Most-Read Feedback Articles (Last 365 Days)
- 2016-09-24 - Amphion's New 3LS Loudspeaker
- 2016-11-01 - Hegel H360 vs. Devialet 120 or 200?
- 2016-08-19 - Wharfedale Diamond 225 vs. SVS Prime Bookshelf
- 2016-09-10 - KEF Reference 201/2 -- Still Recommended?
- 2016-10-27 - Vivid Giya G3 vs. Vivid B1 Decade vs. KEF Blade Two
- 2016-08-26 - Is MQA Going to Go the Way of HDCD?
- 2017-01-15 - Luxman L-550AX -- the Little Amp that Probably Can
- 2016-10-26 - B&O BeoLab 90 Video and Review
- 2017-05-01 - A Paradigm Active/40 Owner on Active Speakers
- 2017-01-24 - Sonus Faber Olympica III vs. PSB Imagine T3
- Category: Reader Feedback Reader Feedback
- Created: 17 April 2017 17 April 2017
To Doug Schneider,
A great article [on MQA], Doug. Thank you for posting this informative read. It troubles me that a simple MQA encoding of “offered” music has not been done. It truly makes me wonder: Is MQA becoming “smoke and mirrors”? We’ll wait and see how it goes. But you’re not alone in questioning MQA.
I think it’s safe to say that MQA’s reluctance to do A/B comparisons with properly vetted source material casts a lot of suspicion on exactly what it is they’re claiming and doing. It’s possible that what they’re offering is a real benefit to audio enthusiasts, but it’s also possible that it is, as you say, smoke and mirrors. Until we can do those comparisons, we won’t really know. . . . Doug Schneider