@Thomas savage , this is what I had in mind regarding MQA «remastering» and
@amirm ’s take on MQA as a service of value for consumers:
——-
View attachment 19272
——-
Both
@amirm and you talk about remastering here.
You wrote «unless they do a great job remastering the files» and
@amirm talked about «potentially hand-tuned new masters» and then he put the weight of his authority back this sentence:
«...some of the MQA content I have heard compared to non-MQA sound remarkably better, indicating better mastering».
I think
@RayDunzl ’s back of the envelope calculations show that you (Thomas) were guilty of wishful thinking. As for
@amirm , he must have been very lucky picking out the few MQA albums with «better mastering».
So I may not stand corrected after all?