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
junzhang10
252 posts
 
not until 96/24 or even DSD streaming become available.

hughp3's avatar
hughp3
75 posts
 
I just took delivery of a dCS Bartok. Full MQA is very, very good. I also have HiRez downloads from HDTracks. Same cut on TIDAL MQA sounds exactly the same as HiRez FLAC file.... really good.

Jcat femto > dcs Bartok > AR Ref 6 > MC601 monos > Magnepan 20.7
mcgal
199 posts
 
Strange to hear any MQA bashing from a cost or sound quality issue. In my case I only needed to spend $50 for the MQA license for my Aurender N10 to get full MQA. I already had Tidal CD quality, so no extra charge there and I already owned a MQA DAC, so no extra charge there. I do prefer MQA sound through Tidal over CD sound. I have never tried an MQA cd. I do like have choices.
digepix's avatar
digepix
121 posts
 
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.
erik_squires
15,629 posts
 
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.

More to discover