In Reply to: RE: Not a question of space posted by Doug Schneider on November 2, 2016 at 15:29:16:
Hi Jim,
I like your responses (you explain your rationale well). I actually just landed in Warsaw, so there's not time for me at the moment to talk about your first points, but to the final one, about me worrying about it not being lossless, isn't quite right.
Bandwidth is increasing, data speeds are constantly getting faster, and on and on. Perhaps someone might think me "wasteful," but why not use the bandwidth if we have it? And we do (in most cases). But in places we don't, compress away. To me, though, MQA is, as someone put in a forum elsewhere, a solution looking for a problem. The problem it solves is irrelevant.
Back when I started looking closely at MQA, I called on some of the foremost experts in digital processing in hi-fi. The sources are going to be withheld (the gave me their candid feedback, but for my own education, not for publication), but I'll say that none of them are impressed, and insofar as the compression aspect goes, only one of them called it "relevant" -- then he added, "six years ago." He, too, sees little benefit. Why do it at all? Likewise, in Tokyo last month, I gathered a couple digital designers and go their take. They said "MQA is good... for your phone." Again, reducing the data transfer can have some benefits in that arena.
This is probably a point we can agree to disagree on. I see no benefit any longer with regards to the compression -- and it will become less relevant as every day progresses. In 2005 to 2008, maybe. 2016 and beyond, no. Others might, but I'll say this: When in the history of computers have we worked to consumer LESS space. Hard drives get bigger, RAM grows larger, networks get faster, simply to handle the constant increases in data use -- that will continue to increase.
Doug
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Not a question of space - Doug Schneider 15:45:05 11/02/16 (0)