I suspect he means data compressed; MQA uses lossy data compression.
You can’t hear data compression. You can hear that data is missing. But, the lossy part of MQA is supposed to be in the frequency range well out of the human hearing capability. Most people’s problem with MQA is not the lossy compression…
Akin to the claim one cannot hear the information removed by converting a wav file to MP3. We know better.
And there are many other reasons not to like MQA, all of which we have already discussed elsewhere. Others, of course, enjoy MQA a great deal.
Listen to what you like.
Wow. Did you read what I wrote? You might want to read it again. Not “akin” to your example at all.
I specifically said it was the missing data we could hear and not the compression. If the compression is lossless, the music is the same. There is missing data when you use MP3 compression and it is the missing data that you hear. In other words, the missing data in the problem, not the compression.
Finally, I said that most people’s problems with MQA is not the lossy compression that is supposed to happen outside the human hearing frequency range. How is that in anyway contrary to what you said?
Jeez…
I responded to what you wrote:
The proponents of MP3 made similar claims; i.e., one cannot hear the lost data.
No, they did not. MP3 was always a lossy compression scheme that tossed data in the entire audible frequency range. How do we know this? Because the max frequency for MP3 was 48kHz so the frequencies it would lossy compress were just above 20kHz and below.
You are disagreeing with something I did not write. 
I indicated MP3 proponents claim “one cannot hear the lost data” tossed out by MP3 data compression. And that they claim “one cannot hear the information removed by converting a WAV file to MP3. We know better.” I wrote nothing about high frequency loss in MP3s.
The similarity between MQA and MP3 proponents is each claims we will not hear that data has been tossed out by their respective lossy compression schemes. I find both MP3 and MQA enthusiasts to be wrong in this respect.
1 Like
Then you are comparing apples to oranges and making no sense. Who cares if people claimed that you could not hear a difference between the original file and the MP3 compressed version. That claim NEVER held water. The MQA claim at least is arguable since the data lost is up in a frequency range above where humans can hear.
Again your MP3 example is not relevant or similar to mine.
It both relevant and analogous - both groups claim they can compress music data files and one will not miss the deleted data. I am always skeptical of such assertions. As it turns out, many of us have found both camps wrong. You are free to disagree.
You may also enjoy MP3s and/or MQA files. There is nothing wrong with this either.
It is intriguing MQA states one will not miss the loss of high frequencies in high resolution files as they are above the range of human hearing. If true, this completely eliminates the benefits of any sampling rate exceeding ~ 40,000 samples/second. Why bother with high resolution files if one cannot hear a difference when high frequencies are captured?
MP3 and MQA are not similar period. Sometimes when people know they are wrong they continue to insist they are right and this is a perfect example of this type of thinking… please stop
I am afraid you have also misunderstood. I do not claim MP3 and MQA are similar as processes. They are alike only in that both are lossy.
I suspect we all agree MQA sounds better than MP3.
What I find striking however is both assert they can throw out data and we are not going to notice when we listen to the resulting files. Perhaps I am the only one who finds this interesting.
I don’t always agree with Mr. ELK’s opinions (or anyone else’s for that matter), but I have trouble faulting him for his assertion that the issue he is highlighting with regard to the formats makes them “analogous”. FWIW. And, I respectfully suggest that asking someone to “please stop” expressing their opinion is inappropriate. Just my opinion. Respectfully yours.
When I say please stop, I’m saying lets stop the argument that Mp3 and MQA are simillar
1 Like
Gotcha – not an unreasonable goal/request!
These PSA forums are gradually becoming less civil (at least that’s my perception). I hope I am wrong. Because this is has been my “Interwebs Oasis” for some time. It would be nice if it remained so.
Cheers.
1 Like
Once again, no one is stating MP3 and MQA are similar. Please see my posts above.
Rather, there is similarity in the marketing of these two lossy compression schemes. I respect others may have a different opinion in this regard. I will not declare anyone wrong for having and expressing a different view.
But it does appear that I am the only one who finds this interesting so I am perfectly contended letting this go unless someone has something additional to add.
They are not analogous. That is like saying how sweet candy is and the best way to prepare herring are analogous because they are both food.
No one at MQA is suggesting you can’t hear the difference between lossy and lossless data in the audible range of human hearing. They are saying where the data is lossy is in a range we humans cannot hear so it doesn’t matter. Not even close to the same argument. Not even in the same galaxy and ELK should know that as should you.
I am afraid you are correct.
When reviewing older threads it is clear we were able to disagree, sometimes strenuously, without summarily dismissing others as “wrong,” ridiculing their opinions, working to find fault with how another expresses themselves, etc.
I get it; you do not see the similarity in the marketing of these two lossy compression schemes. I am not going to assert you are wrong. I respect you have a different opinion.
But keep in mind the distinction you are drawing does not go to the point I am making. You are making a separate, unrelated observation. This does not make me or scotte1 wrong, regardless of the galaxy we may inhabit. 
As to your point, as I wrote above, it is interesting MQA states one will not miss the loss of high frequencies in high resolution files as they are above the range of human hearing. If this is true why bother with high resolution files if one cannot hear a difference when high frequencies are captured?
Just side-talk and hope not to offend anyone here. 
Do we have our own perception of everything around us, and to be totally subjective?
Does it need to be authorized and to win every time and each?
I’m a asylum seeker in good music, please make PS forum different from the most of other world…
1 Like
Hi resolution music has more information in the audible range as well. The human ear hears up to 20 kHz and decreases as we age . Increase in bass , mid bass, mid range, highs in the hearing range all contribute to more dynamics which you can hear and feel particularly when compared to compressed music. I am not sure it is accurate to say that high resolution music sounds better due to increase detail from extending sound above 20 kHz , I have also heard some well mastered cd, red book recordings that sound as if they are high resolution music.