solderdude
Grand Contributor
Easier to see with the exact same scales and overlayed or animated gif and alternate them.
If Indeed (as I suspect) they create new and perhaps technically better masters (no loudness compression and enough headroom to allow for intersample peaks and stay clear of 0dBFS then there could be merit to MQA.
To bad they don't release the same 'improved' master in 24/192 or 96/24... but then the light will not come on and they won't make much money.
I also think there are 2 ways to earn money... sell a LOT for less profit or very little with a LOT of profit.
Bob S may be doing both ... earn money by selling a lot of licenses and sell very expensive stuf..
Clever guys...
Still think the encoding 'trick' is not really needed any more. Think of Video 2000 and DCC. Both technically interesting and good 'solutions' but much too late. By the time it hit the market others already owned that market. May be the same for MQA.
The vigorous advertising, secrecy and 'myths' is what keeps interest going ... there is talk about it.
If Indeed (as I suspect) they create new and perhaps technically better masters (no loudness compression and enough headroom to allow for intersample peaks and stay clear of 0dBFS then there could be merit to MQA.
To bad they don't release the same 'improved' master in 24/192 or 96/24... but then the light will not come on and they won't make much money.
I also think there are 2 ways to earn money... sell a LOT for less profit or very little with a LOT of profit.
Bob S may be doing both ... earn money by selling a lot of licenses and sell very expensive stuf..
Clever guys...
Still think the encoding 'trick' is not really needed any more. Think of Video 2000 and DCC. Both technically interesting and good 'solutions' but much too late. By the time it hit the market others already owned that market. May be the same for MQA.
The vigorous advertising, secrecy and 'myths' is what keeps interest going ... there is talk about it.