2. digital
  3. 143621-118455

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
aberyclark
594 posts
 
MQA is DEAD!! Just face it. If it were the savior of audiophilism that the stereo rags touted, all the big labels would be pumping this stuff out left and right to get in on the action. 
junzhang10
166 posts
 
not until 96/24 or even DSD streaming become available.

hughp3's avatar
hughp3
52 posts
 
I just took delivery of a dCS Bartok. Full MQA is very, very good. I also have HiRez downloads from HDTracks. Same cut on TIDAL MQA sounds exactly the same as HiRez FLAC file.... really good.

Jcat femto > dcs Bartok > AR Ref 6 > MC601 monos > Magnepan 20.7
mcgal
189 posts
 
Strange to hear any MQA bashing from a cost or sound quality issue. In my case I only needed to spend $50 for the MQA license for my Aurender N10 to get full MQA. I already had Tidal CD quality, so no extra charge there and I already owned a MQA DAC, so no extra charge there. I do prefer MQA sound through Tidal over CD sound. I have never tried an MQA cd. I do like have choices.
digepix's avatar
digepix
99 posts
 
It my be legit but the first unfold to 24/88.2 or 96 sounds better to me. I have an MQA dac and I guess there's more detail but tone wise it sounds washed out. I'll take musical over detailed any day.
More to discover