 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
90.208.37.32
In Reply to: RE: MQA and OPPO posted by Erdo on May 28, 2016 at 09:04:19
Schiit Audio: Why We Won't Be Supporting MQA
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Follow Ups:
I read them and PS Audio.One of hte major complaints both have is that they don't want to pay the licensing fees, and rely upon the MQA engineers to come up with an adequate signal "Pre-distortion" to cancel out the pre-ring and post-ring in the transients.
The same crew pioneers Apodizing filters, and those were poo-poohed, until people could roll their own, and it went as mainstream as any other technique.
Call me cynical, but I think the protests against MQA speak more their economic realities, than whether the format is adequate or not. And not for nothing, if this closes the gap between someone who strings chips together vs someone who has a custom FPGA - there is less differentiation between, say, Bricasti and dCS and a a company following the manufacturer's application recommendation. THis is bad for them, but very good for a consumer.
It's interesting that both companies turning it down call it "compression" - in a strict pedantic way they are correct. But so was HDCD by that definition, but the information was used to enhance the PCM that was also encoded on the disc. It smells like some passive aggressive spin and misinformation.
Wile I am not "for" or "against" MQA at this point, I'll let my ears be the guide, it does show promise Sounds like it is meant for the mainstream audio companies, and streaming. But if that improves, so does our day to day listening.
=Signature=================
As audiophiles, we take what's obsolete, make it beautiful, and keep it forever.
Hey! I have a blog now: http://mancave-stereo.blogspot.com or "like" us at https://www.facebook.com/mancave.ster
Edits: 06/13/16
All the relevant technical contributions associated with MQA, if any, were done a long time ago. They are no longer economically relevant due to progress in computer and communications technology, which has rendered bits so cheap that their is no longer any marketable economic benefit to formats whose only benefit is saving a few bits. Audiophiles need a new format like a fish needs a bicycle, especially since if it's proprietary. Audiophiles should resist this format as if it is the plague. It is part of a long tradition of signal processing scams that are oriented to solving technical problems rather than sonic excellence. Earlier efforts along these lines are Dynagroove, Dolby A, B and C, and MP3 and its spawn. They are all mid-fi at best.
If the technology behind MQA had been implementable cheaply 15 years ago it might have been relevant. Today, bandwidth and processing are so cheap that their is no need to pray tribute to failed inventors and failed inventions that missed the mark over a decade ago, even if the inventor is an AES Fellow.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
