Here’s what I know about MQA. And let me say there are huge truck sized gaps in my understanding, but here goes. Essentially it’s a lossy format. Nestled in an inaudible range is information that gives higher sampling rates to the audible range. The first unfold, reads and plays back the basic MQA file. I believe it’s at 88.2K; however, to accommodate the nestled data, I think there is some loss of the original recording. The subsequent unfolds integrate and extend the sample rate up to ~340k.
I think of it like tuning a car. It has higher performance in a narrower range, but for what it was designed for, it performs.
Andrew Robinson asserts that these files are often remastered at higher more compressed (normalised volume) levels and as a result they may appear to the ear as being of higher quality when in fact they are simply louder
My personal opinion is that I can only hear a difference if I critically listen and compare tracks side by side. And in the end I feel we’re pretty spoiled for choice. I hate to say it but, to me, pretty much everything sounds pretty much good. I don’t have the most sensitive ears, but I do enjoy music and formats are not really a barrier to that enjoyment. I’m starting to come around to the perspective that the quality of the recording affects the music more than the format. It also helps to have nice equipment too.
I tried Tidal for a while and there are many nice things about it, but I found greater exposure and access to new music through user created playlists won out over format. Sure there are little differences, but how often do you sit and critically analyse a song you’ve heard 100 times?
Now get off my porch you damn hoodlums!
