|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.52.245.236
In Reply to: RE: Blind Testing posted by John Atkinson on October 28, 2016 at 04:13:08
Just to address another statement made in the MQA thread,: Doug Schneider
wrote that:
>There was a lot of misinformation about MQA files being the same size as
>CD-resolution files. They're not. CD resolution is 16-bit/44.1kHz, while
>MQA is 24/44.1 or 24/48. At minimum, they're 50% larger.I compared the file sizes with one of my recordings in the article linked below.
From that article:"The 24/88.2 WAV master file for my recording of the Portland State
Chamber Choir's 2014 performance of "Amazing Grace" is 169.5MB. The
MQA-encoded FLAC version is just 51.5MB: 30% of the original size. For
reference, the 24/88.2 Apple Lossless version is 90.7MB, or 53.3% of the
original, and the version on the CD, limited to 16-bit/44.1kHz, is 55.7MB,
or 33%. MQA, therefore, gives the greatest reduction in file size and
thus necessary streaming bandwidth..."The MQA FLAC file is 51.8MB, the CD is 55.7MB. It is fair to point out
that the CD file is uncompressed and that a lossless compression codec
like FLAC would reduce the file size to around 30MB. But I don't believe
it was that comparison that Doug was referring to in the quoted text. If
it was, then it wasn't clearly expressed.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 10/28/16Follow Ups:
where I once summarized that the claim for MQA was that it could pack all the goodness of 24/96 into a 16/44 wrapper. Indeed, it remains 24 bits and the amount of space that implies.
I sit corrected.
It would have been nice were MQA backward-compatible with CD transports, but...
That is not the case.
That said, I have wondered whether one could...
1) Take an early digital recording such as Glenn Gould's early-1980s Goldberg Variations remake
2) Process it with the front end of the MQA system, that is, correct the file's digital timing errors
3) Sample Rate Convert the corrected file and press a CD from that?
Obviously, the question is "Why?"
The answer is, "Perhaps there are a few recordings where there is pent-up demand for the best possible physical medium version that is not an LP or an SACD."
Demand, but not among audiophiles or computer geeks.
On the other hand, I could pick out a Desert Island recordings list that did not have one recording that was originally digital: Court and Spark, Sleeping Gypsy, Aja, Avalon, Famous Blue Raincoat, etc.
ATB,
John
Hi John,
I have to wonder: Why do you want it compatible with CD transports? I'm having trouble understanding the rationale for that.
Doug
> I have wondered whether one could...
> 1) Take an early digital recording such as Glenn Gould's early-1980s
> Goldberg Variations remake
> 2) Process it with the front end of the MQA system, that is, correct the
> file's digital timing errors
> 3) Sample Rate Convert the corrected file and press a CD from that?
I discussed this possibility with Bob Stuart at the recent RMAF. Whether
any additional resolution could be packed into the LSBs of the 16-bit CD
container would depend on the level of the recording's analog noisefloor.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Hi John,
Please don't take this as an attack or anything like that. I see this forum as an open discussion.
In terms of what is mentioned about the noise floor, I think this is where MQA's definition of "lossless" and the computer world's term for it differs. And I'd argue that if someone is going to use the terms "lossless" and "compression," they should be using the computer world's.
In computers, lossless compression is, well, a ZIP file or similar. Take the file, compress it, then uncompress it and bring it all back again.
When I hear things like it depends on the noise floor, I think they're using it as "analog recording lossless." So, for example, if 15 bits are used, then 9 bits (out of 24) are just noise, then if we only retain the 15 bits, say, we're "lossless" because the remaining 9 didn't matter anyway.
Do you agree with how I'm thinking they mean that MQA is lossless?
Doug
> Do you agree with how I'm thinking they mean that MQA is lossless?
No.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
So do you think they mean lossless in the computer-world sense? You can take the original, say, 24/192 or higher file, MQA compress it, then uncompress that same file and get it all back again? Like millions do with ZIP files daily? (Or, in the music-file world, FLAC or ALAC or similar?)
Doug
it is too clever for most to understand!
13DoW
assertions within the model cannot be understood until they have been subjected to audience testing with a large sample size.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: