Summarizing that article, in the reviewer's experience with the MQA-processed files at hand:
- MQA played on an MQA-enabled DAC sounds "better" than its non-MQA hi-res equivalent - MQA played on a non-MQA DAC sounds "better" than its non-MQA equivalent. In other words, MQA has the potential to offer sound quality improvement for everyone not just those with MQA-enabled DACs. One man's opinion but intriguing nonetheless. He offers some technical insight in the article as to why this would be the case. I'm looking forward to an opportunity to test this myself with music that I know well. Alas, I fear it will be of limited utility to me. I'll never subscribe to Tidal and much of the music I most love -- "golden era" classical -- will likely never be released in the MQA format. Even if, at this stage in my life I don't see myself buying all of these titles one more time. Cool for young people coming into the market, though. arnyk wrote: > More specifically, they claim that MQA sounds better than 24/96 linear > PCM, which is a common reference If it in fact sounde better than the > reference, then it is obviously audibly colored, which most would agree > is a FAIL. I understand your argument but the author's explanation is that MQA -- being a "process" encompassing the entire recording/playback chain -- removes the distortions (frequency and temporal) to which we've long become accustomed in non-MQA source material. (Compare to the Plangent processing applied to master tape sources on some recent digital remasters.) Again, I believe it makes sense to withhold judgement pending personal experience with the format. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Apesbrain's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=738 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105070 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
