In article , Johan Helsingius
wrote:
But my basic view is that no-one actually needs MQA if they simply
want lower stream rates and smaller files for 'high resolution' audio.
There are alternatives. Bitfreezing is one. Based simply on realising
that a lot of the 'content' of high rate files may simply be
over-specified noise bits! These pad the files/streams to no useful
audible purpose.

+1. Too bad nobody has the guts to actually state that in the mainstream
audio press.

Sadly, they tend to focus on "Well [I think] it sounds good" without even
asking if it sounds the same as the source material.

FWIW I tend to approach this by writing about the technical aspects which
may tend to 'undercut' claims made by companies, etc.

e.g. My column in the current (October 2016) issue of 'Hi Fi News' explains
bitfreezing and how it can cut away the 'fat' of over-specified noise to
get smaller files/streams. But doesn't mention MQA at all. People can then
draw their own conclusions... :-)

One good outcome of this has been that it made me, and some others, realise
just how much such 'fat' there is in many high rez files/streams! In some
ways this reminds me of the retail practice of putting things into a much
bigger box than actually needed for the content. Makes the item more
impressive at point-of-sale and tends to squeeze competitors off the shelf.
"Wow! A big file. I'm getting a lot for my money!" :-)

However sometimes you may get the same meat as in the past, but put into a
bigger bun. ;-

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html