Hi-Rez Highway

New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

Interesting

Posted by Jim Austin on June 6, 2017 at 19:22:14:
Charles, thanks for this. I may have been right (approximately) from early on, but exchanges like this help solidify my tenuous knowledge and provisional thinking. And it should be noted that any insight I have derives also from conversations with--and in some cases specific ideas expressed by--the other JA.
Your explanation here is consistent with one thing Bob Stuart has said repeatedly--that what MQA does depends on the recording. The other 44.1 MQA I posted results from didn't have this wide, obvious gap. Presumably the Beyonce needed a lot of apodizing. Curious, then, that the CD version and the MQA version should be nearly identical--what do you make of that? (The possibility that this near-identity is an implementation error--a mistake or compromise made by this particular converter and not necessarily a specifically MQA phenomenon--of course remains.)
Just one more comment. You wrote:
>>
As far as MQA's claim that 32dB of anti-aliasing is sufficient for signals in the 0 (DC) to 7kHz range, I think that is open for debate. It would seem that high-performance audio generally revolves around the idea of continuous improvement, and not dictating "sufficient" levels of performance.<<
But the MQA folks maintain--this is my interpretation; I hope it's more or less correct--that this is not "settling", but, rather, striking a different compromise, one that prioritizes the time domain over the frequency domain to a greater extent than any previous technology. It could therefore be seen as a natural extension of the last couple of decades of thinking about digital audio, by you and others. I remember reading, a few years ago, Ayre's White Paper on minimum phase filters. Viewed in that context, MQA could be seen as a natural next step--although to say it's natural is not necessarily to say it's wise. Plus, I've seen no direct evidence that they're achieving the time-domain performance they've specified. It's on this basis--that the technology is plausible and a reasonable (if radical) next step, that I've argued that it deserves an audition.
Thanks again,
Jim