MQA is Legit!
I'm not opting for MQA. I know, I have 7,000 78s, 7,000 CDs and 25,000 LPs. However, I agree with the comment a well remastered CD beats a bad LP of the same. Often they are neck and neck. LPs can have a more ethereal, open quality but CDs can be just as musically viable. Electrical 78s often have a visceral, dynamic, tonally rich quality with one take performances that astound. Well, in my high end system (for decades I suffered from a lack of dynamic contrast with electrostat speakers or some other deficiency). I skipped cassettes and 8 track and haven't ventured into SACD although I have heard some fantastic remasterings lately in Blu-ray. I'll skip MQA. Especially if there is a built-in filter which negatively impacts CD playback. |
And let's not forget MQA's biggest fail: It is a pretty lossy compression scheme. https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa Just thought you should all know when I write stuff I usually have the receipts to back it. :-) Best, E |
When it comes to CD quality, it is really based on how the CD was recorded. For example; -AAD- analog recording, analog mixing, digital transfer -ADD- analog recording, digital mixing, digital transfer -DDD- Digital recording, digital mixing, digital transfer All things being equal, the more D’s the better the recording and sound. MQA takes it another step further in the digital form to produce the best Web base sound. Nothing compares in my opinion. Now when you talk about the purest recordings, I feel that Albums and DAT’s sound the best. |
