- Joined
- Mar 20, 2020
- Messages
- 168
- Likes
- 1,089
How many bit are required for this sample recording?
As I wrote but you must have missed, the room tone recording was a 24-bit file.
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
How many bit are required for this sample recording?
"Success" would be achieved when MQA is used to master most, if not all, new releases and back catalog of recorded music for streaming, downloading, or other uses.
So MQA will bind compression to deblurring tighter than white on rice, and make it tough to objectively or subjectively evaluate the compression scheme. This makes the job of the rational reviewer impossible: If, in comparing MQA to non-MQA files made from the same master, we hear any differences, we won't know what has caused them. We will be forced to assume that any differences we hear are the results of the synergy between deblurring and compression.
In my book, that's not good enough.
There are two issues here, and with their PR campaign MQA Ltd. has done a great job of focusing our attention on one—sound quality—and not the other: the hazards of a format monopoly. If MQA succeeds, I predict that it will lock in for a decade or two, or even longer. That will mean that all high-resolution files from the major labels during those decades will be formatted in MQA. No alternatives.
As I wrote but you must have missed, the room tone recording was a 24-bit file.
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
Yeah I think the annoyance needs to be directed at MQA, not Amir, not JA etc.To be fair
Regardless of MQA's technical elegance and promised increase in sound quality, the removal of consumer choice in recorded music is indeed a relevant issue
I have already referred ASR readers to the articles I have written on MQA. They are easily accessible at Stereophile's website. I don't see why I am obliged to repeat what I have written here.
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
Could you point us to the specific article that lays out in summary why MQA benefits consumer?
When I glance at your articles, I see very technical discussions that examine specific aspects of MQA and it's controversies.
So since you wrote the articles, if you could point to where we can find sort of that summary evaluation that is in layman's terms, that would be great.
Yeah I think the annoyance needs to be directed at MQA, not Amir, not JA etc.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/more-mqa
There's no point attacking anyone that is not from MQA or commercially associated with MQA.
As for some of the things I've seen on other audio forums about this site and this thread, being posted by one that should know better... it's not a good look either.
JSmith
Sorry for the confusion, I was not referring to you.It is a mistake to construe technical discussion for confrontation.
Sure, I don't disagree.However, those who post here should be willing to answer the simplest question pertaining to their data.
It was, but I think the confusion stems from the fact that your post was a reply to this snippet which you quoted:As I wrote but you must have missed, the room tone recording was a 24-bit file.
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
and you opened you post with:Here is why I don't want what MQA is offering:
Replaces CD quality with13-bit CD quality.
This indicates that you were refuting the text you quoted, about 16-bit data being reduced to 13-bit quality. But the supporting data you presented dealt only with a 24-bit recording and did not address 16-bit at all. This is confusing to people who assume the data presented is in support of your opening statement, which does not appear to be the case.I am not sure where you get the impression that 3 bits of "quality" are lost. The container still has the original bit depth. But there is now a hidden data channel in which data encrypted as pseudorandom noise can be buried without reducing the original resolution of the audio data,
This is truly driven. I loved the part where MQA circuits are used, those are different circuits or processing. I looked in my computer that runs Roon and could not find the dedicated circuits.
I believe his ears because he puts an oscilloscope in frame.
- Rich
It was, but I think the confusion stems from the fact that your post was a reply to this snippet which you quoted:
and you opened you post with:
This indicates that you were refuting the text you quoted, about 16-bit data being reduced to 13-bit quality. But the supporting data you presented dealt only with a 24-bit recording and did not address 16-bit at all. This is confusing to people who assume the data presented is in support of your opening statement, which does not appear to be the case.
This thread is fascinating. MQA offers consumers no tangible advantages whatsoever, except perhaps the claim of “deblurring”, which has not been shown to be of any audible value, even assuming the problem exists. Bandwidth and storage costs are dropping, so size reduction beyond lossless compression is not worth much for audio files, certainly not worth up-ending the industry over, and even if it was MP3 solves that problem. This is a pirating restriction technology masquerading as a consumer benefit, but there’s little or no benefit to be had. Fortunately, I suspect (hope?) Amazon, Apple, and Spotify are too smart and customer-oriented to fall for this complicating diversion to their streaming businesses.
Which dongles with MQA support you have seen lower than 100$?
And so, here we are: MQA was designed by some of the luminaries of the audio industry.
Mhm, I can just see the headlines. "No Scientific Tests Were Done, Says MQA Founder".
They do seem to react negatively to the word "lossy" though.That may sound bad to you but to a large number of audiophiles "science" is a dirty word. I think MQA knows it's target market, audiophiles that are desperate to add "magic" to their system and don't trust "science".
I have already referred ASR readers to the articles I have written on MQA. They are easily accessible at Stereophile's website. I don't see why I am obliged to repeat what I have written here.
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
Are you posting here as yourself, an audio enthusiast not related to your day job, like most of us here, or are you here in your official capacity with Stereophile?
I'm really sorry about the term "luminaries", used in a hurry and with English as my second language. You may call them "brilliant engineers", "world class engineers", or just "smart guys". Please choose the one that is less disturbing to you. In the same fashion, what I called "hunch" you may better call it "hypothesis".Yet here is a quote from one of today's audio industry "luminaries", Bruno Putzeys:
Oh hang on, actually I started by asking if besides speculations about neuroscience and physics they had actual controlled listening trials to back their story up. Bob Stuart replied that all listening tests so far were working experiences with engineers in their studios but that no scientific listening tests have been done so far. That doesn't surprise any of us cynics but it is an astonishing admission from the man himself. Mhm, I can just see the headlines. "No Scientific Tests Were Done, Says MQA Founder".