|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Which is the reason MQA only works for files and not CD-type discs posted by John Atkinson on October 28, 2016 at 07:45:40:
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
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Which is the reason MQA only works for files and not CD-type discs - Doug Schneider 08:23:56 10/28/16 (4)
- RE: Which is the reason MQA only works for files and not CD-type discs - John Atkinson 08:28:10 10/28/16 (3)
- RE: Which is the reason MQA only works for files and not CD-type discs - Doug Schneider 08:32:17 10/28/16 (2)
- The biggest problem with MQA is .. - 13th Duke of Wymbourne 12:42:48 10/28/16 (1)
- it is too clever for most to understand - fmak 10:29:31 11/05/16 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
