drmatt wrote: > Funny. It's a duck. So to disprove the value of this duck is very much > to show that the temporal information on the timescales talked about is > either irrelevant (I.e. physically incapable of being heard) or is > preserved in standard recording/playback techniques anyway without mqa > help. > > There's a lot in here that acknowledged what you guys have been saying > for years - to whit that "literally no one needs more than 20 bits" and > that "actually for the vast majority of recordings 16 bit will do" and > secondly that higher sample rates alone do nothing to improve the > situation for the benefits the paper talks about. Right?
Again by setting up a specious argument, i.e. that temporal blurring is audible, MQA has people chasing their tail in an effort to disprove that temporal blurring is nonsense. How about MQA first proves that temporal blurring is in fact audible. I say this because up until MQA made this stuff up, no one was even aware of this grave distortion that just so happens to be corrected by, oh my god what a surprise, MQA. I believe that all of this is covered in each and every Marketing 101 course. Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105070 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
