In a recent post here [on Digital Drive] by Charles Hansen he says:
"MQA apparently asserts that the at least 6.8 (and possibly as much as 11.8) of the lower-order bits are inaudible."
https://www.audioasylum.com/audio/digital/messages/18/184097.htm
This is in reference to the lower order bits being re-purposed by the proprietary MQA encoding scheme ... per Hansen:
"However the seven or eight Least Significant Bits (LSBs) of the container are used to store the "folded" dual-rate audio data (encoded losslessly) and the quad-rate audio data (encoded with lossy compression). They *replace* the low-level bits in the original 24-bit file. . reducing the resolution of MQA below 24 bits."
https://www.audioasylum.com/audio/digital/messages/18/184054.html
I will not concentrate on the comment "... reducing the resolution below 24 bits", or even that MQA resolution is "... limited to a maximum of 17.2 bits" (same post). Those who would like to contend those assertions should have at it directly with Hansen ... and in advance, good luck to you, you'll need it!
Rather Hansen's comment triggered another thought ... *if* the lower order bits are relatively insignificantly (1) why not just truncate [the lower order bits] and stream the remainder? ... with the missing bits filled in on the receiving side (e.g. some dithering scheme or whatever).
So we still lose the low order bits ... no change fundamentally since that are effectively lost already with MQA ... but forego the need for the fancy "origami" folding, including the lossy compression of 4FS audio data.
(1) To be clear Hansen make no claim the lower order bits are insignificantly, in fact he casts doubt on just that. However if the idea of tossing the LSBs is a non-starter then MQA is a non-starter ...for very same reason!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - MQA ... why bother? ... why not just use least significant bits truncation? - bjh 12:34:09 05/22/17 (35)
- RE: MQA ...why bother? ..Exactly right. - bare 08:40:06 05/29/17 (0)
- MQA - Claims - Inmate51 09:45:22 05/25/17 (1)
- RE: MQA - Claims - bjh 18:17:02 05/25/17 (0)
- There's no free lunch - Charles Hansen 16:57:53 05/22/17 (26)
- But what about...? - Doug Schneider 03:10:24 05/23/17 (15)
- RE: But what about...? - Charles Hansen 14:36:56 05/23/17 (14)
- Do you - Jim Austin 04:46:41 05/24/17 (1)
- RE: Do you - Charles Hansen 10:53:30 05/24/17 (0)
- RE: But what about...? - Doug Schneider 15:49:03 05/23/17 (11)
- RE: But what about...? - Charles Hansen 16:46:36 05/23/17 (10)
- RE: But what about...? - Doug Schneider 04:02:48 05/24/17 (9)
- RE: But what about...? - Charles Hansen 10:44:02 05/24/17 (8)
- RE: But what about...? - Doug Schneider 18:17:15 05/24/17 (7)
- RE: But what about...? - Charles Hansen 04:43:53 05/25/17 (3)
- RE: But what about...? - Doug Schneider 05:14:56 05/25/17 (2)
- RE: But what about...? - Charles Hansen 09:56:48 05/25/17 (0)
- RE: But what about...? - Charles Hansen 09:22:10 05/25/17 (0)
- RE: But what about...? - Isaak J. Garvey 19:09:25 05/24/17 (1)
- RE: But what about...? - John Atkinson 04:24:34 05/25/17 (0)
- RE: But what about...? - Isaak J. Garvey 19:05:22 05/24/17 (0)
- Glad to see you back... - mkuller 20:59:25 05/22/17 (0)
- a different question... - tunenut 19:03:59 05/22/17 (2)
- RE: a different question... - Charles Hansen 19:48:37 05/22/17 (1)
- RE: a different question... - Isaak J. Garvey 07:04:54 05/23/17 (0)
- RE: There's no free lunch - Isaak J. Garvey 18:36:40 05/22/17 (2)
- RE: There's no free lunch - Charles Hansen 19:25:07 05/22/17 (1)
- RE: There's no free lunch - Isaak J. Garvey 07:03:36 05/23/17 (0)
- RE: There's no free lunch - Ivan303 18:09:54 05/22/17 (2)
- RE: There's no free lunch - Charles Hansen 19:33:37 05/22/17 (0)
- RE: There's no free lunch - PAR 18:53:53 05/22/17 (0)
- RE: MQA ... why bother? ... why not just use least significant bits truncation? - ahendler 13:25:58 05/22/17 (4)
- RE: MQA ... why bother? ... why not just use least significant bits truncation? - bjh 13:38:55 05/22/17 (3)
- RE: MQA ... why bother? ... why not just use least significant bits truncation? - ahendler 15:07:56 05/22/17 (2)
- RE: MQA ... why bother? ... why not just use least significant bits truncation? - bjh 15:13:43 05/22/17 (1)
- RE: MQA ... why bother? ... why not just use least significant bits truncation? - ahendler 17:17:51 05/22/17 (0)