Thread: A question about MQA

Originally Posted by mep

So what is the provenance of all the MQA files?

Originally Posted by mep

E

If you enjoy blind testing audio gear with your buddies, that’s great. I would rather listen to music.

Nice false dichotomy. Every blind test I've performed on audiophiles was them listening to/enjoying music.
But I fully understand why audiophiles avoid them. Trust ears/just listen? No way! ;-)

Originally Posted by still-one

You realize that is significantly more than available DSD releases. I believe those have been out for 20 years.

Oh I thought DSD was the great savior of digital. Never mind .

Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield

Nice false dichotomy. Every blind test I've performed on audiophiles was them listening to/enjoying music.
But I fully understand why audiophiles avoid them. Trust ears/just listen? No way! ;-)

You can label it however you want. I could care less about your idea of fun. I'm the one paying for my gear and I'm the one that determines how I make my purchasing decisions. Why don't you start your own thread about your wonderful system and explain how you made all of your purchasing decisions?

Originally Posted by mep

I don't agree that MQA was intended and marketed exclusively for people who listen over their phones or tablets. What are you basing that statement on?

I will go back to the page on the meridian website that I distilled that idea from.

Originally Posted by steve59

I will go back to the page on the meridian website that I distilled that idea from.

Thanks.

it's trivial to determine when hirez is real and when it's not. if you have a dac that stays native (bit perfect) all the time then......just.....listen. the best version is the source file and stick with that.

while it's rare when 16/44 happens to be the source file, it does happen. i have a few like that. and they can sound really good. but almost everything out there was sourced from higher rez than 16/44, or transferred from tape at a higher rez, and those are best heard native......100% of the time.

does higher rez sound better than 16/44? so far in my experience; yes. but i am one to always look for the best sounding versions and so have lots of comparative time doing that. sometimes MQA is the best sounding version; sometimes not. in my experience a native higher rez file almost always sounds better on my system than the MQA version. some of my high rez (higher than 16/44) is from streaming, some from my files.

overall i'm neutral on MQA. i appreciate when it does sound better, sometimes it's just different. but i don't think it's a big deal and could live without it.

politically i don't like the whole Bob Stuart/Meridian 'music czar' approach to things, and the dog and pony show way MQA was introduced; it was unfortunate. but it's actually not a bad thing, just not a great thing. with the growth of bandwidth i'd much rather see 24/196 or 24/176 become the defacto standard level of resolution.

MQA delivers master quality audio in a file that’s small enough to stream or download – the days of sacrificing quality for convenience are over. Visit mqa.co.uk for more information.

copied off the meridian homepage. I have no education in anything digital so can only comment on how things sound to me. Having a full meridian system I wouldn't be taken seriously anyhow. I heard a rumor some internet companies are going to start charging for bits used as more people opt for streaming services instead of the monthly $350 cable bill. Again, not knowing squat about it, in such a case wouldn't lossless compression streamed live be a good thing?

Originally Posted by mep

So what is the provenance of all the MQA files?

You know how the files are created. If not, read up.

The information is all public.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne

it's trivial to determine when hirez is real and when it's not. if you have a dac that stays native (bit perfect) all the time then......just.....listen. the best version is the source file and stick with that.

while it's rare when 16/44 happens to be the source file, it does happen. i have a few like that. and they can sound really good. but almost everything out there was sourced from higher rez than 16/44, or transferred from tape at a higher rez, and those are best heard native......100% of the time.

does higher rez sound better than 16/44? so far in my experience; yes. but i am one to always look for the best sounding versions and so have lots of comparative time doing that. sometimes MQA is the best sounding version; sometimes not. in my experience a native higher rez file almost always sounds better on my system than the MQA version. some of my high rez (higher than 16/44) is from streaming, some from my files.

overall i'm neutral on MQA. i appreciate when it does sound better, sometimes it's just different. but i don't think it's a big deal and could live without it.

politically i don't like the whole Bob Stuart/Meridian 'music czar' approach to things, and the dog and pony show way MQA was introduced; it was unfortunate. but it's actually not a bad thing, just not a great thing. with the growth of bandwidth i'd much rather see 24/196 or 24/176 become the defacto standard level of resolution.

Mike, I fully agree. Why to be religious about this or that format? Most likely none of them is the best alternative above any other for all use cases.

Just enjoy PCM, DSD, MQA, vinyl or tape as you please. Enjoy the variety, let them serve your enjoyment of music.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

You know how the files are created. If not, read up.

The information is all public.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nice dodge.

Originally Posted by mep

Nice dodge.

Why on earth would I get in an argument with someone, who just wants to be a smart ass?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

Why on earth would I get in an argument with someone, who just wants to be a smart ass?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I’m not looking for an argument. I’m trying to understand why you have no faith in the provenance of regular PCM files and yet you have absolute faith in the provenance of MQA files. I was hoping you would share what you have learned that convinced you to have such faith in the provenance of MQA files.

Originally Posted by mep

I’m not looking for an argument. I’m trying to understand why you have no faith in the provenance of regular PCM files and yet you have absolute faith in the provenance of MQA files. I was hoping you would share what you have learned that convinced you to have such faith in the provenance of MQA files.

You seem to be a smart guy, why are you looking for me to educate you?

Just read a book, for god sakes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

You seem to be a smart guy, why are you looking for me to educate you?

Just read a book, for god sakes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

More dodging.

ok, lets get real here.

with digital we don't worry about provenance. period. bits is essentially bits. it's not like there is an early version of a source file. if we have an MQA title they would have to pay the rights and so would have access to the best source file. it costs nothing for the label/artist/rights holder to provide the best source.

the whole idea of MQA is to capture the higher rez musical nuance and package it in a lower bandwidth package and possibly improve on the source file performance for the end user while doing it. there would be no rational to start with a lower rez format. the only niggle would be a dsd source file which is very rare. it would have to be converted to PCM for MQA treatment.....again this is trivial to do.

some recordings are using MQA in the original mastering, but this is also rare at this juncture. if so, then even non MQA versions are stuck with that. or maybe there are alternate master mixes with and without. this is theoretical at this point. but with digital all this stuff is trivial to do. so it's possible.

so for conversation sake every commercial digital version starts with the same source file. it's a non issue.

if you are getting files from your buddy, or CD's that are copies......now provenance is an issue.

Every MQA thread ends in a bitchfest. Along the way somebody mentions provenance and blind testing. It’s all very predictable.

I don’t get it. Because it just doesn’t matter.

the whole idea of MQA is to capture the higher rez musical nuance and package it in a lower bandwidth package and possibly improve on the source file performance for the end user while doing it

That’s it. Very simple.

I happen to be one of the people with limited internet bandwidth so MQA is a good option for me. Too bad it ended up being unreliable via Tidal. The issue is with my isp, not Tidal. So I ditched it.

When I was doing some comparisons, I found it impossible to compare versions of the same work in MQA, CD, and HiRez as I’m hearing gross variations in the various mixes in each format that eclipse any differences in the performance of the transmission and storage media itself.

In a way, I can understand the struggle about audio formats. Usually there is a limit in the amount people have available to invest.

If people feel they have to pick one format to bet on, they’re trying to pick the “best” one. Best as in best sound, best material, best availability, best technology, best gear, and ideally at the best price. And once they have made up their mind, they might feel locked-in, and thus compelled to defend that choice.

Then there are others who are keen to learn, and do have the means to explore more freely. It’s just another perspective, not right or wrong. PCM, DSD, MQA, vinyl, tape - anything goes.

Personal experience in the format space came through buying a Meitner DAC, and ensuing curiosity about DSD. I was interested in the format, and its advantages and limitations. After some time I however concluded, that while it is a nice format, there just was too little material available I’m interested in. Hence, one might run the risk of listening to a format, rather than enjoying music.

In general, change is psychologically uncomfortable for most people. This is, as it often pertains loss of something familiar, confusion due to lack of understanding, insecurity about own positions in light of new information, and lack of clarity about about what’s to come. Counter-reaction is resistance. This sets up a platform for opinionated people, who appear not to be interested in understanding themselves. They rather take interest in insisting someone else‘s view is wrong, based on their own limited understanding. A result are these Batman vs. Superman exchanges, which serve no purpose. A completely futile undertaking, if you ask me.

While this is just a hobby, and everyone participates in the forum based on their own free will, destructive attitudes can take much more sinister forms. Then the implications are more profound. I just love this quote from French General Charles de Gaulle: “A patriot is someone, who loves his country. A nationalist is someone, who hates the others.”

As Mike L. elaborately described, it does not help when a change appears to involve some kind of scheming or lack of open disclosure, as practiced by Bob and Meridian. But to be fair, Sony’s attempt to control the industry through SACD and DSD roughly a decade earlier was not very different. Correspondingly, the reaction was also similar.

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

In general, change is psychologically uncomfortable for most people. This is, as it often pertains loss of something familiar, confusion due to lack of understanding, insecurity about own positions in light of new information, and lack of clarity about about what’s to come. Counter-reaction is resistance. This sets up a platform for opinionated people, who appear not to be interested in understanding themselves. They rather take interest in insisting someone else‘s view is wrong, based on their own limited understanding.

While I agree with this very well formulated statement, it is rather funny to apply it in defense of MQA. If people were actually interested in -- technical -- understanding, they would realize that MQA is a fraud. It is precisely, quote, "limited understanding" that makes people embrace MQA. If you like the format, fine, but it's not because it is objectively better. It may do things that you find pleasing, but that doesn't mean they are correct.

I just love this quote from French General Charles de Gaulle: “A patriot is someone, who loves his country. A nationalist is someone, who hates the others.”

Great quote indeed!

Originally Posted by W9TR

Every MQA thread ends in a bitchfest.

And an exquisitely well deserved one at that.

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

Personal experience in the format space came through buying a Meitner DAC, and ensuing curiosity about DSD. I was interested in the format, and its advantages and limitations. After some time I however concluded, that while it is a nice format, there just was too little material available I’m interested in. Hence, one might run the risk of listening to a format, rather than enjoying music.

Well said. This is precisely why I was never interested in "high res". Too little music available, especially in the less commonly explored spaces that interest me.

Fortunately, with more recent advances in digital technology, apparent limitations of the CD Redbook format that I had resigned myself to in the past disappeared, giving way to musically satisfying tonality and high resolution.

skbe, I don't think you have to read a book and I think the 2nd unfold is only required for 24/192, but pamphlets on meridian ans roon's homepage that quite simply show the process.

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne

ok, lets get real here.

with digital we don't worry about provenance. period. bits is essentially bits. it's not like there is an early version of a source file. if we have an MQA title they would have to pay the rights and so would have access to the best source file. it costs nothing for the label/artist/rights holder to provide the best source.

the whole idea of MQA is to capture the higher rez musical nuance and package it in a lower bandwidth package and possibly improve on the source file performance for the end user while doing it. there would be no rational to start with a lower rez format. the only niggle would be a dsd source file which is very rare. it would have to be converted to PCM for MQA treatment.....again this is trivial to do.

some recordings are using MQA in the original mastering, but this is also rare at this juncture. if so, then even non MQA versions are stuck with that. or maybe there are alternate master mixes with and without. this is theoretical at this point. but with digital all this stuff is trivial to do. so it's possible.

so for conversation sake every commercial digital version starts with the same source file. it's a non issue.

if you are getting files from your buddy, or CD's that are copies......now provenance is an issue.

Mike-Can you define what a "source file" is?

Originally Posted by Al M.

While I agree with this very well formulated statement, it is rather funny to apply it in defense of MQA. If people were actually interested in -- technical -- understanding, they would realize that MQA is a fraud. It is precisely, quote, "limited understanding" that makes people embrace MQA. If you like the format, fine, but it's not because it is objectively better. It may do things that you find pleasing, but that doesn't mean they are correct.



Great quote indeed!

Al, thank you for taking the time to respond.

The question arising in this thread is, how many people on the forum do actually have the technical proficiency to discuss coding differences between MPEG1 layer 3, pulse-code division, direct stream digital or master quality authentication? My guess would be very few.

Pulse-code modulation is a compression mechanism, filed for patent in the US in 1946 and 1952. The patent was granted a few years later. NHK developed the first PCM recording device in 1967. Please note, that was before the moon landing. From today’s perspective it would be a bit strange to believe the world has not evolved ever since.

From a technical perspective, pulse-code modulation simply could not handle today’s communications requirements. It’s just too inefficient. That’s why it was superseded in professional application by time-division modulation, code-division modulation, and wideband code-division modulation after that. And the next future is already on the horizon with millimeter wave-division.

Technical evolution typically occurs when a new method is developed to overcome insufficiencies of an old one. Sometimes the new method is successful, and completely overcomes limitations of the old one. In other cases it resolves one challenge, while introducing a new one in the process. This is what happened with DSD.

DSD was successful in improving fidelity of the signal by multiplying modulation frequency. But unfortunately that increased signal bandwidth to an extent, that it rendered DSD unusable for many use cases. Enter MQA. It addresses the bandwidth issue applying a partly similar logic as DSD by working in the inaudible signal band, while also adjusting amplitude and phase distortions (as e.g. introduced by R2R recording machines).

So, is MQA the final solution and the bees-knees for all things audio? Probably not. It‘s just another evolutionary step in an ongoing process. Is it a fraud as you say? According to former Stereophile Editor and recording engineer John Atkinson, and TAS Editor Robert Harley it’s not. You pick what you want to believe.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by mep

Mike-Can you define what a "source file" is?

The source file is the original from which copies are made.

As you are also an analog aficionado, for vinyl that would be the master tape used to produce the vinyl stampers.

With every media, independent of whether digital or analog, copying always deteriorates the quality.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by mep

Mike-Can you define what a "source file" is?

it's analogous to a master tape. the master tape is the end product of assembling the tape work parts that the artist and label approve for distribution. the source file is the end product of the underlying digital recording files, assembled by the recording/mixing engineer. with digital, all the work part manipulation can occur at the recording resolution to maintain optimum fidelity in the source file. the standard for most source files these days is 24/96. some others at 24/192, 24/176, 24/88, 24/48, and 24/44. a few outliers at 24/352, or dsd at some multiple, and a few at 16/44.

many/most of today's recordings can be found somewhere at higher rez than 16/44, and those are many times the source file......but not always. it's a crap shoot whether you can track down the information. but you can know that there is no reason any commercial access of the recording was NOT sourced from that source file. HD Tracks mostly offers files at 24/88 to keep file size reasonable for ease of transfer. you can go to a number of sites and get 4xdsd, or 352/24 files. some are native 4xdsd, but most are native 24/352. Reference Recordings uses 24/176 as their source files and you can download their source files from their website. Acoustic Sounds has thousands of source files for download. you can email them and ask about this issue.

on Quboz you see all sorts of pure source file hirez streaming; and i have many of the same hirez files on my server.

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne

ok, lets get real here.

with digital we don't worry about provenance. period. bits is essentially bits. it's not like there is an early version of a source file. if we have an MQA title they would have to pay the rights and so would have access to the best source file. it costs nothing for the label/artist/rights holder to provide the best source.

the whole idea of MQA is to capture the higher rez musical nuance and package it in a lower bandwidth package and possibly improve on the source file performance for the end user while doing it. there would be no rational to start with a lower rez format. the only niggle would be a dsd source file which is very rare. it would have to be converted to PCM for MQA treatment.....again this is trivial to do.

some recordings are using MQA in the original mastering, but this is also rare at this juncture. if so, then even non MQA versions are stuck with that. or maybe there are alternate master mixes with and without. this is theoretical at this point. but with digital all this stuff is trivial to do. so it's possible.

so for conversation sake every commercial digital version starts with the same source file. it's a non issue.

if you are getting files from your buddy, or CD's that are copies......now provenance is an issue.

Thanks for your definition Mike. "Every commercial digital version starts with the same source" can only be true if each of the digital offerings at different bit depths and sampling rates were remastered from the original master tapes if they were originally recorded in analog. You would need to create 16/44.1, 24/48, 24/88, 24/176.4, and 24/192 etc. source files from the master tape. For all pure digital recordings, you are stuck with the bit depth and sampling rate of the original recording. For example, if the source file is 16/44.1, you can't turn it into a 24/192 file without upsampling. My point here is that every commercial digital version can't start with the same source file unless every version above the native bit depth and sampling rate of the source file is upsampled.

And when you say "It's not like there is an early version of a source file" that would be incorrect. When CDs were first introduced into the market place, the source files were mastered in 16/44.1 from the analog master tapes. Do you think those source files still aren't being used? There are lots of 16/44.1 files on Tidal and Quobuz and I wouldn't be confident to state that none of them came from the original 16/44.1 files paid for by the record labels and everyone of them has been remastered.

I also am not buying your statement that "with digital we don't worry about provenance. period." I don't know who "we is," but I do think provenance is always an issue in both analog and digital recordings. Just as some LPs try to hide the fact they were sourced from a digital file, we should also be curious as to what the source was for a given digital file.

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

The source file is the original from which copies are made.

As you are also an analog aficionado, for vinyl that would be the master tape used to produce the vinyl stampers.

With every media, independent of whether digital or analog, copying always deteriorates the quality.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks. I know what my definition for a source file is, but I wanted Mike to explain what his definition is because I didn't agree with the statements he was making.

Originally Posted by nicoff

I understand that with digital files integrity checks (like checksums) are run to ensure that the original file and the copy are identical. So assuming that these checks are done, how can a digital copy of a digital file be different or worse than the original?

The quality of source file deteriorates similarly to an analog master when you make a copy of a copy of a copy etc. Deterioration is just slower.

That does of course not happen when a lots of users download the same source file from a site. Just when copying multiple times. Think of it like making a photocopy of a photocopy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

The quality of source file deteriorates similarly to an analog master when you make a copy of a copy of a copy etc. Deterioration is just slower.

That does of course not happen when a lots of users download the same source file from a site. Just when copying multiple times. Think of it like making a photocopy of a photocopy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Seriously?

Originally Posted by skbe

I am also surprised by this.
You say that an audio file when copied say in windows (copy/paste) deteriorates the quality of the sound in it?

Downloading a file isn’t a kind of copying it locally?

It’s nonsense.

Originally Posted by mep

Seriously?

Yeah dude, seriously.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by nicoff

That makes no sense to me either.

Nobody is trying to make sense to you. Just stating things how they are. Unfortunately, SW deteriorates. Usually you recognize the effect, if you are trying to use hand-me-down SW. At some point passing it on, it just stops working.

If you have a minimal understanding of how software works, these are absolute no-brainers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by skbe

I am also surprised by this.
You say that an audio file when copied say in windows (copy/paste) deteriorates the quality of the sound in it?

Downloading a file isn’t a kind of copying it locally?

As explained, if everyone is downloading the same file, it’s original +1. The same quality for everyone who downloads it.

If however one person downloads the file, and shares it with a buddy, the quality starts to deteriorate. The more often you make a copy of a copy, the higher the likelihood it stops working.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

i would say that while it's possible for a digital file to suffer corruption from being manipulated in the mastering process, i've not seen or even heard of a file to be diminished from generations of properly executed copies on the creation side.

the exception is ripping software for redbook/CD's, where there are lossy and lossless processes and various disc media that introduce variables. if you add a generation of variables to each copy event the errors will build up. but the problem is not inherent in making data file copies. or transmitting files with less that robust methods. buddy to buddy as you mention. lots of variables in each sharing event.

so we are talking about flawed methods of copying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_loss

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

As explained, if everyone is downloading the same file, it’s original +1. The same quality for everyone who downloads it.

If however one person downloads the file, and shares it with a buddy, the quality starts to deteriorate. The more often you make a copy of a copy, the higher the likelihood it stops working.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

For digital files?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes Mike, indeed.

You are a SW guy, so just humor me and try this at home: take some simple SW program and copy it. Test whether it still works. If it still works, take another copy of the copy and do the test again.

At some point your SW will cease to work, and you will need to go back to the previous version to use it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Mike

For digital files?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He must think the digital files are stored on floppy discs.

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

Al, thank you for taking the time to respond.

The question arising in this thread is, how many people on the forum do actually have the technical proficiency to discuss coding differences between MPEG1 layer 3, pulse-code division, direct stream digital or master quality authentication? My guess would be very few.

Pulse-code modulation is a compression mechanism, filed for patent in the US in 1946 and 1952. The patent was granted a few years later. NHK developed the first PCM recording device in 1967. Please note, that was before the moon landing. From today’s perspective it would be a bit strange to believe the world has not evolved ever since.

From a technical perspective, pulse-code modulation simply could not handle today’s communications requirements. It’s just too inefficient. That’s why it was superseded in professional application by time-division modulation, code-division modulation, and wideband code-division modulation after that. And the next future is already on the horizon with millimeter wave-division.

Technical evolution typically occurs when a new method is developed to overcome insufficiencies of an old one. Sometimes the new method is successful, and completely overcomes limitations of the old one. In other cases it resolves one challenge, while introducing a new one in the process. This is what happened with DSD.

DSD was successful in improving fidelity of the signal by multiplying modulation frequency. But unfortunately that increased signal bandwidth to an extent, that it rendered DSD unusable for many use cases. Enter MQA. It addresses the bandwidth issue applying a partly similar logic as DSD by working in the inaudible signal band, while also adjusting amplitude and phase distortions (as e.g. introduced by R2R recording machines).

So, is MQA the final solution and the bees-knees for all things audio? Probably not. It‘s just another evolutionary step in an ongoing process.

Thank you for your reply. A couple of points:

1. As for pulse code modulation (PCM) predating the moonlanding: General relativity and quantum mechanics, cornerstones of modern science and technology, were discovered in 1915 and between 1900 and 1910, respectively. Your point?

2. Code division modulation was invented in 1935, time division multiplexing in the late 19th century.

3. Apples and oranges. Code division modulation and time division multiplexing are transmission schemes in telecommunication, PCM is a coding scheme. The latter is used by the two former. PCM is still standard in digital telephony.

4. MQA uses PCM. Your point again?

5. PCM is not a compression mechanism as you claim but a coding mechanism. There are PCM schemes that use compression -- such as MQA.

6. Communication bandwidth is for many not an issue these days. Quobuz streams uncompressed "high res" PCM, without problems for most users. MQA was a solution in search of a temporary problem.

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne

i would say that while it's possible for a digital file to suffer corruption from being manipulated in the mastering process, i've not seen or even heard of a file to be diminished from generations of properly executed copies on the creation side.

the exception is ripping software for redbook/CD's, where there are lossy and lossless processes and various disc media that introduce variables. if you add a generation of variables to each copy event the errors will build up. but the problem is not inherent in making data file copies. or transmitting files with less that robust methods. buddy to buddy as you mention. lots of variables in each sharing event.

so we are talking about flawed methods of copying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_loss

Yes, that’s correct. The copying process frequently yields errors. Even with bit-proof copying. A lots of variables in every sharing event, as you say.

I’m a bit surprised this is news to anyone.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Al M.

Thank you for your reply. A couple of points:

1. As for pulse code modulation (PCM) predating the moonlanding: General relativity and quantum mechanics, cornerstones of modern science and technology, were discovered in 1915 and between 1900 and 1910, respectively. Your point?

2. Code division modulation was invented in 1935, time division multiplexing in the late 19th century.

3. Apples and oranges. Code division modulation and time division multiplexing are transmission schemes in telecommunication, PCM is a coding scheme. The latter is used by the two former. PCM is still standard in digital telephony.

4. MQA uses PCM. Your point again?

5. PCM is not a compression mechanism as you claim but a coding mechanism. There are PCM schemes that use compression -- such as MQA.

6. Communication bandwidth is for many not an issue these days. Quobuz streams uncompressed "high res" PCM, without problems for most users. MQA was a solution in search of a temporary problem.

PCM is essentially the PSTN codec, there are way more advanced alternatives available today.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

As for MQA using PCM:

"The MQA stream is PCM."

Quote from answer 38 in:

"A Comprehensive Q&A With MQA's Bob Stuart"

https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/ca-ac...-s-Bob-Stuart/

Originally Posted by mep

He must think the digital files are stored on floppy discs.

Or, I am not a hundred years old and read a book the last time in the 1970’s.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Al M.

As for MQA using PCM:

"The MQA stream is PCM".

Quote from answer 38 in:

"A Comprehensive Q&A With MQA's Bob Stuart"

https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/ca-ac...-s-Bob-Stuart/

MQA still uses PCM, that’s correct. But they are trying to take advantage of the learnings along the way in their coding scheme. That’s all I’m saying. Personally I think that is a good thing.

I do agree the MQA approach has been a bit problematic politically. But I just enjoy any efforts trying to improve things where necessary.

I’m format agnostic, and do not have any stakes in any of the formats. I’m just trying to keep an open mind.

For anyone who has followed my Brinkmann Nyquist thread a couple years back, I did a test of MQA against various PCM and DSD formats when I got the DAC. The result was inconclusive. Sometimes MQA sounded better, sometimes it did not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If copying of digital files was not perfect, there would be the danger of altering of data during sharing of scientific files. But that is not the case, as I can confirm from my daily work as a biochemist with large data files related to mass spectrometry and analysis of the data. If digital transfer of scientific data, which involves copying, could not be trusted, this would create a big problem. But there isn't one.


From the Wikipedia link that Mike Lavigne posted:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_loss

"Used correctly, digital technology can eliminate generation loss. Copying a digital file gives an exact copy if the equipment is operating properly. This trait of digital technology has given rise to awareness of the risk of unauthorized copying. Before digital technology was widespread, a record label, for example, could be confident knowing that unauthorized copies of their music tracks were never as good as the originals."

[....]

"However, copying a digital file itself incurs no generation loss—the copied file is identical to the original, provided a perfect copying channel is used."