Stereophilus

MQA is the Obi Wan Kenobi of the audiophile universe? We all know how that ended..

I’ve owned the CX+EX combo for about a year, before selling the EX when I added an built-in renderer to my DAC (obviating the need for the EX). I’ve never had an Innuos server in my system, but I’ve heard them in other systems and compared to antipodes servers. My opinion, as expressed, is based on that experience. I can give you further details if you wish, PM me if you want. Ultimately, you are right to be sceptical though. The only opinion that matters in your listening is yours.

No contest... the CX+EX is a significant step up IMO. I guess it depends a bit on the DAC though.

We need an SNA community CD and vinyl library to mitigate this risk.

Subtle point, but I believe they mean the analog performance, prior to recording and ADC. The fact they could hope to do that with material submitted to MQA as a digital file is either extremely naive or extremely ambitious. Especially given that parts of those files were never analog to begin with. Hence this statement “First, the encoder is fully automatic, which means it will use analysis to set parameters for each song as a whole; second, it is intended strictly for music. This encoder is not configured to deal with content where, for example, the statistics change mid‐song,

Here is another HB video. He is a fierce proponent of MQA.

Surely you know how ASR works...? Measurements are the only evidence you need. That is until they disagree with your world view. Then you need expensive and non-existent DBT or ABX listening tests on top of the measurements.

There a fair bit of irony in someone presenting objective evidence on ASR and getting undermined because of it...

The more I see of the evidence from people like Archimago and GoldenSound, the more I see this point of view to hold true.

I hope the mods let me post this link. It is both funny and true. If the choice in this debate is between 2 poor choices, I choose neither. I’ll phrase it more literally if that’s still not enough. The absence of good evidence is NOT good evidence of absence. It is simply that we don’t have good evidence to make a strong case either way. So the argument that “there is a default position in the audio research community” is a turd sandwich argument. Sighted listening is a giant ******. Neither is the better choice. Just different types of poor evidence.

Grant, I wrote a post in this thread a few weeks back asking you to post links to the studies that establish these "facts" beyond reasonable doubt. If the foundation of the "established consensus" is based on poor science then it must be challenged. As I said in my previous post, all I want to do in this thread is establish how good the science really is behind this perceived consensus to which you refer. You will note only the first 3 points are in contention from my perspective.

Oh yeah! Just signed up... streaming on the 1 month free trial.

More fuel for the fire.... http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/highresaudio-to-stop-offering-mqa/

Oh the humility! Held to ransom by your preamp! 😂