MQA Discussion

rbbert said:
Actually, it's not like a .zip file in any way, that's a totally inappropriate analogy. Reading some of the links in the early pages of this thread might steer you in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I'm not an engineer. Sorry if my analogy was misleading. It's just that folding/unfolding sounds a lot like zipping/unzipping.
 
Unworthy said:
Like I said, I'm not an engineer. Sorry if my analogy was misleading. It's just that folding/unfolding sounds a lot like zipping/unzipping.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Sounds like a zip/unzip to me. Meridian calls is "folding and unfolding". OK.
 
Zip is open source and lossless. MQA is proprietary and lossy; more than that, it "encodes" some information for decompression within the frequency range where there is also (potentially, although admittedly unlikely) audio thus the adjective "origami" often applied to the compression/decompression .process.
 
rbbert said:
Zip is open source and lossless. MQA is proprietary and lossy; more than that, it "encodes" some information for decompression within the frequency range where there is also (potentially, although admittedly unlikely) audio thus the adjective "origami" often applied to the compression/decompression .process.
Click to expand...

Wonder why some people refer to MQA as non-lossy?
 
mep said:
Wonder why some people refer to MQA as non-lossy?
Click to expand...

That was the original claim by Meridian, later modified by them to "audibly lossless". And truthfully there is very little data missing from a 24/96 original compressed to a 24/48 MQA file; of course, most of the masters of albums that gone through the MQA process are 24/192.
 
Found this hypothesis paper last night and found it quite interesting:

https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA-Technical_Analysis-Hypotheses-Paper.pdf

Admittedly, I understand almost none of the technical details, but the conclusions seem to support Rob's statement that MQA is a lossy codec.

The thing that keeps sticking with me is that most people who have listened either seem to find sonic improvement or, at worst, it does no harm. I hesitate to label something I don't understand as witchcraft or mere huckstery. That's why I'm waiting before I jump on anyone's bandwagon.

It would seem though that, now that MQA is patented (or at least filed), their people could be a little more forthcoming.

DT
 
Also, that paper support's Rob's statement that very little of a 96/24 file is lost, but at least half of a 192/24 file never comes back.

DT
 
I saw the Stereophile bit earlier today. Is it just me or we're some of those people the most dorky, self-interested Luddites you've ever seen? "My Qute Analog?" Seriously?!! And what would you expect Dr Vinyl to say? People have always been wary of things they don't understand, but this just fuels my interest. Stay tuned...
 
The list of hardware manufacturers continues to grow as does the number of MQA albums for our enjoyment. It has been fun seeing new MQA titles each Friday scattered among the new releases.
 
Wow, so even native 24/192 Hi Rez is "time smeared" now too.
Otherwise, what did MQA "fix"?
Fascinating stuff :)
 
Oh yes, the list is. But at the pace that MQA works, we may see it implemented in 2024.
And as all Lumin owners have seen how quickly these guys adapt to changes (Peter), you can only think that the problem is in MQA
 
Actually, a year ago there were very few Mfrs. on board with MQA and this demonstrates a pretty impressive building of momentum. I just need for the prices to come down, about $3K will be the limit for my WAF threshold for a streamer something like the Aurender A10.

DT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top