I am definitely not paying extra for glorified MP3’s

I am seriously starting to believe reading all those threads all over the Internets that Archimago is a deity. Like in Divine Being. Like Audio God! LOL!!! I can easily picture him in my mind with a beard, up in the sky with clouds, holding a multi-meter, and some alien measuring equipment!


How dare you speaketh his name! Bow to him! :rofl:

He’s just a really smart guy, that had the guts to stand up to these greedy suits trying to lie to the community.
PS your name is thyname! lol

Also - look at this

Pitiful - MQA are a bunch of bullies and should be ashamed of this fiasco.

1 Like

LOL!! I am so sorry :wink: :blush:

I also see Amir (Audioscience) as his disciple. Or rather his little Angel he sent to earth, to us mortals!


I like Amir too - these guys cut through all this snake oil slathered all over the audio industry, imo.

Edit (to your edit): Nothing divine in my handle. “thyname” as in “hallowed by thy name” by Iron Maiden. My Maiden’s favorite track!

1 Like

Yes I did read the whole article and I quoted from the heart of the conclusions that got right to the point of the article which is entitled “Comparison of Tidal MQA streams and high-resolution downloads” and his tests as he says in his conclusion show no difference.

I wonder did you read the whole article? Regarding the issue of MQA being lossless which you quote him on he also says that this is not the real issue and I quote again from his conclusion.

Ultimately, subjectively, it’s about how MQA “sounds”. This is true of course with any lossy compression scheme - for example, it’s not really just about the intellectual knowledge that MP3 is lossy that is the problem, it’s whether the quality of the encoding/decoding compromised transparency for the listener. The same can be said of lossy video encoding - all DVDs and Blu-Rays and UHD Blu-Rays are lossy; but some look better than others. And in this regard, yes, TIDAL/MQA sounds great with the material I’ve sampled.

MQA is of course lossy in the sense that it does not keep very bit of a HiRes file. That is obvious from the very first origami charts shown about how MQA works. What Archimago’s article demonstrates is that MQA’s claims that it is lossless from a musical perspective are correct. And I give him credit for admitting and publishing that even though he is no fan of MQA overall.

1 Like

That’s your opinion if it “sounds good”. I like vinyl, but I know it isn’t perfect. You’re mixing your own conclusions with direct quotes from the article again. I suggest you research a bit more on the site, look at the numbers, look at the graphs, read the entire site. I can’t say whether or not he “likes” MQA. I don’t think it’s personal, it’s that they continually lie about what they’re providing. Hey - its your money pal. You can throw it down the drain for something that adds fake information back into the 16/44.1 file to inflate it to seem like its hi-res. :grin:

Also - I suggest you watch the video with Chris from computer Audiophile. They are trying to bully the man into going along with their downright lies. I have zero respect for people and companies that try to bully people into seeing things from their perspective rather than a rebuttal based upon fact and science. Get on board with what we’re telling you or we’ll find you and make you agree? No thanks. No room for that kind of mentality in anything. They should come up with their own analysis of their process and be honest from square one. Not, this sounds good, and don’t ask questions. Why do they care who Archimago is? It doesn’t really matter does it? Prove him wrong.


Just what we need another anti MQA thread. Move away now people move away, nothing to see here. This is now very boring argument and has been put across in many threads on the forum using the same sources from a small disgruntled community. But you would know this if had bothered to look over the forum beige posting more of the same info we have heard so many times already. If people want to listen to MQA let them, it not spoiling anything and not affecting you personally, if you don’t want ot then just dont subscribe to it or buy alternatives that are available. We never needed DSD either or if I am honest hires but they are there for the same reasons mqa is not to please some audiophool but to sell up something you already own.


I’m over it too. thanks.

This isn’t true, IMO.

and your reasons?

You should probably know by now…

"This is now very boring argument and has been put across in many threads on the forum using the same sources from a small disgruntled community. “”

1 Like

Anyone for a Brexit chat?


At least thats a proper debate about something important.


A proper debate? Hahahahahaha. You made my day with your statement.

I was only just thinking this very minute that the MQA debate reminds me of a Brexit debate. Very strong opinions on both sides with arguments never really being resolved. Yet we still argue!! :nerd_face:

1 Like

Indeed, but there is one key difference.

Brexit (or whatever the final outcome is of our self inflicted debacle) is important.


Nothing’s more important than Music!! :slight_smile:

Brexit is just noise! :open_mouth:

Thin end of the wedge is here. Tidal now pushing out mainstream new releases for which there is no redbook version.

I’ve seen other links to albums but this is the first one I want to add to my library in this condition.

What a shit state of affairs.

1 Like

Yikes. Well, if I had absolutely no choice - what else can you do? It’s like digital vinyl - I don’t use it. I avoid it at all costs, until I simply have no other alternative. I would rather listen to the hi-res file used to cut the vinyl. But my vinyl, AAA. I’m a bit of a purist like that.

1 Like