Devialet Chat

So none of you think the end result is very good ? Wow I’m surprised .

Me neither.

The only potential benefit is the lossy compression allowing to transmit “hi res” in the bandwidth of 44/16.
All the other stuff about temporal de-blurring and the like is at best marketing bullshit if not blatantly dishonest.

I thought it’s all about good mastering , they dig for what they believe is good master and the results are very good ... now if it’s good or bad marketing I couldn’t say or care

Just playing Pastel Blues by Nina Simone as a 'Tidal Master'. I'm not comparing SQ at the moment but I own the 96/24 version so I know that exists and the 'Tidal Master' is a 44.1kHz version. So much for folding 'high res' into a smaller file.

Hot off the press:

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2018/0...streamers/

(06-Oct-2017, 20:29)Jean-Marie Wrote: [ -> ]Me neither.

The only potential benefit is the lossy compression allowing to transmit “hi res” in the bandwidth of 44/16.
All the other stuff about temporal de-blurring and the like is at best marketing bullshit if not blatantly dishonest.

I agree completely, especially if one does not own a MQA certified device. I am also of the opinion that DSP like SAM has much more sonic benefit than using MQAs digital compression and filtering.

(06-Oct-2017, 22:56)no32 Wrote: [ -> ]I thought it’s all about good mastering , they dig for what they believe is good master and the results are very good ... now if it’s good or bad marketing I couldn’t say or care

Of course one can make better masters for a specific format, nothing new, that happened a lot with early SACDs showing that the DSD layer sounds better than the red book layer even the masters where original derived from analog or worse, PCM recordings. (I am not questioning here the sound of pure DSD recordings). There is no clear statement from MQA what temporal deblurring is but it should correct for temporal problems during the recording to mastering process but only if one has full MQA decoding. Why not correct the files that MQA full unfolding is not necessary.

Archimago has recently put a new article on CA: MQA: A review of controversies, concerns and cautions.  Very informative, well-argued and well-written (in my opinion).

(04-Mar-2018, 10:34)thumb5 Wrote: [ -> ]Archimago has recently put a new article on CA: MQA: A review of controversies, concerns and cautions.  Very informative, well-argued and well-written (in my opinion).

Excellent article indeed, and very factual!

The comments are quite interesting and informative also. 

Jean-Marie

(04-Mar-2018, 15:51)Jean-Marie Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-Mar-2018, 10:34)thumb5 Wrote: [ -> ]Archimago has recently put a new article on CA: MQA: A review of controversies, concerns and cautions.  Very informative, well-argued and well-written (in my opinion).

Excellent article indeed, and very factual!

The comments are quite interesting and informative also. 

Jean-Marie

Beyond technical details and personal taste, the important thing is to maintain freedom of choice. Precious testimony.

News from KEF:

https://www.kefdirect.com/mqa-basics

It does not sound like KEF are that keen on MQA either ....