[Roly1650]

Wife streaming tv, son playing X-box on line, daughter streaming Spotify whilst on line and me trying to listen to Tidal premium - not everyone has fast broadband and for many of us file size is important.

Glad you bought that up, but sorry, you are just flat out wrong, with a file size over double that of rbcd, the last users who get any benefit from MQA are those without fast broadband, (who, presumably aren't/can't trying to download/stream hi-res). Go look at the 2L website for confirmation, file size isn't something that needs a deep understanding to comprehend. File size might be important to you, but apparently, not important enough.

 

[icebear]

...
Your comments about the science seems to imply that you, (like me), don't understand much of the science so it must be simply an unethical marketing scheme. I differ in that I don't simply dismiss something because I don't fully understand it, I will wait open minded for more evidence and the chance to do real life comparisons.

So you have to pay to see the papers, hardly MQA's fault. That does not invalidate them.   ...

I'm not  PhD scientist but by logical thinking ability isn't too shabby

, so when someone throws around claims and backs with scientific references, I feel challenged to read further into these. If the source has merit and properly explains problem, experiment and result, then I have rarely faced a situation, where I was not able to decide, if what they claim is solid or if they are stretching the truth like a politician ... or marketing guys for that matter. There are case where the amount of sources and data is so vast, most likely on purpose, that it would just be a waste of my time to go through all of it. And I leave it at that.
 
If reference numbers are given to sources and these sources are not accessible, then my conclusion is you have something to hide.
Why not citing sources in the public domain and everybody can take a look and verify the claims have merit or not ... kind of "peer review" in times of the internet

If there are only very few sources on the topic and no other related publications following up on it, then this is an indication that the either the point of view in that source was wrong and just nobody wanted to flat out tell it like it is, or the topic is not relevant.

 

[Gringo]

Glad you bought that up, but sorry, you are just flat out wrong, with a file size over double that of rbcd, the last users who get any benefit from MQA are those without fast broadband, (who, presumably aren't/can't trying to download/stream hi-res). Go look at the 2L website for confirmation, file size isn't something that needs a deep understanding to comprehend. File size might be important to you, but apparently, not important enough.

Are you deliberately misinterpreting me?  I made no reference to RBCD.  When looking at the 2L test bench site MQA file size is very significantly smaller compared to the various other hi-res formats and it is high res I would like to be able to stream. I fully accept that file size may be of no consequence to you but to me and many others it is.  I try to offer comments without untoward bias which alas is a standpoint not everybody subscribes to.

 

[Gringo]

  I'm not  PhD scientist but by logical thinking ability isn't too shabby

, so when someone throws around claims and backs with scientific references, I feel challenged to read further into these. If the source has merit and properly explains problem, experiment and result, then I have rarely faced a situation, where I was not able to decide, if what they claim is solid or if they are stretching the truth like a politician ... or marketing guys for that matter. There are case where the amount of sources and data is so vast, most likely on purpose, that it would just be a waste of my time to go through all of it. And I leave it at that.
 
If reference numbers are given to sources and these sources are not accessible, then my conclusion is you have something to hide.
Why not citing sources in the public domain and everybody can take a look and verify the claims have merit or not ... kind of "peer review" in times of the internet

If there are only very few sources on the topic and no other related publications following up on it, then this is an indication that the either the point of view in that source was wrong and just nobody wanted to flat out tell it like it is, or the topic is not relevant.

So are you claiming that the material referenced is extensive deliberately to confuse and discourage people from scrutinizing it, if so what is your evidence or is this just a biased opinion?
 
Your last sentence simply expresses your opinion and is simply not a logically valid argument.

 

[Roly1650]

Are you deliberately misinterpreting me?  I made no reference to RBCD.  When looking at the 2L test bench site MQA file size is very significantly smaller compared to the various other hi-res formats and it is high res I would like to be able to stream. I fully accept that file size may be of no consequence to you but to me and many others it is.  I try to offer comments without untoward bias which alas is a standpoint not everybody subscribes to.

Not misrepresnting you one scintilla, you didn't qualify your remarks with reference to anything, go look at your post again. No mention of 24 bit, 16 bit or anything else. You made the statement, which in it's context and in isolation, was and is wrong, MQA files are over twice the size of rbcd, so offer disadvantages to those with minimum broadband speed, who, because of that are unlikely to be streaming 24 bit audio, (are there even any service providers? If the answer to that is no, then your point is still moot?). The misrepresentation is entirely yours in the context you stated it, but glad to see you've now qualified your remark, we aren't clairvoyant. And you simply can't escape the fact that the claim has been made that MQA files are "close", (closer is the right answer) in size to rbcd, must be new maths that gets that answer.

 

[icebear]

  So are you claiming that the material referenced is extensive deliberately to confuse and discourage people from scrutinizing it, if so what is your evidence or is this just a biased opinion?
 
Your last sentence simply expresses your opinion and is simply not a logically valid argument.

Just for clarification:
Everything I post here is just that ... my opinion

 
And for my last scentence ... the number of citations in other peer reviewed publications or papers is indeed a good indicator for the importance of a source publication.
The other way around: lack of citations is usally an indication for the opposite. If that's not logical for you, I can't help it 

 

[Gringo]

My comment "Wife streaming tv, son playing X-box on line, daughter streaming Spotify whilst on line and me trying to listen to Tidal premium - not everyone has fast broadband and for many of us file size is important." is simply not wrong, the statement stands on its own merits. The fact that you make assumptions about it and apply your chosen context and pursue a line of arguement to suit your own opinions does not negate it.

Please look again at my original comment and specifically identify which words are a misinterpretation without applying your own assumptions/bias and point out the said misrepresentation.

I agree completely there have been comments about MQA being comparable in size to cd and on the basis of the material available on the L2 website this is simply not borne out.

I Note you offer no comment regarding the much smaller MQA file size compared to other hi-res file types, I might be wrong but I assume you are not contesting this.

 

[Gringo]

I have no issues with people expressing opinions but too often it is presented as evidence/facts. Sorry but I still disagree and maintain the sebnt acne is not logical. Because pre Meglean there was no known evidence of the world being round did not mean it was flat despite the all perceived wisdom of the time.

 

[icebear]

I have no issues with people expressing opinions but too often it is presented as evidence/facts. Sorry but I still disagree and maintain the sebnt acne is not logical. Because pre Meglean there was no known evidence of the world being round did not mean it was flat despite the all perceived wisdom of the time.

 
OK, your logic is a little different than mine

 
First of all, I think you are referring to the explorer Magellan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Magellan
 
And citations of works, publications, discoveries can only happen after the fact, not before (pre).
I guess it was quickly accepted by those who were trying to get somewhere, that the earth was indeed not flat.
Organizations basing their "wisdom", power and influence on that overcome terra centric model of our world struggled with the new evidence for quite a while.

 
To get back on topic
I am sure the future of the music industry will not center around MQA

... just my opinionated $0.02.

 

[GRUMPYOLDGUY]

So the idea is that the increase in time resolution from higher sampling rates impacts perceived audio quality but the wider frequency band does not. So remove the high frequency content, but don't decimate the data. And voila, you have high res audio with compression.

WHY?!

Why, in an age where 150Mbps WAN all the way to the desktop is phenomenally cheap, where 200GB can fit into a package the size of a fingernail, where a 32-bit 768KHz DAC can fit in the palm of your hand, is ANYONE studying new or not-so-new ways of compressing audio?

Who cares if you can hear the higher frequencies or not? Who cares if there is a noticable difference between 44.1KHz and 192KHz? It costs almost nothing to stream or download or store the higher res, uncompressed music.

Just give me the 24/192 uncompressed... I'm not complaining about the size or quality. Stop trying to solve problems that don't freaking exist.

I'm getting off my soapbox now.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 

[icebear]

So the idea is that the increase in time resolution from higher sampling rates impacts perceived audio quality but the wider frequency band does not. So remove the high frequency content, but don't decimate the data. And voila, you have high res audio with compression.

WHY?!

Why, in an age where 150Mbps WAN all the way to the desktop is phenomenally cheap, where 200GB can fit into a package the size of a fingernail, where a 32-bit 768KHz DAC can fit in the palm of your hand, is ANYONE studying new or not-so-new ways of compressing audio?

Who cares if you can hear the higher frequencies or not? Who cares if there is a noticable difference between 44.1KHz and 192KHz? It costs almost nothing to stream or download or store the higher res, uncompressed music.

Just give me the 24/192 uncompressed... I'm not complaining about the size or quality. Stop trying to solve problems that don't freaking exist.

I'm getting off my soapbox now.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 
The "problems" they supposedly are trying to solve are indeed a non issue for the consumer.
The actual problem they are tackling is creating a new source of turnover and profit

.
That's what you do when you are in business, nothing wrong it but selling it as the next revolution in audio quality ... sigh.

 

 

[GRUMPYOLDGUY]

No, when you are in business you try to be the first person to solve a problem and sell the solution at market. This isn't that... Not even remotely.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 

[jagwap]

So the idea is that the increase in time resolution from higher sampling rates impacts perceived audio quality but the wider frequency band does not. So remove the high frequency content, but don't decimate the data. And voila, you have high res audio with compression.

WHY?!

Why, in an age where 150Mbps WAN all the way to the desktop is phenomenally cheap, where 200GB can fit into a package the size of a fingernail, where a 32-bit 768KHz DAC can fit in the palm of your hand, is ANYONE studying new or not-so-new ways of compressing audio?

Who cares if you can hear the higher frequencies or not? Who cares if there is a noticable difference between 44.1KHz and 192KHz? It costs almost nothing to stream or download or store the higher res, uncompressed music.

Just give me the 24/192 uncompressed... I'm not complaining about the size or quality. Stop trying to solve problems that don't freaking exist.

I'm getting off my soapbox now.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

But Tidal and others don't have unlimited bandwidth for millions of customers.

Also I cannot fit 1.5TB on my phone or DAP yet.

The situation occurs outside of your living room.

 

[GRUMPYOLDGUY]

So the idea is that the increase in time resolution from higher sampling rates impacts perceived audio quality but the wider frequency band does not. So remove the high frequency content, but don't decimate the data. And voila, you have high res audio with compression.

WHY?!

Why, in an age where 150Mbps WAN all the way to the desktop is phenomenally cheap, where 200GB can fit into a package the size of a fingernail, where a 32-bit 768KHz DAC can fit in the palm of your hand, is ANYONE studying new or not-so-new ways of compressing audio?

Who cares if you can hear the higher frequencies or not? Who cares if there is a noticable difference between 44.1KHz and 192KHz? It costs almost nothing to stream or download or store the higher res, uncompressed music.

Just give me the 24/192 uncompressed... I'm not complaining about the size or quality. Stop trying to solve problems that don't freaking exist.

I'm getting off my soapbox now.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

But Tidal and others don't have unlimited bandwidth for millions of customers.

Also I cannot fit 1.5TB on my phone or DAP yet.

The situation occurs outside of your living room.

So obviously the answer is reducing the content of files... Not improving DAP board design or network technologies. Bring everything to the lowest common denominator, right?

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 

[jagwap]

So obviously the answer is reducing the content of files... Not improving DAP board design or network technologies. Bring everything to the lowest common denominator, right?

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

Well that's the statement of a troll or an ill informed but opinionated elitist.

The lowest common denominator would be using less than 128kb/s MP3. This is as far ahead of that as 4K DLP is to 480p.

MQA doesn't intend to lower the quality of the audio. 192kHz/24b even losslessy compressed has a lot of redundant information. How much is redundant is being learnt more each year. This is format designed by the people who came up with MLP (minus Michael Gerzon, a sad loss to the industry) the hirez lossless format so good Dolby bought it.

Is it a commercial venture? Sure. Is it better than we have now, at these data rates, definitely.

Also you are overlooking the compensation of limited quality ADC conversation MQA can do.