Nice MQA discussion

CA is strong on self promotion. It pretends to be technically superior to other sites but I find the proficiency of Chris and his cohorts to be poor at best and the site has a heavy promotional orientation(sell,sell, sell). CA happens to be pretty much correct on MQA but that doesn’t make it accurate in all other aspects - so be careful - they tend to give their reviewed products high ratings (like most for profit sites) and have zero technical competence (no equivalent to Stereophile JA to test stuff).

Thanks for the link to the CA article.  Very well done and informative.

I have had MQA here in my main system for over a year.  Using Tidal only, I have done numerous comparisons between MQA and non-MQA streaming material.

Sorry, but what I hear is that almost every "Master" track sounds better than it's equivalent non-encoded MQA  track.  I've had 10-12 different people listen and give me their comments.  Most were not audiophiles, but all were music lovers.  So far, everyone who has listened, has also preferred the MQA track.

IMHO, most of the MQA nay-sayers that I have run into, have either never heard it at all or only under show type conditions.

Bottom line with me is that I hear no degradation using MQA and thoroughly enjoy the sonic "benefits"...  YMMV

@mofimadness 


I often prefer Masters versions on Tidal also.

Like SACD - the masters used on MQA tracks can be better than the heavier compressed CD equivalent alternative. This is the benefit of a better master and not related to the MQA technology itself.

This is the benefit of a better master and not related to the MQA technology itself.

Says who?  Is this just your "assumption" or an actual fact?  And if a fact, where did you get this information?

Also, isn't the "Master" tag on the Tidal/MQA track what makes it a "Master MQA" track?  I don't know how you would ever know if the track sounded "better"  because it was just a better mastered 16/44.1 track or if MQA actually makes it better.

@shadorne ...If I'm reading/understanding you right, you are adding a THIRD variable to the mix.

1.  Standard CD 16/44.1 track
2.  Standard CD 16/44.1 track (Better Master)
3.  MQA track

Not sure if this quite right, but that's just me...

@mofimadness

The MQA process also includes a filter which will slightly change the sound even on the same master (an especially bad type of filter - minimum phase - which changes the sound audibly). Perhaps the audible filter is what you prefer. There is no magic in filtering the sound. Anyone can do this now with digital pro tools. This is not special technology just more hand waving from the promoters of MQA...of course they claim their filter is “special” and an improvement...