Hi,
You seem to be commenting on subjective opinion in relation to the CD, HDCD, SACD in your first paragraph. No problem there.
With your second paragraph - you have made errors in "bandwidth filters don't ring". This was never said, and your sentence makes no sense either. It was stated that bandwidth limited signals do not cause filters to ring, and do not contain ringing if constructed correctly. This is a provable fact.
The Xivero paper is very well detailed and correct analysis of MQA. It proves MQA statements are false. MQA even dropped lossless - because the community challenged the lie.
The paragraph referring to MQA adds aliasing etc., was not stated by me. So i cannot comment.
The last sentence - no one is trying to kill anything. All people are doing, is responding to "false statements made with no evidence", and presenting the facts backed up with evidence. Discussing MQA on a forum is just that, discussion. Any discussion here will have no effect on MQA, because it is just discussion. People can make their own minds up.
Regards,
Shadders.
My point is your statement "CDs dont have ringing", as a blanket assertion, is not true. A CD made in 1988, with first generation brickwall most certainly does. CDs made today with high quality digital equipment and attention to amount of processing done probably dont. CDs done with heavy use of equalizers probably do. CDs done witj a minimalist cardioid mike direct to digital probably dont. Ringing is an artefact of filtration, so its a fact of life. It can be even used to "enhance" sound, if that is one's intention. Here is an audio demonstration, with your preferred linear phase filter, and an explanation about linear phase filter pre-ringing from an EQ software maker:
https://www.audiomasterclass.com/ne...se-eq-on-transient-signals-such-as-snare-drum
https://cravedsp.com/blog/linear-phase-eq-explained
Its silly to deny this phenomenon exists...yet you continue to do so.
The reason that you do - I think - is that it is simply a vehicle for anti-MQA criticism. Since MQA claims A (deblurring is beneficial), you will claim that the need for A doesnt exist (blurring isnt real), so you can declare MQA to be a "scam." There is a proper name for tjis logical falacy, but my education omitted formal debate courses.
As for criticism of MQA, much of it is conjecture, by definition, since system is unknown. It is proper to criticize them for maintaining it as a trade secret. But criticising them for what may or may not be in the system is, by definition conjecture and another form of logical falacy.
This debate is, however, is not new in the audiophile world, at least not philosophically. Many times technical sides of audio products are either proprietary or their methods of operation and supposed benefits are in general dispute, so conclusions cant be reached in an engineering analysis and testing.
In those cases, consensus is usually reached through the process of listening, reviewing and market forces, as in any artistic field. You may find this process messy and imprecise, but it is very informative. For example, many years ago i was at an audio salon, when a fellow audiophile complained about the sound of then new Audio Research Reference something or other. In order to express his dismay at the change of the AR sound, all he had to say was -"they made it sound like a Conrad!" - and everyone understood his complaint as well as his sound preference. You just can't beat the human ear...
