gregorio
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Posts
- 6,964
- Likes
- 4,174
[1] So then I was of course very interested in the possibility of MQA, despite having no relevant hardware on either of my systems.
[2] In short then yes there is a difference and yes it is preferable to red book in the albums I have heard so far.
[3] So in conclusion and for today, I am pleasantly surprised with MQA right now [4] and would recommend folks to try it in their systems as an ME2 is not expensive (you can get it on Amazon at a discount!!!) and hopefully it will succeed and go on to even better things.
1. Why were you "of course" very interested in MQA?
2. Yes, of course there is a difference. For starters, one obvious difference is that a blue light comes on with an MQA stream. No one is suggesting that switching on a blue light is the only thing that MQA does, for one thing, it's effectively a lossy compression format. As such, it can't actually be better than the CD or another format original it's encoding/compressing, it can ONLY be worse. The two main questions we therefore have here in the science forum are: A. How much worse? Is it audibly worse or are the deficiencies only measurable rather than audible? and B. Is it actually more functional than the data compressed formats which already exist? Answering these two questions would go a long way to answering the ultimate question as far as MQA is concerned: Is it of any actual benefit to the consumer or is it effectively nothing more than a snake oil marketing exercise?
3. I'm not questioning your stated preference or that you're pleasantly surprised, I'm only questioning what's caused it. As MQA can't actually be better, at best only audibly indistinguishable (the same), the only possible explanation is one of the following: 1. The MQA files/streams you've heard are not the same masters as your red book albums, 2. You personally have found lower fidelity ("worse") to be "preferable" in the streams you've heard or 3. That blue light has created a bias/placebo effect which is affecting your perception.
4. This recommendation is indicative of either: 1. Someone who realises they've been suckered by the marketing/shills and wants others to be in the same boat, 2. Someone who doesn't yet realise they've been suckered and is therefore giving misleading advice, or 3. A shill. ... If you have any new information/evidence, info/evidence acceptable in this forum (IE. NOT sighted/anecdotal evidence), then please post it. That would be both helpful to this thread and avoid the current indication of your contribution.
G