arnyk wrote: > The claim has been made that MQA covers the reproduction system > end-to-end, but that claim breaks down in reality.
I haven't seen it in action, just read a few online reports. It implies that this is the goal. > For example how can a Steely Dan recording recorded and mixed some > decades ago be end-to-end MQA qualified?? Where is the list of MQA- > qualified speakers or room treatments? Obviously. I don't know, i don't work for them. They imply there will be one. > Fat sausage mastering is so popular because there is a perception that > it helps sell recordings. I am well aware of all this. Most commonly it is seen in conjunction with heavy compression and squashed dynamic range (and sometimes outright distortion), which could be an artistic choice but most often is more to do with making it sound loud on the radio, and to hell with the sound quality for those that take the time to listen properly. Very frustrating. > Application of reason suggests that no way a globally-applied automated > process like MQA can provide comparable results. Well that's right, it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. Which is why I suggested it's part of a first step only... Actually I'd rather see a "thx like" mastering standard with guideline volume levels and listening levels, than this specific MQA thing as it seems like it's marginal in effectiveness. But any attempt to introduce a standard might push the industry towards something more complete and effective. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105070 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
