11-Jan-2018, 19:08
(This post was last modified: 11-Jan-2018, 19:13 by Music or sound.)
(06-Oct-2017, 20:29)Jean-Marie Wrote: Me neither.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.
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.
(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.