what i was reading about mqa (and someone clarify if i'm wrong) just because it's MQA doesn't necessarily mean it'll be a better sounding production than
is one done later one (remastered) down the line, esp if the original master was so-so anyway..can't put lipstick on a pig so to speak.....i'll try to find the article.
if i'm wrong don't blast me...be polite, thanks.
On the contrary. I've read Various articles saying that MQA is basically as good as DSD in a much much smaller file size due to compression so it can be streamed.
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-YITtscFKiGC/learn/high-resolution-audio-guide.html
MQA is EQ'ed, more or less. That is why in demos it sounds different. But that is because....
What's the benefit of MQA? Most of us(99%) cannot even hear the difference between 320 kbps vs CD in an abx type test.
...the idea is that the behaviour of the original ADC that was used during recording or encoding (if from tape) can be included in the MQA file and the DAC can compensate for it during playback, which is supposedly what was being heard in the demos.
Of course, this could be done without MQA entirely, and it is very arguably only worth considering for at least moderately high-end gear and listening to well-recorded music where all the details and acoustic considerations matter.
