#MASTER OF MY DOMAIN SCARLETT.JPG DOWNLOAD#

It became clear from interviews that Bob Stuart cares deeply about this. MQA's goal, with their 'audio origami,' is to fix things so that the increase in sonic quality is proportionate to the increase in file size or rate of data streamingthe aesthetic and ethical commitment I mentioned. Fortunately, they're not all meaningfulor equally meaningful. Even if all those data were meaningful, they would be more than we could take in. And the necessary data rates quickly become formidable: With DXD, the highest-rate version of PCM in common use (352.8kHz), the data rate may exceed even the capacity of our own neural circuitry (footnote 4). If nearly everyone agrees that increasing the sampling rate improves quality, most also agree that with each doubling the sonic benefit shrinks. But recently that rarest of things in high-end audioactual scientific evidencehas emerged (footnote 3). That's the conventional wisdom, the result of many subjective experiences by countless audiophiles. However, it's widely thought that sound quality improves when the sampling rate is doubled, to 96kHz, and further improves when it's doubled again, to 192kHz, and on and on. So why not go for 48kHz? We could surely get consistently good sound from a 48kHz distribution format, assuming musicians and recording, mastering, and hardware engineers do their jobs well. A sampling rate of 48kHz provides a bit more room for more gradual filtering. The most important information in any audio recording, as everyone surely agrees, is what falls within the audioband of 20Hz≢0kHz ie, the range of frequencies audible to the human earand the audioband is adequately covered by CD's 44.1kHz sampling rate, with the caveat that squeezing a well-behaved antialiasing filter into the narrow transition band presents challenges (footnote 2). For Stuart, efficiency in the delivery of musical information is an aesthetic, even an ethical commitment. Why turn to an unproven 'lossy codec' when, instead, we could use a familiar lossless codec like FLAC, or no compression at all? But as with every aspect of the codec, there's a serious philosophical perspective behind MQA's commitment to data-rate reduction.

#MASTER OF MY DOMAIN SCARLETT.JPG DOWNLOAD#

At best, framing the issue as one of lossy vs lossless largely misses the point.Ĭritics commonly claim that the Internet's ever-increasing download speeds render MQA's reduction in file sizes unnecessary. At worst, lossy is a cudgela scare word intended to evoke associations with MP3 and a negative emotional response. That is my conclusion after reading widely about it, and talking and corresponding with experts, including MQA's Bob Stuart and digital engineers who don't support MQA. Is MQA lossy? Yes, but that's not really the right question.

In particular, I'll consider critics' claims that MQA is a 'lossy' codec. This month I take a first look at the second pillar: MQA's approach to data-rate reduction. Last month I took a first peek at those time-domain issues, examining the impulse response of MQA's 'upsampling renderer,' the output side of this analog-to-analog system (footnote 1).

calls 'audio origami,' which yields reduced file size (for downloads) and data rate (for streaming). Master Quality Authenticated (MQA), the audio codec from industry veterans Bob Stuart and Peter Craven, rests on two pillars: improved time-domain behavior, which is said to improve sound quality and what MQA Ltd. Loss is nothing else but change, and change is Nature's delight.Marcus Aurelius

Master of my domain scarlett.jpg