The threads are truly lossless.
3 Likes
That’s like saying “I don’t care how my food is cooked as long as it tastes good.” Even if you don’t care (or don’t cook), the latter results from the former…
Of course you do. If you can actually hear a significant difference between the MQA and the CD version of a given album, it’s more than likely because of the mastering that you prefer one version to the other. If it’s definitely the same master, most people can’t really tell the difference (at least not “easily”)…
In other words, the difference between MQA and CD is audible (both in theory and in practice), but is a lot smaller than potential differences between two different masters…
7 Likes
Mastering: are you telling me that you only buy or listen to music that is an analog master? Or only buy or listen to a digital master? I couldn’t tell you how an album was mastered that I prefer its sound quality. Just like I don’t care if an album sounds better using dsd/redbook/MQA, if my system can handle that format, that’s the format I will listen to.
I didn’t write anything that can be interpreted in that way.
Just because you don’t know how an album was mastered, doesn’t mean the mastering isn’t the very reason why you prefer one version to another. Please give my post another read…
I think we’re talking at cross purposes…
7 Likes
Even if you don’t care why one version sounds better, there are reasons for that…
5 Likes
There’s more than one way to cook good food.
1 Like
No idea why you’re saying that, but I agree 100%. Never said or thought the opposite…
6 Likes
Because, if you like the food and/or music, it doesn’t necessarily matter how it was prepared and it is quite possible that you don’t care how it was prepared. You like what you like. I like MQA and non-MQA and listen to both. It doesn’t really matter to me which it is.
Same here. No idea why you’re saying that. That’s why I stressed the fact that the differences are smaller than some people want to make us think…
What’s that supposed to mean? If you like the food, you like how it was prepared even if you have no clue how it was done… In this sense, you do care…
6 Likes
Please. I don’t need to explain every post. Just ignore it if you don’t understand it.
1 Like
What’s wrong with trying to understand what you wrote? Did you write it in order not to be understood? If you aren’t willing to explain what you’re trying to say, why are you taking part in the discussion?
6 Likes
Exactly.
Analog or Digital doesn’t matter as long it is a good mastering. There are a ton of different masterings for older albums. Some better than others, and usually, one or two which are “the best”. A good reference is the Steve Hoffman forums.
MQA doesn’t for the most part use “the best” unless it is one of their White Glove releases, they just the “most recent”. Which means that they are using recent hot masters provided by the label, the majority of which are not the best. This is an issue with streaming as well. They are only going to serve you the latest, not the best, MQA or not.
For example, the best mastering, imho, of Isaac Hayes “Hot Buttered Soul” is either the 1987 Fantasy/Stax CD or the early 2000’s MOFI SACD. Either are significantly better in SQ than anything that Tidal or Qobuz has on their streaming platforms atm, including the MQA versions.
7 Likes
This depends on what you mean by “doesn’t matter”. Of course the food still tastes the same if you don’t know how it was cooked. But that’s exactly what @hwz said, too. You can prefer one master to another even if you don’t know how the mastering was done…
4 Likes
Yes, but doesn’t that mean you actually agree with people like @hwz or @Rugby and others who say that the master is of greater importance than the difference between MQA and non-MQA? 
4 Likes
That’s because I don’t know the answer to that. I assume it could vary depending on the difference in the masters. A crappy master is going to sound crappy, MQA or not.
Like quite a few others here I don’t get what you’re trying to say. The above statement is exactly what the others said, too. And yet you keep contradicting them…
6 Likes
No, I have never contradicted them. If it sounds good to me, I don’t care about the master or if it is MQA or not. The final result is what matters to me. Please don’t try to speak for me. I agree with the OP that MQA is not crap.
1 Like
So do I (and quite a few others here)…
I’m pretty sure it’s what matters to all of us…
But the final result is heavily dependent on the quality of the master. It’s a lot less dependent on the playback format…
5 Likes
It depends on everything. But this thread is about MQA.
That’s why it’s so important to discuss to what extent the final result depends on the difference between MQA and non-MQA. 
Not to the same extent, though. As a wise man once said: “If everything were relative, there would be nothing for it to be relative to.”
6 Likes