Home Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

RE: "...I don't see the benefit of worrying about size of files.".......

Which is likely to give us better sound, a hi-res PCM file losslessly compressed with FLAC, or the same file lossily compressed with MQA?

The best case for MQA is that the data it loses isn't musically important and most people in most cases can't hear the loss. But you could say the same for MP3 and any other lossy codec.

My mobile phone connection on AT&T is sufficient to handle up to 10 simultaneous streams of raw, uncompressed 24/96 PCM. And my cable connection at home is 2-3 times faster than that. And compressing with FLAC cuts the required data rate nearly in half. MQA cuts it nearly in half again, but so what?

I don't see how I as a music consumer benefit from adopting another lossy compression format when there really isn't any need to save bandwidth. Especially when it's a proprietary format that requires a licensed decoder. It's taken a long time to get past MP3 and get the labels to offer downloads and streams in open, lossless formats. I don't want to go back.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Audio Hoarder  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
  • RE: "...I don't see the benefit of worrying about size of files."....... - Dave_K 15:48:09 03/21/17 (1)


Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.