“So one conclusion is that a strict definition is less than useful”
On the contrary, it is quite useful. It is a definition that is meaningful. The intentional confusion of the different domains is what is not useful. MQA is a piece of software - a digital and mathematical entity. Within the domain of digital, there is software that is “lossy” and software that is lossless.
The fact that microphones are limited and distort the signal, or that DACs and all other electronics are limited by physical laws such as thermodynamics, or that all transducers distort the signal feed to them - all this is not usefully described as “lossy” - the term does not mean that.
Here is an analogy: Do doctors or medicine heal or cure disease? Yes. However, your going to die no matter what. Your saying that because everyone eventually dies, it is “not useful” to describe doctors and medicine as “healers”. Everyone already understands the “nuance” that doctors are “healers” only in the sense of the specific domain of the particular disease that they “heal” at that particular time.
The obfuscation of “lossy” by Bob S is intentional and designed to $sell$ you something, not relate a truth. So in an interview someone asks Bob S “Is MQA lossy” and instead of answering the question he changes the subject by saying something meaningless like “all DACs are lossy”. No they are not - he is misusing the term to $sell$ you something…
Obfuscation is your own interpretation/opinion. I don’t think it’s obfuscation. He could be using the term to describe the situation where the loss is not “audible”. Presumably Bob went on to explain what he meant by all DACS are lossy, so you’re simply quoting without proper context, without the rest of the answer.
Nope. He understands he is obfuscating the question. The question is limited. Is or is not MQA lossy? The question is not about the analog domain. The question about the digital domain. The question is not about what is “audible”. The question is about a digital/mathematical reconstruction of a signal.
Bob S is changing the subject, on purpose, while he reaches around and picks your pocket. he wants you to look at his hand waving over here while he $sells$ you a lossy, proprietary, DRM solution with interesting distortion (that you may or may not “like”) that know one needs - not the least of which is because you can have all the lossiness and audible distortion that MQA provides in open, non-proprietary and non-DRM contains, software, DACs, and other products…
I have watched that and it seems to me he is getting to what matters, an analog sound delivered down a digital pipe with no more added distortion than 6 inches of air.
This is the whole point and if achieved, the details of the digital are irrelevant. Listening tells me, he has hit the mark as far as my system is concerned.
Nope. The various types of distortion/attenuation of sound waves (which is nothing but a pressure wave) through air, and from the things already talked about such as transducers, electronics, etc. can not be corrected via a lossy superMP3. If it is hitting the mark in your system, then most likely 320MP3 hits the mark just as well. MQA is not about sound quality, it’s about $selling$ you a lossy, proprietary, DRM encoding because Bob S can’t patent and $sell$ you lossless, open PCM.
Apples and bananas here. You can have your very valid reasons for disliking MQA, but the reasons for not liking it are not the same reasons for not liking MP3.
All right, man, we know what you think about Stuart, you are repeating yourself.
My point was not about his arguments, but about the community’s.
Consider the folding.
a) Is it lossy because it leaves out certain parts of the rectangle, such as full volume at 48kHz?
b) Is it lossy because it packs the parts that it wants to preserve into the lowest bits, and hence obliterates parts of the 20 kHz spectrum?
c) Is it lossy because “don’t touch my bits”!
Note that, per your own argument, the definition has nothing to do with what is audible.
It is for me! Why don’t you start a topic about “Bob Stuart” (see how much interest you get there…) and leave this to talk about audible stuff, music, that kind of thing and maybe start another one about world domination etc.
That statement was said with irony in the context of this discussion. There is a fundamental confusion between MQA being a lossy encoding and it’s supposed sound quality benefits. Compounded with this fundamental confusion, or rather mixed in, is the obfuscation between the analog and digital domains. This confusion is by design of course. So it’s not really about apples or bananas but rather about $selling$ you something
You could try iFi’s products with their new GTO filter. This filter is specifically designed to emulate MQA’s sound quality fruit without any of the lossy, proprietary, DRM, “end to end” spoilization
