Some people swore by MQA, as evidenced by the many arguments about it on Facebook, and manufacturers really have to provide what people want. I'm reminded of Jason Stoddard from Schiit who said that balanced connections don't really provide any benefits over unbalanced at the cable lengths found in most audio systems. When asked why then did he provide them on his products he said "Because people wanted them."
- ...
- 38 posts total
@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 ! Jim |
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? |
- 38 posts total