“MQA is a philosophy”..John Stuart

I think cj1965 and the other naysayers are the ones who are gullible and vulnerable to bad mouth anything that they cannot hear. They are probably in the same club that can’t hear a difference between cables/cartridges/amps/etc...  we all know that there are these types out there, we just need to ignore them.

I think cj1965 and the other naysayers are the ones who are gullible and vulnerable to bad mouth anything that they cannot hear.

But I can hear the difference as stated previously. Are you bad mouthing those who can hear the difference even as you cannot?

In the end, we will be led to where ever the music is, because we love our music. :)

I think it's worth having this discussion if we can separate the value (which is arguable) from the process, which is in fact pretty ambitious. 

From a technical point of view, I think it is clear that MQA is "not just a codec" by any sense of the meaning. The full scope of it's ambition, to correct all timing errors in the A/D, D/A chain and to do so using equipment specific data is monumental. 

Benchmark has one of the best explanations, as well as technical criticisms I've ever read about MQA here:

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa

The blog puts to rest any attempt to relegate MQA to the world of "mere codecs." 

Is it worth while?  On my MQA capable Brooklyn I leave it off. You should do as suits you best.

Best,


E

Forgot to mention something. IMHO, MQA is about 2 decades too late. With high bandwidth internet and terabyte thumb drives, and DACs that in the last 5 years play Redbook MUCH better than they used to, the pure need for MQA has really diminished a great deal IMHO. 

If this had been introduced a few years after the CD, I am sure it would be the dominant digital standard today.