"MQA is providing similar fidelity to PCM at lower data rates/file sizes." ...like every other lossless compressed codec?Still though, similar, how are people not getting lossless?
The format is absolutely lossy.
You get ~16 bits worth of dynamic range from a 24 bit file where the ~8 least significant bits are used to lossily encode frequency content above baseband content.
Is it established that MQA has no loss up to the 15th bit?
Quote from: greynol on 25 September, 2017, 02:27:59 PMThe format is absolutely lossy.Yeah, yeah, but 3 out of 2 audiophiles in the room can't hear this, if you read the patent.Anyway, these tests are of little relevance, as the dotard messiah has spoken now."I knew Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein was a friend of mine. Robert, you're no Albert Einstein."
In fact all sounds are composed of collections of sine waves or if you will, tones with various frequencies.
Or, did they invent a new science and new mathematics while I was not looking? ;-)
"The new psychoacoustic paradigm recognizes that human hearing didn’t evolve to hear tones and beeps.
We use two test stimuli . The first is a Gaussian packet...
@Archimago The comments section at your blog gives the best insight one can find in short what MQA is really about.I can't make up such stupid sarcastic writing as the real swallowers seem to honestly believe
I'm going to be honest here. This has nothing to do with audibility here. But I would say regular Hi-Res is better than MQA Core based on several points:Need of prosperity hardware and software and forbidding of decoding the audio stream into a usable format for a device that doesn't support it.The fact that regular Hi-Res files is typically a change of sample rate and bit-depth that can easily be converted.The fact that it's just another Super Audio CD type of attempt all over again.
Agreed. DRM is the obvious goal of MQA.
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 27 September, 2017, 02:57:02 PMIn fact all sounds are composed of collections of sine waves or if you will, tones with various frequencies. That is, I guess, up to terminology - what one means by "composed", and how it could be misunderstood (even deliberately, since we are dealing with the marketing mumbojumbo-land). As you know very well, it does not matter whether or not they were "composed" that way originally, but whether they were composed that way originally, but whether the signal can be decomposed that way and then recreated for playback - and to an error tolerance beyond audible transparency. I guess that using the term "composed" fuels audiophool rhetoric based on the (convenient) misunderstanding that it must mean "originates from". Heck, one could have used square waves or triangle waves instead of sines/cosines. Any choice of basis will do in theory, and therefore the trigonometric basis will do. No matter whether the audiophool thinks the sound originates from something that does not at all look like pure tones. All it takes is the sufficient number of bits - an imprecise statement yes, but one will anyway have to check real-world engineered implementations against measurements of human hearing, which is the proof of the pudding no matter what.
It has long been recognized