Quote:
Originally Posted by SAM992
(Post 1026435)
MQA sounds good to my ears.... my only concern is that it's basically more of an EQ thing (a cheat)... as it does generally sound a bit like the classic "loudness curve" has been applied to every recording I've heard relative to non MQA ones...
I'd say in reality .. it's Lossless > MQA > 44.1 > MP3 for me
|
It is an EQ and more... MQA is lossy but Bob Stuart says you are better off. So based on his algorithms, you are presented with a highly processed, lossy version of the music but he claims it is better for you and you better pay up if you want to listen to it.
Why does that sound familiar with so many audio related concepts and products? :D
The "dichotomy" seems to be that high resolution and upsampling has been exploited and abused by the industry and anyone trying to make a buck selling an upsampled version of the recording captured with CD level quality or less originally. Bit depth and upsampled rates became the new source of revenue as the CD sales slowed? So Bob offers us the MQA which he claims is better due to his super-secret-sauce algorithms and you better pay if you want to play. Not only that but the industry now should promote his idea over any other high resolution?
Well, I am not going to argue that, let your own ears decide but as far as high resolution goes, the music recorded in high resolution with audiophile quality in mind from the start, will blow your socks off and there is not one thing Bob Stuart can add to that one. :D |
