It’s not an opinion. It’s fact. A filter that introduces aliasing and frequency distortions is an inferior filter, by definition. The job of a filter is not to do that.
I’m not in the business and don’t make money from filters. MQA is and has incentive to obfuscate and lie about it, unlike me.
Lots of people already market superior filters and succeed. Superior filters are also available in lots of applications for free.
Only at the MQA Ministry of Truth. In fact based reality- no, it doesn’t.
The MQA filters and encoding aren’t needed to get rid of ringing, and they don’t do anything that can’t be done as well or better without them.
They may introduce euphonic distortions which people like you and Chris prefer. [moderated]
I am sorry, but I don’t buy your ‘alternative facts’
MQA works and delivers what they promise and I hear it. So be happy with your stuff and formats and don’t worry about it if you don’t hear it.
Cheers!
The fact that you “hear it” is of significance to one person - you.
I note that you are unable to actually come back with an on point counter to what I wrote.
So just say you hear it and like it and stop [moderated] with the de-blurring and third unfold nonsense.
Scroll a bit upwards, I replied to someone else regarding 3rd unfolds.
If you are not interested in MQA and don’t want to understand how it works and disbelief their claims, that’s fine with me.
16/44.1 MQA all the way up to 24/352.8 MQA is simply BLISS
The problem is that I do understand how it works. That’s how I know it’s a marketing scheme based on a valid (but superfluous) compression scheme - and a lot of marketing based on falsehoods.
total nonsense.
No nonsense at all - studying MQA is very interesting. These 5 papers are all free downloadble
The relationship between patents and secrecy is far more nuanced than that. It’s quite possible to patent something where every detail is trivially reverse engineerable. You have to describe something pretty well to lodge a patent claim.
I’m more suspicious that they chose to mint new terms rather than stick to established terminology, obsfucation is the name of the game…
With regard to the MQA spectrum of a DXD recording and your claim that the resolution is max 24/96
Do you have any idea what the cut-off frequency is of 24/96?
How do you explain the frequency analys extends to 95 kHz?
Basic sampling theory !
Isn’t that how science progresses? Using a new name for a new phenomenon, or perhaps a species? The world of quantum mechanics gets positively poetic…
For all the quark flavour quantum numbers (strangeness, charm, topness and bottomness) the convention is that the flavour charge and the electric charge of a quark have the same sign.
But there’s no new phenomenon here just new terms. Rather than the quark analogy, imagine if someone had decided that the neutron needed a new name.
But don’t you want greater transparency/data regarding the processes? Why would you need that if all is in plain sight?
But why the new terms? That’s not communicating transparently, you do that using established, shared terminology. While it was initially marketed as a “paradigm shift” that’s really overstating the case. MQA consistently walks the pseudo-science line between fact and marketing.
Each to their own, particularly when it comes to what you prefer the sound of. I care enough about the technical details of the formats I keep to always opt for open ones. FLAC’s certainly more transparent technically, and to these ears, FLAC/PCM is more transparent audibly but YMMV.
I’m not in the business and don’t make money from filters
That’s clear.
Please read the first three papers in the above cited journal issue, then come back and we’ll discuss the claims you’ve (inaccurately) made. Some of us do design filters. The fourth and fifth papers are good too.
Yes there are many similarities to hdcd and mqa. Where is hdcd now? It’s dead. Microsoft bought the technology and buried it away.
Just a bump in the road.
I have said on here before. I had an arcam CD player that decoded HDCD. I kept noticing certain cd’s sounding better and when I checked they were all HDCD. There was no light to prompt me, I had to get out of my chair and check the case. Wasn’t coincidence in my mind.
I’ve read the patents and papers.
It’s a scam. Why else would they falsely promote it as lossless if they aren’t trying to put one over on people?
Why do they use the false terms of 24/176, 192, 352, and 384k MQA to give the false impression that that’s the bit depth and sample rate of the file, when the actual resolution of an MQA encoded file can’t go over 17/96, as that’s how the encoder works?
No one else legitimately markets upsampled files that way. If HDTracks sells a 24/192 file that’s just an upsample of a lower rate file they are accused of ripping off consumer and have to remove the files from their site. Only MQA thinks it’s okay to sell upsampled files and claim they are the resolution of the higher rate master file.
MQA is rejecting upsamples, it’s part of their technology to detect this.
So what is the cut-off frequency of 24/96?
The max of 17 bits is because MQA uses the additional bits of the 24 for the encoded hi frequencies in the origami.
or Bob Stuart himself, where if you read carefully he confirms the max resolution of an MQA encoded file is 17\96:
https://www.jas-audio.or.jp/jas_cms/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/201509-008-019.pdf
Again the magic of the further “unfolding” is upsampling. You can’t actually recreate bits that have been stripped out in the MQA encoding. That’s why MQA is a lossy, not a lossless, compression algorithm.