 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
160.39.32.96
In Reply to: RE: "...I don't see the benefit of worrying about size of files."....... posted by Steve O on March 19, 2017 at 10:41:58
I've never seen this suggested anywhere. In fact, I spoke to one person deeply involved with MQA who told me he thought mobile wasn't an interesting market because the differences aren't important on mobile devices, in typical mobile settings.
I've wondered myself about the economics, and come to think, tentatively, that it's the streaming businesses that benefit most from the compression. One way or another, they pay money for every megabit you steam.
jca
Follow Ups:
...Mobile streaming is pretty much implied in the stuff I've read about it. I'm not an industry professional so I don't have direct access to the professional MQA promotional material so maybe there's something else.
MQA's usefulness for mobile streaming seems the only obvious application given that most stationary locations like homes and businesses have low cost unlimited broadband where the "high rez" compression aspects of MQA are of little advantage compared to what's out there now. And so we loop back to the question of whether or not the majority of mobile streamers have any interest in high rez, esp if they have to pay extra for it. At this point, I'm guessing not.
Ty Roberts of Universal specifically mentions mobile and 24 bit audio on phones here.
Edits: 03/19/17
Argh...
You would think your Chief Technology Officer would check with his engineers or just pull out a calculator before saying something stupid like that.
The raw bit rate of 24/96 PCM is 4608000/s (4.39 Mbps). If you figure about 40% savings from FLAC, the required bandwidth for lossless streaming of 24/96 is about 2.64 Mbps. Ancient old 802.11b wifi from circa 2000 sustains about 6-7 Mbps with a good signal, or half of that with a weak signal. So even the oldest wifi networks are no problem unless other users are loading the connection. These days, it's hard to find a wifi connection that isn't at least 802.11n (everything new is 802.11ac). 802.11b provides a real bandwidth of at least 20 Mbps with a weak signal, or more like 40-60 Mbps with a strong signal. So it's pretty ridiculous to claim wifi can't handle hi-res streaming.
A mobile phone from circa 2010 on an HSPA+ network could also handle a 2.64 Mbps stream with no problem. And these days, on AT&T 4G LTE, I can typically get 60-70 Mbps in most places. Bandwidth is just not a problem for streaming hi-res audio. Just look at all the people streaming 1080p video on their phones!
My answer: I know.
Yes, it is absolute bollocks. And so is MQA.
All they have left to cling to is the supposed "de-blurring" which a tiny
cabal of audio writers seem to be stoked about
All they have left to cling to is the supposed "de-blurring" which a tiny
cabal of audio writers seem to be stoked about
Which I think is also bollocks...
You had better believe it is bollocks.
bandwith is very expensive.
Not working for free.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
