Would be my guess too.
Printable View
I think this is the biggest and most significant aspect of MQA but it can really only be fully resolved with an MQA encoded recording and playback hardware from beginning to end as it were. I have heard what correcting time domain / transient information has on digital material and it is profound. Personally I feel it allows the brain to work much less harder to resolve information in a recording that makes it sound real.
Maybe we are now at a stage in digital music reproduction where it truly has come of age and will deliver the promise it set out to do and provide a viable alternative to analogue music systems.
Personally I am still sitting on the fence as I feel there is maybe more to come and at a cheaper price but for now I am staying with my vinyl.
I have no idea how you are going to do that?
The thing with this hobby is, if you hear an improvement something the reason for that improvement is not necessarily what you have been told it is. A classic example is the DVD-A and SACD formats, we were told that the obvious improvements they delivered were due to extended bandwidth and dynamic range when in fact these aspects made no difference and the improvement was due to better mastering. That seems to be the case with this MQA, too.
WRT my earlier Muse post, it may just be that the louder hi-fi version is the "loudness wars" version complete with some digital clipping, and the quieter MQA version is just at a sensible level.
Just thought I'd say, like.
Thats a good thing with Roon, you can tell if its compressed at a glance.
You can see the waveform of the track and if its just a solid band across the track you think "Uh oh".
.,Just reducing the amount of overall compression on some masters would increase perceived quality on any decent system. If that was it you would expect to hear the least improvement where there was good dynamic range already on the master you are using to compare.