PASSCODE - LOCUS [MQA][24/96]

Category:
Date:
2018-10-18 18:35 UTC
Submitter:
Seeders:
6
Information:
Recommend Play with Audirvana (macOS) ; )
Leechers:
1
File size:
514.9 MiB
Completed:
667
Info hash:
bbb2bef301f4c506c8513aeae8e638ba78de4e6d
WARNING : if you play without MQA decoder, you can play 24/48. and you have, pls decode with hardware or software and you can listen with 96kHz. PASSCODE - LOCUS MQA 24/96 PREVIEW [![IMAGE ALT TEXT HERE](http://img.youtube.com/vi/N05mR86bsTY/0.jpg)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N05mR86bsTY)

File list

  • Passcode - Locus [MQA 24 BIT 96KHZ]
    • 1 Toxic.flac (45.8 MiB)
    • 10 Parallel.flac (60.7 MiB)
    • 2 Axis.flac (50.5 MiB)
    • 3 Nextage .flac (51.6 MiB)
    • 4 Gekidou Progressive.flac (44.3 MiB)
    • 5 Never Sleep Again.flac (50.9 MiB)
    • 6 Now I Know .flac (58.8 MiB)
    • 7 Kiss No Hanataba.flac (50.5 MiB)
    • 8 Club Kids Never Die .flac (43.5 MiB)
    • 9 Seize The Day!!.flac (58.0 MiB)
    • Passcode - Locus.jpg (393.1 KiB)
thanks for share but MQA encoded formats belong in lossy category

sakurauchi (uploader)

User
but quality is High and good lossless encoding, not like same iTunes AAC
Hypothesis Paper to support a deeper Technical Analysis of MQA (Master Quality Authenticated) by MQA Limited https://www.xivero.com/blog/hypothesis-paper-to-support-a-deeper-technical-analysis-of-mqa-by-mqa-limited/ "The upper frequency band gets “lossy” compressed by applying methods like sparse sampling compression. The reason why that stage is in fact lossy is the bit reduction to around 17Bits. ... The 2nd MQA Origami step is quite similar, so that we end up with the MQA baseband of 48kHz sample rate with a bit depth for the noise shaped dithered audio signal of 17Bits and 7bits of data to be used by the decoder to reconstruct the upper sub bands (24kHz – 96kHz)." Just to support the claim that MQA files are technically lossy.
Lossy do not belong in lossless, no matter how "good" the format sounds. 320kpbs MP3 go to lossy, and so do 256 AAC. There is an overwhelming amount of statistical evidence which shows that most people, including audio enthusiasts, cannot reliably discern between those formats and lossless in a blind test. When categorizing lossy and loseless, lets stick to technical definitions for the sake of archival quality. Everything sounds good anyway. Besides, MQA is pretty hated for the business model behind it. I personally hope it never catches on. And talking about the difference between different formats, higher bits, higher sample rate, etc is a minefield that I don't want to walk into, so I'll leave it at that. I'm enjoying the album, thanks for bringing it to me. Oh hey umbrellafactor, good to see you guys on nyaa. Haven't visited your site in a while and now it looks like WordPress has taken it down...unfortunate. Planning to start another site?
if you want to shrink size of 96/24, use lossy.flac or wavpack. MQA is just wrong.