Berkeley Audio Design and MQA?

ptss,

Why do you create so many anti MQA posts?

Do you know you don’t have to buy MQA devices?

You have created many posts about things you don’t like, why are you not happy?

MQA ..very much like both the A2D and the DAC ( in many cases plural ) used to create / mix / deliver the modern music we all enjoy… ( or not ) ALL have issues… attempting to fix those issues - often directly liked to the various filters ESSENTIAL to ALL digital IS / WAS a noble pursuit…

Did you ask the very accomplished people at Berkeley ?

I own a  DAC still in production some ten years in… @erik_squires .. i view this as good compared to the seemingly endless parade of dac de jour round here….

@ptss When you demo’d multiple MQA recordings vs th 16/44 versions did they all sound better/worse/the same to you?

What a format sounds like (assuming it is not grossly reducing data… like MP3 is very large the result of the hardware that is used to interpret it. MQA was a great idea, with lots of things going for it that was too late to market. It can sound great, and would have been a great if introduced 10 years ago. 
 

Top level companies need to embrace new standards in  technology. I have heard MQA on a Berkeley Reference Alpha 3 in my system. It sounded great. I did not do a detailed comparison. But I seriously doubt there was much if any difference in the sound quality with a red book file. 

I don’t see any reason to fault Berkeley. If you use Tidal, that was what much of their library was in.

Those of us who have heard and compared more than a few A2D converters… would deeply understand the improvement genesis behind the MQA idea….