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
user_name
11 posts
 
MQA is unique way to compress files with the least amount quality loss.  It is the best format to keeping the cost of broadband down.  A better solution is to not compress files at all and have the streaming companies pony up to the cost of greater broadband.  Hulu, Netflix and others do just that and that is why you can watch 4k streaming videos.
teflonscoundrel
14 posts
 
In my blind comparisons of a number of songs via Tidal using a PS Audio DSJ, Hegel H300 & Wilson Sabrina speakers I either preferred the CD files (75%) or heard no difference (25%).

Based on listening I see no benefits to using MQA so I will be sticking with proven, open digital file technologies.

waltertexas OP
26 posts
 
Ok.. I'm coming back to this after a good time away and figuring it out.  What I've concluded is this:  anyone who put in the effort to release a hi res MQA is proud of the mastering... uncompressed, well done mastering.  Less than MQA is "commercial grade music"... if anyone put thought into the format, it appears they care about the mastering and it is simply well recorded.  In other words, if it wasnt released in MQA, then its loud and compressed and will pretty much suck in any format (from an audiophile perspective).  If it was released in MQA, then even a redbox CD version (played through a good player) will sound just as good.  
More to discover