MQA is Legit!

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.

Im not sure I have ever heard the MQA people say that it actually sounds better then CD.....Is not the primary function of MQA to deliver CD quality at a lower file size than other formats? Just wondering as my understanding of it is quite limited....

@jethro1964...

Not sure if "better" is the correct word? These were taken from the MQA website:

"MQA reveals every detail of the original recording."

"MQA captures 100% of the original studio performance. It then cleverly adapts to deliver the highest quality playback your product can support."

So the way that I read that, is that, it is supposed to sound better?

Master Quality Authentication

@ robelvick

Exactly!  I only subscribe to Tidal for MQA :)  I hear a big (positive) difference.

My point is that MQA and Redbook CD will sound identical for a given recording when played back through equivalent gear... I think that tracks that are offered up via Tidal in MQA have more to give as they tend to be better mastered and delivered via streaming in a very high quality (timing-wise and resolution) way.  In other words, i dont care much to stream non-MQA as it tends to sound too "thin".  

Bottom line: MQA=lossless reproduction @ smaller footprint + more quality (from an audiophile perspective) in production.

It is interesting how passionate this discussion has become though :)