Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback
Now, thanks to this paper, they can point to it should anyone contest that the difference offered by MQA isn't actually audible. They'll contend: "But didn't you get the memo: the 2nd offered conclusion in the AES paper's abstract? It noted that only truly high fidelity audio systems can reveal the difference, so if your pedestrian $23K speakers don't cut it, that's because they are half the quality of the ones we used." This whole BS test farce is now moot IMO, given that we now have the real McCoy from the BS company: MQA. You too look like you are going to blow a blood vessel over this . So let me share with you some good news, bad news. Which one do you want to hear first? Ah, I figured you would pick the bad news first. Bad News: This is a perceptually lossless scheme for high-resolution audio. Stated (example) efficiency is in the order of 10:1 with respect 24/192Khz, bringing its data rate from nearly 10 mbit/sec to less than that of the CD, i.e. 1 mbit/sec. So there goes the argument that it takes 6 times more to store high resolution audio. The encoding (I think) is layered allowing a lossy 16-bit base layer without a special decoder. The efficiency comes from going from the "rectangle" of bit depth and sampling rate to a much more customized shape where only the data that is a) not noise and b) is important perceptually is saved. There is no reliance on masking and such but rather preserving the "timing" of the signal (xnor: you get to go nuclear now ) in addition to frequency domain. They have been working with both Sony Music and WMG (Warner) on testing and development of the technology so I would expect both of those labels to be present at their CES announcement.Good news: The world needs a new audio format like a hole in the head. The audience for high-resolution audio is enthusiasts who a) don't care about bandwidth or storage costs and b) won't accept any argument of perceptual equality. They will insist on getting the original bits. Getting a new decoder into all manner of devices and players when it comes from a tiny competitive company called Meridian is a non-starter. While the format is also targeted at archiving, I expect zero uptake there as the cost of storage there compared to production is negligible. There is this inside story of tech company executives who dream of waking up one day and being in "content business" and rubbing shoulders with the stars in music/movies. The calling is quite strong and folks jump at any idea, no matter how stupid from economical point of view, and jump with both feet. Who doesn't want to stand on the stage with Sony and Warner executives on stage. No longer do you show up with some boxes on a tech show where there is no attention from mainstream press. Music labels only care about MGs (minimum guarantees) these days. They will sleep with AJ and Mzil if they showed up with a $500,000 check. They will hand you their catalog, wish you good luck and hope the next tech exec falling victim to above. So Meridian will put up some tracks. Build the decoders and such for this. A couple of years from now hopefully they wake up and realize what a distraction and financial drain this has been and mothball the efforts. At least I hope it only takes that long. So don't have a heart attack over this. There is no "there there." It is a solution looking for a problem that the end customer does not have. Yet it creates friction in delivering the same. I told you there is no money in audio business, didn't I?