While interest in this topic is appreciated, someone else can start a thread about why believe, or do not, that MQA can be objectively shown as better. My OP was not to solicit thoughts on the objective.
Instead, I’m hoping we’ll get more people to post their subjective personal experiences. Along with the gear they used, and if it sounded better to them, what was it about it that made them say that?
Thanks.
MacMini (Mid 2011) 2.5GHz, Intel Core i5, 8 GB, OS X 10.11.5 (El Capitan), External iTunes library on Seagate GoFlex 1TB external drive connected via Firewire > Geek Out 1000>Rotel Pre RC1070>Rotel RB1070 (130 watt)>Paradigm Studio 10 v5 w/Pioneer Andrew Jones sub.
For me, it depends.
On some recordings, definitely. But the difference is subtle and a real test of my ears and hearing.
I’ve posted about the difference I heard on Led Zeppelin I. No question about it. However, it wasn’t the airy highs that I was expecting, it was the sound of the kick drum and bass that really caught my attention.
The Eagle’s Hotel California album was another obvious difference. The bass lines played during the intro of the song Hotel California are much more distinct.
On the other hand, there are some recent recordings that I couldn’t tell the difference:
Case/Lang/Veirs - I have listened to this album probably more than any other during the last six months.
Sturgill Simpson - A Sailor’s Guide to Earth - Again, I’ve played this a lot and couldn’t really discern a difference between the MQA version and the redbook rip.
Given my hearing deficiencies, there may be more “airy” high frequency response to MQA playback that I simply cannot hear. What I definitely hear when I listen to certain MQA recordings is a detail that trails a bass note or trails a kick drum thwack. This audio frequency of this detail isn’t necessarily in the bass spectrum but is obviously being made by the instrument and makes it sound more “in the room.”
I was doing a lot of A-B listening between Tidal and Roon but then Roon 1.3 launched and I’ve been enjoying Roon’s upsampling feature.
Hope this helps others.
I know I’m not replying to all the great information - and subjective experiences- that have been shared here. But I AM paying attention, and really ENJOYING the responses. Thank you.
Now I’ll be quiet, and see if others have experiences to share. 
Thanks again.
dbtom2,
I think I’m in a similar situation as you are. I’ve head surgery on both ears, and my high-frequency hearing has been measured as not very good. Despite that, MQA sounds much “better” to me, so it can’t be purely a high frequency effect.
Yes, MQA sounds better.
And by “better”, I mean that I like it better. And the conditions under which I like it better are my hearing (with it’s own strengths and weaknesses and response curve), coupled with my music library played from my computer through my DAC and out to my headphones. Under normal circumstances I would add a YMMV here, but YMMV is such an incredible understatement in this instance that I left it out.
If you listen to a particular piece of music, first in low-bitrate crap audio like Sirius/XM, then again in higher bit-rate crap like most MP3 audio, then again in high bit-rate compressed audio like premium Spotify or Apple Music, then in Tidal, then from CD and finally from MQA, you will probably notice a softening of higher-frequency harshness, along with a sense of those frequencies becoming richer and more full at each listening stage.
It is that sense of more fullness and lack of harshness that I get from MQA compared to Redbook 16/44.1. Often, that difference is not awe-inspiring, but it is enough to absolutely increase my enjoyment of the music.
Full disclosure:
If I upsample Redbook audio with HQPlayer to the same bit depth and sampling frequency that my MQA DAC uses,and then send it out through my non-MQA DAC to my favorite headphones, the benefits of MQA become much harder to find and distinguish. But you didn’t ask about upsampled Redbook audio. 
OK, gonna have to jump back in…
Jeff, thank you for that full disclosure. I HATE having to be overly specific with any question. General questions invite general replies. Though - for the record - the title of the thread was changed, though with my agreement. That said…
Your “full disclosure” - I’d like to believe - is because you understand the intent of this line of inquiry. The real question is - though only implied - “is it better than whatever is available of the same material, short of MQA?”
Thank you for splitting that hair. In this case, it helps.
IMO, definitely.
Given the sound quality advantage that I perceive with MQA vs. Redbook, I guess the real value of MQA for me is that it can be streamed over the same Internet connection that I use to stream HiFi Tidal
I travel a lot for my work, and until the Tidal/MQA effort, I was limited to listening to only a bit of my Hi-Res Audio library while I’m on the road. I have about a dozen Hi-Res albums on my iPhone (128 GB model) and a few GB more of them on my laptop. I have to change those out frequently, which is kind of a pain. With MQA being streamed over Tidal, significant numbers of hi-res audio albums are available to me anywhere, anytime that I can use my laptop and a decent wifi connection.
DAC for the iPhone: Oppo HA-2
DAC for MQA on my laptop: Meridian Explorer²
@adamus
Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean.
@scolley
My personal view / preference is for Fidelity. Yes, warts & all. 
My experience with MQA, playing files back-to-back on various systems while switching decoding / unpacking on & off, is that it does deliver higher fidelity.
The phrase often used by MQA is ‘de-blurring’ and I think it’s a good description of the difference between Redbook CD or even some 96/24 files I’ve heard versus the MQA version.
For example, there may be a “background tone” or “boom” or suchlike on a track - but on the MQA version it’s clearly someone plucking a bass guitar. You hear the notes, not just a bass ‘mush’. That’s an example of what I’m hearing. Percussion also seems “cleaner”, more precise, more accurate, more real. This includes piano. Higher Fidelity. Atmosphere & effects / echoes / harmonies seem more distinct.
And - perhaps tainted by a drop of expectation bias - isn’t that what you’d expect if MQA does what it says on the tin ?
That’s my view of what I hear through different systems & under differing circumstances - and again, my personal interpretation of “better” is Higher Fidelity.
I’ve heard MQA through my Meridian system - which I had to fudge because the 861v8 “flagship” processor" isn’t yet MQA capable (!) - and I’ve heard it through my Surface3Pro / Explorer2 / Etymotic ER4P earphones - and the same arrangement feeding a Copland CTA405 amp / Triangle Signature Delta speakers @ High Fidelity Cologne - and a full on Meridian Ultra-DAC / Chord SPM14000 monoblocks / Kef Blades system @ Audio High in California.
Oh, and also on my desktop computer with Explorer2 & some powered Sony’s of dubious lineage !
Yes, it’s better on highest-resolving systems, but in my experience - and in the experience of friends & colleagues - the ‘difference’ (their words) is clearly noticeable on the tracks we’ve chosen to play.
And of course there are caveats - it still depends on the original source material. After all, they can’t restore what was never there & I don’t think they’ve ever made that claim. Some of the available tracks may not benefit much from the technology.
Oh - but isn’t it also great that high-def / high-res files can now be streamed so easily ?!
Anyway, enjoy the music - I most certainly do - but isn’t it strange how emotive those three letters M-Q-A have become ?
I have just had a musician friend of mine round and we came to listen to The Doors Riders on the Storm in MQA. Undecoded.
He was transfixed, hearing things he hadn’t heard before. He made many comments on the quality from a musician and trained listeners perspective.
This is a track he has known all his adult life.
Just a day in the life here. Chris
How hard would it be to stay on topic folks?
I hate sounding like a broken record. But PLEASE reply ONLY with your personal experience with MQA, and how it did or did not sound better to you. Anything else is what the big “New Topic” button is for.
Thanks.
No… And thats NOT claiming supremacy for one format over any other. It’s just that it’s very difficult to have an opinion when you dont know what provenance the material has…
I have heard MQA material sound really, really good but on each of those occasions there were an abundance of different versions available, either from Tidal or in my own library of known rips.
In my experience MQA tends to sound better compared to the same 16/44 rip in my library. Comparing the same MQA to a high-res version, the differences become smaller or non exsisting.
Benefits of MQA:
MQA sounds more dynamic to me. Bass respons has a bit more punch.
MQA sounds less clingy to the speakers. The sound fiels has more space an extends a bit more to the sides and top.
MQA also sounds “darker” more contrast. Compare it as LCD vs OLED. Don’t know how to explain it better.
I am using the MQA DAC of my Bluesound Node. Amplifier McIntosh MA7900, speakers B&W 803D.
This should be back on topic. I was listening to Richard Hawley just now and it sounds lovely. I mean really lovely in Trifield on my Meridian Analog system.
Now I thought, ‘You know, Red book is not bad at all, perhaps I’ve over estimated MQA’?
Then on completion I realised this was an MQA version. I didn’t choose it because it was MQA, I just wanted to play something both me and SWMBO would enjoy as I did other things.
I took my eye of the MQA ball and was caught out.
A happy mistake. Thoughts Chris
I’ve tested several Tidal MQA “masters” and pretty much all are better sounding to me than CD-quality versions on Tidal. They are more dynamic/richer and the music just sounds more real. In many cases, I think this is mostly due to Warner going back to masters that haven’t been compressed/brickwalled to hell; also, MQA may have done something to ensure better control of how music gets distributed to Tidal (I’ve heard some really crappy versions on Tidal of really well-mastered music, e.g., Steven Wilson’s remix of Aqualung, which incidentally the MQA version sounds identical as the high-resolution version from HDTracks).
When I compare MQA to well-mastered high-resolution music (at or above 24/96, same masters) I haven’t been able to tell the difference.
All comparisons are Tidal MQA to Tidal HIFI or Tidal MQA to high-resolution files off my Roon PC. All PC output is through an Oppo HA-2SE DAC, then line-out to a cheap tube amp and then to my Meze 99 Classics headphones or Philips SHP-9500 open-back headphones. (MQA unfolding is only through Tidal software decoding).
IMO the MQA releases I’ve listened to through a Meridian Explorer2, purchased after Tidal began streaming MQA, image better than the normal CD quality Tidal streams. Also seems to be a bit more “air” on top to me.
Honestly to me, it’s the best digital sound I’ve heard, although I was never willing to buy high res digital files since I always felt that such recordings were inferior in SQ to LPs.
We live in a time where there is more decent quality recorded music available through streaming services than at any time in the past. MQA seems to me to be a step forward.
It’s important to remember that the history of the recording industry has generally long favored convenience over quality. MQA seems to me to improve sound quality while also offering a way for streaming services to provide said content. I’m a happy user.
Back in the day, I bought many mono LPs because at $3.98 they were a buck cheaper than the stereo versions. In the end, its the music that matters. Enjoy the music!
We seem to be getting wildly off the intent (repeatedly stated by the OPoster) of this thread.
It’s interesting that the Mono masters are being released as well from the 60’s.
Alas @scolley it appears a lot on here can’t trust their ears unless there is a set of graphs and complicated mathematical equations to tickle some endorphins in their brains.
It’s unreal (and quite rude) that the thread can’t be kept on topic.
.sjb
I did a bit of testing…
I selected a track from a CD I ripped locally , the Tidal normal cd quality version and then the same from the MQA version on tidal
IE original, tidal copy , mqa tidal
Path was roon …squeezebox…devialet to a set of vivid audio giya G1’s … I set up 2 squeezeboxes so could do AB comparisons.
I compared original ripped version to the Tidal 16/44 stream… no difference at all … so tidal hifi was of the same quality as a local rip.
Then I compared the tidal 16/44 stream to the tidal 24/48 stream … a small difference between them but nothing really worth writing home about…subjectively the 24/48 sounded a bit better…maybe…
I then used the mqa passthru radio button in the Tidal ap to enable or disable the unfolding and there is a PROFOUND and quite amazing sonic improvement in just about every sphere… the music indeed sounds unblurred. I would love to hear ALL my music like that…
I can upsample… the sonics change is not in that league…no upsampling will do what the mqa software unfolder does
The vocals became clearer , soundstage and imaging improved and the bass was in another league in term of tightness and definition … its hard to describe the exact changes in audiophile terms but it was very pleasing
I tried this test regime with some other titles and found the same thing
Bear in mind , software unfolded to the 24/96 stage is as far as I can go for now … a dac does not fit into my system…so I am just getting the low fat MQA version
As a tidal user its all free to me anyway…so why not give it a bash.
I might get a MQA dac at some stage if the catalog gets vast and its still free… not that many of the MQA titles appealed to me unless I wanted to revisit my audio youth.
Launch of mqa has been bungled majorly… its totally confusing to most.
I’ve moved out the OFF TOPIC posts to this Undecoded MQA is demonstrably lower fidelity than redbook topic.
In this topic Please, Please, Please, … describe your own listening impressions not what others have said elsewhere. It is your opinion from your own listening experiences that @scolley is looking for … not the regurgitation of quotes and references from others (there are other topics for that).