Of course masters are lost, MQA go to the best master available. That could be anything, if that’s all there is, that’s all there is.
Should a better Master be discovered, then it can be used. This is not a static thing unless original provenance is confirmed. Then the options of re mixes etc always exist.
MQA does a great job of preserving those masters making them available for all.
Untrue… what you say is only true for the less than 0.1% of “white gloves” (=remasters)
The studios don’t have time to compare all masters, it would take centuries.
They just batch process all of them. And even that takes centuries.
Wasn’t Sony going MQA in spring 2017? 
For David Bowie I see at least 15 albums available in
- 16/44 mqa
- 24/96 mqa AND
- 24/192 mqa
examples : Metrobolist, The man who sold the world, Hunky dory, The rise and fall of ziggy stardust, Alladin sane, Pinups, Diamond dogs, Young americas, Station to station, Heroes, Low, Lodger, Scary Monsters, Let’s dance, Never let me down,
… all in 3 mqa version available !
It proves mqa is just a batch process for 99.9% of their releases.
They don’t "select the best master"
Digital (PCM,DSD,SACD, etc) in => Mqa out
2 Likes
A honest comparison between PCM and MQA : 
Conclusion (last paragraph)
All testing so far shows that MQA is nothing more than a minimum phase upsampling filter, which is arguably WORSE than a linear phase filter that most decent DACs or upsampling players will use as standard.
MQA is 100% closed-source, and they go to great lengths to make it impossible to directly compare files that have not been altered. Most MQA content cannot be obtained in native HiRes anywhere. And they do not allow any “full unfolding” device to have a digital output to prevent anyone from recording or testing the result.
I marked some parts in bold, because that is exactly the same what I have been telling here several times here.
You can select such a filter yourself for any PCM and it will also sound like MQA, only crisper because you apply it on lossless pcm and not on lossy mqa.
1 Like
That all nonsense from people with an agenda and no real understanding. If was that simple, why didn’t they do it. It reminds me of car salesmen saying, “It runs just like a Rolls Royce” 
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
1 Like
Are you two still posting…!? Wow
The only ones with a “hidden agenda” are those from mqa that
-
let the public listen to a 16/44 cd and a 24/96mqa (CES 2016) to prove “mqa is better” while it’s obvious that even the original 24/96 pcm is superior quality that the 16/44 pcm; so it proved nothing
-
are asking $$$ for a sound caused by a minimizing filter,
one that you can select for FREE on any non mqa-dac -
are making it hard to do comparisons between mqa and the original sound (as all original versions of the mqas on Tidal are removed - you have to look for the original versions on other streaming services like Qobuz)
PCM doesn’t have hidden agendas, you have
-
the option to select other filters like linear ones which are superior
-
more detailed sound
-
you don’t need to pay extra for sw or hw
3 Likes
Don’t worry too much, the market will sort its self out. Tidal/MQA will be in particular trouble when Spotify lossless comes to town.
IMO, Roon will also need to re-evaluate how it’s software will add value for streaming users, with Spotify having what many would agree is the best catalogue, a decent “connect” method and clearly the best AI recommendations/engine.
Spotify ticks a lot of boxes, and I suspect it’s lossless service will see many Tidal and Roon users discontinue subscriptions.
Although I have a similar position on MQA, I suspect this is wasted energy.
2 Likes
Wow, that’s some strong Kool-Aid right there. My experience says it’s more divided, and most likely comes down to the master used. Sometimes the stronger ‘curve’ they apply to MQA will make a poor recording sound better, but more often than not it just sounds more unnatural - as if they’ve added a stronger curve. Esp with acoustic instrumentation. I’m using an MQA dac. For casual listening MQA is fine - but then why bother with all the fuss? For close listening Redbook is usually better, as long as the original masters match. IME of course.
3 Likes
So, that makes you right and me wrong just because you say so I think you will find our opinions carry the same weight and are just that, opinions.
With all that there are more and more great MQA releases every week for those of us who enjoy the greater clarity and definition (should I say Analog resolution) to explore and enjoy. I’m luvin’ it… 
1 Like
Let me remind you that you were the one who said “all your arguments have no relevance.” So you think that you are the final word on this? Not.
Thank god many of those newly released MQA albums also get released with their 16/44 versions.
1 Like
16/44 is the original file size on so much material so what else would MQA offering as the original sample rate. I tell you now, many modern releases in 24/48 MQA sound incredible making the race to higher and higher digital resolution obsolete going forward. The analog resolution is all that matters to the end listener and MQA delivers this in spades… IMHO. There will never be a last word here much as I would love to claim it…
It’s quite strange you are now promoting 48k mqas.
I thought mqa was all about timing corrections and that one needed at least 96k for that? 
Anyway, timing corrections in mqa are ridiculous, as the upsampling filter is a minimizing one,
it will completely mess up those corrections in the end. Luckily we can select a linear filter to prevent that from happening … ow, no we can’t it’s mqa. oops.
1 Like
Doesn’t the 48k mqa unfold to 96? 
A 48k MQA is created from a 48k PCM.
Nothing above 24kHz was recorded (by Nyquist theorem). So there is also nothing to unfold.
All 44.1 and 48k MQAs have nothing to unfold, they are just upsampled x2.
For unfolding you need at least 88.2. Then losslessly compressed estimates (so lossy after all) are “unfolded”
1 Like
It’s all to do with removing digital artefacts and the unfolding is part of the technique. People here come up with stuff as if the tech guys at MQA LTD weren’t aware of the issue lol
The unfolding does not remove artefacts,
“unfolding” = decompressing what the mqa encoder lossy compressed (“folding”)
As it was lossy compressed it means the mqa encoder added the artefacts you mention.
1 Like
Again, you come up with this stuff as if MQA don’t know what they are doing
Yes they know what they’re doing… trying to beat $$$ out of customers’ pockets for no other reason then to increase mqa software and mqa hardware sales. Luckily some of us noticed we can get better quality by avoiding mqa.
3 Likes
Flagged by another member as inappropriate.
Luckily they are there to advise the rest of us at every opportunity too
There we have it, people are just envious of people’s success in business and making a good living. That all seems ironic though as enjoying MQA has cost me nothing over and above what I would have spent anyway, so they are creaming cash out of me
If MQA was all about making easy money then surely they wouldn’t bother as there are easier ways to do this.
Sure MQA has costs for users like almost everyone else. Buying CD/Vinyl etc. Buying equipment that decodes any propriety software or almost anything else. You pay for chips in gadgets in anything even if you don’t use the function. That’s how the world goes round, people need wages Wages makes the world go round…
1 Like