Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: Piling on... posted by Steve O on March 17, 2017 at 20:35:08
The only motive is to expose a shameful money grab and to expose the truth...that adding proprietary post processing to digital files and telling consumers it is "better" is a marketing lie, to quote.
Notice how that white paper was not reported by Stereophile, but by Digital Audio Review.
......a "sister publication" of TAS, the biggest booster of MQA I've run across.
I have to agree with you that TAS has been the biggest booster of MQA. Easily more coverage than Stereophie IMO.
Actually, HiFi Plus has not whored for MQA. Searching the term "MQA" on their website turns up exactly FOUR items. Searching just the Stereophile site, exclusive of Audiostream, turns u 15 PAGES.
A quote, from the editor in a review of the Meridian Explorere2 DAC:
"OK, so let's be honest about all this. If you have a collection of well-manicured, high-performance, high-resolution PCM and DSD files, you are probably going to hear little or no difference bringing MQA to the party. I'd still argue that there is something uniquely 'right' in the time domain of MQA files that doesn't ring as true with PCM and DSD, and in that respect MQA is more like an analogue master tape in performance. But, if you are already well-dunked in the whole hi-res thing, MQA is probably not a high priority right now..."
This tone is utterly disconnected from how TAS and Stereophile has "reported".
Post a Followup:
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: