Quote:
Originally Posted by JBT
While catchy and cute, this of course does not apply here. The idea of facing a fork in the road is a false choice and at best wishful thinking for those promoting MQA. The “road” is already “well paved”; open, free, mature and robust (file formats), this highway already allows broad creativity and innovation without major licensing impediments especially for smaller companies, and has enough lanes to accommodate the needs of music lovers whether they’re happy with MP3 or desire huge DSD256 downloads. In my opinion, MQA is an optional turn-off at this point with little content (28) leading down an unpromising dimly lit narrow path with toll booths along the way. Should we bother with this detour?
Ultimately, remember that the music industry can be wrong, audiophile magazines can be wrong, as an individual, I can be wrong (and my wife says I often am!). But the consumer is always right – which is exactly why “we” call the shots. Let’s see how this goes...
https://www.computeraudiophile.com/c...cautions-r701/ |
Thank you for posting! When I first listened to MQA recordings via Tidal I really liked the sound I heard compared to my own non-MQA CDs.
But after I dug deeper I realized that the mqa tracks that I sampled had been remastered so it was not an apples to apples comparison.
I was one of the 83 who participated in the Internet Blind Test referenced in Archimago’s article. In that test one could compare MQA tracks versus hi Rez version. I did not hear an earth shattering difference between the two. Although more than 50% I picked the hi-Rez version, it was not statistically significant.