How Is MQA Fareing?

To JazzDC: I don't understand your comment about it not being good that MQA could remove the step where you adjusted recording mixes so they would sound good in a car. Isn't that exactly what would benefit, at least, audiophiles? Adjusting the mix to sound good in a car would be unlikely to make a recording sound more like the original event on a high end home system. Maybe I'm missing your point...

This week I noticed that MQA content from Universal Music has been added to Tidal.
I have a PS Audio DirectStream DAC, which I love, but MQA sounds dull when output to the DAC, even when I have Tidal doing the unfolding...so I bought a Mytek Brooklyn DAC just for streaming Tidal MQA, and with many (but not all) MQA mastered albums the sound is excellent.  I especially noticed how well recorded acoustic piano, ride cymbals and well recorded vocals sound more "realistic".
My DirectStream DAC coupled with my DirectStream transport with most SACDs and many "regular" CDs sound excellent as well, in many cases, sound better than the MQA remasters.
So, I think the "jury's out" on MQA and its ultimate commercial success.

@ejr1953 

I was thinking about purchasing the Brooklyn DAC to realize the true potential of MQA recordings. 

Would you say, a well recorded MQA recording provides substantial audible upgrade with Brooklyn DAC over their 16bit/44.1kHz counterpart on Tidal HiFi.  One such album is Stepping Out by Diana Krall. The 'Body and Soul' and 'Jimmie' tracks are absolute joy! 

I own a ARC DAC9 and both MQA and Tidal HiFi sounds pretty darn good. I do hear bit more depth and clarity in upsample (384kHz) mode when I am listening to a well recorded album or a track. FYI, DAC9 does not have MQA decoding on board. 

Lalitk,

I would say "yes" to the question of whether a well mastered MQA version sounds "better" than a previously mastered CD quality version might sound, not all the time, but more times than not.

When well mastered, with MQA I find the bass is better defined, vocals sound more "analog" as do acoustic instruments (particularly well recorded piano), and as a former rock and roll drummer, the "timbre" of striking a ride cymbal gives you a visceral experience that I haven't heard from "regular" CDs.

I also don't think the major benefit from MQA is the "unfolding" into a higher resolution file, though that's definitely a bonus.  I feel the major benefit is the "deblurring" that only full end-to-end MQA decoding offers, only from an MQA DAC.  There are some MQA albums that report they are CD quality (where the DAC reports they are 44.1/16bit) but the "deblurring" makes for a sound which is not "edgy", as some PCM can sound.

The DAC chip in the Brooklyn is very good, but not what my PS Audio DirectStream DAC offers (at three times the price, I might add), but when listening to MQA thru the Brooklyn, I'd say the sound quality is comparable to the DirectStream DAC playing "regular" CD quality, oftentimes superior.

ejr1953,

I appreciate your candid feedback. I can totally relate to above as I experience these very same attributes while listening to my 24bit/192kHz downloads vs. Tidal HiFi. I must add, as good as Tidal HiFi is on 16bit/44.1kHz recordings, high res files are just so much better especially when your system is capable of revealing every last ounce of detail.

I don't wanna continue buying high res downloads so I will give Brooklyn a try and hopefully it’s a keeper in my system.

Cheers!