@willemj
While I agree that MQA is still not quite solidified as 'better', some of the information in that link completely misses the point of MQA in my opinion. It is not necessarily a replacement for hi-res and a good DAC, but a replacement for lower quality internet streams.
I get kind of annoyed when I read comparisons of how MQA is no different than standard hi-res or things like that. Of course it's not, when you get up to that level of resolution any differences are splitting hairs anyway. That holds true for MQA vs existing hi-res as well as between different hi-res formats.
The comparison that people should be making, which is the purpose of MQA to begin with, is, "does it sound better than a flac stream over tidal". There are also a lot of people who choose not to stream flac because they cant hear a difference between 320 and flac. So another relevant question is, "does MQA sound better than 320k"?
So if MQA sounds no different than hi-res as is stated in your link, and hi-res is miles better than 320K (which I think we can all agree on), then by induction MQA will sound way better than 320K.
And if it does sound way better then 320k, then 20 dollars a month get you access to an incredible number of hi-res files and the cost of entry for your component is.....600 dollars.
If you already have all the files and the DACs and the gear, then yes, it might not make sense to get an additional MQA component. But that person is not really the market here. Reviewers having an existing hi-res setup concluding that MQA makes no sense are doing a bit of disservice to new hifi-ers that are starting to build a system for the first time in my opinion.
I just don't see how it makes sense to not go MQA if the plan is to stream tidal hifi...and especially considering that an MQA component will also let you do everything a non-MQA component will.
While I agree that MQA is still not quite solidified as 'better', some of the information in that link completely misses the point of MQA in my opinion. It is not necessarily a replacement for hi-res and a good DAC, but a replacement for lower quality internet streams.
I get kind of annoyed when I read comparisons of how MQA is no different than standard hi-res or things like that. Of course it's not, when you get up to that level of resolution any differences are splitting hairs anyway. That holds true for MQA vs existing hi-res as well as between different hi-res formats.
The comparison that people should be making, which is the purpose of MQA to begin with, is, "does it sound better than a flac stream over tidal". There are also a lot of people who choose not to stream flac because they cant hear a difference between 320 and flac. So another relevant question is, "does MQA sound better than 320k"?
So if MQA sounds no different than hi-res as is stated in your link, and hi-res is miles better than 320K (which I think we can all agree on), then by induction MQA will sound way better than 320K.
And if it does sound way better then 320k, then 20 dollars a month get you access to an incredible number of hi-res files and the cost of entry for your component is.....600 dollars.
If you already have all the files and the DACs and the gear, then yes, it might not make sense to get an additional MQA component. But that person is not really the market here. Reviewers having an existing hi-res setup concluding that MQA makes no sense are doing a bit of disservice to new hifi-ers that are starting to build a system for the first time in my opinion.
I just don't see how it makes sense to not go MQA if the plan is to stream tidal hifi...and especially considering that an MQA component will also let you do everything a non-MQA component will.
