This thread reads like a political argument. It's clear people have chosen their "camps" and are digging in. I for one just got back into this hobby fairly recently and barely knew what MQA even was. I purchased a PS Audio DSJr to facilitate streaming music and have been loving the instant selection at hand with my new Tidal subscription. I listened to a few albums that really made my ears perk up and say "damn that sounds better than I ever remember." Turns out, they were MQA files. So while the naysayers love to scream "placebo" and "confirmation bias" I wonder if you aren't suffering from the opposite version of the same biases. I mean, if you want to say MQA is garbage technology, please explain to me how any digital music isn't inherently garbage since it all has to be converted back to analog anyway. I have no dog in this fight, all I know is the MQA albums I listened to sounded better to me *before I even knew they were MQA*
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?