Have a couple BIC Acoustech subs as well. Songs without distorted guitars sound great, Tom Petty, Pink Floyd etc. The heavy stuff is bad.

 

[Mr Ee]

So I was having problems streaming from Wiim to Cambridge audio DAC magic 100 to Klipsch the sixes and switched to optical. No issues now. I am testing Amazon HD , QobuZ and Tidal. I think they all sound fine, but heavy rock tracks are just plain bad. Example; Lithium from Nirvana sound so good with vocal ma drums, bass, but when heavy guitar kicks in it is almost unlistenable. Any ideas on what is going on?

By issues, I took that to mean it sounded bad, from your other posts.
I think you used the word underwhelmed earlier somewhere, and I was wondering compared to what, and what coax cable you were using.
My understanding of the original setup was wiim coax out to CA dac, then rca out to 3.5mm into sixes, 'cos you had tv optical into the ca dac already.

I'm assuming you switched from coax out to optical out of the wiim into the cambridge, not into the sixes directly..
If that's sounding better already then it implies the coax cable was probably to blame...

I'd be quite surprised if the wiim digital output itself was the issue, especially if you've got eq off / fixed volume on.
Do you have another digital source, for example a cd player, that you can connect to the ca dac to see if you have the same issues when not using the wiim?

Edit. Sorry - I took so long to reply that you've already replied!

 

[Sejonesy]

You correct on my initial setup and I do think it had to do with the coax cable. You are correct, that I switched to optical from the WIIM to DAC and just went optical straight from tv to the sixes while keeping rca to 3.5 to the speakers from the DAC. I was also having some problems with Tidal connect. That problem is better now as well. I will try to play something from a cd player to DAC and see what I get. Great idea. I listen to music pretty loud and maybe I am stressing the equipment. Heavy guitars sound fine when I am just streaming a YouTube video or using the Amazon app from the TV, but not so much while streaming through the Wiim setup. I am just using the optical cable that came with the Wiim. Are there differences using a higher quality optical cable or should the included one suffice?

Edit: I was using an Ethereal Coax Digital Cable from Crutchfield. https://www.crutchfield.com/p_120ASD2006/Ethereal-Coax-Digital-Cable-6-feet.html

I am going to try this coax again tomorrow since I now don’t have the TV going through the DAC. That may not matter, but initial results are better with just using the WIIM with the DAC

 

[Mr Ee]

"Are there differences using a higher quality optical cable or should the included one suffice?"
Can of worms. Open.

Well, some have found that supposedly higher quality (e.g. named brand, more expensive) optical cables only work up to 96 khz, and that the wiim supplied one does work at 192khz.
Some have found that coiling an optical cable too tightly causes issues.
Some will undoubtably say that their after market cables sound better, some that it makes no difference; and I'm not going to disagree with any of them

My personal experience is with analog rca cables, originally from my cd player to my analog amp, but more recently even used in a 'digital' context, e.g. between my heos and bluesound node to their respective dacs, and I would definitely say that there are quite easily discernable differences between some, not so much between others.
You might also want to consider what effect the rca to 3.5mm cable is having.

The trouble with all that is that you either need to borrow some cables off friends, or find a dealer who will let you try (buy and return) cables to see for yourself.

 

[kevinek]

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.

Man You are mixing two things. 44.1kHz in CD audio is sampling frequency not sound wave length.

 

[Mr Ee]

I'm not sure that this thread, or even this forum, is the place to get into a 'debate' about hi res music, signal processing theory, low pass filter steepness etc.etc.
I've seen it get ugly elsewhere...
The only potential upside is that it might make some do proper research into the topic rather than believing everything they read on the internet...

We have what we have, for better or worse, for benefit or marketing - music available to stream at up to 192/24, which the wiim supports.

To get back on track, I've used both Amazon (alexacast) and Tidal (just basic hifi, tidal connect) to a wiim mini, and I bet I wouldn't be able to consistently and blindly tell the difference between a 192 amazon version vs the 44 tidal one.
But maybe that's 'cos I listen to music to enjoy it, not analyse it.

 

[dudu]

Man You are mixing two things. 44.1kHz in CD audio is sampling frequency not sound wave length.

Not really when I got it right. He only states that a sampling rate of 44 kHz is sufficient to digitise audible frequencies up to 22 kHz and humans aren't able to hear frequencies above 22 kHz.
But it is also said that these high frequencies are relevant for music ...

 

[Sejonesy]

"Are there differences using a higher quality optical cable or should the included one suffice?"
Can of worms. Open.

Well, some have found that supposedly higher quality (e.g. named brand, more expensive) optical cables only work up to 96 khz, and that the wiim supplied one does work at 192khz.
Some have found that coiling an optical cable too tightly causes issues.
Some will undoubtably say that their after market cables sound better, some that it makes no difference; and I'm not going to disagree with any of them

My personal experience is with analog rca cables, originally from my cd player to my analog amp, but more recently even used in a 'digital' context, e.g. between my heos and bluesound node to their respective dacs, and I would definitely say that there are quite easily discernable differences between some, not so much between others.
You might also want to consider what effect the rca to 3.5mm cable is having.

The trouble with all that is that you either need to borrow some cables off friends, or find a dealer who will let you try (buy and return) cables to see for yourself.

Mr. Ee , you are the man. It appears my issue was with the rca to 3.5. I am up and running with just rca from DAC to Klipsch and everything is sounding great! Just switched the turntable to rca to 3,5 and that is sounding fine Thanks for following up and being patient with me. Now just having fun comparing Amazon HD, Tidal and Qobuz. Tidal in last place upon initial listening!

 

[Al Lee]

Not really when I got it right. He only states that a sampling rate of 44 kHz is sufficient to digitise audible frequencies up to 22 kHz and humans aren't able to hear frequencies above 22 kHz.
But it is also said that these high frequencies are relevant for music ...

First sentence is correct. Second sentence confuses me, unless you mean higher sample rates could be relevant for *DAC* (digital to analogue converter) performance, so thus could impact the music one hears.

 

[Al Lee]

Man You are mixing two things. 44.1kHz in CD audio is sampling frequency not sound wave length.

Um no. I have a PhD in physics, and worked for years digitizing analog signals at high speed in physics research. I understand the difference between sampling frequency and audio frequency or wave length.

Claude Shannon at Bell Labs, father of information theory, in the 1940s showed all the information content in an audio signal from 0 Hz to 20 kHz is captured by a digital sampling with a rate of 40 kHz or higher. This factor of 2X is known as the Nyquist frequency.

Nyquist frequency - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For people who are curious what maximum frequency they can hear, I recommend playing the following file through a system capable of reproducing 20 kHz frequency audio. The tones are all equally loud (same amplitude) but you will find it gets hard to hear the last 6 seconds, which are tones between 13 kHz and 20 kHz.

 

[kevinek]

It is not that simple because part of that is felt also by our body not ears. That is why everyone feels/hears music in their own way. And that is why theoreticaly ideal mp3 (even 320kbps) are poor for us.

 

[Al Lee]

I have been doing A/B testing, though not blinded, through my system, which is a Wiim Pro connected over optical (S/PDIF or Toslink) to a Linn Klimax/2 upgraded to the Organik DAC DSM (digital streamer), a D'Agostino Momentum MxV S250 stereo amp, Wilson Audio Sasha W/P floor standing speakers, and a JL Audio Fathom f113v2 powered subwoofer.

The Linn DSM can play streams from Qobuz directly at high resolution, Tidal at CD quality only, and also will take Airplay/2 input directly. These capabilities were used in my testing, though I did not notice any difference when I played Qobuz at hi rez directly on the Linn or when the stream was passed from the Wiim over optical to the Linn.

I compared:
44.1 kHz/16 bit FLAC recordings of my CDs streamed from Minimserver media server on the Linn DSM
44.1 kHz/16 bit Tidal recordings that are not unfolded on Linn DSM
44.1 kHz/16 bit Qobuz recordings over Airplay (maybe downsampled from 96 or 192 kHz) on Linn DSM
96 kHz/24 bit or 192 kHz/24 bit Amazon recordings via Wiim Pro
96 kHz/24 bit or 192 kHz/24 bit Qobuz recordings on Linn DSM
96 kHz/24 bit Tidal one unfolding via Wiim Pro

About 15 years ago, I heard clear differences between an SACD recording of "Come Away with Me" by Nora Jones and the CD. The differences was in the "atmospherics" - high frequency cues of echos in the room, etc. This was also where I heard the biggest differences when comparing audio amplifiers, DACs, and speakers, in A/B testing.

So I sought out tracks that have this characteristic. One album that is good for this is "Paradise Valley" by John Mayer. Both the first track, "Wildfire", and the eighth, also confusingly called "Wildfire", start with atmospherics: people talking in a bar and outdoor sounds of crickets. the tracks on "Come Away with Me", "Don't Know Why" and "Seven Years" also have subtle echos and spacial sounds in the piano, percussion and guitar.

I cranked up the volume to where the loudest tones were about 85 dB, measured with "decibel meter" on my iPhone at my listening location. 85 dB is between food blender and motorcycle in loudness; my wife wasn't home.

I tried to find albums that weren't remixed/remastered between the versions I was comparing, since remixing/mastering can substantially change how an album sounds. For example, "Come Away With Me" was remixed/remastered in 2022, long after I bought my CD. This is noticeable on the third track, where the bass is a little sharper, with higher frequency fret noise more prominent.

My conclusion:

On the John Mayer tracks I get the sense that I am hearing more "air", more of the room, in the higher bit rate recordings, with no substantial difference between Qobuz, Tidal unfolded, and Amazon. However, if I go back and listen again to the 44.1 kHz/16 bit recordings, all the sounds seem to be there as well, so maybe I am just paying more attention when listening to high res.

On the Norah Jones tracks, I can't hear any difference. Even playing the unfolded master 96 kHz/24 bit version vs. the 44.1 kHz/16 bit (CD) version of "Come Away With Me", both are available on Tidal, I hear no difference, no matter the track. The Qobuz and Amazon tracks also sound basically the same. *Maybe* the track "Come Away With Me" the Amazon 96 kHz/24 bit and Qobuz 192 kHz/24 bit has a little more of that sense of the room, but I am not sure I could identify this definitively in a *blind* A/B test.

The new mix of "Come Away with Me" is clearly better, however, and I could spot it blind.

What I do take away from this is I need to play my music louder on a regular basis, if I really want to hear all that is there, and fully engage with the music.

 

[Mr Ee]

I need to play my music louder on a regular basis

I, too, have that pesky partner problem!