I added a thank you about a minute after initial posting.
Thank you - I appreciate that.
The relevant question is "compared to what?" Since a CD resolution downsamples to 44, MQA has a starting advantage.
This statement reflects a fundamental error in the application of digital sampling theory, and/or a series of unsupported (and I would say disproven) beliefs about the capabilities of modern reconstruction filters.
CD/redbook's 44.1k sampling frequency can encode frequencies up to and slightly beyond the range of human hearing. In terms of accurately sampling audible musical sounds, doubling the sample rate to 88.2k gets you nothing. If sampling any frequency more than the 2 times necessary for proper reconstruction provided an increase in audible "resolution" (as the term is often misused in audiophile circles), then we'd all be in a lot of trouble: No matter the sample rate you use, a bass drum at 60Hz is sampled 30-85 times more than a musical sound in the 2-5kHz range where human hearing is most sensitive, and therefore by the "more sampling = higher resolution" fallacy, lower frequencies of music would always be more refined and hi-fi than higher ones (which is of course not true). Once we reach the minimum 2 samples per frequency, the number of additional times we sample is irrelevant - and it's a good thing because different frequencies get oversampled by vastly different degrees, no matter the sample rate.
Now, if your point is that 88.2kHz is better because it allows for a gentler-sloping reconstruction filter between 20kHz and Nyquist than CD/redbook does, the problem there is that one can find plenty of data all over these forums, primarily in
@amirm 's reviews of DACs, that illustrate the ability of relatively steep filters to function properly in the 2.05kHz space that redbook provides. Conversely, he's shown measurements of many pieces of equipment that use filters that have such poor out-of-band attenuation that even an 88.2k sample rate won't save you - and in fact it can be worse because there could be more ultrasonics in the file, which leads to more aliasing into the audible band. So yes, in an ideal world we'd have more consistency in filter quality, and in an ideal world the physical size and scan rate of the video tape format Sony first used for PCM encoding would've allowed for a 48 or 50kHz sample rate instead of 44.1k. And on filters it's worth noting that Bob Stuart is a major reason so many slow filters and "apodizing" filters are out there to begin with, as he's been evangelizing them for decades based on provably incorrect claims and assumptions.
Bottom line, MQA's sample rate is not a "starting advantage" over redbook.
As for using DXD, I stand behind this comparison, since it is the modern lossless master from which all consumer destributions originate CD, downsample LPCM and MQA. Also increasingly for sale "as is."
You stand by the DXD comparison - except when it doesn't suit you, as for example when you instead compare MQA with CD/redbook, as you did earlier in the very same comment.
Your claim that DXD "is the modern lossless master from which
all consumer distributions originate CD" (italics mine), is false. Putting that aside,
it has already been explained, quite clearly and in detail, why the fact that a CD is downsampled from a higher-res digital master has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether it makes sense to compare MQA with DXD. The responsibility for not acknowledging the relevant points or taking them into account lies with you.
I don't actually understand your last paragraph, except the part where you attack me unnecessarily.
By my last paragraph, do you mean the final bullet point where I point out that you praise MQA's discarding of some ultrasonics while not acknowledging that in order to keep the remaining ultrasonics it has to compromise bit-depth? I'm not sure what to say in terms of understanding, since I think my point there is fairly clear. Sorry if it's not. I had no specific intention to insult you; rather, I tried to be as specific as I could, just as I did in the other two bullet points, about exactly what aspect of your prior comment I took issue with, precisely why, and how it landed to me as a reader.
If instead you're referring to the final bit of my comment, about your acknowledgement of MQA oversampling as "kind of fakey," I was agreeing with you there and had no critical intent.
More generally, I will modulate my language whenever necessary to conform to forum rules and mod requests. Beyond that, though, when it comes to critical comments about your mode of argument here, I'm afraid you've made your own bed.
