MQA is Legit!

@seigen   wow...  this was a very cocky and bitter article: 
https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

In fact, the only reason I have Tidal and Roon is exactly because "I wanted to stream high fidelity recordings over the internet" --it seems the author clearly didn't consider me when he made the claim that no one wants that.

He can just go back to his MP3s and winamp blasting his altec lansings in the dorm room--i will in the meantime enjoy discovering new tracks on my evolving digital rig with great sounding MQA...

The MQA ney-sayers sound exactly like the cable ney-sayers. If you compare these groups, they put down the people that can hear a difference. They state so-called facts, charts, expert comments, and whatever else they can find to support their cause. I don’t give a sh$# about so called experts opinions, charts, etc..., listen with your own 2 ears! If you don’t have good ears or a good quality system, then you probably won’t hear a difference.

Well, in my case I tried it, and can't hear a difference. What's more, the consensus of the SF Audiophile society that I talked to was the same. No one could hear anything.

The glowing positive press aside, it didn't make things better in such a way I'd shell out a single dollar for.

Further, at least with the Mytek Brooklyn DAC I used, the apodizing filter removed a lot of air and sparkle from the music, so I switched to a different one which forced me to disable MQA. Never regretted it.

Best,
E

Well, in my case I tried it, and can’t hear a difference. What’s more, the consensus of the SF Audiophile society that I talked to was the same. No one could hear anything.

I find this astonishing. I wonder if most setups do not preserve phase accuracy? Certainly passive crossovers usually have serious phase issues.

On my setup, the difference is quite audible when doing A to B. Pick a random track and ask me if it is MQA or not and I would not be able to say. However A and B comparisons are quite easy once you know what to listen for.

The third easiest way to hear the difference is that MQA is slightly hotter or louder. The MQA apodizing filter tends to compress transients. Basically MQA is a mild form of CD loudness wars. This loudness compression trick is what gives the impression that MQA extracts more transient detail. Smoke and mirrors is what MQA is all about. If there were real benefits (rather than hand waving) then the technical details would not be so carefully hidden from public scrutiny. 

Compare MQA lack of transparency to the transparency regarding SACD and the CD formats. The differenc is Sony did not need to hide technical details because SACD and CD weren’t all “smoke and mirrors”.

MQA is one of the largest, most extensive, and elaborate "hustles" ever to be foisted upon the high-end community and those interested in quality music reproduction systems and it is a trojan horse for DRM!

The third easiest way to hear the difference is that MQA is slightly hotter or louder. The MQA apodizing filter tends to compress transients.

This part I heard, but since I was able to switch it off with non MQA I attributed it to the filter and not to MQA itself.

I heard it more as a softening of transients and removing of space.

Whatever difference I heard with MQA, none of it was worth money. I would not pay a premium for it. My feelings are pretty close to what I later would read from PS Audio:

https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/mqa-thoughts/


Best,


E