Berkeley Audio Design and MQA?

Why did they espouse MQA, knowing, as we all do now, the inherent flaws and falsehoods?


@8th-note ah…. you are Sir… the finest recent example of WHY i still spend time here - bravo :-) Clearly a voice i shall pay more, much more attention to going forward.

Best to you in music and in life !


For those seeking to possibly discern sonic differences in formats, my strong suggestion is a visit to the Grammy winning 2L Recordings ( The Nordic Sound ) free downloads bench……

Interesting responses. I don't "hate" Berkeley. Just disappointed.

I'll certainly "get over it :) " I did not think my post would be considered extreme. Just a little disappointed - no "hate" , not even dislike.  Disappointed,  just a little :). Just to sell dacs is my favorite answer :)  :)  We  certainly have some sensitive people here. Some bristling, itching to fight. Not me. But; I think all those working towards a " corrupt" format (pardon the pun) should be ashamed. They wanted to " control" our access and artists distribution of music. I am happy their greedy venture failed. P.S I am in a business where ethics are Paramount; and I like that :) Cheers to old fashioned honesty ...

The big question in my mind is not MQA but DSD.  I own a Berkeley Audio DAC Reference Series 2 and there is a lamentable absence of support for DSD.  The Berkeley people deliberately chose not to support it based on purity.  IOW supporting DSD would compromise the quality of PCM.  

Doesn’t supporting MQA pose the same problem?

I love MQA, it makes me happy.  Even my cat frolics while we listen with joy.  I dare you to come over and tell me it doesn’t sound amazing.  Your critical thoughts on MQA are fine, but in reality, it sounds really good.  Maybe not at your house, but at mine, it’s awesome.  We can stream all different file types and what we quickly learn is that it varies from recording to recording.  Making blanket statements is silly.