|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
80.176.73.121
In Reply to: RE: 2L MQA Files posted by fmak on February 07, 2016 at 05:58:24
I believe that you were listening to the MQA file undecoded. If so then your findings effectively agree in ranking with 2L's own listening notes (from Morten Lindberg).
The 2L ranking for undecoded MQA files is that the DXD source is first, MQA second and CD resolution third in preference.
So it would seem that the logical next step would be for you to compare the undecoded MQA file with the CD resolution version that 2L have posted.
I look forward with interest to your further posting.
Follow Ups:
and CD resolution third in preference.
just use higher open system resolutions than 44/16? 96/24, 88/24, 192/24, DXD all exist today.
I'm with others in not understanding why we need yet another (proprietary) format.
this doesn't make more money for some companies that try to reintroduce monopolistic technologies for captive users.
If one looks at the history of science, this occurs infrequently and it is difficult to predict the chances of success.
In terms of MQA being just another file format you are right. However MQA is not offered as such but as away to stream or to otherwise deliver the equivalent of the hi-rez file resolutions you have listed but within a low-rez wrapper. Its other purpose is to offer a way of improving the end to end accuracy of the recording process including legacy material (they say).
As I believe that Joe Public doesn't really give a hoot one way or the other I think that its commercial success in the consumer market will mirror that of better than MP3 streaming. I remain doubtful of the latter long term if it involves a significant premium over "standard" subscription costs or an additional investment in hardware.
we can all dream but this seems to be about monopoly.
There is o way that 44.1k sample rate files (many downsampled) can be equivalent to hires. How many times have folks tried before?
"
There is o way that 44.1k sample rate files (many downsampled) can be equivalent to hires".For accuracies sake that is not what MQA claims. MQA is a kind of compansion system where the components of files larger than 44.1 are buried beneath the noise floor of a 44.1 file to be "exhaumed" via use of the decoder. Please see their simple explanation in the URL below. So the 44.1 MQA file is not equivalent to a hi-rez file , it actually "contains" the entire hi-rez file.
I do not know what you mean by "monopoly". Any record producer or streaming service is free to choose to use it or not (my expectation is "not" for the majority). If it is used then it is not necessary to decode the MQA file in order to listen to the music at redbook resolution (which most of the world seems to be happy with).
Edits: 02/09/16
''MQA is a kind of compansion system where the components of files larger than 44.1 are buried beneath the noise floor of a 44.1 file to be "exhaumed" via use of the decoder.''
So the entire hires file is buried below -94dB!
This is not what the papers posted on the subject say.
Bits that "you don't need" are stolen from the original 44/24 file and replaced with the bits "you need" that were in an 88/24 source file. The presumption is that the bits "you don't need" are unnecessary (e.g. the low order 8 bits) and that all the high frequency bits "you need" will fit into the space previously occupied by the stolen bits. This might work better than a 44/24 downsample of the original if the stolen bits are actually less valuable than the benefits of the high frequency bits that replaced them. (Scrambling techniques are used to ensure that changing the stolen bits sounds like added noise when playing back without a decoder.) This might be a net gain in sound quality if one is limited to 44/24 bandwidth, however it can only be a net loss in sound quality compared to the 88/24 original without MQA. In other words, this portion of the MQA story amounts to data compression, not sound quality improvement. Meridian decides which bits "you need". They are no help to audiophiles who want all the bits that were recorded.
The other sound quality claim concerns filters. The claims are sufficiently ambiguous, but the impression is that there is a magic filtering process that can automatically improve older 44/16 recordings and that the MQA encoding process does this. In reality, any old 44/16 recording can be remastered into a higher resolution format and this can improve (some) bad choices of filters. This can even be done by the consumer by selecting appropriate upsampling filters. So the most that can be said about this part of the marketing is that by buying a new DAC you can avoid fiddling around with filters in an existing DAC or computer player. Of course, demos are easily concocted that compare bad older masterings with new remastering in to the MQA format. And one can find record label owners and DAC manufacturers saying how great MQA sounds in the hopes that they will sell more recordings and DACs.
Finally, there is the "authenticated" part of the deal. It seems the main benefit of any authentication is to MQA, in that it creates a captive market (sales, lease or a service business) for MQA encoders and encoding. In addition, because of the use of encoding, laws such as the DMCA in the US, come into effect that make it illegal to build decoders that aren't authorized by the MQA company.
Because the encoding authentication depends on the secrecy of the encoding keys the encoder needs to be specially packaged in a secure box and the encoder comes with a corresponding high price. This means that small record labels will not be able to use MQA economically, instead they will be cut out of the system or have to use a MQA encoding service. If MQA succeeds in the marketplace, the effect will be to make it more difficult for small record labels to compete against larger labels.
It is highly questionable whether users will receive any benefit from MQA's authentication. It will protect the content from the distribution chain, but it will not protect the content from manipulation prior to its being encoded by MQA. In no sense is there "end to end" integrity, since this would have to begin at the recording studio and ends in the listening room.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
what was all that hot air about restoring lost information in air in the paper referred earlier, which is supposed to be a secret sauce in MQA.
Can't answer. I'm not sure which paper you are talking about.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Not quite. Only the parts of the hi-rez file that exceed the part which is already contained within the 44.1 bandwidth are contained beneath the nouse floor. See the elegant explanation given by Bob Stuart in the MQA " How it Works" video as per the link in my last posting.
tells but explains nothing in concrete terms.
Don't you just love audio marketing?
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
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: