Julf
Facts are our friends
Naturally. But why did he stop at 24/96 when he could have compared fully decoded MQA to 24/353.8?
If you read the whole thing, you notice that he had trouble finding material that was genuinely even 24/96.
Naturally. But why did he stop at 24/96 when he could have compared fully decoded MQA to 24/353.8?
If you read the whole thing, you notice that he had trouble finding material that was genuinely even 24/96.
He's funny:
" "extreme audiophiles" are emotionally insecure obsessive-compulsives cognitively weak in performing reality testing and prone to the use of superlatives in advertising and media. Dear readers, IMO don't be an "extreme audiophile" and end up like that ."
Interesting historical perspective. Thanks!
Are there any genuine benefits to MQA, Archimago mentions folding 24/96 to take up less band width?
Keith
Are there any genuine benefits to MQA, Archimago mentions folding 24/96 to take up less band width?
Keith
On a slightly cynical note, will MQA be a vehicle to recycle and sell more back catalogue music or will this extend to new releases?
Yes, there are benefits. The folding and bitstacking will reduce the required stream rate or file size as they claim. Not really any doubt about that.
However the questions then arise, since you can get much the same sort of reduction in file/stream sizes *without* MQA or even reducing the sample rate. And avoiding the added anharmonics. etc. So a fairer question might be "Why do it this way when alternative exist that people might prefer given a choice?"
I must admit, also, that given a historic perspective, people developed and used low-rate mp3 many years ago and it was widely adopted because they weren't able to stream or store the LPCM. Yet that would now be seen as a quaint reason.
As the internet and hardware develop, how long will it be before no-one worries much about streaming plain boring old 192k/24 flac all day? 8-] ...if they still have a choice, of course.
I may have misunderstood but I thought MQA takes the original 24/192 packs it up , then unfolds it but the unfolded version is not bit perfect any more because of the additions of the MQA process?
Keith
In my listening its not about MQA trying to deliver effectively CD quality over a stream, to my ears its simply the best I have heard albums I know ever. Period.
No you are not wrong. MQA employs a very selective interpretation of what is required above 16/44. It plainly discards much of the information in 24/96 and includes nothing which could not be contained in 16:96 flac at similar bitrates. In the rare instances where the master was over 24/96 the remaining information will be mangled further. If anyone could actually hear that stuff, who knows what they would think.I may have misunderstood but I thought MQA takes the original 24/192 packs it up , then unfolds it but the unfolded version is not bit perfect any more because of the additions of the MQA process?
Keith
And you have ensured that what you are listening to is the properly decoded and unfolded MQA stream, and not the raw MQA-encoded stream?
Mind you after saying that the MQA sounds the same as the (bogus or genuine) hi rez, he adds...
I don't know what that is, all I know is when I play masters my dac turns to 96, and it sounds bloody awesome. Now if a MQA dac means I would get even more goodness, then wow, thats great. But for now what I am hearing is better than my own rips of the same album, but a country mile. Ripped with a naim server.