===============================================================================
If you don't see the value in articles by great professional audio reviewers such as Darko and believe that
he is either on the take and and/or perpetuates myths knowingly or unknowingly then I think I know where you're
coming from and respectfully and strongly disagree with your view on this.
I have to admit that until he was mentioned here I knew nothing of Darko. So I went, and I read.
Darko is, in fact, a professional. He's a decent writer, he rights a lot, it's readable, and decently structured, and he gets paid for it (which is what makes him a "professional").
And, he is doing the job of an audio reviewer: setting up and listening to audio stuff then writing his opinion. He's paid to do it. The site is thoroughly monetized in every which way. Great? Yeah, I don't thing so. Greatness, for someone in that profession, would require substantially more real, pertinent, and accurate content that is being delivered, something like real investigative research without regard for marketing hype.
Unfortunately, though reasonably well crafted, his review of MQA lacks any semblance of a real, honest review of the technology. It's riddled with parroted MQA marketing hype. Comparisons are classic: he compares a CD version and the shiny new MQA version, with no knowledge whatsoever of the heritage of either. In fact, he's writing about one of the most highly biased, non-controlled forms of auditioning there is: fully sighted (he writes about the MQA lights too) and without any concern for the total signal path.
Yes, he's a professional writer. But if you want accuracy of evaluation of products, look elsewhere. And sure, he's on the "take". The site is loaded with paid ads and links to manufacture's sites (where the original marketing hype is found), thus perpetuation their fantasy world. And, by the look of things, he's very, very well funded.
...if anyone would like to chime in on Tidal Masters Appreciation, I'm ready to hear from you!
Sure, Happy to.
So far, I appreciate knowing that Tidal Masters have provided yet another layer of audio marketing confusion. I appreciate the fact that some here will recognize that there has been no real qualitative evaluation of MQA.
I would appreciate it if many more here would adopt a little understanding of what is actually being heard in a Tidal Master/MQA recording, and referenced here, like early 1970s analog tape recordings that have followed an undisclosed and ambiguous remastering path which would sound every bit as good on a CD as on a Tidal Master.
I do not appreciate blindly swallowing the MQA marketing Cool-aid, or frankly, blind faith in anything. I also don't appreciate that in a public forum those with dissenting opinions are asked to depart in an artificial tone of respect.
So here's something: I've developed a new and highly advanced MQA compatible speaker cable. It doesn't degrade CD audio, but when used specifically with an MQA recording, it compliments the anti-time-smearing properties of the MQA "process". In fact, the cable has been pre-processed in our lab high in the Himalayas by celibate monks who are vowed to lives of silence. To audition this cable requires a standard audio system and an MQA audio system, set up side by side. The standard system plays a standard CD, uses standard electronics, standard speakers and standard speaker cables. The MQA system plays MQA recordings, uses MQA speaker cables and the same type of speakers, but sitting right next to the standard ones. Compare the two and hear how amazing our MQA wire is!
Now it shouldn't take a lot to see what's wrong with that, right? Comparing too many variables. Different recordings, different speaker positions, different wire, and possibly others like a difference in system gain. This is precisely what's going on when someone compares a CD to an MQA release! There is a list of variables, differences between the two "versions", only we don't know exactly what they are. We are, however, comparing the result of all of them. And MQA is only one.
Some don't care how we get better quality music, if MQA does it, that's just fine. And I would agree if (and this is a big one) there wasn't someone pushing MQA with vague yet glowing marketing, license fees, and non-disclosure of the technology.