2. digital
  3. 143621-118455

MQA is Legit!

Ok, there is something special about MQA.  Here is my theory:  MQA=SACD.  What do I mean by this?  I mean that since there might be the "perception" it sounds better, then there is way more care put into the mastering and the recording.   Of course I have Redbook CD's that sound just as good (although they tend to be "HDCD" lol)... Bottom line:  a great recording sounds great.  I wish more labels and artists put more time into this--it's great to hear a song for the 1000th time and discover something new.  

What are your thoughts on MQA and SACD?
waltertexas
erik_squires
16,371 posts
 
Man the samples at 2L are all pretty awful in my book, not sure how you can tell the difference. All of them were universally bright and hard sounding.

If you find any 2L recordings (in any format) you find great please let me know.
aberyclark
1,359 posts
 
MQA is DEAD!! Just face it. If it were the savior of audiophilism that the stereo rags touted, all the big labels would be pumping this stuff out left and right to get in on the action. 
junzhang10
252 posts
 
not until 96/24 or even DSD streaming become available.

hughp3's avatar
hughp3
75 posts
 
I just took delivery of a dCS Bartok. Full MQA is very, very good. I also have HiRez downloads from HDTracks. Same cut on TIDAL MQA sounds exactly the same as HiRez FLAC file.... really good.

Jcat femto > dcs Bartok > AR Ref 6 > MC601 monos > Magnepan 20.7
mcgal
199 posts
 
Strange to hear any MQA bashing from a cost or sound quality issue. In my case I only needed to spend $50 for the MQA license for my Aurender N10 to get full MQA. I already had Tidal CD quality, so no extra charge there and I already owned a MQA DAC, so no extra charge there. I do prefer MQA sound through Tidal over CD sound. I have never tried an MQA cd. I do like have choices.
More to discover