Home
AudioAsylum Trader
Digital Drive

Upsamplers, DACs, jitter, shakes and analogue withdrawals, this is it.

For Sale Ads

FAQ / News / Events

 

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.

You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login


Login to access features only available to registered Asylum Inmates.
    By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username:

The Name that you picked or by default, your email.
Forgot Moniker?

 
 

Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".

Password:    

Forgot Password?

 Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:  
Your Email:  
Subject:  

Message Comments

   

Original Message

RE: As of yet...

Posted by TubeDriver on February 16, 2017 at 11:17:03:

First, if MQA does not sound noticeably superior to standard lossless 16/44 or higher recordings then what is the point? Storage and bandwidth for audiophile are not really an issue. I have been listening to MQA Tidal (with a high end but not an MQA enabled DAC) and some recordings sound great, some sound bad so overall I am somewhat ambivalent as to the value of any sonic improvements. Call it a tie.

Secondly, I have an inherent dislike of any proprietary product that will capture entire music catalogues. I don't like all my eggs in one basket. Negative.

Thirdly, as I understand MQA, it is lossy in some sense although the parts that are lost can be easily be argued to be sonically invisible. Negative.

Finally, the MQA chain could be used as some form of DRM if desired. Not saying it will but it certainly has the ability built in. Negative.

So overall, I don't see this as some revolutionary advance and it possibly could become a big pain in the ass. I would be perfectly happy with well recorded lossless 24/96 or higher PCM.