Most-Read Feedback Articles (Last 365 Days)
- 2017-01-15 - Luxman L-550AX -- the Little Amp that Probably Can
- 2017-05-01 - A Paradigm Active/40 Owner on Active Speakers
- 2017-07-01 - The Luxman's League
- 2017-01-24 - Sonus Faber Olympica III vs. PSB Imagine T3
- 2017-04-15 - Here's What Happened to the Devialet Gold Phantom
- 2017-04-17 - MQA: Smoke and Mirrors?
- 2017-04-29 - Ayre's Laid-Back Sound
- 2017-04-23 - MQA: The Emperor's New Clothes?
- 2017-04-16 - KEF Praise, Devialet Question
- 2017-02-18 - Amp Choices for KEF Reference 1s
- 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