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
asonbourne52"After examining the pro's and con's of MQA I have reached. the conclusion it is a con"

That something is not to your taste, preference, or style does not make it a con, fraud or snake-oil.
I have a MQA CD player and the MQA CD’s sound fantastic.....as do the K2’s. Just sayin’
Whether it is a con or not, it is based, or at least sold on some very shaking premises, especially the MQA "filter". It is fake. Perhaps with some good AI inference engine you could infer data that does not actually exist, sort of like in AI for image enlargement. However, a simple signal processing filter is going to fail. They create a problem that does not really exist (so called multiple successive filters at 20KHz), then create an inverse that can't work as you don't know the pedigree of the signal chain.  Beyond that it is still compression.