MQA: That Sounds Good. To Me.

So what’s your opinion about the short article Joe?
 
mep said:
So what’s your opinion about the short article Joe?
Click to expand...

It’s great, but more important to know what you think. You’re the reviewer. I’m just a consumer.
 
Last edited:
MQA is like that article....i can take it or leave it. not worth taking any stand over.

is the world better because of MQA or that article?

likely the world does not care a whit.:P
 
Funny, the ones who say they don’t care about MQA, insist on having it as part of the alphabet soup when buying a new DAC.

f5446505f66ca25ee16048fc23930134.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Like everything else in Audio, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts".

As I already mentioned elsewhere, the Tidal and MQA can sound great to some ears depending on their preferred genre of music and taste in overall sound presentation. My music taste and ears do not align with MQA.
 
There was no meat on the bones of that article. It was like eating cotton candy when you are hungry and hoping it will fill you up. I kept thinking there must be more to the article, but there wasn’t.

They conducted a poll, but they never mention the number of people that responded to the poll. Because of the lack of context, you have no idea if the poll was large enough to be statistically
significant.

My take away is that the author isn’t happy with how many audiophiles don’t like MQA and don’t take it seriously. He appears to be telling MQA supporters that it’s OK to say you like MQA files.
 
same site, Nov 16, 2020. It still doesn't prove anything, if you are a Micheal fanboy most of his fans will support his taste.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2021-01-14 140140.jpg
    Screenshot 2021-01-14 140140.jpg
    178.4 KB · Views: 237
I like/love MQA. I love Qobuz, both regular and hi res. Having or not having MQA is not a deal breaker but if available, I’ll happily take it.

As for the article, it proves nothing. Just like some reviews that I’ve read. You can’t rely on others for your opinion. Experience a piece (hardware or software) for yourself and make up your own mind.
 
I pay for both Quobuz and Tidal so I can listen to MQA files if I desire. When you started this thread Joe, I halfway expected for you to provide a list of MQA files you think are great sounding. That would actually be an interesting thread if we could get forum members to list MQA files they think are truly outstanding.
 
I listen to music, not MQA. I even stream 320kbps music and thoroughly enjoy it too. I’m not one to obsess about only the highest quality streams. I listen to it all. I try and get my system to sound great with everything, not just the most perfect sources. Life is too short.
 
If the music and its emotional pull on the soul could only be derived from and enjoyed on, a top notch recording being played on a mega buck system, it would be inaccessible to 99.9% of the population and would cease to exist.

If you love music, a transistor radio in the garage will connect you with your favorite song. I have had many of those nirvana moments. Or it could have been the paint fumes... Hard to say. :)
 
joeinid said:
I listen to music, not MQA. I even stream 320kbps music and thoroughly enjoy it too. I’m not one to obsess about only the highest quality streams. I listen to it all. I try and get my system to sound great with everything, not just the most perfect sources. Life is too short.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with obsessing Joe, it’s about having choices. When I pull up an album on Roon, it shows me every available version with 16/44.1 being the lowest bit depth and sampling rate. All the available versions of a given album don’t sound the same.
 
I’ve heard good bad and good MQA. Open to all formats and don’t take a hard stance on the very emotional topic for some.

I’ve heard good and bad SACD, DSD, DXD, ... it’s not about the format; it’s about the performance, engineering and mastering.
 
I subscribe to Qobuz because I'd rather have or listen to the unmolested original file.
But I've also purchased up to a half dozen MQA cd's for albums that there is likely no better mastering.
So I fall into the camp of most likely wanting my next DAC/player to have MQA.
Given a choice, I see no reason to support MQA.
 
I revolt against the monopolistic money grab that is MQA. I choose Qobuz and buying (and ripping) my own media. It gives me freedom of choice on DACs and knowledge I am not paying blackmail to the MQA gods.

Besides, Qobuz is cheaper than Tidal! ;)
 
Since nobody else posted this yet, this video comes down pretty hard on MQA. The author submitted his own tracks to MQA which got published to Tidal and then he analyzed them versus the original files; I found the entire length pretty interesting. One of the more serious accusations is that the majority of MQA on Tidal are 44.1 files, not hi-res, and that MQA just upsamples them so that the end user thinks they are a real hi-res file

I published music on Tidal to test MQA - MQA Review - YouTube

 
Rnrmf said:
Since nobody else posted this yet, this video comes down pretty hard on MQA. The author submitted his own tracks to MQA which got published to Tidal and then he analyzed them versus the original files; I found the entire length pretty interesting. One of the more serious accusations is that the majority of MQA on Tidal are 44.1 files, not hi-res, and that MQA just upsamples them so that the end user thinks they are a real hi-res file

I published music on Tidal to test MQA - MQA Review - YouTube

Click to expand...


I think that many of us have suspected shenanigans were taking place with "hi-rez" files of all stripes. It would be great if we ever learned the truth about the actual percentage of so called "hi-rez" files are what they purport to be vice the number of "hi-rez" files that have been upsampled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top