- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Posts
- 1,491
- Likes
- 777
I might be opening up a can of worms here but....
What strikes me as odd is that rather than knock MQA for not being able to exactly reproduce the content of a true high resolution audio file what we really should be asking is does a properly encoded/decoded MQA file sound any better than a standard CD resolution file?
Over the years I've found that the high end audio community has a nasty habit of building entire sub-industries out of beliefs that are,at best, unproven and, at worst, scientifically impossible. An example of unproven is expensive after market power cords. An example of scientifically impossible would be the need for expensive digital cables (coax, USB, HDMI, Ethernet, etc.) High resolution digital audio falls into the unproven category but that has not stopped Meridian from developing MQA, which for all intents and purposes may be completely unnecessary - that is until there is solid scientific proof that high resolution digital audio is better than standard CD resolution digital audio.
What strikes me as odd is that rather than knock MQA for not being able to exactly reproduce the content of a true high resolution audio file what we really should be asking is does a properly encoded/decoded MQA file sound any better than a standard CD resolution file?
Over the years I've found that the high end audio community has a nasty habit of building entire sub-industries out of beliefs that are,at best, unproven and, at worst, scientifically impossible. An example of unproven is expensive after market power cords. An example of scientifically impossible would be the need for expensive digital cables (coax, USB, HDMI, Ethernet, etc.) High resolution digital audio falls into the unproven category but that has not stopped Meridian from developing MQA, which for all intents and purposes may be completely unnecessary - that is until there is solid scientific proof that high resolution digital audio is better than standard CD resolution digital audio.