How many of you believe in MQA?

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. 

@Brianlucey, Thank You for your response!  Very informative and helpful 👍

Brian,

I really appreciate your insight since you are a music master engineer.

How are most recordings made.  Are they recorded in 32 bit 192 kHz to begin with and then the recording studio copies 24 bit/192 kHz or 24 bit/96 kHz to a DVD or disk that can fit the greater amount of data and copy to a lower 16 bit/44.1 kHz to fit on a standard CD.  What then does MQA do that is different if it offers an original recording let's say in 24/96?  Isn't this going to sound exactly the same as any CD you pick off the shelf of the same recording done in 24/96 and pay more for the high res recording compared to the same recording sell on the shelf that is 16/44.1?  Is this what you are trying to say?

As a rookie starting out in this hobby I am beginning to begin to understand bit rates and sample rates.  I am also having problem hearing the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit recordings.  Maybe I am deaf.  The only thing I think I am hearing when hearing 24 bit is a bit more space and dimension.  However, maybe this is similar to THE EMPORER'S NEW CLOTHS phenomenon.  

I just connected a Pro-Ject S2 DAC to my Bluesound Node 2i after Amazon launched Amazon Music Unlimited HD.  I felt maybe the DAC is better than the DAC inside the DAC inside the Bluesound.  So far, I think it might sound more harsh after adding the Pro-Ject DAC.  Wonder if the Pro-Ject DAC emphasizes highs and the Bluesound is more neutral or is it I am hearing more detail compared to the Bluesound DAC and the DAC inside my ARCAM?  I called ARCAM and they told me the DAC inside the Bluesound was better than the DAC chip they put inside my ARCAM?  He said it can process more and since it has more processors, resistors, etc. than what they can fit inside the ARCAM, it should sound better.  My thinking was then maybe the stand alone Pro-Ject DAC, which has even more things inside than perhaps the Bluesound, maybe this will sound better than the DAC inside the Bluesound.

Several dealers and manufacturers at the RMAF told me what I am listening to remember everything I am hearing is the DAC.

Not too confusing!  I wonder what you would do if you were in my shoes.  Would you just connect the Bluesound via RCA analogue to my ARCAM or would you have connected the Bluesound via digital coax to a DAC like an affordable Pro-Ject S2 DAC and connect the DAC via RCA analogue to my ARCAM.  What in your opinion sounds better.  From what I can determine is if you want to hear MQA and in a completely unfolded format, you need to just hook up the Bluesound RCA's to the ARCAM.  I have a TIDAL subscription and I wanted to take advantage of the MQA technology.  However, dealers told me to forget MQA and either add a DAC to the mix that is better than the DAC inside the Bluesound and hear 1 unfold at 24/88.2 or take out a subscription to Qobuz and be able to take advantage of some of their recordings offered in 24/96 and 24/192.

I do think MQA could be just smoke and mirrors and a way to generate a lot of revenue from multiple sources by inventing a way to fold data and then in order to completely unfold it during the streaming process, you need to purchase expensive equipment.  

I will look forward to hearing some responses to this post. I must say, I am embarrassed to ask what might be stupid questions.

Sorry for the long post.  I just need to learn what some of you experts have learned already.  Some of you are highly technical and I really am fascinated by your knowledge.

I agree with the dealer, MQA is overrated.