sloerhoofd
transdogmifier
For those who don't know
Thx for this
You believe that nonsense? As I said above:
Overall opinion of MQA: Completely pointless and useless.
@ 4:22: False. "Clearly". LOL! Fail. Patently false.
@ 4:51: False. Patently. The sound output is guaranteed to be identical to the recorded input. Mathematically guaranteed. It is impossible to be different. The only place to improve: the DAC (if not designed to specifications), and the analog output from the DAC (traces, amplifier, output, etcetera).
The rest of the video? What more can I say? The rest is just opinion based on false pretenses.
Additionally, @:5:51 "Yup, this is as close as you are going to get to the master copy!...". Does he really believe this nonsense!?! As he knows, it is a lossy compression! How can anyone believe that the statement is true if it is measurable that information was lost and that it is not in fact the original copy!?!? I mean, you are PROVING that it is not the original copy, and then saying "this is as close as it gets"!?!? What?! CDA is lossless, doesn't need compression, and is a bit-perfect copy of recorded human-perceivable sound which is mathematically guaranteed to be reproduced on the other end. How can lossy compression be better than that?
His argument shouldn't be about bandwidth. His argument should be about lossy versus lossless. And his argument should be about whether recording ultrasonic sound which humans can't hear has any merit. The video is simply flawed. He almost gets to the point of talking about something which matters, but then the video just veers off onto stuff which doesn't matter. It's almost like making excuses for why MQA can't be better, rather than discussing whether it should exist in the first place.