At last! Someone has done a survey. How did they define audiophile? Sample size? Sampling methodology?
Well I suppose I’m an audiophile, and I resent it.
The reason I don’t like it, is that I’ve been through the HDCD (pacific microsonics) and the SACD eras. And I build my own gear.
Everybody was going nuts when HDCD came out and you had to buy the proprietary decoder chip for your designs or scavenge it from another piece of gear. That was all well and good, but how do I do that now? There are HDCD discs in my collection and no way to properly decode them. Fortunately they fall back to being a standard CD, but that’s not the case for MQA I don’t believe.
My music spans many decades, and tech does not. I need a format that I can understand and manipulate as needed when the tech moves on.
Maybe MQA is just a streaming protocol at this point so it doesn’t matter, but if the files are sold and held locally, then the passage of time and the march of technology will make them unplayable.
It’s a solution to a non-existent problem.
Sheldon
1 Like
The one (only?) good thing with MQA is that the FLAC files are perfectly playable on non-MQA hardware/software players - MQA is seen as just noise in the least significant bits.
My take on MQA (FWIW) is - better than Redbook, not as good as true high-res, I had Tidal for a while with a Pro-Ject PreBox S2, MQA always sounded very good, dropped Tidal because Amazon had a much fuller catalog of High-res and was cheaper, then dropped Amazon for Qobuz because Amazon’s metadata was so bad.
Probably as people who care more about the gear and process than the music 
1 Like
There are lies, damn lies and statistics 
I was merely replying to an assertion made in a previous comment and providing a possible reason why audiophiles don’t like MQA. Have I done a survey? Of course not. Do you doubt the majority of audiophiles don’t like MQA? If you do just look at the overwhelming negative responses in this post.
But, how many can actually HEAR a difference versus just because MQA is technically “lossy.” I maintain it’s the latter.
David-Gibson,
Perhaps we should consider also the 20,000 likes on MQA’s Facebook page? Or do we just consider the minuscule fraction of audiophiles who like to chat here? One very strong reason for the MQA opinion expressed here is another “audiophile” website that has carried on an absolutely vitriol-laden campaign about MQA for years and has influenced some of the local opinion.
1 Like
I’m perfectly aware of a campaign which started a few years ago by people determined to press their views (some of them very valid) about MQA. They were very loud and moderately convincing.
Being of the scientific sort, I wouldn’t come to a conclusion about what the majority of “audiophiles” think by virtue of a topic set up by the campaigners to facilitate relentless negative comment (as they did on most other sites as well). I’d expect audiophiles to be more interested in improving SQ that getting upset by MQA. Doubt- yes.
Even you do not understand what you are saying, analog lossless means absolutely nothing except something warm and fuzzy like most MQA claims… You are just repeating the MQA marketing garbage.
Chris knows full well what he is saying. You don’t need to agree with him.
1 Like
If the sound that goes into the microphone, travels through a digital pipeline of various A/D D/A stages and everything else that’s involved and emerges at the speaker the same (analogous) with no time smear as well. That’s analog lossless.
So, to me it means something.
1 Like
You don’t get to hear what “goes into the microphone” in the recording studio. So how can you compare it to what “emerges at the speaker”? And what about the many things that do NOT get recorded with the help of mics?
That is an analogy. A simplification, a definition of my understanding of the Term Lossless Analog which is a term because I say so.
Stuff not recorded by mics does not go into the chain. It has to be recorded to be rendered.
If you want stuff not going into a mic, go to a live gig. Live gigs is my reference touchstone for what great music sounds like.
1 Like
If it isn’t recorded or perceived by some kind of recording device (A Microphone) and put on tape, wax cylinder, digital work station etc, it cannot be there. Sound is vibration of air, thats it. If we perceive it with our auditory system, bone conduction or sheer physical presence as sound passes through our body, it’s still the movement of air.
All the subtle nuances are there in the air and creat atmosphere, stimulate emotional response etc but is all sound and a bloody marvel.
Except digital devices can be recorded directly to digital. I guess, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Mics are transducers that convert sounds into electric signals. For this reason, not every “recording device” can be called a “microphone”. For instance, if (part of) the music on an album is created and recorded on a computer (e.g. with the help of a digital workstation, a MIDI keyboard and sounds from software instruments), there are no mics involved in that process.
Just because we know “what great music sounds like” (to our ears) doesn’t mean we can compare “what went into the microphone” in the studio with “what emerges at the speaker” in our listening room at home. All we can do is decide if we’re happy with what our system sounds like. If some people need/want a blue light to help them with that decision, that’s fine, too.
I just had a look at my Meridian DSP5200 SE speakers. I know the specs very well but had to check for hidden laser beams or any other such device that can kick in when I listen to some synthesised music but I just couldn’t find any. All I have is speaker cones (Transducers) and a very dead cabinet to deliver the resultant sound. Hmmmm curiouser and curiouser… Where could those other sounds be coming from?..
What data limits? 
Unlimited 100 Mbps 4G data for 20€/month.
(or unlimited 1 Gbps 5G for ~50€/month)
1 Like
Congrats on your speakers, Chris (no irony or sarcasm!). But in the post you replied to I was talking about how music can get recorded (with or without the help of microphones). 