MQA actually tested


I got a Tidal subscription a few months ago with the hope of streaming hi res music rather than continuing to buy WAAYY overpriced files from HD tracks and the like....and while the Tidal catalogue is great, some of the Master files just seemed a bit, well, not so masterful. So I decided to listen to Master files in Tidal (full unfold) and compare them to 24/96 min FLAC that I already own, and there wasn’t a single file I owned that did not sound better in clarity and extension than the “Master” file I was comparing it to on Tidal.

I had heard a lot of thoughts from different manufacturers about MQA and just put them down as interesting but not proven since none of them offered anything but their opinion...no testing etc.

then I came across this vid (. https://youtu.be/pRjsu9-Vznc ) last night from a guy who managed to actually test MQA on Tidal using files he created and had loaded onto Tidal. VERY interesting results. First real tests I have seen of MQA and I can now see why my FLAC sounds better to me.
Might have to check out alternatives.

ukthunderace
The biggest mistake one can make when mastering is...

Making the song sound polished, but lifeless. In other words, it sounds like a recording and not like music.

In a rock song for instance, the opening cymbals should have both weight and depth. No clipping or exaggerated sharpness. And definitely no compression unless it is absolutely necessary...

A larger file does not guarantee better sound quality or listening enjoyment. IMO, .wav from CDs and DSD is where it’s at.
After examining the pro's and con's of MQA I have reached. the conclusion it is a con to extract more cash from the unwary! Excessive signal processing never results in better SQ!
@jasonbourne52
 
Excessive signal processing never results in better SQ!
BINGO!!!