How many of you believe in MQA?

I added a Pro-Ject S2 DAC to my Bluesound Node 2i yesterday and I am not sure I like the new sound.  I seems to sound brighter and produces more bass.  I think the bass is more punchy and the highs are brighter.  To me, it sounds harsher, unless I am hearing some of the detail I have not been hearing for the past 3 1/2 years.  I thought the Bluesound connected RCA (analogue) to my ARCAM sounded really good.  I think it might have sounded less harsh.

According to the Pro-Ject specifications, it says it can do MQA.  So, if that is the case, why did the dealer tell me when I connect the Bluesound digital coax to the Pro-Ject DAC and then RCA's to the back of my ARCAM I will not be hearing the complete unfold of MQA.  If that is the case, I will then hear one unfold and the highest resolution I will hear then will be 24 bit/88.2 kHz.  Why if the Pro-Ject is rated as MQA certified wouldn't MQA be passed through completely unfolded to my ARCAM.  This sure is confusing for someone like myself who is new to this hobby.  Maybe someone could explain this to me so I can understand.  So far, no one has been able to do so.

With Amazon Music Unlimited HD launching 2 days ago, I thought I would try adding a DAC so I could hear more songs 24/192, as it appears they offer more 24 bit albums than what TIDAL is offering.  For example, a Herbie Hancock album offered by TIDAL offers this album in CD quality (16/44.1) and the same album offered by Amazon Music is in 24/192.  If this is the case, why then be concerned with MQA?  What is the difference between listening to a FLAC recording done in 24/192 and the same recording done in MQA 24/192?  What would MQA do to that same recording to make it sound different?

My experience with MQA was through a PS Audio DirectStream Jr and was entirely positive. Some tracks I am very familiar with over decades sounded better than I had ever heard them, and I noticed the improvement without knowing they were MQA tracks and actually I didn't even know what MQA was at that point. I just noticed they sounded amazing with my (then) new Tidal subscription and started digging further to figure out why.

What I can tell you after thoroughly educating myself about MQA and digital audio in general is that nearly everything I see people write online is wrong. Most people have no concept of time resolution at all and harp on and on about frequency response, which is basically a non-issue in modern audio (modern including the last several decades) and something the human ear is far less sensitive to than time. You can take all the measurements you want but that doesn't tell you how the human ear perceives sound, just like anyone can show you a 1985 CD player measures better in every way than a record player, but lots of people think it sounds a lot worse. Alas, this MQA thing has gotten totally out of hand and people spew so much vitriol that it's become the right wing versus left wing argument of the audio world. Everyone could do well to take a deep breath and actually learn a little about what Bob Stuart has done for audio reproduction over the past 30 years before slandering everything involving the letters M, Q, and A.

That said, the simple answer to your question is you just have to listen to it. Audio is like food - there is no best and no one can tell you if what they like better is something you will like better. Try just using the BlueSound as a DAC for MQA and compare the same tracks with non-MQA versions. If you like MQA better, great, go for it. If not, don't. I'm not going to tell you vanilla ice cream is horrible and a scam because I like chocolate better. I wish people could see different file formats that way and stop telling everyone else what's good for them.

Larry5729,

“I thought the Bluesound connected RCA (analogue) to my ARCAM sounded really good. I think it might have sounded less harsh”

... this is because you prefer the dac in the bluesound over the dac in the pro-ject.

Have you even read anyones response on this thread that you started?

MQA shows u more holography and more of the room in which the recording took place. All the technical bla bla bla does not matter to me, what matters is what I hear!

The narcissism in many listeners here is disappointing

I’m a full time, credential, music Mastering Engineer.  MQA is an intrusion on artist approved work to make ex Meridan DVD staff money and it’s running a 50 million GBP debt per the last public filing I read.

It’s not a lossless process.  It’s not an upgrade as there is no upgrade over the sample rate of any mastering session.  If it “sounds better” to you that’s fine.  But that’s because the subtle harmonic distortions of the codec float your subjective boat. A cable or speaker alter sound subjectively and so does MQA.  To me however, it’s ruining my work, the client approved work.  It’s a travesty built on greed and lies. 

Background concepts : 

192 is not inherently superior to 96 is not superior to 44.1. This is a marketing myth. AD or DA is clock, chip, analog parts and filter.  Sample rate is not the primary factor in quality.  And engineers adjust each session for the subjectively best result given the audio chain. 

MQA at a base rate of 44.1 or 48 is also not superior to the source rate if in fact it was above those rates.  It’s not possible to upgrade mastered PCM.  Anything that alters is going backwards. Else we would have done it in mastering. Modern PCM DA can be amazing.  I use Bricasti M1 SE.  with many other great options out there to suit your taste. 

MQA is CERTAINLY NOT mastering engineer authenticated, their calling card is a sham, as they are bulk processing back catalogues to create a market.  That should be all you need to know if you’re a person of principle. 

It’s bad form all around.  Get the native sample rate file of the mastering session and focus on your room. 

Most audiophiles have playback rooms rooms that are by far the weakest link in their chain.  By far.