Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: Ok, part 2 posted by E-Stat on February 16, 2017 at 11:34:41
MQA can also be encoded to fit a 16-bit Redbook container for distribution via CD, while still holding high-rez information, and is not restricted to 24-bits. The technical consequence is increased quantization noise.
Edits: 02/16/17Follow Ups:
1. The full deal lossy encoded and unfolded in 24 bits (sounds like a Waffle House hash brown order)
2. A halfway lossy encoded 24 bit approach
3. A dumbed down 16 bit lossy version with additional noise
Yeah, that third flavor surely must sound better than Redbook.
Sounds simple to me! :)
Why is this such a big deal? If you don't like or want MQA then ignore it. Like DSD, I ignore it because It does not give me any real improvement in sound but does require me to pay a premium
First, its all about streaming. Then it will "simply the catalog". Then it can be delivered on a CD.
You're one of the few buying this concept. How's the oldies rock and blues content working for you?
Look, just because you disagree with certain answers/assessments doesn't render them BS. Perhaps, you disagree due to your own personal bias and not because of the answers themselves, who knows. At any rate, baselessly insulting characterizations are not appreciated.
Are you kidding?
Look, just because you disagree with certain answers/assessments doesn't render them BS. .
Sorry, but I pay attention to what others post. Let's review some of what you've said:
With MQA, the number of catalog items could be cut in half, or even by two-thirds in some cases... .
As we've seen, that speculation has no basis in fact. Next!
You opined that MQA might provide:
...compellingly increased consumer sales (due to greater convenience or greater listening satisfaction), and/or whether it compellingly lowers industry distribution cost.
When I challenged the notion of "convenience" and "lower cost", you folded. Obviously since neither applies in today's world of inexpensive internet bandwidth cost.
I've observed that there is an utter dearth of downloadable titles. When I've challenged PAR with that reality, he retracted. "That takes further time"
I've observed based upon an in depth analysis of another poster that the 500 odd titles available on Tidal are largely classic rock and soul/blues.
Do you have any data that refutes any of those facts?
Also, would you care to share with us your top 3 MQA titles? What content justified the additional cost to use one of few MQA compatible DACs?
You've fully revealed your irrational hostility toward this subject. Thank you, as I now know not to waste any more of my time attempting to have a rational discussion with you.
Pardon if you confuse discussing facts "hostile". BTW, earlier you opined:
Then it can be delivered on a CD.
That was my conjecture at one point as well, but was corrected by John Marks on that point.
In a Bob Stewart interview he said it can be put on a CD
"It is practical to make MQA CDs which are 100% backward compatible, sound great as a Redbook CD and decode to much more."
"Practical" from exactly who's standpoint? Even Stuart told John Atkinson "that would depend upon the level of the recording's analog noise floor ".
Even the MQA website promotes only streaming or downloading.
Maybe we'll see brand new and improved CDs in time, right? Just what Millennials are looking for. :)
Your evident prejudice and hostility toward a subject about which you are so obviously ignorant is quite astounding. Be aware, that the more you write the more you reveal your ignorance. No, I'm not going to spend the time necessary to educate you. You're not seeking to learn, you're seeking to defend your preconceptions.
For the record, I've not advocated for MQA. I've merely attempted to also discuss some of it's potential advantages. I'm only an audio hobbyist with some technical education. I have no agenda, pro or con, regarding MQA aside from an general audiophile interest in obtaining better subjective digital replay. I've not yet heard MQA, and so, have not formed any opinion on the sound offered.
which you are so obviously ignorant is quite astounding
over your past seven posts, you've failed to demonstrate anything that I've said that is incorrect. OTOH, we both shared the same misconception about the ability to use the CD format. :)
but have no agenda, pro or con, regarding MQA.
Nor do I. Just the facts, M'am!
...over your past seven posts, you've failed to demonstrate anything that I've said that is incorrect. OTOH, we both shared the same misconception about the ability to use the CD.
That makes a good example for me to use. You misunderstood what Marks wrote, probably because you are predisposed to misunderstanding it. An legacy CD player cannot DECODE MQA in to it's high resolution versions, but CAN still play an MQA encoded track as Redbook PCM. The undecoded MQA specific content simply acts as strong dither. This ability is fundamental to MQA, which is something so basic that the fact you don't know it helps reveal your ignorance about MQA. While ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, hostile belligerent ignorance is.
but CAN still play an MQA encoded track as Redbook PCM.
Then it's no longer MQA!!! Why would anyone press a CD with content that is never playable? Is that what you want folks to believe? Really?
This ability is fundamental to MQA, which is something so basic that the fact you don't know it helps reveal your ignorance about MQA
Your ability to demonstrate that anything I've said is incorrect remains zero.
Do you have difficulty discussing facts?
I knew I shouldn't have attempted to help you understand any of this. My own fault for trying.
Post a Followup:
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: