MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

[Julf]

I know this can be an interesting debate but is actually besides the point.

If you think it is besides the point, it shows you don't actually understand it.

 

[watchnerd]

Transients are not ultrasonics.

Correct.

So I don't need ultrasonic resolution to reproduce them.

 

[Julf]

That’s being dismissive.

Yes, I am dismissive towards faulty claims unsupported by any sort of rationale or evidence.

 

[Julf]

Haha ok I get it, no more debating on this. Adios Amigos.

Don't let the door hit you on your way out....

 

[watchnerd]

That makes no sense. Do you understand what "resolution" means? Analog signals have a limited resolution too.

My 15 IPS analog tapes throw shade on my 7.5 IPS tapes.

 

[Julf]

My 15 IPS analog tapes throw shade on my 7.5 IPS tapes.

Both still have a resolution that is less than 16 bits

 

[watchnerd]

Both still have a resolution that is less than 16 bits

Shhhhhh.

The specs on my Studer are like 12-13 bits equivalent, but don't tell anyone.

 

[watchnerd]

Which is more discrete:

Bits, or atoms of oxide?

 

[Julf]

Which is more discrete:

Bits, or atoms of oxide?

Uh oh, soon we see the word "quantum" mentioned...

 

[watchnerd]

Uh oh, soon we see the word "quantum" mentioned...

Quantum computing analog audio ticks a lot of boxes.

 

[Parzival]

Haha. Some of the comments are genuinely good and some humorous. But for every naysayer to this particular topic or any debate for that matter, just saying NO without any exposition or just simply having a worn out rhetoric, doesn’t really advance the debate nor does it help in furtherance of understanding.
Some of the companies will love to stick to what they already do and resist disruptive change as it entails cost and will also come out with all sorts of stuff to make you believe it is not really needed.
Some of the audiophiles and prosumers might love the gear, recordings, tapes, vinyls and the stuff you already have and I totally get that, it’s natural.
However, progress and technology are undeniable and inevitable, it is about time for better audio to become mainstream and the paradigms of audiophile tech to change.

Hopefully next 10 years will see some ground breaking stuff. I for one am excited to know more on new developments.

 

[Julf]

Haha. Some of the comments are genuinely good and some humorous. But for every naysayer to this particular topic or any debate for that matter, just saying NO without any exposition or just simply having a worn out rhetoric, doesn’t really advance the debate nor does it help in furtherance of understanding.

Neither does making erroneous claims unsupported by facts, evidence or rationale.

 

[Julf]

Haha ok I get it, no more debating on this. Adios Amigos.

So much for that...

 

[mansr]

Which is more discrete:

Bits, or atoms of oxide?

That's a trick question. You can't have an oxide with fewer than two atoms.

 

[watchnerd]

That's a trick question. You can't have an oxide with fewer than two atoms.

Can I have binary without two digits?

 

[sergeauckland]

Can I have binary without two digits?

Only if you have one hand clapping.

S

 

[watchnerd]

Haha. Some of the comments are genuinely good and some humorous. But for every naysayer to this particular topic or any debate for that matter, just saying NO without any exposition or just simply having a worn out rhetoric, doesn’t really advance the debate nor does it help in furtherance of understanding.
Some of the companies will love to stick to what they already do and resist disruptive change as it entails cost and will also come out with all sorts of stuff to make you believe it is not really needed.
Some of the audiophiles and prosumers might love the gear, recordings, tapes, vinyls and the stuff you already have and I totally get that, it’s natural.
However, progress and technology are undeniable and inevitable, it is about time for better audio to become mainstream and the paradigms of audiophile tech to change.

Hopefully next 10 years will see some ground breaking stuff. I for one am excited to know more on new developments.

Sure.

Lots of areas to improve.

Room correction.

More immersive audio than 2 channel gives you.

etc

But ultrasonic music is not one of them.

 

[BDWoody]

I for one am excited to know more on new developments.

You sound like a marketer's wet dream... Don't bother me with details of what's relevant, what could impact what actually gets to my ears, and whether or not there is actual, verifiable science that can debunk the whole pile of nonsense...tell me it's better and I'll go tell my friends, and so on, and so on. Tell me a story and I'll hand over the money.

I was on the same path...but decided to leave my ignorance behind. It didn't even hurt at all...

 

[firedog]

Of course MQA does support more than 96khz. Tidal has acoustic and classical albums coded at 192khz. But MQA has its limitations and is mired with debates and controversies about whether even it has higher bit information which to my mind is an existential question

The MQA compression algorithm doesn't encode anything in the source file above 48Khz - if there is something it's discarded as being irrelevant acoustically. Effectively, no MQA file is more than 18/96. There is no such thing as 24/192 MQA. At best it is 18/96 upsampled to 24/192.

 

[bigguyca]

Which is more discrete:

Bits, or atoms of oxide?

Please give an example of an atom of oxide.