2. misc-audio
  3. 181571-179096

Why is everyone so down on MQA?

Ok. MQA is a little bit complicated to understand without doing a little research. First of all: MQA is not technically a lossy format. The way it works is very unique. The original master tape (Holy grail of SQ) is folded or compressed into a smaller format. It is later unfolded through a process I don’t claim to understand. The fully processed final version is lossless! It is the song version from the original master tape. FYI, original master tapes are usually the best sounding, they are also the truest version of any song- they are painstakingly produced along with the artist in the studio during the recording process. Ask anyone, they are the real deal. For some reason most people hate the sound quality! One caveat, the folding/unfolding process is usually carried out at one time by a dac. But some dacs only compress and do not unfold….I think Meridian should explain dac/ streamer compatibility issue. When your hardware supports the single step the sound quality is pretty amazing. They should have explained in more detail what the format is all about.

128x128walkenfan2013
Post removed 
edcyn
1,876 posts
 

All's fair in love, war and listening. Do what your ears tell you to. And if you eventually reassess your choice, let it happen...unless, of course the change will make you go bankrupt.

ghdprentice
6,440 posts
 

MQA was a great idea that, I think it just came too late. ten years earlier it would have been a huge hit. Bandwidth is now cheap. It does not sound terrible it sounds great… but higher resolution files are now common. Folks around here like to get all emotional if they can find a way to be disappointed or refute a claim.

pedroeb
493 posts
 

You guys crack me up!

So the theory proves it must sound dreadful.

The truth is it's both good and bad. Extremely bad in the recording studio, and particularly good for the end listener. Perhaps with one caveat; only for those that don't bother with hi-res files or streaming and prefer CDs. In that regard, it edges out SACD by a small margin.

MQA files are an absurd proposition, and the only reason for MQA to exist is for MQA-CDs. The number of MQA-CD releases is disappointing (about 700). MQA comes into it's own with classical music, so it's understandable that style occupies most releases.

petaluman
140 posts
 

My understanding is that MQA is a successor to HDCD.  HDCD was originally developed as attempt to add resolution above 44.1k on CDs.  Higher frequency information is encoded (hopefully inaudibly on non-HDCD compliant devices) into the CD data, and removed, decoded & added back to the 44.1k data in the DAC.

It made some sense then, but we're not limited to CD Redbook anymore and often have access to even higher rez files.  Now it just seems like marketing to the gullible.

More to discover