You already said it: zero-order hold.Then how do you describe this process? Duplicating the original samples without changing the amplitude values? If there is a technical term for it please name it.
You already said it: zero-order hold.Then how do you describe this process? Duplicating the original samples without changing the amplitude values? If there is a technical term for it please name it.
People can't seem to hear a difference with hi-res and downsampled hi-res, at all. The master is what matters.why ask, just let your ears tell you the difference.
There are a few files of all formats here you can download and test how it sounds or if you can hear differences:
http://www.2l.no/hires/
What if the differences are audible, but unrelated to filtering?why ask, just let your ears tell you the difference.
There are a few files of all formats here you can download and test how it sounds or if you can hear differences:
http://www.2l.no/hires/
Now that's odd. Almost like they're botched on purpose.What if the differences are audible, but unrelated to filtering?
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111416.0.html
What if the differences are audible, but unrelated to filtering?
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111416.0.html
Is it really so even after truncation of inaudible parts?The bandwidth argument is bogus since MQA doesn't actually save anything compared to plain FLAC. Some files even get bigger.
You don't need MQA to do that.Is it really so even after truncation of inaudible parts?
I am very curious about alternative, possibly more efficient, algorithms than what is being applied to output format according to the MQA specification. Do you have any in mind?You don't need MQA to do that.
MQA discards everything above 48 kHz. There are free tools that do the same thing.I am very curious about alternative, possibly more efficient, algorithms than what is being applied to output format according to the MQA specification. Do you have any in mind?
I am quite surprised about such engineering practices. Is the ringing eliminating filter applied to the signal prior compression and transmission or worse attached to XMOS?Hey all,
So - I posted a thread a couple of weeks or so ago inquiring about potential DAC choices if selling the one I have to fund an MQA-compatible DAC, as I was using Tidal. I'm now giving the free trial of Qobuz a try to decide which service I want to stick with (so far, Qobuz has a few desired titles that Tidal does not, which is a plus), but noticed that Qobuz streams FLAC 24/96 instead of MQA.
Doing a bit of side-by-side comparing, there were a few MQA versions I actually liked the sound of a bit more than the 24/96 streams, but with some others, there was no real audible difference I could detect - I realize this is purely subjective, but I thought the MQA versions of stuff I preferred sounded a bit "warmer", or more lively (but both being great).
I found a technical article about how MQA works, and what caught my attention was something about how MQA uses a filter that supposedly reduces a "ringing" effect caused in all other digital audio formats when the analog waveform is reconstructed.
This has me curious - is this simply BS/marketing jargon for MQA? Don't all DACs use a filter of some type when reconstructing the analog waveform? And therefore, shouldn't it be possible to do anything MQA can (and more, as MQA supposedly isn't a truly lossless format?) with standard Hi-Res files using a filter to suit one's taste?
Just hoping to gain a better understanding of how it all works, and if MQA is all hype?
Thanks!
Perhaps MQA was formed at times whenWell, in addition to the posts here, I did some digging through the MQA thread that was shared, and have come up with the following thoughts
- Any audible differences I may have heard between an MQA version of a track on Tidal versus its Qobuz counterpart (using the same DAC) would more than likely be a difference in the masters used than anything else.
- MQA doesn't appear to offer any real advantage to the consumer over existing digital formats, particularly as internet/phone technology improves and file size/download speeds become even less of an issue (if it's not that way already).
Would these be fairly sound conclusions? I'm starting to drop the idea of switching to a DAC that supports MQA - but would it still be worth having a DAC with more filter options? (Mine has 3).
You got a very valid point and as you indicate, hypothetically, the committee that formed MQA could not foresee such a massive increase in bandwidth and corresponding lowering of costs as we have experienced so far.Well, in addition to the posts here, I did some digging through the MQA thread that was shared, and have come up with the following thoughts
- Any audible differences I may have heard between an MQA version of a track on Tidal versus its Qobuz counterpart (using the same DAC) would more than likely be a difference in the masters used than anything else.
- MQA doesn't appear to offer any real advantage to the consumer over existing digital formats, particularly as internet/phone technology improves and file size/download speeds become even less of an issue (if it's not that way already).
Would these be fairly sound conclusions? I'm starting to drop the idea of switching to a DAC that supports MQA - but would it still be worth having a DAC with more filter options? (Mine has 3).
MQA was announced in 2014.Perhaps MQA was formed at times when
There seems to be a fashion to ridicule MQA without providing scientific proofs about weakness in the format or codec.aka Medium Quality Audio? Motives Questionably Authentic? Misrepresented Quality Alterations?
There seems to be a fashion to ridicule MQA without providing scientific proofs about weakness in the format or codec.
What makes you say that? I reverse engineered the decoder and found out quite a lot about how it works. It has been discussed at length here and elsewhere. I'm happy to provide answers to specific questions if you can't find them, but please stop with the silly accusations.There seems to be a fashion to ridicule MQA without providing scientific proofs about weakness in the format or codec.
There seems to be a fashion to defend MQA without providing scientific proofs about it being worth its use as a format or codec, rather than plain lossy or lossless. Why a 'folded' lossy DRM format should exist, the answer is obvious, not for your enjoyment but for the $$$$There seems to be a fashion to ridicule MQA without providing scientific proofs about weakness in the format or codec.