davidf said:
In the comments below the article, from an MQA spokesman:
"The technical claims presented by HIGHRESAUDIO are fundamentally incorrect and ill-informed. These assertions are consistent with the few we have seen from others who are uncomfortable with the concept of studio quality audio that is convenient for all."
Who knows who is right? Until there's some solid facts, no one will know. Even when there are, positive or negative, it's down to our own ears as to what sound good or better.
Hi,
My interpretation is that the response from the MQA spokesperson does not answer the statements by the highresaudio person. All they state is that it is incorrect. Which points are incorrect ?
The answers on the computer audio website have the same approach - which is that assertions of the benefit of MQA have not been proven, and DSP analysis can be shown to support your assertions, although we still do not know how the system works.
It is as if they are saying, it is better because we say it is, and don't ask questions as we will not be providing a description on how it works, and you have to trust us on the critical aspects. It is a closed/secret system in parts, so you will never be able to decode MQA unless you sign the NDA and pay us.
If you look at nearly every standard adopted for audio - it is an open standard - and no NDA is required. Dolby and DTS require an NDA.
Regards,
Shadders.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram