@audiotroy
I don’t mean this as argumentative as it may come across...
you said: "If you want the most advanced digital product in the market currently the T+A is the one to beat."
and yet it doesn’t have MQA ability - again, I am sure many would argue that the SQ, intent/purpose, principle of MQA is debatable.
the reality is, however, that there is a material amount of content out there in that form and a meaningful number of DAC companies that are supporting the format in their devices.
How can any supporter claim a component is the most ’advanced’ and not support a format that many other lesser, similarly, and higher priced devices do support?
Again, interested to hear your thoughts on how you reconcile that issue...I do find the T+A intriguing - but it is at a fairly high price point and if its differentiator is its advanced capabilities this omission seems to directly undercut at least part of its core value proposition?
also, in regard to your final paragraph...I think at least part of the discussion has shifted to the synergy/match of these DACs in my own system - and so I would be curious to know if the T+A is not just 'better' on paper and/or in a top of the line system....but whether its 'better' in context of my system components/speakers.
I don’t mean this as argumentative as it may come across...
you said: "If you want the most advanced digital product in the market currently the T+A is the one to beat."
and yet it doesn’t have MQA ability - again, I am sure many would argue that the SQ, intent/purpose, principle of MQA is debatable.
the reality is, however, that there is a material amount of content out there in that form and a meaningful number of DAC companies that are supporting the format in their devices.
How can any supporter claim a component is the most ’advanced’ and not support a format that many other lesser, similarly, and higher priced devices do support?
Again, interested to hear your thoughts on how you reconcile that issue...I do find the T+A intriguing - but it is at a fairly high price point and if its differentiator is its advanced capabilities this omission seems to directly undercut at least part of its core value proposition?
also, in regard to your final paragraph...I think at least part of the discussion has shifted to the synergy/match of these DACs in my own system - and so I would be curious to know if the T+A is not just 'better' on paper and/or in a top of the line system....but whether its 'better' in context of my system components/speakers.