MQA is Legit!

@shadorne  interesting...  i haven't compared MQA to hi-res directly, but the latest tracks released on MQA native are really well done.  One album I have, the Doors, does not sound good on ANY digital format, period.  Maybe my claim is only valid for tracks and remasters over the last few years... perhaps a hi-fi Renaissance??

Not to be the first to comment on my own post, but MJ's "Thriller" and   Daft Punk Random Access Memories are great examples.  Every time I hear these on digital or vinyl, I somehow come across something new. 

Yes, the system has a role to play, but it's the original recording and artistry that makes it.

~W.  

@mzkmxcv: I am convinced it is a better master.  It's more than the noise floor--it is the depth and imaging as well.  It's like the remaster of Abbey Road.. say what you will about some of these remasters but I think many of them are great.  I have a few original Abbey Road pressings and IMO they don't compare at all to the latest 180g remaster (at least in my system).  

But hey, it's great that I can stream stuff I would likely never buy and it sounds amazing.  

@ robelvick

Exactly!  I only subscribe to Tidal for MQA :)  I hear a big (positive) difference.

My point is that MQA and Redbook CD will sound identical for a given recording when played back through equivalent gear... I think that tracks that are offered up via Tidal in MQA have more to give as they tend to be better mastered and delivered via streaming in a very high quality (timing-wise and resolution) way.  In other words, i dont care much to stream non-MQA as it tends to sound too "thin".  

Bottom line: MQA=lossless reproduction @ smaller footprint + more quality (from an audiophile perspective) in production.

It is interesting how passionate this discussion has become though :)

I'm saying that it appears to me the tracks that are in the "masters" quality selection (i.e. the MQA versions) are better than the ones that aren't.  It seems Tidal has a bit more of a quality standard for these versions of a track.  The noise floor is lower, the sound has groove (sounds "deeper" as if a really deep clean pressing on vinyl).  I wouldnt say warm, but certainly more body to the song.  So combine that with the great rendering and timing and it is delicious. 

BTW I am using the PS Audio DirectStream DAC with the Snowmass software.

@seigen   wow...  this was a very cocky and bitter article: 
https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

In fact, the only reason I have Tidal and Roon is exactly because "I wanted to stream high fidelity recordings over the internet" --it seems the author clearly didn't consider me when he made the claim that no one wants that.

He can just go back to his MP3s and winamp blasting his altec lansings in the dorm room--i will in the meantime enjoy discovering new tracks on my evolving digital rig with great sounding 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.

Ok.. I'm coming back to this after a good time away and figuring it out.  What I've concluded is this:  anyone who put in the effort to release a hi res MQA is proud of the mastering... uncompressed, well done mastering.  Less than MQA is "commercial grade music"... if anyone put thought into the format, it appears they care about the mastering and it is simply well recorded.  In other words, if it wasnt released in MQA, then its loud and compressed and will pretty much suck in any format (from an audiophile perspective).  If it was released in MQA, then even a redbox CD version (played through a good player) will sound just as good.