Popular Post r0dd3r5 Posted May 17, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted May 17, 2017 28 minutes ago, fung0 said: The only relevant definition of "lossy" in the current discussion is: that loss in fidelity relative to the working studio master which is inflicted purely for the purposes of reducing data size of the recording delivered to the consumer. Why is this particular type of 'loss' so significant? Ever since Thomas Edison, audiophiles have been demanding access to recordings of higher and higher fidelity. Music labels have delivered technological improvements in numerous lucrative stages - LP, tape, cassette, CD, SACD, FLAC, high-res FLAC...But we are now reaching a limit. There is very little further improvement that music publishers can offer. The next logical step, already underway, is delivering to consumers the actual studio master copy. That is, allowing them to purchase the highest-quality digital representation that exists of the original analog (real-world) performance. Music publishers would rather cut off an appendage than do this. Not just because it means they'll never be able to sell us the same content yet another time. But, more fundamentally, because it means relinquishing their control, their position of superiority. Once consumers have the masters, the publishers are no longer the custodians of the one true Holy Grail. Hence their eager adoption of MQA. In the nick of time, someone has developed a format that lets publishers proclaim that they're releasing something that "Sounds Just as Good!!" as the original studio master - but which is definitively not the original studio master. The distinction is very real, even if the human ear is incapable of distinguishing the 'lossy' MQA file from the original master. It's the only conceivable reason for MQA to be a 'lossy' format, and not simply an enhancement to 'lossless' PCM. The master remains the master, and the MQA file is emphatically not a bit-for-bit copy of it. Once you see this logic, you can't help but realize that MQA is being embraced not as a parallel delivery format to high-resolution PCM, but as a replacement for it. An entirely needless replacement. There are no technical impediments any more. So why would a true audiophile choose a somewhat more-compact recording over one that is absolutely unequivocally guaranteed to contain every possible bit of the original studio recording? The only plausible reason for the adoption of MQA is to avoid giving us that choice. People keep saying "Don't worry, our high-res PCM-FLAC files won't go away." But they will. That's the whole point. +1 crenca, fragoulisnaval and mjb 3 Link to comment
r0dd3r5 Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Interesting that BL thinks so little of the consumer, without which there would be no industry! esldude 1 Link to comment
r0dd3r5 Posted September 16, 2018 Share Posted September 16, 2018 What HiFi doing it again: https://www.whathifi.com/advice/high-resolution-audio-everything-you-need-to-know "MQA (hi-res): A lossless compression format that packages hi-res files with more emphasis on the time domain. Used for Tidal Masters hi-res streaming, but has limited support across products." At least they say it has limited support! Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now