Wiim Amp support MQA?
- Thread starter darkj2k
- Start date
Brantome
Moderator
None at all, not even the first unfold
Brantome
Moderator
I had a fairly decent stereo cassette recorder and a lovely Akai reel to reel machine back in the day. Never used an 8 track though although I do remember someone had one in his Austin A40. I remember listening to Pink Floyd's Meddle on it just before he plowed into the back of another car when we were on our way to somewhere on a college outing. We had to abandon him, his A40 and Meddle in favour of a train as I recall.
You're too much severe... MQA would be a good way to half the bitrate and size of hi-res files, with practically no losses. It made sense if bandwidth was not so wide and if applied on 24bit 96KHz and above.It’s like 8 track cartridge and other obsolete recording technologies
The problem was the "miracolistic and mysterious" aura they wanted give to it (and royalties too)...
With proper decoding I challenge anyone to catch differences from true hi-res.
On audio bandwidth, it's not lossy in the same way mp3 does, anyway it's a good thing that Tidal doesn’t anymore rely on it...
Brantome
Moderator
I don't know if anyone can truly be too severe with MQA 
Even if you take my tongue in cheek comment at face value, 8 track cartridges had their day but are no longer relevant - like MQA...
Even if you take my tongue in cheek comment at face value, 8 track cartridges had their day but are no longer relevant - like MQA...Even if that was true the royalties issue, the claims that it was lossless when it patently wasn't and the fact that it solved a problem that didn't exist make it one of the biggest white elephant's in audio history.
Mr Ee
Major Contributor
I think we can do better than that...
How many 'hires' files actually have any content above 24khz? Well, yes, there are some, but even of those I've not seen any with anything but noise above 48khz.
So I propose that we can instantly halve the size of 192/24 files down to 96 with no loss.
We then get into the debate of whether ultrasonic (> human hearing range in this context) has any meaning / impact on what we hear, and whether having such frequencies in the recording actually causes harm.
Either way, once again I propose that halving the 96khz file down to 48khz would lead to no one being able to reliably (more than chance) tell the difference between the two.
I'd even go as far as proposing that with a dithered 48/16 file no one could tell the difference either.
Voila - I've just made your file 6* smaller and it sounds the same.
There is a lot of truth there.I think we can do better than that...
How many 'hires' files actually have any content above 24khz? Well, yes, there are some, but even of those I've not seen any with anything but noise above 48khz.
So I propose that we can instantly halve the size of 192/24 files down to 96 with no loss.
We then get into the debate of whether ultrasonic (> human hearing range in this context) has any meaning / impact on what we hear, and whether having such frequencies in the recording actually causes harm.
Either way, once again I propose that halving the 96khz file down to 48khz would lead to no one being able to reliably (more than chance) tell the difference between the two.
I'd even go as far as proposing that with a dithered 48/16 file no one could tell the difference either.
Voila - I've just made ypur file 6* smaller and it sounds the same.
Halve one or two time, it's substantially what MQA already does, just in a more elegant way. If it was free or at least presented as it really was, it has been better...
Similar threads
