Totally worth it to get up at 5 am to see a river reverse tide.
Unfortunately neither MQA or Tidal did well in the recent testing:
This is a long video so here's some highlights: On the files he looked at (including one professional release) MQA renders ultrasonic content into audible noise and reduces dynamic range. MQA added noise and distortion to the file in the audible band and the 44.1khz unfold. It adds even more...
www.avsforum.com
- On the files he looked at (including one professional release) MQA renders ultrasonic content into audible noise and reduces dynamic range. MQA added noise and distortion to the file in the audible band and the 44.1khz unfold. It adds even more above 22khz when fully unfolded. This was true for both 44.1 and 88.2 Khz masters.
- Tidal appears to be streaming 44.1khz MQA files instead of FLAC when MQA is available which means you're not getting lossless streaming for those files
- The MQA "blue light" indicates nothing, it will light up when a master file has been altered from what was submitted by the engineer and can still be triggered if you remove up to 30% of the track's audio data.
- The most accurate way to listen to MQA is on the first unfold (44.1) only.
- MQA's behavior is extremely shady, they intentionally obfuscate the quality of source files, refuse to answer questions, do not provide test tools and had his tracks pulled from Tidal.
- MQA's response to this research (starts at 29 minutes) was full of errors, the usual vague buzzwords and outright misinformation.
The fact that MQA removed the test tracks, does not permit evaluations (you can't MQA to digital to do a bit-by-bit comparison, only analogue), and in the meeting avoided answering the questions pretty much confirms that his evaluation is correct.