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
It my be legit but the first unfold to 24/88.2 or 96 sounds better to me. I have an MQA dac and I guess there's more detail but tone wise it sounds washed out. I'll take musical over detailed any day.
Strange to hear any MQA bashing from a cost or sound quality issue.


But that's exactly how any new feature gets evaluated: Cost vs. value.

I always seem to agree with shadorne, that must represent the lack of an original opinion on my part. 

Has anyone posted the MQA patent yet in this thread? In contrast to the title of the patent, it is a lossy compression method, although there may be some reasons why the codec may be better for listening to some music files... I agree with the prevailing sentiment that paying attention to the mastering makes sense for all file formats.

I believe this is the published patent: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/2f/bc/4b/f9595654c743bb/US9548055.pdf

Cheers - Gerry

Tidal 2L Nordic Sound MQA Sampler at 352khz/24bit, But most Tidal MQAs are in 96/24 and 88/24. Since you PC Tidal can do 1st unfold MQA to 96/24 and 88/24. You don't need a MQA DAC. The SQ might be best by using a MQA DAC.