Forget the “3 bits” that people are mentioning. It’s a red herring (or maybe the sound of axes grinding). I already described in message https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-music-on-tidal-to-test-mqa.22549/post-759747 how, with a digital audio recording of actual music, it is possible to create a hidden data channel in the least significant bits without losing resolution or “bits.” So forget about MQA for now and consider the following thought experiment (which has nothing to do with “deblurring,” “leaky” reconstruction filters, B-splines, etc):
....
But again, to talk about “losing 3 bits” or “truncating” the audio data is incorrect.
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
There seems to be a blindness to the very real concern that CD quality is under assault, the true master is under assault by a company that wants to preserve the "crown jewels". We had the crown jewels and MQA wants to remove them.
The answer seems to be, just pay the royalty it will be fine.
Who cares about the crazy computer audiophiles, we long for the days of the record store. Good grief.
The red herrings are swimming over at MQA inc., masquerading as key features.
The proponents of MQA don't seem to acknowledge the damage that will be done if MQA becomes the only master. The loss of resolution, added noise, added ultrasonics added to the sources. We may soon have new titles offered with less than 44.1/16 resolution for the fist time since the CD became mainstream.
MQA is so bad, it doesn't seem to dare call itself HD-Audio. That's quite statement from a company that has been to be a proven prevaricator.
Without MQA hardware/software or with with MQA bypassed to allow for processing freedom, exactly how does the a file with "3 bits" used for MQA folding get these bits back?
What miracle has the exact same bit serving both functions?
I prefer my herring pickled as well as simple answers to simple questions.
- Rich