MQA is one of the largest, most extensive, and elaborate "hustles" ever to be foisted upon the high-end community and those interested in quality music reproduction systems and it is a trojan horse for DRM!
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?
What are your thoughts on MQA and SACD?
- ...
- 83 posts total
The third easiest way to hear the difference is that MQA is slightly hotter or louder. The MQA apodizing filter tends to compress transients. This part I heard, but since I was able to switch it off with non MQA I attributed it to the filter and not to MQA itself. I heard it more as a softening of transients and removing of space. Whatever difference I heard with MQA, none of it was worth money. I would not pay a premium for it. My feelings are pretty close to what I later would read from PS Audio: https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/mqa-thoughts/ Best, E |
I think the discussion has gone a bit off the rails... thanks for the PS Audio link as I am in that same camp. My point was that I am getting this quality over a wifi connection to Tidal. I am not going to replace my hi-res files or SACD or even my redbook cd's--im just very impressed with what I am hearing vs pandora or spotify. I also wouldn't choose MQA over DSD for download either. |
- 83 posts total