Mp3/mqa

I share this experience, I have heard Redbook recordings which sound as good as high resolution files.

However, many of us find high resolution files sound better than Redbook. If it is not a result of capturing higher frequencies, what is it? Certainly very few here hear over perhaps 15kHz in any event.

Remember when a 128kbs was CD quality? LOL. Talk about apples and oranges. I suspect the missing info out of our hearing range has some greater affect on the gestalt of our perception.

128Kbps was never CD quality. Where did you get that from? CD quality has always been 1,411,200 bits per second.

No, not at all. The bit depth tells you the dynamic range and the sample rate tells you how high the frequency rate encoded will be.

20 bits at 48kHz is all we really need and 24/96 is a good place to stop. 24/192 is a waste of time. Unless you think you need to hear frequencies from 48kHz to 96kHz.

Note: this has nothing to do with upsampling in DAC.

I got that from marketing when mp3 players first were available. My first one had 64Mb storage! Thanks for straightening me out on that! LOL

1 Like

You are talking about listening perceptions, not technical data. The phrase “CD quality” is a technical phrase and not a perceptional phrase.

I was referring to an old marketing claim! It was a joke!

This topic is regarding BRIDGE II UPDATES, Gentleman’s !!!

2 Likes

People need to realize when they get into pissing matches with each other it wastes our time. And it seems that neither Elk or speed-racer have facts, just feelings.

1 Like

Thank you :+1:

I’ve looked at your posts and you have no facts at all. It’s ironic that you bitch about pissing matches and you start one here and have them in other discussions in this forum.

Thanks for the feedback. Good stuff!

1 Like

Please jump in at any time if you conclude something I post is unsupported and feel free to provide us with facts. Additional information is always good and we can all learn something.

It never occurred to me that pointing out MP3 and MQA employed similar marketing schemes would be so controversial - or so difficult to understand.

The marketing schemes aren’t similar and you saying they are similar does not make it so.

We have already covered this. Again, I appreciate you have a different opinion. If you need more to understand my view, see, e.g., here, and here

MP3 was always marketed as a lossy compression algorithm that greatly reduced file sizes while providing acceptable fidelity. This would allow music to be stored efficiently enough with enough fidelity to make compact portable music players feasible. It was never marketed as having the same fidelity as CDs. Some manufacturers may have marketed their players as equal to CD quality sound but the MP3 creators did not. MQA is marketed in an entirely different light. Heck, they don’t even mention the format is lossy.

Please let it go.

This horse has been so thoroughly beaten not even a grease spot remains.

Confronted with facts he wants to shut down the conversation…typical.

Again, I understand you see things differently. I have no problem with this. But I see no value in repeating myself yet again to offer my view.

I want more MP3 and MQA in this thread:

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

I think it’s no bad idea (and not at all meant offensive against ELK) to see him as a technical moderator with elsewise similar „problems“ as some of us. In my perception Paul is the only social moderator here and usually jumps in very late or not at all, especially when ELK is involved occasionally. We’re all humans, let’s take it like that.