Why the continued interest in MQA’s lossy format? I just do not get it - sorry.
HB
If it's so bad why are so many reputable companies, signing up to use it? They must see some advantage other than money.
Why would they not do it for the money - that wouldn't make any business sense. Unless you believe they are altruistic companies doing it for the greater good.If it's so bad why are so many reputable companies, signing up to use it? They must see some advantage other than money.
Why would they not do it for the money - that wouldn't make any business sense. Unless you believe they are altruistic companies doing it for the greater good.
I totally agree. I was making the point that staff are often naïve about the true objectives of the company they work for.@THX1138UK Staff may think that way but that is not the way their companies are run - investors and shareholders do that.
Altruistic Companies go bust very quickly, business is about making money. We now live in a Society where Social Media Tech Giants, promote liberal values and sit on wealth that would make Midas jealous. Yet when it comes to MQA, I'm not so sure. The developers, Meridian are a top range tech company and their previous attempt at improving digital sound reproduction was really good. It failed because not enough companies would buy into it. This time they are falling over themselves to use MQA.Why would they not do it for the money - that wouldn't make any business sense. Unless you believe they are altruistic companies doing it for the greater good.
Altruistic Companies go bust very quickly, business is about making money. We now live in a Society where Social Media Tech Giants, promote liberal values and sit on wealth that would make Midas jealous. Yet when it comes to MQA, I'm not so sure. The developers, Meridian are a top range tech company and their previous attempt at improving digital sound reproduction was really good. It failed because not enough companies would buy into it. This time they are falling over themselves to use MQA.
It is playable on all audio equipment. (For example, go here and you can listen to it, regardless of equipment.) Sure, a listener can also choose to add an MQA decoder, further boosting audio quality, but this is not necessary to actually play back an MQA file.and only playable on limited equipment
It is playable on all audio equipment. (For example, go here and you can listen to it, regardless of equipment.) Sure, a listener can also choose to add an MQA decoder, further boosting audio quality, but this is not necessary to actually play back an MQA file.
You don't get 16 bit resolution from red book CDs either. People seem quite happy using flac compression software and that may be more lossy than MQA?Playable yes, but at significantly less than CD audio quality. I believe you only get 13 bits of resolution, not 16.
Regards,
James.
I disagree. MQA's approach involves three key aspects: its innovative method of digitally capturing original master recordings; its ability fold/unfold the file, making it convenient to stream; and an MQA file's provenance - so, the 'authenticated' in MQ'A'. But most critically, to me at least, regardless of bits, MQA files do sound better than CD quality. Did you click the link? Did you listen to the music videos? That'd be a far more interesting discussion. Me? I reckon that they sound pretty darn good and that is without the addition of any MQA-enabled kit.Playable yes, but at significantly less than CD audio quality. I believe you only get 13 bits of resolution, not 16.
Regards,
James.
Or just left for people who prefer the sound of it?I don’t bother with MQA, I use Qobuz rather than Tidal, it’s preferable to me on the DSP5200SE’s and my Linn system. MQA should be left for the portable audio market as intended.
FLAC compression is lossless - the clue is in the name FLAC -> Free Lossless Audio Compression. MQA is a lossy compressionYou don't get 16 bit resolution from red book CDs either. People seem quite happy using flac compression software and that may be more lossy than MQA?
On the subject of lossless and FLAC, the below is taken from a lengthy Q&A that MQA co-creator Bob Stuart undertook with Audiophile Style. It's a good read - click here to check it out.FLAC compression is lossless - the clue is in the name FLAC -> Free Lossless Audio Compression. MQA is a lossy compression
But (way) more importantly, how does it the sound?!FLAC compression is lossless - the clue is in the name FLAC -> Free Lossless Audio Compression. MQA is a lossy compression
The same as the original redbook CD unsurprisingly.But (way) more importantly, how does it the sound?!
Or just left for people who prefer the sound of it?
I have no idea what that lengthy article (cant be ar**ed to read all of that) has to do with FLAC. I was correcting the fake info from @Ron HilditchOn the subject of lossless and FLAC, the below is taken from a lengthy Q&A that MQA co-creator Bob Stuart undertook with Audiophile Style. It's a good read - click here to check it out.
Q: Is MQA really lossless?
A (Bob Stuart): This question often seems to assume that lossless is always best but in fact all "lossless" does is to take some bits and to reproduce those same bits at another time or place. It that's all you wanted to do, FLAC would be fine and there would be no need for MQA.
The team behind MQA understand not only lossless compression (see [jumpto=anchor41]Q1[/jumpto]) but also lossless processing and data burying. As explained earlier, there is a fundamental difficulty if we focus solely on strict lossless delivery. It is understood that a digital distribution system (including MQA) can be lossless in distribution. The problem is that the result is not delivered today; current DACs do not have lossless behaviour in the digital domain and all behave differently. Also the replay chain has several (sometimes unintended) places where losslessness breaks down. This is covered in our papers [[jumpto=anchor1]1[/jumpto]][[jumpto=anchor2]2[/jumpto]].
So MQA is set up to deliver a ‘closer-to-lossless’ digital path up to the DAC modulator with the goal of approaching analogue-to-analogue ‘lossless’ within appropriate thermal limits, including protecting the signals above ‘acoustic absolute zero’ (see [[jumpto=anchor1]1[/jumpto]][[jumpto=anchor2]2[/jumpto]][[jumpto=anchor11]11[/jumpto]].
MQA does not have the capability to defeat information theory.
More important is to capture and protect (in a lossless manner) all the information in the file that relates to the music content. This means capturing safely at least everything in the triangle on the Origami diagrams; this is then conveyed and protected without loss. This triangle is important for defending the content but also to achieve the low-blur hierarchical sampling chain.
Furthermore, the system path from analogue to analogue is more precise because of the other parts of the technology. Lossless deals with data in the digital domain. The biggest problem, in our experience, is getting it from analogue and back to analogue with the least audible damage. See [jumpto=anchor42]Q0[/jumpto] and [jumpto=anchor43]Q15[/jumpto]. Unless you understand this perspective MQA looks strange.
The problem that MQA is addressing is how to transport an analogue signal to another time or place. It is the analogue signal from the mixing desk that the producer heard and that is the signal that you want to reproduce at your loudspeaker.
Many recording and mastering engineers have testified that MQA improves very considerably on the conventional methods, recreating the sound they actually hear or remember