That’s not true and it’s a popular (and old) misconception about digital audio
Nyquist theorem says that in a bandwidth limited system, an analog waveform can be completely and wholly reconstructed by a sampling rate of 2x the upper limit.
E.g. if your waveform is 20Hz-20kHz, then a 44.1kHz sampling rate is enough to exactly represent it (actually up to 22.5kHz).
That’s why very high sampling frequencies are so daft. They account for insane bandwidth boundaries when there is no recording technology, nor listener able to hear these 30, 40+ kHz frequencies.
There is also a cogent argument that high sampling freqs are actually detrimental because the spec of consumer audio has very poor intermodulation distortion performance at vhf, which can spill back into the audible range.
I have seen the photos with my own eyes from several tests, and it is true. Nyquist’s Theorem has not been proven, and I have read much over the years that highly suggest that is is incorrect. And, I have done extensive listening to various files from the same master ranging from 44.1/16 Redbook, all the way up to DSD 256, and I can tell the differences. The higher the rate, the more snap the music has when there should be snap, and more noticeable resolution.
It’s a mathematically correct theorem. It’s like saying you don’t believe Pythagorus’ Theorem because you’ve seen it with your own eyes. i.e. utterly f***ing ridiculous.
That’s very interesting, because the entire world’s global fibre optic communication system, amongst other things, depends on it being true. Where is the source for this literature, on a faked moon landings conspiracy website?
Plenty of folks hear a difference with MQA. Why are you surprised that some folks recognize that difference is caused by distortion of the original whilst others prefer to believe it is better sound because of expectation bias?
The expectation bias is that MQA sounds better because that is what all the marketing hype says. Only critical listeners who approach listening in an unbiased manner are likely to discover the emperor has no clothes and that the added distortion is no improvement at all.
I had no particular expectations when I listened for the first time in MQA, there were more articles in disfavor than in favor. But I do not hear much difference from the Hires, I even find listening less tiring and I am not in the obsesional search for an impossible perfection and that does not correspond to any physiological and physical reality. The Hires, on the other hand, is a complete inefficiency in terms of storage and bandwidth, most of the information transmitted being noise. I hardly see how small operators can support this very expensive model.
If you say so, and I can’t hear it.
I am used to listening to a lot of high quality live music and also play guitar and know what good music sounds like. I am very familiar with what is real.
When I listen to MQA I am hearing great music. The detail is astonishing, instruments sound real and convincing to me. The space in the recordings is wonderful in ways I have never heard before. The music is just effortless in my experience.
I listen mainly on a very high quality and revealing Meridian 218/DSP5200 SE system with EBA on.
Now you try to tell me my senses and experience are wrong, this can’t be true, my audio is compromised based on your convictions.
Well, if you want to be right, so be it… I am and will continue to enjoy MQA as and when it is available and people who hear music via my system are consistently astonished.
Readers who come across this will just have to make their own minds up, but I urge them to just listen.
You also have musical instruments in your listening room. Their resonance interactions will be orders of magnitude more audible (and measurable) than this guff…and yet you claim you can’t hear the difference or aren’t bothered.
1 Like
James_I
(The truth is out there but not necessarily here)
842
I agree with this in terms of anyone just bashing MQA based on the theory of lossless. I have heard some great MQA. Matter of fact Chris recommended The MQA Deep Purple album (Live in Japan was it?) and I was really blown away by the quality, albeit the other versions I have are not far behind, if at all. But there’s no question that was great sound.
It doesn’t change the nature of MQA though. FLAC is a format…MQA is an end to end scheme.
Consider this: as a Brit, Chris, you may be familiar with the UK’s history of keeping continental Europe off-balance (having two powers always at odds with each other) to maintain the stability of the continent without one single power controlling the entirety. Music fans against MQA are similar - we do not want one single power controlling it.
I think this statement is misleading. If the people in the studio don’t remove the guitars and drums etc. before they record a solo piano session, then they should get fired…
James_I
(The truth is out there but not necessarily here)
846
There are clues, though. For one, I understood Bob Stuart to say that he wanted MQA to be the sole system out there. I suppose Ford might say the same thing about cars and I don’t worry about them. But when you get all the record labels behind it, because maybe just maybe they can stuff the genie back in the bottle, it’s not exactly the Ford situation.
There are already labels that say that MQA is their sole format for release. It’s small, but maybe the canary in the coalmine. Which is a great Police song, BTW.
You are aware, yes, that an acoustic guitar is a gigantic sound board? What comes out of your speakers interacts with a resonance chamber and is retransmitted into the room.
So, I’m supposed to live in an acoustically perfect room to listen to great music? Behave, I have a life. My instruments are there so I can pick them up and play them. It’s great jamming along to some good tunes in any format, and I do, often.
They are part of the character of the room, you May live in a perfect acoustic space if you want to…
