netchord wrote: > see Virus Killer's post here: > > http://www.meridianunplugged.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=225234#Post225234 > > everything you need to know. > > it is truly a paradigm shift. Hmmm. A few quotes from VirusKiller's post:
> the "compression" applied to the master file (which can be anything from > a (non-ideal) 44.1/16 master up to 8x sample rate) is not lossy in the > conventional sense. There is nothing removed from the file that would > allow a human being to differentiate between the MQA encoding and the > master as heard in the studio. Lossy? No, that would be an extremely > unfair and naive description. "Encoded for human hearing" would be more > accurate. So the MQA encoding process removes parts of the signal in a manner that will not be audible to a human listener. Exactly how is this something new? "Encoded for human hearing" is *precisely* what traditional lossy encoders (MP3, Vorbis, AAC, etc) have always done - some better than others. Meridian might claim that their encoding is more transparent than others, but to say it isn't "lossy" is basically a lie. And given the fact that modern high bitrate MP3/Vorbis/AAC/etc is indeed transparent in all but the most extreme and contrived situations, is there actually any need to invent another format? I appreciate that when played back through a suitable MQA decoder, the removed parts are intended to be restored, meaning it is no longer lossy. But the idea is that MQA encoded stuff will be playable on legacy equipment without a decoder, in which case it *is* lossy. Sounds a bit like a more extreme form of HDCD to me. > MQA has broad music industry backing from execs, artists, and producers. No Sh*t, Sherlock. The music industry will welcome with open arms *any* technology which promises to allow them to sell their back catalogue yet again. > Hearing Louis Armstrong through a pair of 7200SEs as if he was in the > room was a jaw-dropping moment that I will never forget. It *is* that > good. The most recent recording that could ever possibly have been made by Louis Armstrong would date from 1971 (the year he died). This predates Dolby SR by 15 years. Do you honestly think there was any recording technology available in 1971 that could have captured the ~100kHz bandwidth which Bob Stuart seems to think is required to cope with the human ear's ability to distinguish events down to the 10 microsecond interval? (Note: this is the same Bob Stuart who once stated that 19 bits and 60kHz sampling rate were sufficient - presumably back in the days when that's the maximum that Meridian could envisage delivering). Or that has an S/N ratio even remotely approaching the 96dB that 16 bit PCM is capable of? No, didn't think so. In which case, perhaps the wonderful sound that VirusKiller heard might have been more to do with the mastering, playback equipment or room, and *nothing* to do with it having been encoded by the wonderful MQA system? MQA is another solution in search of a problem, and gullible audiofools are going to lap it up just because it's Meridian. If Microsoft or Sony had come up with this, it would have been laughed at for the smoke & mirrors it is. Transporter -> ATC SCM100A ------------------------------------------------------------------------ cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102648
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
