In Reply to: Schiit don't think so either. And have explained it as they see it. posted by jusbe on June 2, 2016 at 01:53:56:
I read them and PS Audio.One of hte major complaints both have is that they don't want to pay the licensing fees, and rely upon the MQA engineers to come up with an adequate signal "Pre-distortion" to cancel out the pre-ring and post-ring in the transients.
The same crew pioneers Apodizing filters, and those were poo-poohed, until people could roll their own, and it went as mainstream as any other technique.
Call me cynical, but I think the protests against MQA speak more their economic realities, than whether the format is adequate or not. And not for nothing, if this closes the gap between someone who strings chips together vs someone who has a custom FPGA - there is less differentiation between, say, Bricasti and dCS and a a company following the manufacturer's application recommendation. THis is bad for them, but very good for a consumer.
It's interesting that both companies turning it down call it "compression" - in a strict pedantic way they are correct. But so was HDCD by that definition, but the information was used to enhance the PCM that was also encoded on the disc. It smells like some passive aggressive spin and misinformation.
Wile I am not "for" or "against" MQA at this point, I'll let my ears be the guide, it does show promise Sounds like it is meant for the mainstream audio companies, and streaming. But if that improves, so does our day to day listening.
====
"You are precisely as big as what you love and precisely as small as what you allow to annoy you." ~ R A Wilson
Edits: 06/13/16
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Schiit don't think so either. And have explained it as they see it. - Bromo33333 19:04:13 06/13/16 (1)
- RE: Schiit don't think so either. And have explained it as they see it. - Tony Lauck 16:50:01 06/23/16 (0)