I should have posted my experience so far. I compared the 96/24 and MQA tracks for the two songs uner this listing at
www.2L.no/hires
Vivaldi: Recitative and Aria from Cantata RV 679, "Che giova il sospirar, povero core"
Tone Wik & Barokkanerne (period instruments)
I chose 96/24 and MQA because (for each song) they were roughly the same byte size. I used my streamer to let me switch back and forth pretty quickly between tracks.
Honestly the biggest problem was just the treble. Ugh, very hard for me to listen to. It was congested and microphones were placed too close to the sources for me Still, I could hear NO difference at all in the two formats.
So far I agree with Peter McGowan of PS Audio that it’s value, if any, is "meh"
I plan to listen to better tracks, but part of the problem is, the best MQA examples are going to have to be remixes, so it's almost impossible to do an apples to apples comparison and know where changes (if any) are coming from. The reason is that MQA works best when you go back to the multitrack masters, and separately de-blur (and I use the term for lack of knowing if it does anything) each track, then remix. Well, most engineers don't take such careful notes, or settings that they can precisely reproduce their choices again and again, especially when they are making dozens of changes on the fly in an hour. It is possible that a mix-down tool could keep track of all this, but I haven't heard of such being used.
Best,
Erik
www.2L.no/hires
Vivaldi: Recitative and Aria from Cantata RV 679, "Che giova il sospirar, povero core"
Tone Wik & Barokkanerne (period instruments)
I chose 96/24 and MQA because (for each song) they were roughly the same byte size. I used my streamer to let me switch back and forth pretty quickly between tracks.
Honestly the biggest problem was just the treble. Ugh, very hard for me to listen to. It was congested and microphones were placed too close to the sources for me Still, I could hear NO difference at all in the two formats.
So far I agree with Peter McGowan of PS Audio that it’s value, if any, is "meh"
I plan to listen to better tracks, but part of the problem is, the best MQA examples are going to have to be remixes, so it's almost impossible to do an apples to apples comparison and know where changes (if any) are coming from. The reason is that MQA works best when you go back to the multitrack masters, and separately de-blur (and I use the term for lack of knowing if it does anything) each track, then remix. Well, most engineers don't take such careful notes, or settings that they can precisely reproduce their choices again and again, especially when they are making dozens of changes on the fly in an hour. It is possible that a mix-down tool could keep track of all this, but I haven't heard of such being used.
Best,
Erik