General reliability differences between Roon, NAD endpoints, Tidal, and Qobuz? Is MQA the thing?

So I think it is fair to say that as Roon and the BluOS endpoints have been upgraded over time problems have developed. And in my experience using Tidal with Roon for many years with virtually zero local library, MQA seems to be at the root of more than a few of those issues. Turn MQA processing off in Roon and/or BluOS endpoints - problem stops. Many of these issues get resolved over time, and I have been able to add MQA back in to my systems but MQA usually seems to be involved. Not interested in this post in anyway turning into a debate on the sound quality, watermarking or resolution debates common with MQA.

So recently - I decided to give Qobuz a try again. Last time I tried I was happy with it, but lost access to few too many titles in my library for my liking. But this time - things were better. And I have noticed the following:

  1. Increased reliability of active streams
  2. Significantly decreased processing demand as reported by my MacMini System Monitor
  3. Significantly decreased processing demand as reported by Roon in the Signal Path dialog
  4. Improved sound quality on some (but not all) tracks with resolution greater than redbook resolution
  5. Increased reliability of BluOS endpoints in general - switching sources, changing tracks, etc.
  6. Cost savings

Anyone else seeing the same thing? I was actually considering moving toward a dedicated NUC for my Core to attempt to maximize reliability - but I think simply moving to Qobuz has done the trick. It saved me a $600 dollar expense for the NUC and few bucks more a month in subscription costs. For the moment at least.

I want to see both companies improve and survive - but it would be a shame if by embracing MQA, Tidal is causing issues for Roon users.