In Reply to: RE: Doesn't 2L record in DXD? How did they settle on the MQA Sample rate? posted by PAR on April 27, 2016 at 21:41:50:
The "original file" (whatever the original master was) is not recovered from the decoded MQA. That would be mathematically impossible if the original file was at a higher resolution than 44/24 or 48/24, since there would not be enough bits. Rather, a "lossy" version of the original file is recovered.
There is some marketing hype that MQA can be better than the original file itself. If you believe that, there's a bridge in Brooklyn you can purchase. Of course if you compare an MQA version made from one master with a different master file (or CD downsample thereof) you may discover that the difference in mastering is 100x greater than any format differences.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Doesn't 2L record in DXD? How did they settle on the MQA Sample rate? - Tony Lauck 04/28/1612:54:55 04/28/16 (2)
- RE: Doesn't 2L record in DXD? How did they settle on the MQA Sample rate? - PAR 15:40:30 04/28/16 (1)
- RE: Doesn't 2L record in DXD? How did they settle on the MQA Sample rate? - ahendler 16:38:31 04/28/16 (0)