If there were decent musicians who could still play instruments, producers who put more value on it than compiling music on PCs and laptops, the format would be superfluous. Honestly, I don’t need it and don’t buy a new Dac because of the hype.īesides, I’m someone who wants to enjoy music and not know what’s being mixed, so I’m not interested. Since I don’t have a Mqa Dac, I don’t know how good Mqa is. To quit Tidal because of Mqa is a waste of time.Įven up-sampled in DSD format, there were zero differences. In conjunction with Tidal and Quboz did not reveal anything alarming.Īlthough the Tidal version was in Mqa, and in Quboz 24/x, I upsampled with Audirvana on my non-Mqa Dac and in my 32/96 format, there were zero differences. Who knows, Tidal might start to sell content in MQA, just like Qobuz does for high resolution PCM. DSD streaming will not be a reality any time soon. That’s where MQA has the biggest potential. It’s also true that a higher quality DAC will make a greater difference than MQA ever can.Īfter years of MP3 being good enough, even the consumer oriented streaming services are now looking at offering a higher quality streaming. It was no longer a problem of support on the reproduction end, there was just not enough content to make it viable. Because of the superior oversampling chips, the normal CDs sounded better. Something similar happened to HDCD when most of the higher end CD players started supporting it. It’s a somewhat well kept secret that MQA DACs can sound better with regular PCM content due to better processing chips. It’s not worse than that and you’ll have potentially some benefit with quality MQA DAC. If you’re focusing on redbook audio, MQA would also make sense. I wouldn’t mind it being just one more format being offered. MQA will never by be all and all solution.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |