OK, I may not have the time to come up with a song with naked white noise, but there are such songs, and why shouldn't there be. I can come up with relaxation-type audio, but we could say that isn't the material targeted by MQA. And if I came up with a few seconds of white noise in a song, we could argue that it wasn't sampled 96k and therefore doesn't have bandwidth to 44k, and that would probably be true due to the huge volume of CD-quality audio available. And we could go through the same thing with square waves—maybe there is some reverb, maybe it's not a forbidden level or frequency that makes MQA fail. There are just too many arguments as to why whatever material I come up with doesn't fit the "forbidden" status.They are *very* far from music. No one in this thread or elsewhere has produced a single piece of music that is similar to spectrum of those test tones or even close. The last sample was produced that sounded noise like still followed an exponential drop off and is unlikely to have much in ultrasonic range:
View attachment 133181
Remember, you can NOT play OP's test signal on your system without potentially damaging it. Your tweeter, nor your ears can handle high amplitude high frequencies. And there would be no reason for an artist to generate artificial sounds that have ultrasonic content let alone extreme amount of it. All music is listened to by humans which guarantees you that kind of drop off. I can't imagine anyone releasing content that instantly blows up the tweeter in your system, causes the amp to oscillate and you running away with a scream!
Sure, can someone do it on purpose like OP did as a prank? Yes. In that case what MQA does to it doesn't matter. The content itself is not high fidelity and no one would care one bit what the noise level underneath all of that "signal" would be.
But that is my point. what are these levels, what is the criteria? To be clear, I'm not saying this is an utter failure of MQA, I'm saying this is something I don't know, something that makes me wonder. I don't know the criteria at which MQA is "perfectly well expected" to fail. Do you?
I'm not firing shots at MQA. I don't see how it succeeds, against streaming hi-res, considering it's significantly more intrusive, but I don't hate it—I just don't think its compression justifies the baggage. The fact it can't encode some types of audio signals doesn't help that feeling. But it does make me curious where the bounds are. Noise is used a lot in music. The fact that it most often slopes downward in spectrum—sorry, but saying that does not alleviate my concerns. I've certainly used unfiltered analog white noise blasts in music before—at what point does MQA fail? I don't think any of us have any idea. Why shouldn't I want to know?
(I have to make a little face to convey that I mean this in a friendly way, as this thread is a little overly contentious—I do appreciate that you're hanging in there and making your points )