Sorry that is wrong, information theory is very much based on thermodynamics. As they say the second law is a b..... The entire premise of MQA is perceptual and as several folks have stated they did not bother to verify much of anything with their own set of tests and avoid any serious technical criticism. Maybe you could find a single careful test that was done to verify this "filters that pre-ring" are actually audible.
Last edited:
The only unphysical thing about the sampling theorem is that in the real world we cannot take a perfect instantaneous sample. This is of no practical consequence, as we can get close enough. Comparing this with post-Newtonian physics is just showing ignorance of maths and physics.NATDBERG said:
What the sampling theorem and post-Newtonian physics have in common is that they both contain truths which seem counter-intuitive to people whose intuition is poorly constrained by facts. Physicists have had to learn to retrain their intuition; some audio hobbyists (and some audio professionals) regard this as unnecessary and so continue to believe myths while disbelieving the truth.
And what’s wrong with pre-ringing even if we actually can hear it?
One time in the studio, our client, a young alt rock musician looked nervous, and somewhat unhappy with the mix we were working on. Then he finally told us that the mix didn’t sound like a commercial major releases that he is familiar with. Well, this is not uncommon, but in this case, the mix actually sounded wonderful to me. The engineer proposed to down sample it to 44.1K from 96k/24, and this young gentleman was very satisfied with it while he was a bit surprised. Audiophiles love 2nd harmonics, vinyl scratch noises, horn honk, stereo phantom center comb filter and aliasing noise from unfiltered NOS DAC, then why not pre-ringing? Our preference is heavily biased by one’s listening habits and belief.
One time in the studio, our client, a young alt rock musician looked nervous, and somewhat unhappy with the mix we were working on. Then he finally told us that the mix didn’t sound like a commercial major releases that he is familiar with. Well, this is not uncommon, but in this case, the mix actually sounded wonderful to me. The engineer proposed to down sample it to 44.1K from 96k/24, and this young gentleman was very satisfied with it while he was a bit surprised. Audiophiles love 2nd harmonics, vinyl scratch noises, horn honk, stereo phantom center comb filter and aliasing noise from unfiltered NOS DAC, then why not pre-ringing? Our preference is heavily biased by one’s listening habits and belief.
When it comes to preferences, anything's game in my book. As long as one does not conflate preference with Truth. And, yes, that's with a capital T.
(not aimed at you, Plasnu)
And none of one's preferences requires an attempt at rewriting sampling theory/physics/etc to one's own (incorrect) understanding to accomplish.
As I had already stated "post-Shannon/Nyquist" (again, among so many others that independently describe sampling theory) is a statement that simply doesn't make sense, e.g., "post-gravity". It's not an approximation/empirical description, but a fundamental construct, so there's no "sneaking around it".
(not aimed at you, Plasnu)
And none of one's preferences requires an attempt at rewriting sampling theory/physics/etc to one's own (incorrect) understanding to accomplish.
As I had already stated "post-Shannon/Nyquist" (again, among so many others that independently describe sampling theory) is a statement that simply doesn't make sense, e.g., "post-gravity". It's not an approximation/empirical description, but a fundamental construct, so there's no "sneaking around it".
Last edited:
When it comes to preferences, anything's game in my book. As long as one does not conflate preference with Truth. And, yes, that's with a capital T.
And none of one's preferences requires an attempt at rewriting sampling theory/physics/etc to one's own (incorrect) understanding to accomplish.
Yeah, the problem is Truth have little correlation with the preference in audiophile world, and that's T.
One thing I would like to note is, it seems most people in production side have little interest if Meridian claim is technically correct or not. MQA is totally fine as long as it sounds better even if it is a blackbox. AES is pushing it, and MQA library is expanding like the universe everyday. But there is one thing they really should concern about MQA; people in audiophile community are complaining about it without listening to it. They are the targeted customers, and they need the “story” behind it because many of them can’t really trust their ears. The problem is actually not the scientific truth behind MQA, but the lack of convincing story behind MQA.
Look at the pro audio studio equipment market, 90% of the studio equipments are designed to add the nonlinear distortion, but no audiophile complains about it because they don’t know what equipments were actually used to make his favorite music. No one complains what kind of algorithm is used in ubiquitous UAD code. MQA is different in this regard, it is clearly visible from the consumer side, so I do think that it should not be a blackbox, and it should be clearly explained in the way that non technical person can be convinced.
Look at the pro audio studio equipment market, 90% of the studio equipments are designed to add the nonlinear distortion, but no audiophile complains about it because they don’t know what equipments were actually used to make his favorite music. No one complains what kind of algorithm is used in ubiquitous UAD code. MQA is different in this regard, it is clearly visible from the consumer side, so I do think that it should not be a blackbox, and it should be clearly explained in the way that non technical person can be convinced.
Last edited:
Many times in the audiophool world different = better regardless of measurements indicating the opposite.
Like the craze for flea-powered single-ended triode amps which by their very design are usually run well into clipping but they sound different than a midpriced transistor amp and everybody knows that they are crap. So anything that costs an arm and a leg and sounds different has got to be 'better', right?
Like the craze for flea-powered single-ended triode amps which by their very design are usually run well into clipping but they sound different than a midpriced transistor amp and everybody knows that they are crap. So anything that costs an arm and a leg and sounds different has got to be 'better', right?
Convinced of what? It has few to no merits. It’s gonna end up in the bin soon enough.
Oh my god, every time I push my speaker switcher button, I'm surprised to find current speaker sounds way better than the last one!!!
I do understand your position, but I think you're too serious about this. MQA clearly has an advantage over 44.1K FLAC to my ears, and I have yet to see anyone who actually have listened to MQA doesn't agree with it. It has started already sadly, and TIDAL is streaming it for no extra charge, so I accept it like I had accepted Vinyl and SONY CD format. I'm old enough to know nothing can be perfect in this world, and I enjoy what is available now. It's silly not to listen to MQA just because it is a new type of scam, because music industry has been full of scam anyway! MQA is not a scientific product, it is just a file format for entertainment purpose.
BTW, Have you compared MQA with native 96/24? I haven't.
Last edited:
I have already answered your question. Most new recordings sound like they are from the same mastering process with very small difference. Newly MQA mastered old tracks are usually differently mastered, more audiophile conscious way in general, sometimes much less compression, more dynamic range, which means it is closer to master tape as advertised at least regarding dynamic range. Some people who is accustomed to CD format sound might not like MQA as I said.
Last edited:
MQA is not a scientific product, it is just a file format for entertainment purpose.
Treating MQA as a pay for effects box is fine by me.
MQA is a part of production process where the goal is everything, and where blackbox is always welcome as long as it works, but I don't think it can be a consensus among audiophiles community...
Throughout my Physics degree, the maths came first as theorems and then applied to the physical world.
When one is comfortable with the maths, it is taken and seen how well it applies to the physical world.
The very fact that it deals with perfection is a consequence of the maths coming first.
The maths exists as a theorum within the mathematical field and then is used to describe the physical world.... It's a very important understanding of much of physics.
It's also counter-intuitive because, unless you study it, it is assumed that physics is a study of the physical world first and then mathematics is used to describe it... but no, the maths very often comes first as a conceptual model and *then* it is compared to the physical to see if it works.. and the normal conclusion is "it's good enough for now".
In that same sense, other sampling theorems can exists perfectly well at the same time as Nyquist. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
That can only be possible because the maths is NOT the physical world.
In fact, further to that, many times throughout the history of physics, it has been mathematical advancement that then has allowed physicists to adapt their thinking conceptually about how the physical world works.. From memory, this was instrumental in the conceptualisation of quantum mechanics for example - the ideas came from maths which then led to "light-bulb moments" and changing the course of physics..
Last edited:
You believe there can be other parallel versions of Fourier theory or Shannon too? Maybe there could be parallel versions of Newton's laws of motion? You appear to be confusing two quite different situations:NATDBERG said:
1. maths as an approximation of physical reality due to our theories being inexact (e.g. classical mechanics - the exact theory is quantum mechanics)
2. maths as an approximation of physical reality because our technology is imperfect (e.g. Nyquist sampling - real sampling takes a finite time to do)
Maths is every bit as real as the physical world. There must be a deep connection between them because otherwise maths would not be so amazingly successful at telling us how the physical world works. We do not impose maths on the world; the world seems to use maths in order to work.
Sampling is a mathematical process. Hence we should seek a valid description of how it works within the mathematical world. Nyquist and others did that. There is no reason whatsoever to expect some alternative sampling theory to emerge from physics. There is no way this could happen. What could happen is that a modified sampling theory emerged from mathematics which seeks to model the imperfect sampling which is all we can do in the physical world; however, such a theory would be firmly based on Nyquist so would be an application of that theory not a replacement of it.
The universe definately doesn't use maths.
We, humans, have invented maths and its logic. A human consceptual construct.
Maths fits the way the world works so well because humans are using maths to describe what we observe. Some maths is crazily convoluted and constructed pricisely beacuse it builds on older maths and the maths follows the development of humans. It's constanty backward compatible.
It's backward compatability is proof that it's a human construct. If we were "discoveriing the maths the universe uses", at certain points in history, we'd have had to erase the previous maths and start again..
See, this is were I see you are confusing maths with the physical world. There can be other mathematical constructs to perform sampling - whether humans come up with them is a matter of developing the mathematical techniques that can then be technologically realised.
Newtons laws are behavioural observations that appear to be universal (above certain energies and in frames of reference below certain speeds - i.e. outside of relativistic realms). They are observations - external to the human, not constructed by humans. There won't be other observations because the same thing is happening over and over.
Sure, the invention of the mathematical tools can be prompted by observations - most are/were - but it's human made, in the image of the universe, a human-made representation.
Last edited:
Any commercial enterprise in this kind of area that seeks to gain revenue from it (rather than an open standard) could be said to be the same.. so I shug my shoulders at the idea.
I dont see it makes any difference to the masses and they won't care, so can only be a land-grab for a small island.
I dont see it makes any difference to the masses and they won't care, so can only be a land-grab for a small island.
I think that when MQA was first imagined, that CD was still a big thing, so this was a land grab for a big island that has been swamped by rising tide in the meantime.
I am amazed by how quickly CD has vanished from the market since MQA was launched in 2014
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.