MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

[Julf]

to capture more transients in the music information without the need to have some esoteric upscaling mathematics to fill the gaps

I call BS.

 

[watchnerd]

I hope Dolby or DTS come out with their own master hires codecs for 2 channel audio.

Why?

I don't fancy the idea of having to pay for Dolby licensing fees in my HW or music.

 

[Parzival]

No, it can't. What do you think the timing resolution of 44.1/16 is?

I know this can be an interesting debate but is actually besides the point. Also listening degrades with age and other factors but more importantly you don’t know what you need till you experience it. (8K vs 1080p Logic)

What I was trying to illustrate, is the need to progress. 44 kHz is a 1979 CD technology. It’s been 40 years. Even the microphones and speaker technologies have drastically improved. Storage and transmission was a yesteryear concern which is no longer the Achilles heel now.

 

[Parzival]

Why?

I don't fancy the idea of having to pay for Dolby licensing fees in my HW or music.

haha true that, nobody does. But there are no free lunches and there is a cost to progress.

 

[Parzival]

I call BS.

That’s being dismissive. Obviously you are entitled to your own preferences.

 

[watchnerd]

haha true that, nobody does. But there are no free lunches and there is a cost to progress.

Sure there are.

Implement a better codec in open source.

If you think a better codec really matters.

 

[sergeauckland]

I know this can be an interesting debate but is actually besides the point. Also listening degrades with age and other factors but more importantly you don’t know what you need till you experience it. (8K vs 1080p Logic)

What I was trying to illustrate, is the need to progress. 44 kHz is a 1979 CD technology. It’s been 40 years. Even the microphones and speaker technologies have drastically improved. Storage and transmission was a yesteryear concern which is no longer the Achilles heel now.

Why do we need to progress? The technology may be 40 years old, but our ears are already thousands of years old in design, so as 16/44.1 was transparent then, it still is.

S

 

[watchnerd]

Why do we need to progress? The technology may be 40 years old, but our ears are already thousands of years old in design, so as 16/44.1 was transparent then, it still is.

S

The entire need to "do better" is to create a reason to sell us more stuff.

 

[Parzival]

Sure there are.

Implement a better codec in open source.

If you think a better codec really matters.

Even an open source codec is just a container. Open source is not a free lunch either.

 

[watchnerd]

Even an open source codec is just a container. Open source is not a free lunch either.

???

But it doesn't require licensing like your idea to use DTS or Dolby...

 

[Parzival]

The entire need to "do better" is to create a reason to sell us more stuff.

It is to meet an unarticulated need. We didn’t need cars till we saw one.

 

[watchnerd]

It is to meet an unarticulated need. We didn’t need cars till we saw one.

Cars solved real problems.

Ultrasonic audio does not.

 

[Parzival]

???

But it doesn't require licensing like your idea to use DTS or Dolby...

you may be required to pay licensing fee even on tech developed using open source. Open source is only about quick and collaborative industry adoption and not to curcumvent royalties or licensing fee. This is a common misunderstanding.

 

[BDWoody]

to capture more transients in the music information without the need to have some esoteric upscaling mathematics to fill the gaps

 

[Parzival]

Cars solved real problems.

Ultrasonic audio does not.

Transients are not ultrasonics. Nyquist theory has had it’s fair share of misunderstanding. Digital is discrete compared to analog. This discrete nature is the driving force to improve resolution.

 

[Julf]

you may be required to pay licensing fee even on tech developed using open source. Open source is only about quick and collaborative industry adoption and not to curcumvent royalties or licensing fee. This is a common misunderstanding.

I have developed open source software for 40 years. Open source is about a lot of things. I would love to see you try to debate your point with Richard Stallman.

 

[Parzival]

View attachment 84314

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

 

[Julf]

Transients are not ultrasonics.

Exactly. So you don't need ultrasonic capability to reproduce transients.

Nyquist theory has had it’s fair share of misunderstanding.

Indeed. You seem to be illustrating one of them.

Digital is discrete compared to analog. This discrete nature is the driving force to improve resolution.

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

 

[SIY]

to capture more transients in the music information without the need to have some esoteric upscaling mathematics to fill the gaps

You really should study Shannon Nyquist. It’s neither esoteric nor new.

 

[watchnerd]

you may be required to pay licensing fee even on tech developed using open source. Open source is only about quick and collaborative industry adoption and not to curcumvent royalties or licensing fee. This is a common misunderstanding.

I work in open source and have for 20 years.

It all depends on the specific type of open source license implemented.

Some of them would not allow what you're proposing.