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?
waltertexas
Let's see. First I bought my music on 78's.  Then I bought the same music again on LP's.  Then I bought it again on cassette.  Then I bought it again on 8 track.  Then I bought it again on CD.  Then I bought it again on SACD.  Then I bought it again on Tidal.  New equipment every time.  Now I have to buy it again in MQA?
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.
I too agree with what Paul wrote.  My .02$ is this, initially, I was very skeptical of MQA for all the reasons discussed, but, sometimes MQA does sound significantly better, than the 44.1 CD RIP.  I own a PS Audio Direct Stream DAC, so the first unfold is done on my Roon ROCK Server, that sits in another room.  Case in point is Natalie Merchants Tigerlilly, the CD is well recorded / engineered.   The first unfold for MQA is at 24/96.  The MQA edition is spectacular!   But here is the thing, it sounds like a different / better mix, or likely a different master.  So I think the improvements  I am hearing on this recording may not be solely due to the MQA process and likely a different source.  Since we have no way of knowing the provenance we will never know.   There are other recordings, where the differences are not really distinguishable from the redbook - i.e - TwentyOne pilots Trench, I am not sure I can detect a difference between 24/88.2 and my redbook rip.    IMHO, MQA delivers in its ability to deliver high-res content without consuming a commensurate amount of bandwidth.   Is is transparent to the source?  Who knows... Not sure, but it isn't mp3, and it doesn't make the music sound terrible - so for me, having the option in Tidal via Roon to listen to various formats is very cool, and gives us audiophiles some options.
 
Buy a Rega TT...forget about the "Next Big Thing " digital format. 
Listen to music.
Relax, knowing your format of choice will not become out of date in your lifetime.
Buy more LPs...
My only MQA source is Tidal, through a PS Audio PWD (although I plan to upgrade to the DSD soon) via their Bridge, ethernet connection.  From Tidal, on my system, the SQ of MQA vs standard 16/44 is usually, but not always, significantly better, enough so that I seek out new MQA releases from Tidal.  In fact, I am concerned I am becoming a MQA junkie.  It is also consistently better than the same redbook cd spun on my Oppo, linked to the DAC by USB, but this is no longer a straightforward apples to apples comparison.  Not only do you have the cabling and source differences, the mastering/data preservation might also be different.  Prior to this thread, I have not thought about trying to upgrade digital source etc with the goal of making my personal cds sound as good as Tidal MQA files, I don't think I have changed my mind, but very interesting discussion, thanks OP! 
My vote is  for MQA as I hear an improvement over redbook on some but not all recordings. My MQA source is exclusively Tidal thru PSA DSD and bridge II. I wouldn't give up Tidal or Roon for anything. I've discovered so much music with these services, I can't go back, and MQA is just the icing on the cake.