2. digital
  3. 143621-118455

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
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,467 posts
 
MQA introduces a bunch of distortion. I have not heard a single MQA file that is an improvement on the original file. Phase distortion from minimum phase filtering is one issue. The second issue is apodizing filtering (loss of resolution).
dgarretson
2,588 posts
 
Another angle on this is that MQA may ensure that no watermarking, with attendant deterioration of SQ, is applied to MQA downloads or streams.
waltertexas OP
26 posts
 
@shadorne  interesting...  i haven't compared MQA to hi-res directly, but the latest tracks released on MQA native are really well done.  One album I have, the Doors, does not sound good on ANY digital format, period.  Maybe my claim is only valid for tracks and remasters over the last few years... perhaps a hi-fi Renaissance??
Post removed 
mahler123
3,032 posts
 
I am not sure that I understand the original point here.  Is the OP saying that MQA files tend to sound better because they have been carefully remastered, and not necessarily due to any technological improvement?  If that is the case, I don’t know how to assess the merits of that claim, although I haven’t been overly impressed by the MQA that I’ve heard
More to discover