Yes content could be a big problem, also it could mean we have to buy all our content again, however Tidal proposing to stream MQA helps a lot.
I think you are right and that to get the full benefits of MQA you need to go back to the original masters not just rework other releases, even other hi def releases and that you will need an MQA DAC, not just a computer program to unpack the file.
However despite the number of barriers it seems like it could have potential to help us enjoy the music more. I agree though lets make sure we enjoy the music now and not obsess over future formats that may or may not make it. I’ll try and take this to heart and make this my last words on this subject.
To go back to the MQA and cell phone discussions, i saw this tidbit on Stereophile.
On the playback front, MQA also announced the first MQA-equipped smartphone, HTC’s One A9 (above). HTC smartphone demonstrations, as well as music playback of recordings by Lindberg, Peter McGrath, and others on Wilson and Meridian loudspeakers, are promised throughout CES, January 6–9, in the MQA Suite (30-335) in the Venetian Towers in Las Vegas.
Just to confirm then:
If MQA is implemented in SW or players, there is absolutly no need or a benefit to have a MQA DAC ?
Can freeware projects like Squeezebox implement MQA without a licence fee, or any suggestion how a licence can be achived ? (If someone at the Squeezebox community are willing to implement the MQA codec).
To be honest I am not sure one way or the other However from this paragraph in the absolute sound article on MQA it seems like there are benefits from the encoder being more closely linked to the DAC. To me this implies the decoding would best be done in the DAC. However other parts of the article indicate that the decoder may only need basic info about the DAC such as resolution which would be pretty straight forward to put into a computer decoder.
As I mentioned, there’s a lot of processing, changing a recording to “improve” it. Nothing wrong with that, all for it.
Also read some of the papers that you posted (most except for the first are easy to find and free). If you read the commentary on the first - the key paper - you’ll see that it’s not devoid of assumption and claims with very soft proofs. Again not a problem in my book - my problem is with unsubstantiated claims of “lossless lossy compression” and things of the sort.
In my opinion this is not a useful conversation anymore as it is clear that Meridian has changed it’s tune on what MQA actually does - and I am all for it.
After having watched Bob Stuart on MQA video clip at MQA How it Works I have some questions…
From the graph, why is the lowest noise floor capped at -168dB throughout the frequency range?
From the graph, if ‘A’ is to hold a 16 bit resolution (since MQA is going to stream at ‘16/44.1’ bit-rate), the lowest theoretical noise level for a 16-bit resolution is -96dB. If it is true where is the additional noise floor in ‘A’ extended all the way down to -168dB so that folding of ‘B’ and ‘C’ can be ‘contained’ inside the noise floor?
A 24-bit resolution has a theoretical noise floor all the way down to -144dB, why is the noise floor extended all the way down to -168dB on the graph?
Sorry guys, I’m trying hard to understand how MQA works here and hope someone here can share some technical knowledge.
MQA will NOT stream at '16/44.1" bit rate, it’s only similar to that bit rate (slightly more as a red book WAV, but NOT as FLAC which can be up to halve less). MQA is an own compressed format (like FLAC is).
MQA encoding process will evaluate how much of the lastest bits can be used for folding depending on the dynamic range the song/album needs itself. So it can be something between 16 to 20 bit for the content between 20hz-48khz.
Noise floor of -168db in the graph MIGHT indicate that MQA coding works with 28 bit internally to achieve more space in the ‘noise floor’ to fold all additional resolution there.