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
I hear way too much distortion in MQA, and also inferior attack and delay.  To me, everything nautural sounds too synthetic.  
@ mzkmxcv...how many MQA DACs have you actually HEARD?  Looking at specs and listening are two different things.  I learned many, many years ago, that just because a unit tests a certain way, does NOT mean it sounds that way.  You mentioned the DACs you've "seen", but how about hearing?

I get from your posts above that you are anti-MQA and I have no problem with that as long as you have practical application, (have actually heard) these units.

I had at least, half a dozen MQA DACs here and they all have excellent PCM performance, so...
shadorne, I totally agree.  MQA, to my ears, is inferior even to Redbook CD in every aspect.  
Mofimadness, most MQAs are from different masters than the equivalent CDs.  When I have heard both from what I know to be the same master, CD always sounds substantially better.  In addition to having to be from the same master, the levels have to both be within .1dB, or the louder files tends to be perceived as better. 
I wonder how many MQA naysayers have a Tidal subscription?

I wonder how many people subscribe to Tidal only for MQA?

One of the great things about about Tidal, is that you have the choice to listen to every MQA album as 16/44.1 too.