Quantcast
Gearspace.com - View Single Post - MQA discussion at Denver RMAF
View Single Post
Old 31st August 2017 | Show parent
  #17
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Bryston
Auralic
PS Audio

AK Designs (DACs & software)
Ayre (Hifi)
Benchmark (DACs)
Klinktbetter (Hifi software)
Linn (Hifi)
Shiit (Hifi)
Xivero (Studio software)

MBL (Hi-Fi) is based in Berlin and builds everything from DACs to loudspeakers. Their digital engineer is Juergen Reis, another first-rate digital designer, also anti-MQA.

Exogal (DACs and power amps) is based in Wisconsin and is a descendant of Wadia (another early Hi-Fi DAC manufacturer). Their digital engineer is Jim Kinne

Naim (Hi-Fi) is a UK-based company similar to Linn. They have many different digital engineers (large company) and are also anti-MQA.

Chord Electronics (Hi-Fi) is a UK-based company. Their digital engineer is Rob Watts and he is anti-MQA.

-----------------

I would add as a "doing MQA reluctantly" ... Bricasti and Parasound. Not pro not con, just annoyed and serving demand.



The only company that counters your theory on filter makers (which makes good sense) is Berkeley Audio Design, the same people as Pacific Micosonics. I've spoken with the owner Michael at length and his view is that if there is MQA AD on par with the Model Two at 192 in a smaller data package ... and the DA side both, it can work. He also agreed that the roll out marketing is not what it could be, to be kind about it and respect his comments.

Berkeley used in-house proprietary digital files made from 24 192 AD on the Model Two ... then they were given all the MQA DA tools to set up the decode as they pleased.

I think he said they turned off the DeBlur, that's a gimmick. They tested and listened for countless hours and say that ONLY IF there is a MQA AD, which they were promised would happen and which I seriously doubt as it's a loss leader like the Pacific Micro ADs were at the time, then it can be a "clear glass" on both ends.

If no AD ... then it can't work. BAD has top measuring tech and top ears and I'm with him on the tests they did in principle.

The issue is the highly dynamic music they used is the 1%, (single mic source, or highly dynamic simply jazz/classical recordings made on Model Two) vs, pop, which is most music.

So for the 1% of most natural and dynamic music and the 1% of best best playback we must all go this route ... if what he said is true about their tests? That's a lot of work for the 0.01%