Hi-Rez Highway

New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.

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

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: In what way is MQA improving sound quality?

Posted by Isaak J. Garvey on April 19, 2017 at 13:27:23:
A VERY prominent digital designer who wishes to remain anonymous told me that among DAC manufacturers, there are two camps:

1) Those who use the stock digital filters built into DAC chips like MQA.
2) Those who know how to design their own custom digital filters dislike MQA.

It seems that Auralic has recently transitioned from the first group to the second. The designer told me that the MQA filter is better than the average filter built into most DAC chips, but not as good as the best custom filters. Another problem is that by using the MQA digital filter, such DACs will tend to sound more and more similar. Worse yet is with MQA there will be no room for future improvement, as the manufacturer is restricted to Bob Stuart's filter.