drmatt wrote: > Yes I realised I made a typo. You win the prize for pointing it out! ;) > > I do think it's a smart approach to a problem that most people don't > care about. Trouble for MQA is that if you think you need more details > than 16/44 then 99% will simply put up with 24/192 file sizes and not > even care about the extra disk space. I fail to see who will buy a > lossless high end compression codec when I read about people saying even > flac sounds worse than wav files.. (and with the obvious fact that > people have been endlessly complimentary about even good old 2.5 mbit > six channel Dolby digital movie soundtracks for years).
Yup. Overall, you're correct about a solution nobody asked for... One more thing - it's not "lossless" above the baseband 22/24kHz! As per Mr. Stuart: "• b) There is no foolery here: MQA does indeed *reconstruct a remarkably close approximation to the original ultrasonic information* from the lower bits of a 24-bit signal." So remember, above essentially the CD/DAT part of the spectrum, it's a *lossy reconstruction*. This is exactly what I expected despite all this insistence that it's "lossless" and MQA's strange contortions on the word "lossless". This is why I suggested to stream 24/48 if they think "high res streaming" is of any benefit. Completely compatible and will compress better! Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105070 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
