It could also mean its ok for the high end to ignor MQA, but what about the bigger picture? Higher quality for all as opposed to ‘I’m alright jack’.
I know timing isn’t every thing, I was being succinct to make my point.
I believe that the home user is only left with the small picture: everything MQA is (as of right now) related to the streaming services. I do not see a point in buying MQA files (and a necessary DAC) instead of the equivalent 24/whatever.
I also believe that the MQA streaming choice is due to the lack of alternatives and not because of the sound quality. There are not so many available choices for HiRes streaming (Qobuz is one example) especially in the ROON environment.
Right now I like the way MQA streaming sounds (vs CD quality), no doubt about it, but eventually (sooner or later) we’ll have some other streaming alternatives and when the whole thing well be just a matter of choice then I’ll believe that the HiRes streaming will be more appealing than the MQA (for me for sure).
Anyway, considering that the “issues” that MQA solves and his biggest advantages are for the labels not for the consumers, the perspective of having no choice at all in the end it’s very real (and not a very pleasant one)…
You mean like the recently released Steve Reich CD that is MQA without the labeling.
The Nonesuch Records CD Steve Reich: Pulse / Quartet arrived with its sonic bonus unheralded. With no MQA designation on the album cover or disc, few would have known of its MQA provenance had not posts appeared on Facebook that, when inserted in a player capable of decoding MQA, it can deliver high-resolution MQA.
from https://www.stereophile.com/content/first-major-label-mqa-cd-steve-reich-nonsesuch
I had no idea about MQA discs until your post. The key phrase there is “…player capable of decoding MQA…” I don’t think that there is something in this world right now to make a new kind of disc player to gain traction (based on SACD, BluRay Audio and so on past experiences, OPPO included).
“I can attest that there’s every reason in the world to hear this disc in the best-sounding format available to you.” I bet that the same kind of affirmation was made at one point in time about the CD, SACD, DSD and every other format, you name it.
Anyway, MQA or not, I’m listening that album right now… 
El-Cassette, Quadraphonic, MQA . RIP
You have to actually die before RIP becomes appropriate!
1 Like
MQA being better than MP3… I can accept that. Just leave me alone with 192/24 and go away.
That’s the issue, knowone is stopping you enjoying 192/24. Why would they? Equally I could reply in the same tone that I am enjoying MQA and 192/24 alongside CD, Audio cassette rips of radio plays etc but I am too polite. There are so many choices and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. 
2 Likes
I suggest you read a bit more about MQA business model. It is not just another format: their business plan is entirely about stopping me from enjoying 192/24.
I think MQA would have to so successful that it is beyond all reason for that to happen. There has and will always be competition in this world. There is no way anyone can ever stop it and nor should they.
Since the folded content is playable as is, all it takes is the labels to start releasing MQA only. No successful adoption needed.
1 Like
That’s what I would call successful adoption. I am sure they will be happy to sell alternatives to those that want it.
Sure it is just a question of price. Can you come up with something more reassuring? Just in case I will buy some Exogal stuff whether I need it or not.
Please note MQA CDs are 16 bit 44.1k MQA (this ensures Redbook backward compatibility) not 24 bit/44.1/48k as in Tidal Master. It means MQA only unfold the first 16 bit from 0-22.05k bandwidth. 22.05-44.1k bandwidth is NOT encoded at all coz the lower 8 bit is not used when compared to 24 bit MQA in Tidal Master.
The rest is just up-sampling with appropriate filters. I would prefer the 24 bit MQA coz it is closer to the original hi-res masters.