MikeyFresh Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 3 hours ago, GUTB said: MQA began as a way to identify and archive what makes hi-res music sound better. No it didn't, and now you too are citing MQA marketing speak as facts. 3 hours ago, GUTB said: Based on research which showed that humans are much more sensitive to the time domain than our frequency domain acuity would otherwise suggest, Stuart theorized that it wasn't all the noise in hi-res sound, nor the high frequency information we can't discern, but rather the time-domain resolution is what we're actually picking up on. Oh here we go again, temporal blurring shall we? 3 hours ago, GUTB said: However, what we CAN verify is that MQA has the capacity to sound significantly better than standard resolution audio if you use a a decent MQA-compatible DAC We can't, not anecdotally, nor by means of reviewing the McGill study for example. 3 hours ago, GUTB said: Not all albums mind you, I've heard plenty which seem to sound no better, but there are those which are clearly, significantly, obviously better. Those few that received a special new mastering, perhaps the white glove treatment? Don't bother answering, clearly you've chosen to ignore that aspect entirely despite it having been stated here a million times. A broken record. Even in the cases that you think illustrate your point, isn't that just a subjective opinion vs. any real or broad confirmation, and quite possibly just different as opposed to "clearly, significantly, obviously better" ? 3 hours ago, GUTB said: Frankly they can be much better than any 88 kHz track I've ever heard. How many releases do you have in 88.2kHz, a handful? Or are you speaking of upsampling? Boycott HDtracks Boycott Lenbrook Boycott Warner Music Group Link to comment
Popular Post GUTB Posted December 14, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2020 20 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said: No it didn't, and now you too are citing MQA marketing speak as facts. Oh here we go again, temporal blurring shall we? We can't, not anecdotally, nor by means of reviewing the McGill study for example. Those few that received a special new mastering, perhaps the white glove treatment? Don't bother answering, clearly you've chosen to ignore that aspect entirely despite it having been stated here a million times. A broken record. Even in the cases that you think illustrate your point, isn't that just a subjective opinion vs. any real or broad confirmation, and quite possibly just different as opposed to "clearly, significantly, obviously better" ? How many releases do you have in 88.2kHz, a handful? Or are you speaking of upsampling? 1. If the stated purpose isn't correct, than what was the real purpose? How did you determine it? 2. I don't know what temporal blurring is. Time domain is the flip side of the frequency domain. 3. I'm not familiar with the "McGill study". I have verified through my own testing using Tidal, MQA-CDs and downloaded MQA albums that MQA has the potential to sound better. I downloaded multiple versions of an album I found with an pamplet which lists the engineers, studio and the audio formats (this is a multi-channel 192 kHz album). There's no reason to believe that MQA was mastered any differently than the stereo PCM version. I got a MQA-CD sampler from CDJapan which includes the CD version of the same MQA-CD tracks for comparison purposes. Now, mind you MQA-CD also uses UHQCD which is a new CD media technology that improves signal quality -- but in my testing with that format the quality increase is minor. So, how did you verify that MQA didn't make a difference? DAC? System? Albums? daverich4, KeenObserver, MikeyFresh and 1 other 1 3 Link to comment
KeenObserver Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 5 minutes ago, GUTB said: 1. If the stated purpose isn't correct, than what was the real purpose? How did you determine it? 2. I don't know what temporal blurring is. Time domain is the flip side of the frequency domain. 3. I'm not familiar with the "McGill study". I have verified through my own testing using Tidal, MQA-CDs and downloaded MQA albums that MQA has the potential to sound better. I downloaded multiple versions of an album I found with an pamplet which lists the engineers, studio and the audio formats (this is a multi-channel 192 kHz album). There's no reason to believe that MQA was mastered any differently than the stereo PCM version. I got a MQA-CD sampler from CDJapan which includes the CD version of the same MQA-CD tracks for comparison purposes. Now, mind you MQA-CD also uses UHQCD which is a new CD media technology that improves signal quality -- but in my testing with that format the quality increase is minor. So, how did you verify that MQA didn't make a difference? DAC? System? Albums? You've been drinking the contaminated brandy. daverich4 and MikeyFresh 1 1 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
KeenObserver Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 7 minutes ago, GUTB said: 1. If the stated purpose isn't correct, than what was the real purpose? How did you determine it? 2. I don't know what temporal blurring is. Time domain is the flip side of the frequency domain. 3. I'm not familiar with the "McGill study". I have verified through my own testing using Tidal, MQA-CDs and downloaded MQA albums that MQA has the potential to sound better. I downloaded multiple versions of an album I found with an pamplet which lists the engineers, studio and the audio formats (this is a multi-channel 192 kHz album). There's no reason to believe that MQA was mastered any differently than the stereo PCM version. I got a MQA-CD sampler from CDJapan which includes the CD version of the same MQA-CD tracks for comparison purposes. Now, mind you MQA-CD also uses UHQCD which is a new CD media technology that improves signal quality -- but in my testing with that format the quality increase is minor. So, how did you verify that MQA didn't make a difference? DAC? System? Albums? Do you have any idea........... MikeyFresh 1 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
MikeyFresh Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 13 minutes ago, GUTB said: 1. If the stated purpose isn't correct, than what was the real purpose? How did you determine it? You skipped right past the part about your "stated purpose" is just you parroting MQA marketing speak, didn't you. 13 minutes ago, GUTB said: 2. I don't know what temporal blurring is. Really? You seem so well versed in BS-speak, I can't imagine that one wouldn't have entered your vocabulary by now. Here's a good refresher on it, but not presented by BS of course: MUSINGS/MEASUREMENTS: On "blurring" and why MQA probably worsens transient smearing. TL : DR? That time domain bullshit you are trying to parrot is also old news, and the response to it was never rebutted in any way by his Royal Highness BS, nor the rest of the MQA cadre. 13 minutes ago, GUTB said: 3. I'm not familiar with the "McGill study" You might wish to familiarize yourself with it. 13 minutes ago, GUTB said: I have verified through my own testing using Tidal, MQA-CDs and downloaded MQA albums that MQA has the potential to sound better. Sounds very sophisticated. 13 minutes ago, GUTB said: There's no reason to believe that MQA was mastered any differently than the stereo PCM version. No? Did you read the posts earlier about a great deal on a bridge for sale? It even generates toll revenue for the owner. Boycott HDtracks Boycott Lenbrook Boycott Warner Music Group Link to comment
MikeyFresh Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 31 minutes ago, GUTB said: I got a MQA-CD sampler from CDJapan which includes the CD version of the same MQA-CD tracks for comparison purposes. You bought an MQA-CD player? Thats hysterically funny. Congrats on that, you've joined a worldwide sample size of what, 5-10 other people? Cutting edge I suppose, does it have a blue light to comfort you with a level of authentication hitherto unknown? Boycott HDtracks Boycott Lenbrook Boycott Warner Music Group Link to comment
DuckToller Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 6 hours ago, GUTB said: However, what we CAN verify is that MQA has the capacity to sound significantly better than standard resolution audio if you use a a decent MQA-compatible DAC If I am not mistaken, you've listed the Holo Audio Cyan and Schiit Yggdrasil as your recent DACs. Both aren't the pinnacle of a "decent MQA-compatible DAC" afaik. Thus, makes me wonder how you've achieved your verification of MQA's capacity??? The Computer Audiophile 1 Link to comment
GUTB Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 Just now, DuckToller said: If I am not mistaken, you've listed the Holo Audio Cyan and Schiit Yggdrasil as your recent DACs. Both aren't the pinnacle of a "decent MQA-compatible DAC" afaik. Thus, makes me wonder how you've achieved your verification of MQA's capacity??? I was an early adopter of MQA. When it was released to the public I first got a Meridian Explorer 2. I wasn't able to hear any benefit with MQA from this DAC. I got a Dragonfly Red next and patiently waited for its MQA support firmware update. With the Dragonfly I was able to hear the improvement from MQA for the first time. This wasn't a real DAC however being USB dongle type using a tiny IC amp etc, really lacked dynamics. Next I picked up a Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 Digital, and again I heard the benefit of MQA. Although it was better than than the Dragonfly, once again the dynamics were lacking so it was ultimately an unpleasing DAC. For a while after this I was upgrading my record system, then trying to bring my digital up to the level of of my analog so MQA got back-burnered. Finally I got a Myek Liberty which unlike most MQA DACs can do the decoding on all inputs allowing the use of MQA-CD. I still have the Liberty today and it's hooked up to my headphone system. The Cyan was for experimenting with R2R DSD decoding, and Yggdrasil is my latest and probably final attempt to bring my digital up to the level of my analog. That's on hold right now as I'm burning in a Purifi class D amp and my main amp until recently, an Odyssey Stratos, is broken and my filler amps just aren't as good. I tried to fix the Stratos but to no avail, I may have no choice but to send it in for service, possibly upgrade to something better. So things are on hold right now. If the Yggdrasil can bridge the gap, I'll just have to give up on MQA in my main system and leave it for my headphone setup. If the Yggdrasil doesn't help, maybe I'll upgrade to a Manhattan II and bring back MQA, MQA-CD while my analog is for critical listening / when I feel like it. So yes, I have made some effort to validate MQA's results. Link to comment
MikeyFresh Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 43 minutes ago, GUTB said: Finally I got a Myek Liberty which unlike most MQA DACs can do the decoding on all inputs allowing the use of MQA-CD. I still have the Liberty today and it's hooked up to my headphone system. Cutting edge I suppose, does it have a blue light to comfort you with a level of authentication hitherto unknown? Have your listening trials confirmed this is exactly what the artist (or perhaps the "studio") originally intended, and that's been officially "authenticated" in association with the record label, who have carefully and accurately conveyed the spirit of the original master recording to both TIDAL and/or some wide ranging examples of MQA-CD? In what percentage of albums have MQA confirmed or "authenticated" anything at all with the recording artist, or even the original recording engineer or mastering engineer, versus used an unknown source of unknown provenance for batch encoding in the cloud as the esteemed LS one proudly described here? This might also be considered as so-called white glove vs. hamburger batch encoding. In what percentage of cases have the record labels used a legal/contractual language that in many instances is decades old, to pretend to be the defacto final arbiter of what particular source or mastering or proprietary distribution format such as MQA is "what the artist or studio intended" and how have the said artists and studios actually been compensated for this new amazing quality streaming distribution of their material? Same old lame rip-off contract with the artists that there ever was? Boycott HDtracks Boycott Lenbrook Boycott Warner Music Group Link to comment
Popular Post IT Freak Posted December 14, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2020 12 hours ago, GUTB said: So, I guess a lot of non-audiophiles like to comment on this topic. According to Stuart, there is no musical information above 50 kHz or thereabouts. Above this range according to his theory it's just noise, but also some timing cues which are important to our ear-brain system. Supposedly the MQA encoding process retains the 50 kHz range and besides that some elements above that which is determined to be important. So when the full unfold happens the 50 kHz range is brought back, represented by the 88 kHz sample rate, plus whatever timing information was picked up by the encoder in higher-res files. This is probably the basis for calling high-res files above 88 kHz their original sample rate -- according to the theory all the important information is retained and the noise is discarded. MQA began as a way to identify and archive what makes hi-res music sound better. Based on research which showed that humans are much more sensitive to the time domain than our frequency domain acuity would otherwise suggest, Stuart theorized that it wasn't all the noise in hi-res sound, nor the high frequency information we can't discern, but rather the time-domain resolution is what we're actually picking up on. This is theory of course. No one has the tools or ability to verify it without the participation of MQA, and for obvious reason they're not going to give that away being a trade secret. However, what we CAN verify is that MQA has the capacity to sound significantly better than standard resolution audio if you use a a decent MQA-compatible DAC. Not all albums mind you, I've heard plenty which seem to sound no better, but there are those which are clearly, significantly, obviously better. Frankly they can be much better than any 88 kHz track I've ever heard. Can you explain then why MQA is still showing the studio dot from studio MQAs when the lower byte of a 24bit MQA is chopped of ? That is how they make MQA-CDs. They sound WORSE. And apparently they know that because they are promoting MQA-CD here : https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/news/eudora-records Remember MQA-CD is 16bit. Now I dare you to buy the flacs of this album and throw them in a 24bit flac to WAV lossless decompression software and then look at the 24bit PCM stream... For a real MQA-CD (16bit) every 3rd byte would be zero... here IT IS NOT ! The album is available on Tidal as wel and is also 24bit MQA... NOT 16bit MQA-CD ! So they promote MQA-CD (16bit) but they let us listen to 24-bit MQA's ! That is BS ! WHY DO THEY DO THAT FOR ? I removed every 3rd byte to make it a REAL 16bit MQA-CD and it sounds like sh*. They just try to convince us all that 16bit MQA's (99% of all those Warner convertions are 16bit) sound good... well they DON'T. Ask yourself this question : WHY did they NOT give us a chance to compare the original Warner redbook tracks with the MQA tracks ? They smartly removed all the redbooks at the same time ! Why is that ? If they knew the MQAs would sound better it would be an opportunity for us to compare and leave the redbooks on the servers for some time. They didn't ! Why ? Because they know the MQA's are not an improvement at all. And I know because I CAN compare as I still have a lot of those original flacs stored on my HD. In 90% of the cases I prefer the redbook version ! (and YES I am talking about same masters, the Tidal ID is exactly the same, and I am playing them throught the same software, same hardware, a full MQA decoder etc) bogi and MikeyFresh 2 Link to comment
Popular Post bogi Posted December 14, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2020 8 hours ago, GUTB said: I got a MQA-CD sampler from CDJapan which includes the CD version of the same MQA-CD tracks for comparison purposes. Please read once again my previous post. MQA-CD tracks consist of 16bit samples to be compatible with CD media format and playable on ordinary CD player. Then 1) In 16bit CD format there is no place (no bits which could be used) for packed high frequency noise 'to fix time domain resolution'. The packed high frequency noise thing is relevant only for 24bit MQA. 2) Not only MQA-CD, but also all the 16bit MQA 'masters' which replaced the lossless almums on Tidal, cannot contain any packed high frequency info from the same reason. 3) Since the least significant bit out of 16 is occupied by MQA control stream (authentication info, original master sample rate info, index of MQA filter to be used by MQA DAC), max. 15 bits remain for the Redbook CD compatible part to be playable without MQA DAC. So the MQA-CD resolution and dynamic range is lower than in the case of ordinary Redbook CD. 4) With MQA-CD and MQA DAC a MQA filter is used instead of DAC internal filter for hardware oversampling of max. 15 bit PCM content. No more differences. The MQA filter quality was already analyzed, measured, no magic was found. Now explain me what's the customer benefit of MQA-CDs and 16bit MQA 'masters' on Tidal against ordinary lossless 16bit Redbook CD format. MikeyFresh, IT Freak and Currawong 3 i7 11850H + RTX A2000 Win11 HQPlayer ► Topping HS02 ► 2x iFi iSilencer ► SMSL D300 ► DIY headamp DHA1 ► HiFiMan HE-500 Link to comment
mevdinc Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 Currently I live in Turkey and suddenly I lost access to Tidal, it is blocked here! Apparently Tidal is trying to acquire a license to provide its streaming service in Turkey. So, I have started using Spotify Premium. I must say, it is so much better in terms of choice of music and UI. No hi-res streaming (best is 320Kbs and it does sound quite reasonable), but Spotify allows me to access my local files as well, where I have lots of hi-res music. Since I don't much care for MQA I don't miss Tidal one bit. I won't be worrying about MQA format until it becomes the only format available (I am sure this is what it was designed for ultimately). mevdinc.com (My autobiography) Recently sold my ATC EL 150 Actives! Link to comment
Popular Post KeenObserver Posted December 14, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2020 28 minutes ago, mevdinc said: Currently I live in Turkey and suddenly I lost access to Tidal, it is blocked here! Apparently Tidal is trying to acquire a license to provide its streaming service in Turkey. So, I have started using Spotify Premium. I must say, it is so much better in terms of choice of music and UI. No hi-res streaming (best is 320Kbs and it does sound quite reasonable), but Spotify allows me to access my local files as well, where I have lots of hi-res music. Since I don't much care for MQA I don't miss Tidal one bit. I won't be worrying about MQA format until it becomes the only format available (I am sure this is what it was designed for ultimately). The way Warner, MQA, and Tidal implemented this is leaving questions in many peoples minds. But then, look at MQA's actions since it's inception. Nothing is forthright and in the open. It has all been smoke and mirrors. IT Freak and MikeyFresh 2 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
IT Freak Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 26 minutes ago, KeenObserver said: The way Warner, MQA, and Tidal implemented this is leaving questions in many peoples minds. But then, look at MQA's actions since it's inception. Nothing is forthright and in the open. It has all been smoke and mirrors. Exactly. The Warner MQA pile is a good example. One converted redbook flacs into MQA flacs but we had NO WAY to compare as they removed the redbooks while doing so. And I know exactly why : I still have some redbook flacs on my PC and they sound MUCH better than the 16b 44.1k MQAs that are online now. If you want to make a 16b 44.1k sound exactly the same as the 16b 44.1k master, you just copy it. You don't sacrifice bytes to make an MQA emblem and sample rate appear on your DAC and then apply some upsampling and filters any decent DAC could do. (I am not talking about 24b MQAs I can live with those). Link to comment
Popular Post KeenObserver Posted December 14, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2020 Reduced to its absolute simplest terms, all the benefits of MQA are on one side of the equation, all the costs are on the other side of the equation. The music consumer ultimately pays for the cost of MQA. MQA tells you that there are benefits to MQA. But they are terrified of anyone independently testing for those benefits. They put on demonstrations where they control absolutely every aspect of the demonstration. When independent tests are done, they contradict MQA's tests. There is just a smell to MQA. Their attempts to force it on the music consumer should provoke the music consumer. maxijazz, MikeyFresh, IT Freak and 1 other 4 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
lucretius Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 2 hours ago, IT Freak said: Can you explain then why MQA is still showing the studio dot from studio MQAs when the lower byte of a 24bit MQA is chopped of ? Only the 0-22.05/24 kHz frequency range encoded in the first 13-15 most significant bits is authenticated. The 8 least significant bits (of a 24 bit file), which also include the encoding for the 22.05/24 - 44.1/48 kHz frequency range, do not affect authentication and thus can be altered and the "blue light" will remain on. Bob has already admitted this. 2 hours ago, IT Freak said: For a real MQA-CD (16bit) every 3rd byte would be zero. No. MQA-CD (i.e. 16 bit MQA) files are not encoded in the way you think. mQa is dead! Link to comment
IT Freak Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 39 minutes ago, lucretius said: Only the 0-22.05/24 kHz frequency range encoded in the first 13-15 most significant bits is authenticated. The 8 least significant bits (of a 24 bit file), which also include the encoding for the 22.05/24 - 44.1/48 kHz frequency range, do not affect authentication and thus can be altered and the "blue light" will remain on. Bob has already admitted this. No. MQA-CD (i.e. 16 bit MQA) files are not encoded in the way you think. No 16bit MQA IS encoded like I said. I decompressed several 16bit MQA's that were packed in 24bit FLACS to 24bit WAVs and every single one decoded like this : xx xx 00 xx xx 00 xx xx 00 (*) Every 24bit MQA in 24bit FLACS decoded to 24bit WAVs like thise xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx These "MQA-CDs" from Eudora should be 16 bit as they call them MQA-CDs and they should also decode like that (*). Well they DON'T. They decode as xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx which proves those are not MQA-CDs but 24bit ones. P.S. The 24bit WAV plays fully decoded to my MQA-DAC (MQA symbol etc) The 16bit WAV (where every 3rd byte is chopped off) as well (same) (but it sounds worse according to me; if it had no effect at all then why all the origami stuff in the first place ? Then one could make ALL MQA's 16bit and make them half the size) I threw both MQA's 24bit and 16bit one into the MQATagRenamer app and both were marked "completed" and put in a folder named "MQA" just below it with the extension changed from flac to mqa.flac. So my job was bitperfect ! Your turn. Link to comment
bogi Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 2 hours ago, IT Freak said: For a real MQA-CD (16bit) every 3rd byte would be zero... Any CD must contain 16bit PCM samples, including MQA CD. It cannot contain 24bit samples because the Redbook standard does not support it so it would be an unknown format for CD players. If you would rip a CD and convert its 16bit PCM content to 24bit PCM content then you would get 24bit samples with lowest 8 bits zeroed. But you cannot burn 24bit content to CD medium. i7 11850H + RTX A2000 Win11 HQPlayer ► Topping HS02 ► 2x iFi iSilencer ► SMSL D300 ► DIY headamp DHA1 ► HiFiMan HE-500 Link to comment
bogi Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 4 minutes ago, IT Freak said: that were packed in 24bit FLACS That's 16bit content in 24bit FLAC, therefore the zeros. Any CD can contain only 16bit samples. If you would rip MQA CD, you would not get those zeros. i7 11850H + RTX A2000 Win11 HQPlayer ► Topping HS02 ► 2x iFi iSilencer ► SMSL D300 ► DIY headamp DHA1 ► HiFiMan HE-500 Link to comment
IT Freak Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 1 minute ago, bogi said: Any CD must contain 16bit PCM samples, including MQA CD. It cannot contain 24bit samples because the Redbook standard does not support it so it would be an unknown format for CD players. If you would rip a CD and convert its 16bit PCM content to 24bit PCM content then you would get 24bit samples with lowest 8 bits zeroed. But you cannot burn 24bit content to CD medium. That's what I'm saying. The MQA files from Eudora are NOT 16bit, they are 24bit. So they are cheating and let us listen to 24bit ones that CAN NEVER be put on a CD unless they chop off the lower byte. MQA is constructed like that : it still plays if you throw away every 3rd (lower) byte So ABC ABC ABC becomes AB AB AB Link to comment
IT Freak Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 1 minute ago, bogi said: That's 16bit content in 24bit FLAC, therefore the zeros. Any CD can contain only 16bit samples. Yes, MQA-CD IS 16bit by definition... they deliver the Eudora tracks in 24bit FLACs. So every 3rd byte should be zero in the decompressed PCM stream... and IT IS NOT ! So they lie ! bogi 1 Link to comment
bogi Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 7 minutes ago, IT Freak said: I decompressed several 16bit MQA's were packed in 24bit FLACS Important part is "that were packed in 24bit FLACS" - that packing is the reason of zeros. Please understand that CD medium does not contain packed FLAC, it has nothing to do with FLAC. Furthermore, the 16bit samples are not compressed on CD medium. i7 11850H + RTX A2000 Win11 HQPlayer ► Topping HS02 ► 2x iFi iSilencer ► SMSL D300 ► DIY headamp DHA1 ► HiFiMan HE-500 Link to comment
bogi Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 6 minutes ago, IT Freak said: Yes, MQA-CD IS 16bit by definition... they deliver the Eudora tracks in 24bit FLACs. So every 3rd byte should be zero in the decompressed PCM stream... and IT IS NOT ! So they lie ! I didn't say they don't lie. :) i7 11850H + RTX A2000 Win11 HQPlayer ► Topping HS02 ► 2x iFi iSilencer ► SMSL D300 ► DIY headamp DHA1 ► HiFiMan HE-500 Link to comment
IT Freak Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 5 minutes ago, bogi said: Important part is "that were packed in 24bit FLACS" - that packing is the reason of zeros. Please understand that CD medium does not contain packed FLAC, it has nothing to do with FLAC. Furthermore, the 16bit samples are not compressed on CD medium. Omg... there are NO zeroes in the so called MQA-CD tracks when decompressing the 24bit FLAC to a 24bit PCM stream. So those are NOT MQA-CD tracks but 24bit MQAs. Why do they release MQA-CD in a 24bit FLAC in the first place ? That is what made me doing further investigation... and the reason is they didnt put MQA-CD in it but 24bit MQA (which sounds much better). They want to fool us. It doesn't work for me ;-) Link to comment
IT Freak Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 14 minutes ago, bogi said: I didn't say they don't lie. :) I know a CD only holds the PCM stream and no flacs. I look at the stream AFTER decompressing the 24b flac to 24b WAV which holds the 24b PCM stream. A redbook CD can only hold 16b PCM streams... so every 3rd byte should be zero in the 24b PCM stream and it is not. MQA is advertising 16bit MQA-CD by using (higher quality) 24bit MQA. Wish Mansr was here... he understands. 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