09-Jan-2016, 01:42
(08-Jan-2016, 20:18)iliapas Wrote: MQA is _NOT_ better at compressing losslessly any audio than FLAC/ALAC and other competing formats.
The only advantages of MQA is
1) ability to play it on devices that do NOT understand FLAC/ALAC and only understand plain PCM, and
2) ability to transparently choose to play a LOSSY stream, which may compress to a smaller size and need less bandwidth than LOSSLESS FLAC/ALAC.
If you want _lossless_ 24bit/192KHz on Phantom (the maximum of it's DAC) in smallest size - choose FLAC/ALAC/etc.
Do not believe the marketing-style reviews. Most reviewers don't take time to try to undertand the technology and write up some wishful thinking without even checking.
Unless you want LOSSY compression or your equipment cannot play FLAC/ALAC, MQA is not better for you in any way.
Hm, I don't think that's right. FLAC/ALAC is PCM. DSD is the one that most DACs still can't handle. And they are telling us that MQA is as good as lossless at 16/44 even if you don't have an MQA decoder and as good as high res music up to 24/192 if you do. And the file size will only be as big as 16/44. It's a better way of packing the info into the file, which is why it is so appealing for streaming applcations. Yes of course there's marketing hype, like saying you'll hear exactly what the Mastering Engineer heard and sure some of that is hyperbole, but underneath that there is some meaningful information. Now whether the MQA will REALLY be as good as 24/192 is another story and will assuredly be debated by enthusiastic audiophiles for the next few years once the technology is released in the field.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
