Well thats the family Christmas presents sorted too , who dosnt love mothers pickled onions..Outstanding.
I'll save you some. Maybe try it with some Fava beans and a nice Chianti.
I just explained how it is NOT perceptually lossless so not sure you are saying that to me. MQA's approach of preserving all the music can be called lossless since no music was left behind. It would be lay definition of lossless in some sense, "give me all the music." Compare that to 16-bit/44.1 kHz CD which cannot say that.@amirm I do not think MQA is claiming to be “perceptually lossless”. Their position is “MQA coding is lossless [in a traditional, mathematical sense] as far as the source material stays within the [spectral] boundaries of the MQA design (‘the triangle’)”.
You remember when MQA threads degenerated into pizza topping fascism,. Ah the good old days...Anyway. Pineapple
Something you didn't mention but I value is elegance in efficient coding of music. I have always considered PCM format to be highly wasteful. As a person who has spent decades optimizing technology, it seems like such a poor solution. Going from 44.1 kHz to 88.2 kHz doubles the data rate yet there is hardly any musical information to be gained from that doubling. In that regard, MQA's approach of noticing the statistical aspects of music and encoding that is appealing to me. It is simply neat!
We are lucky we are not In Norway.
“On this basis we ask the institutions to find ways to stop the unauthorised use of the title professor,” the ministry said.
"The ministry is of the opinion that the fine has to be of such size that it will have a preventive effect for the largest institutions, and the size of the fine will be decided in each case," the ministry proposes.
Looks like you are the one that is confused. You think the world of technology should be in charity business. Smartphones would not be here if it were not to enrich the employees and stock holders of Apple and Google. Steve Jobs didn't set out to save humanity you know. I don't see Elon Musk trying to save the hungry in Africa either. Netscape popularized the browser as to make Mark Andreesen rich.You appear to be confused. What you describe is the excuse for MQA. It's purpose is to enrich Bob Stuart.
Why would I not have an idea?is it some special audiophile music or something,I know exactly who they are,Bob Ludwig too,so if I may ask what are you trying to say?Obviously, you have no idea who/what Kronos Quartet is, what the track record of Nonesuch Records is (https://www.nonesuch.com) and as Amir confirmed below, who Bob Ludwig is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ludwig).
Most definitely. The most authoritative paper, and analysis actually comes from Bob Stuart! It is both a conference paper and Journal with the latter being more detailed. It is also available in public. It is called Coding for High Resolution Audio SystemsA bit of a tangent here - this MQA debate has inspired me to try and learn a bit more about the inherent limitations and challenges of PCM when it comes to recording and digitizing real-life audio sources. Are there any good resources that discuss this subject matter in more depth?
Almost all of MQA content consumed today is streaming through Tidal so storage saving is not a factor. Audiophiles are attracted to it based on "sound quality" (perceived though different masters or imagined). For many though like me, we got MQA for free and play it when it comes our way.The thing is... how many audiophiles are worried about saving disc space?
I don't know why he went after you. You were very correct that Bandcamp had made a mistake of not checking what was available in what format versus Prostudiomasters.Why would I not have an idea?is it some special audiophile music or something,I know exactly who they are,Bob Ludwig too,so if I may ask what are you trying to say?
Also why soo many reference nils loftgran live when it was done in 16/44 .Most definitely. The most authoritative paper, and analysis actually comes from Bob Stuart! It is both a conference paper and Journal with the latter being more detailed. It is also available in public. It is called Coding for High Resolution Audio Systems
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12986
I found an online version although I don't know if it is the conference paper or the journal one: http://decoy.iki.fi/dsound/ambisonic/motherlode/source/coding2.pdf
"What do we mean by high resolution? The recording and replay chain is reviewed from the viewpoints of digital audio engineering and human psychoacoustics. An attempt is made to define high resolution and to identify the characteristics of a transparent digital audio channel. The theory and practice of selecting high sample rates such as 96 kHz and word lengths of up to 24 bit are examined. The relative importance of sampling rate and word size at various points in the recording, mastering, transmission, and replay chain is discussed. Encoding methods that can achieve high resolution are examined and compared, and the advantages of schemes such as lossless coding, noise shaping, oversampling, and matched preemphasis with noise shaping are described. "
This paper is heavily referenced in other research. And if you read it, it actually has a very sober look of the audio saying we don't need crazy sample rates to preserve what is important in audio. Likely the reason MQA doesn't even try to encode above 88/96 kHz and just upsamples.
Looks like that nails it. In this day and age, you have to meat your customers at eye level. We're not the dumb sheep we used to be in the last century, notably pre-internet.I think MQA has made a strategic mistake of never engaging the audiophile community on these forums. Had they done so, they could have provided the explanations I provided in this thread, a long time ago, obviating the need to do the video OP did, and tons of arguments back and forth. Instead they only went the route of one-shot interviews with press and such with no allowance from the other side to ask tough questions.
Wrong timing for them on all fronts .I just explained how it is NOT perceptually lossless so not sure you are saying that to me. MQA's approach of preserving all the music can be called lossless since no music was left behind. It would be lay definition of lossless in some sense, "give me all the music." Compare that to 16-bit/44.1 kHz CD which cannot say that.
The audiophile community was the one that assumed their definition was mathematically lossless even though MQA did not use that term ("mathematically"). The community had good reason to think so but hopefully as a result of this thread and Bob's new explanation, everyone should know now there is a distinction. The old assumption could have never been true and I had said that many times.
I think MQA has made a strategic mistake of never engaging the audiophile community on these forums. Had they done so, they could have provided the explanations I provided in this thread, a long time ago, obviating the need to do the video OP did, and tons of arguments back and forth. Instead they only went the route of one-shot interviews with press and such with no allowance from the other side to ask tough questions.
Looks like that nails it. In this day and age, you have to meat your customers at eye level. We're not the dumb sheep we used to be in the last century, notably pre-internet.
The audiophile community was the one that assumed their definition was mathematically lossless even though MQA did not use that term ("mathematically"). The community had good reason to think so but hopefully as a result of this thread and Bob's new explanation, everyone should know now there is a distinction. The old assumption could have never been true and I had said that many times.
Keep in mind that Apple and Amazon have likely much lower bandwidth costs than Tidal since they use so much of it.