I do find it a little strange and more than a little ironic that this thread appears to have morphed from a purist audiophile perspective of "I don’t like MQA because it is lossy and therefore not truly high definition" to an anti audiophile perspective of "anyone who spends a little money on a decent hi-fi system is an Audiofool"
That in itself is quite amusing and somewhat enlightening about the motivation of some posters.
(The truth is out there but not necessarily here)
Can one of the mods please insert, between the two words in the title of this thread, the word “debates” ?
No offense meant. And yes, I took you question a little bit out of context. It fits to good the point I want to make. Sorry for that.
I myself will not call me an audiophile. I am a music lover and a musician for forty years now and I really don’t understand the hunt for a better sound, that becomes bizarre imho with things like spending hundreds bucks in an digital cable or socalled audiophile routers.
For example, I bought my speakers in the 80s and I’m still perfectly satisfied with them. For me, it’s about the music not the equipment. And to go back to topic, not about file formats.
That’s ok and no offence taken - I actually enjoyed your post. For the most part I agree with you, and I am very jealous in that despite being passionate about music for all of my life the best that I can do is strum a guitar very badly. Strangely, it seems that musicians generally and persons who work professionally in the music industry (although there are a few exceptions) seem not to be interested in hi-fi equipment and the pursuit of a ‘better sound’.
There is certainly absolutely nothing wrong with speakers from the 80s nor with a position of not being interested in investing in expensive playback equipment. Until very recently I myself used an amplifier dating from the late 80s. For me, music (rather than ultimate fidelity) and the discovery of new (to me) music is the most important thing which is why as a newcomer to Roon I love the Roon Radio function. I am happy to listen to music on whatever equipment (however basic) is to hand at any particular time, although I do happen to be lucky enough to have been able to purchase a reasonably good hi-fi system which for me makes listening to music more enjoyable. I certainly don’t feel that it is necessary to apologise for that. Still, despite this, I have never purchased a so called audiophile router nor have I spent hundreds of bucks on my entire collection of digital cables let alone on a single cable.
To get back to the topic of this thread, if you were to read my posts on this thread, my position is simply that to my ears MQA masters on Tidal largely and subjectively sound ‘better’ than their equivalent redbook quality equivalents. I am happy to admit that my view is an entirely subjective and personal perspective and not based on theoretical physics (I am a mathematician), but other people appear to be enraged that I voice support for the Tidal MQA Masters.
On the topic of MQA a number of (very) frequent posters and ‘audiophile purists’ (well their arguments suggest that they are - just check some of their posts) in this and other related threads disagree with my point of view and argue that because MQA is a ‘lossy’ format it cannot possibly be as accurate or as ‘good’ as conventional music files and consequently should be banished from our lives.
I wonder which of us is deserving of the pejorative use of the term ‘Audiophile’.
Well, then maybe it’s a touch ironic that according to Meridian’s own website, the “official definition” of high-res audio is “Lossless Audio that is capable of reproducing the full range of sound from recordings that have been mastered from better-than-CD quality music sources.”
Firstly, I would like to point out that the quote that you have attributed to me here doesn’t reflect my personal point of view - it reflects the views of others including perhaps yourself.
Secondly, I don’t find the Meridian definition to be particularly ironic, and semantics in respect of the technical specification of music file formats are of little interest to me. I just enjoy good music.
However, I really must stop posting on this and related threads. I am in danger of becoming just as obsessive in my own way as some others on this subject and I truly don’t believe the subject is worthy of obsession on either side of the fence.
Just pointing out the cognitive dissonance some of the true, cult-like believers seem to exhibit is all… The gripe I have with the semantic acrobatics at play has little to do with belief in anything other than the meaning of words.
To bring this back on topic I must state that I find MQA very enjoyable to listen to with the music I experience on my Meridian DSP SE system. (Not Disappointing)
Sadly, so much of the music I enjoy from small independent artist will never be in MQA but my Meridian system certainly gets the best out of CD quality music. (MQA monopoly unlikely)
I like a quote from Kieth Richards when he said ‘It’s what hits your ears that counts’.
To get to your ears, a market based on a digital/technical infrastructure is necessary. All the audiophile tent testimonials in the world do no speak (neither positively or negatively) to the facts of MQA. Technically, it is a ‘super MP3’ lossy and proprietary codec, that naturally does not have a place in the market when non-proprietary 18/96 PCM does everything better than MQA without having to $pay$ Bob S and without restricting the end users digital ecosystem. Heck, MQA is not even an improvement (sonically, or in any other way) than 16/44.
If it measures well and sounds bad, it’s bad. If it measures bad and sounds good… you are measuring the wrong thing…
MQA sounds great to me, your arguments over technicalities are no longer of any interest to me. I listen to a lot of MQA and like the sound, time is limited, so I will just continue to enjoy it.