Only if the 24/88 had musical content above 22.05kHz or a dynamic range greater than 96dB. Otherwise the 44.1/16 is capable if perfectly replicating it. (In theory, anyway)
"Reasonable accuracy’ ?? that is not good enough for me. It can be argued that mp3 or aac files give “reasonable accuracy” too.
2 Likes
But the decoded MQA is more “accurate” to the original DXD than CD and so is less lossy than CD. Also as one of Archimago’s charts show in the blog I linked earlier MQA is more accurate than either DSD64(SACD) or DSD128.
3 Likes
I can hear up to 16.5 kHz so CD quality is absolutely fine for me. I can’t even hear difference between CD and Spotify quality. But if there would be a choice for track so I will pick in order Hi-Res, MQA, CD, less… Because why not to have the best? I think problem with MQA is that it probably pretends to be something different or better than it actually is and people expect true lossless.
Btw. I have seen Hi-Res tracks which where just dirty upsamples of 44/16 so actually no content over 22kHz.
But if MQA claims to be “better than CD quality” and actually generates artifacts into CD origami level then it changes the story.
You cant tell the difference between Spotify and CD? Hmmmm… I took the Spotify can you hear the difference test years ago and got 8 out of 10 correct through my imac speakers. One of the two i got wrong was suzanne vega just speaking and not singing. I didn’t even use headphones.
By the way my ears aren’t that good.
1 Like
Is that why they sacked you as SQ reviewer 
1 Like
I took the same few weeks ago but with updated samples as Spotify changed codec. Before years it would be maybe audible to me too?
My brilliant reviews of Roon’s audio quality have been neutered(can i say that?) and mostly removed ,as you know, because they were to descriptive of the human condition!
3 Likes
There are digital artifacts well below this frequency that occur no matter what you do because of the brick wall filtering that has to occur at 16 bits. This, more than anything, is a good reason to support hi-resolution. Not because you can hear those frequencies but it allows the DAC to push those artifacts up into the not-audible range.
MQA claims of “better than CD” are based upon their filtering being preferred / more accepted to a wider survey of humans than the way most “CD player” DACs work. A lot of their claims are based on convincing you that their trade-offs and side effects of their encoding / decoding sound better than another method of encoding / decoding. The silliness of that claim is these are not problems with true high-resolution. They are only problems at 16/44.1 and slightly less at 24/44.1. MQA is trying to fix something the wrong way. You don’t fix a hole in your boat by buying a different bilge pump with proprietary pumping technology. You fix the darn hole
1 Like
I was referring to the point in “last few days popular video” where author shows that MQA generates even more (and audible) artifacts to first segment of MQA fold making it actually worse than original CD quality (17:24).
Show one independent test that shows MQA even better than CD. You can’t. Everything technically positive about MQA is based upon the word of Bob Stewart. If you like it, great. Just do not mislead people that it is technically superior. As far as DSD64, that leaves MQA eating it’s dust.
I have done extensive comparison of all the formats / resolutions offered on the 2L site, recorded in DXD 384. MQA was noticeably the worst sound there was.
2 Likes
I think it’s unlikely MQA will get their wish anytime soon. The idea of a white gloved process in a top quality studio with control rooms and boards operated by experienced engineers isn’t the reality for a lot of modern music today. So much is created in small chunks while on the road, at home etc. with a MacBook and a UA Apollo Twin/Abelton and then pulled together in Pro Tools/Logic etc. You only have to see the credits on modern tracks to see just how many people are involved in the process today.
1 Like
The “reasonable accuracy” is explained here. It means you can’t hear it.
[edited to working link]
1 Like
I referenced one independent test that does indeed show that MQA unfolding more accurately reproduces a High Res DXD file than CD or than DSD.
You wanted more than reasonable accuracy but now it seems that based on on your own listening tests you prefer something that is less accurate than MQA according to the test I referenced.
Please point us to the independent technical test that demonstrates this, thanks.
2 Likes
It depends upon how you want to view lossy.
Regular PCM which is what you say you prefer is not lossy in the digital domain regarding bitrate and frequencies BUT is lossy analogue to analogue.
MQA is lossy by definition in the digital domain BUT is lossless analogue to analogue.
We ultimately hear sound as analogue from the speakers NOT digital.
Do you really want to go back to a more lossy analogue sound?..I don’t think the studio engineers and mastering engineers or indeed the record companies do.
Your best bet is to jump ship and use Qoboz…with its more digital sound/lossy sound.
1 Like
In a bandwidth limited system, PCM is not lossy.
1 Like
It is impossible to do testing on MQA for accuracy, or anything else. It is a completely closed system from beginning to end, and no one except MQA can do testing. An independent can only pay MQA files on it, nothing else.
2 Likes
It doesn’t show anything about accuracy, or MQA.
3 Likes
The resulting analog sound of MQA is noticeable lossy compared to FLAC. It sounds worse that Redbook CD and not much better than mp3.