Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: Auralic to MQA: Take a Hike. posted by Isaak J. Garvey on April 13, 2017 at 13:58:42
"Decaf is for cowards."
Above what is presently available/possible? Most audiophiles are not worrying about bandwidth, so how is MQA a boon, here?
Who cares if it is 'as good as' what is currently available? The business model is breathtakingly flimsy.
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
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.
Since MQA on Tidal does not cost anything extra over the subscription cost and it sounds as good as hi-rez downloads why pay $24.95 for downloads when you can get them on Tidal.
I do not have an opinion but I heard some pretty good ones.
The biggest plus is that Tidal offer them a no extra cost and the few I compared sounded excellent. But like with everything audio is is a matter of tastes.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: