I have āmutedā in anticipation of the forthcoming posts 
Kudos to Darko for the very good interview. Stuartsā ability to communicate well gives him credibility regardless of what you think of MQA. I like every thing I heard in theory. Seems to me If everything he says is true then it should be easier for MQA to demonstrate the high quality sound of their product. Are these guys genius engineers but just poor salespeople?
Yes! Itās more or less the history of Meridian as well. Itās the fate of a Meyers-Briggs āTā in a political, emotional world.
I definitely not āsoldā into it. Some people just donāt get itā¦even thereās are so many published technical aspects of MQA out there. May I invite you to read this article and you will understand why.
Hi I think everyone here has read that. And yes it all makes sense. I just think in theory they had a good idea, to authenticate a hi res file from start to finish. Clearly they failed in the execution or the benefits of MQA would be more obvious to the ear. I for one trust very few hi res download sites as they have no control of what the studio gives them. So I would welcome an authenticated file. Is this guy the villain we make him out to be? I doubt it, perhaps they just poorly executed their project and financial pressure from backers has forced them to put out a product before it works. So maybe there is a villain in MQA, I donāt just think itās this guy.
Thereās no villain here. Everyone who advocates the improvement in delivering high quality audio deserve to be recognised for their achievements.
Like wise, we already got hi-res PCM and DSD capable of delivering high quality studio sound. Thereās no need for authentication; as long the process is lossless, you are getting the exact master copy, it is that simple!
āNo two DACs sound alikeā - DARko said.
Of course!
So this is obvious, that this year Iāll necessarily buy 3 new DACs and next year next 5!
And still I will buy, buy and buy - till I spent my last pennyā¦
Long live the Producers!
The point being made was about being able to trust your source. Most providers have been slapped down on more than one occasion for supplying upsampled Redbook as high Res files. Some have even made it on to physical SACDās. In principle, knowing implicitly where your file comes from has value. And it is one of the many features MQA Ltd have tried to shoehorn into their product. I am not saying MQA is the holy grail but it does have value propositions that we have been forced towards because of unscrupulous industry players.
I will re-phase itā¦ No two DACs with the same model and same batch will sound alike. I guessed if you dig down what Bob Stuart has to said, all MQA DACs must be certified (calibrate) in-house before they are shipped to customers?
Well I let you guys figure outā¦
I thought the point of MQA was to remove to A/D ācolourā and put it back to where it was. This means the DAC must be able to be instructed. Is that what weāre supposed to figure out?
To be precise, it is āde-blurringā filters or simply, slow roll-off minimum phase filter with no anti-aliasing applied after the ADC. Most ADCs uses sharp-cut off digital filters + anti-aliasing which has high degree of pre and post ringing but it also suppress aliasing artifacts.
This is nothing new here, depending mastering process, some studios choose different type of digital filters which suite to their liking.
Thatās good then.
I own the hi res of Quiet Winter Night and prefer the MQA version. It really is exceptional. I listen to what sounds the best whatever the format. While people are arguing over measurements and such, I am enjoying the music 
I find MQA is better than red book and gave up doing the comparisons a long while ago and just go right for the MQA version if itās available. The difference between MQA and HIRes is smaller though I usually prefer the MQA version if I can tell them apart. Given the high cost of HiRes downloads I just stream the MQA version rather than pay the extra price for hires downloads so Iām not doing any more comparisons on those either.
Iām enjoying the music more, saving money and spending less time listening to āformatsā. Sounds like a winner to me.
Maybe itās a matter of taste, I just LOVE MQA!
It doesnāt matter if itās 48, 96, 196 or 352,8 kHz.
Okay I have spent 40 years in the recording studio, with Studer and Revox Mastertapes machines, I have a Revox B-77 (the studio version).
So I playing old master tapes on, but I havenāt used it since TIDAL started with their Masters and I buy my first MQA Dac!
Just the simple Meridian Explorer 2, itās cheap and doing itās work.
Cd or PCM isnāt perfect and have never been, they had to quick to release it. So the faults have never been solved and we have used us to live with it!
(I donāt even remember what the faults are anymore, but for whose who are interested Google it).
I think and hope that MQA is here to stay, if you donāt like it donāt listen to it!
Today is many people in LOVE with mp3, ogg etcā¦Itās okay for me!
MQA is a wonderful format, I love Led Zeppelin the Remastered Version that their guitarist Jimmy Page made, sounds incredible because you can hear every bass tone John Paul Jones play. Everything John Bonham is playing on the drums.
Fleetwood Macās Rumors from 1977, havenāt sound so great since itās was played on Sound Cityā Master tape machine!
Diana Krallās Albums with piano and bass wow, itās like they are in my room and playing.
There are a thing that I think, is a huge difference between thinking MQA is okay, or just LOVING It and donāt think itās especially good at all!
I donāt know how many of you that have heard, music instruments live?
Not being on a concert! But heard a drum set without microphones, just standing or sitting close to it? The same thing with a bass, acoustic guitar, piano, different horns, violin or celloā¦Because itās a pretty great difference to know what these music instruments, sound on their own and even more if itās a great musician that playing!
When itās get a microphone and played true a PA system with other musicianās! I have heard almost every single instrument, played with good, great and not so good musicians and I think itās also why I LOVE MQA!
Just as I have heard it in the studio, with microphones and recording it, made a mix and mixed it down to a master tape machine!
After I have pushed play and as I always do, sitting down, laying on the floor, going to another room and listening in the headphones, itās so I can hear if it sounds good on every different place!
I think or believe itās why I LOVE MQA 
ļø
Love & Respect
First mention of Myers-Briggs in an Audio Forum award goes toā¦Akimo!
I guess that was the definition of āoff-topicā
Good discussion! First I would like to second the award to Akimo for bringing Myers-Briggs into this forum. There is probably more insight to be gained into audiophiles using this metric than we care to imagine. And itās hard to imagine an ENTJ would choose the same system as an ISFP? Well at least Audiophilia hasnāt found its way into the DSM-V! Iām kidding to some degree, but not entirely. Back to seriousness, I am enthralled by some MQA tracks yet find most too similar to redbook to bother. I have yet to read anyoneās explanation of why some files respond and others do not. What are the underlaying characteristics of a recording that would be bettered by MQA vs. those that would not? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Thanks all!
Good mastering. The difference where one clearly betters the other is good mastering. MQA may then be able to communicate cues Redbook cant but on modern recordings the differences tend to be small.