Many high regarded engineers vehemently disagree. Many highly regarded systems utilize an approach basically opposite that of minimum phase, slow roll. So, there is no consensus. And the burden of proof lies with the claimants.
AJ
Thatâs not really constructive criticismâŚ
You can criticize the performance of the products that result from those principles.
But having principles?
Yes, it is constructive criticism. It is pointing out that MQA philosophy is based on a lot of appeal to its own authority. MQA says something is a problem, so it is a problem. MQA says something is the solution, so it is the solution. Because MQA says so. And if Meridian or MQA invented the philosophy, then religion like, it is relying upon its own gospel to substantiate its philosophy.
AJ
1 Like
Sure. Thatâs why we have a vibrant marketplace.
And the wonderful thing is, you can vote with you wallet.
We can criticize somebodyâs point of view.
But I donât see why we would criticize having a point of view?
4 Likes
Actually it is a very compelling argument when you have to pay for that bandwidth. Streaming services were/are faced with the spectre of demand for high definition services that will place a heavy burden on bandwidth at potentially little or no extra revenue. Along comes MQA and tells them that amongst other benefits they can offer those higher quality streams and more with a defined bandwidth cost now and going forward. That is a huge win for them.
1 Like
I have seen that and know it to be in itself naive. There are two reasons for bandwidth demand to grow. Bigger files (greater throughput per second) or additional demand (more customers). Bigger files is a cost, more demand is a (potential) profit. MQA offers providers the opportunity to fix the bigger file issue. There may be some additional bandwidth needed initially but that flattens out. It allows the provider to be seen to cater for the demand for HD audio while limiting bandwidth costs going forward. This is a big deal and bears no relevance whatsoever to the superfast connections into homes.
No, you miss the point and/or your analysis is off kilter. The point is that FLAC can compress bog standard high res to a file size similar to or smaller than that of 24 bit 44.1/48 kHz MQA. Because MQA stuffs into the noise floor additional information possibly to be decoded later, MQA does not compress as well. Accordingly, the Internet bandwidth argument â for providers or users â does not hold water. Bandwidth wise, the only real advantage of MQA is that it can fit down a lossless 24 bit 44.1/48 kHz digital audio pipe, such as on equipment or protocols limited that rate support.
AJ
1 Like
You say my analysis is off, I say it isnât as far off the mark as you suggest. But that is just you and I butting heads! The point is MQA has been carefully crafted to appear to offer something to everyone. And the truth is while FLAC can be shrunk as you say, no one has tried to do it commercially and produced any sort of workable standard. Bob did the work, and even now years later there is no workable alternative. At some point we either have to come up with something with the potential for the appeal MQA has or accept it has gone too far to be successfully challenged.
How is FLAC â both CD quality and high res â not already a commercial, workable standard? Is HDtracks not selling high res FLAC? Is Qobuz not streaming high res FLAC?
AJ
1 Like
The thing is no one is offering these super small file sizes you say are possible? Like I said, MQA has no sensible rivals and I donât think staying as we are is viable now especially as MQA have rattled everyoneâs cage.
Have you not used FLAC? FLAC files sizes result from an automated compression process. So called âsuper small file sizesâ are output from a standard FLAC encoder. The compression efficiency determines the file size.
AJ
1 Like
So no one then.
Downward aliased or down sampled? Please be specific in your term. When you reduce 192k to 96k, you are applying a down sampling, this resulted in half the amount of sample points. Where you get those âmagicalâ data to appear again?
The rendering instructions here is actually selecting the appropriate up-sampling impulse filters, there are 16 of them.
Do you know having too fast of impulse response can cause severe uncorrected pulse information in a given amount of time? Say if you got impulse response filter capable of doing at 5us, if your pulse duration (music contents) is larger at 20us, then the impulse filter can only correct the first 5us of music contents and the rest 15us of music contents of it is left untouched. Thereâs a balance need to set the impulse response time to match the music contents timings. So fast is not always good idea.
What?
How do you figure that?
Is a fast slew rate in a power amp bad?
Donât confuse slew rate with impulse response. Slew rate measures how fast per volt of a signal. This normally apply in analog signals. Impulse response measures both the rising and the settling response time with pre and post ringing effects if available.
It all depends on the damping effects of the speaker load, the amount of negative feedback applied and the response time of the amplifying devices. Tube amps have slower slew rate response compared to solid state, yet it sounds fabulous.
I would normally stay out of this⌠but here goes a post from Dr AIX
http://secure.campaigner.com/csb/Public/show/566i-p1vxk--fod08-1la1nql3
references to MQA in the post.
3 Likes
Some discussion on time domain correction and reconstruction filters.