The offering of so-called "high resolution" audio doesn't impress me much, because it doesn't really address the issue of audio quality.
Increasing the sample rate does almost nothing to improve the sound (on paper it's LITERALLY nothing, but I'm leaving room for differences in design and construction quality between cheap consumer converters and high-end high-sample-rate units). On the other hand, compressing a signal to make the file size one-tenth of the original has audible consequences. Thus a compressed 96k file offers vanishingly little benefit to the listener.
The path to genuine improvement to sound quality is reducing bandwidth compression, not higher sample rates. I'll eat a sock if a statistically significant number of listeners choose compressed 96k over uncompressed 48k in a double-blind listening test. However, if you TELL them that this one is higher-res, they'll pick it because bigger is better. You don't have to be a marketing genius to know which is more likely to sell, especially when the outcome of real improvement is reducing the number of songs a device can store by an order of magnitude.
If Apple cared just one iota about ensuring the best digital audio conversion quality, they would approach the one company which had the brains to make the finest D-A in the industry. That accolade went to a tiny UK company whose now 20 year old DAC's (built using discreet circuitry) still knock spots off equipment available to buy today.
The Music Industry knows that the vast majority of music listeners are quite happy listening to audio of 1950's radio station quality. Let's face it, Pop music is engineered to sound best on cheap replay devices. Those listening to more demanding music set far away from the GaGa, Spears, Boy-Band / Girl-Band teen music are of minimal interest to music moguls. With very few exceptions, 21st century music has been stripped of talent.
Just listen to The Revivalists, album Take Good Care, released Nov. 9, 2018. Streaming it now on Tidal at CD quality on a decent sound system. After you hear the album if you don't take back everything you said, well, i can only suggest you stop listening to music.
so how do i listen to mqa audio at max quality via aac?
You'll need a DAC with an MQA-enabled decoded such as the amazing iFi xDSD (it also does full quality AAC but that implementation is limited by the Bluetooth spec.)
Comments
Increasing the sample rate does almost nothing to improve the sound (on paper it's LITERALLY nothing, but I'm leaving room for differences in design and construction quality between cheap consumer converters and high-end high-sample-rate units). On the other hand, compressing a signal to make the file size one-tenth of the original has audible consequences. Thus a compressed 96k file offers vanishingly little benefit to the listener.
The path to genuine improvement to sound quality is reducing bandwidth compression, not higher sample rates. I'll eat a sock if a statistically significant number of listeners choose compressed 96k over uncompressed 48k in a double-blind listening test. However, if you TELL them that this one is higher-res, they'll pick it because bigger is better. You don't have to be a marketing genius to know which is more likely to sell, especially when the outcome of real improvement is reducing the number of songs a device can store by an order of magnitude.