|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Blind Test posted by Charles Hansen on November 11, 2017 at 05:23:18:
> > Either way, if there's a difference, MQA has changed the sound, and
that's not good.
>
> Apparently not so, in the opinions of Robert Harley, John Atkinson, and
> Peter McGrath...
That's correct, Charley. I can't speak on behalf of Robert Harley, but both
Peter McGraph and I have done a lot of comparisons and feel that the MQA
versions do tend to sound better. Peter's Mahler 5, for example, is a
recording I know well and when I heard Peter dem the original PCM and the
MQA at NY dealer Innovative Audio, the MQA did sound superior.
Now it is always possible that we are hearing the absence of PCM artefacts
and have not yet learned the sonic signature imposed by MQA encoding. Just
as when they first heard CD, many listeners were impressed by the absence
of LP's sonic artefacts - CD's pitch stability on piano recordings, for
example - and hadn't yet learned to hear CD's failings. But for now we
are reporting what we hear, just as we do with anything else we audition.
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Blind Test - John Atkinson 11/13/1715:54:09 11/13/17 (1)
- RE: Blind Test - Charles Hansen 21:23:28 11/13/17 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
