“Snake oil” is a pejorative that’s best kept for those who advocate cryogenically treating your curtains (and who sell the clips that will thereafter maintain the quantum alignment - yes, I’m talking to you, Russ Andrews). MQA is at least a defined technology, with a rationale and purpose. I bought 2 MQA Meridian DACs and run them 1) from my Mac into my classic (rebuilt) Quad 33/303/Spendor BC1 rig in my office and 2) via Pi4 into my ‘audiophile’ system of Finestra pre/Sumo Power/Martin Logan Aerius i. I also have a Pi+Hifiberry Digi+ Pro running into the DAC of my full Linn system @88.2KHz/24-bit. I’ve done some reasonably extensive comparisons, with and without MQA. On the Red book/ALAC/FLAC side of things, the analogue end of things makes much more difference than the digital source (d’uh…) but I do have to say that the sound of the Mac+DAC+Quad/Spendor is a very, very smooth, sweet and engaging sound - perfect for office use. When I start playing with MQA, I find that the sound quality varies hugely from album to album - some actually sound worse under MQA decoding than Red Book (however encoded), but the best are jaw-droppingly good and far ahead of RB sources. I don’t have enough native DSD content to make a meaningful comparison there. Must dig out my notes as to which albums were the best and worst.
snake oil: a product, policy, etc. of little real worth or value that is promoted as the solution to a problem.
For many of us non-believers MQA fits the above definition of “snake oil” to a tee.
Data. Data. Data. Describe. Analyse. Conclude. Pretty much everything I’ve seen about MQA (or other tech) on this forum has been coming from fixed positions, and is not a result of trial and experience. 1. establish a technical baseline from metrics. 2. compare and contrast subjective experience. 3. See if you can correlate the two. Come back to me when you can demonstrate an opinion based on evidence rather than reading stuff on t’internets.
Why do you assume that I have not done this?
And I stand by my previous post regarding the definition of snake oil as it relates to MQA:
Problem being solved - streaming 88.2/96/192kHz files - but, but, but with the wide availability of greater bandwidth and cheap digital storage this is no longer even a problem. So what exactly is MQA doing besides collecting money for nothing (the very gist of snake oil). It’s not so much that MQA sounds bad (which it doesn’t) or doesn’t do what it claims but rather why is MQA even needed? Come back to me when you can clearly explain why MQA is even needed.
Well, I went and read the rest of your posts first: no evidence apparent of any considered approach…
Well then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I’m glad that you are enjoying MQA for your high resolution streaming as I am enjoying high resolution flac (24bit/96kHz - no MQA needed) for my high resolution streaming.
That’s it? You mean two people are going to be civilized about their differences of opinion on MQA?
What am I going to do with this popcorn I just made to watch the fight?
In light of the “Woke” movement sweeping the US (or at least California) I have come to realize that the entire Roon experience, which includes this Community Board, provides a safe space for all things audiophile and so I am respecting the audiophiles need for this safe space.
Just as with gender it’s totally and completely up to the individual as to what they believe. Reality has no place in a safe space.
“It’s not clear why MQA is even needed.” This is exactly the right point of view. MQA has failed to demonstrate any compelling benefits that would justify its very obvious downsides.
What we can all agree on is we love our high resolution files for streaming. What seems to be the argument is whether or not it is necessary to lossy compress the high resolution file to save on file size and bandwidth for streaming? Would it not be best to just stream the untouched High Resolution flac or DSD file without the MQA lossy compression? We would not have to buy a MQA only DAC. MQA is just another way to add more sales and have a pretty blue light on your DAC. If we were not able to stream high resolution Flac or DSD files based on their size then I would totally agree that MQA is the only option but I don’t think that is the case. So what is the benefit MQA again? 24/192 Flac file is the same as 24/192 flac file incapsulated into MQA. How does MQA sound better than the original recording?
One reason to use MQA is that is how Tidal does anything above CD quality. If you want to use Tidal above CD quality, you need MQA. I’m still debating dropping Tidal when my 6 months is up.
That is one fact. Qubuz and amazon offer high res without MQA. Qubuz is Roon supported but it does not have a big selection like Tidal or Amazon. At least for now.
But the light on my DAC is purple?!? Does that mean I’m not getting the full benefits of MQA?
There appears to a very strong need for industry wide standards on the colors of lights for MQA…
…and prolonged and energetic discussions on which color light has the best sound. My vote is for purple because that’s what color my DAC uses but I haven’t done all the extensive research and listening that would be required to come to a definitive conclusion. Maybe a poll is in order? 
“Come back to me when you can clearly explain why MQA is even needed.”
As stated before, Qobuz is not available everywhere and neither is gigabit internet. I like to listen to music in high resolution (for the sake of argument 24bit), and do buy a lot of albums in that format. I also love the huge range of music available on streaming services such as Tidal that I can dip into to try new stuff or just to have available to me music I might not want to buy but would listen to occasionally. I find the MQA offerings from Tidal to sound almost universally excellent in my setup (which is not megabucks but neither is it Mickey Mouse) and in my ears, and in most cases an improvement over 16/44. So, with no native high res streaming option (i.e. Qobuz) and with a (compared to most people) very low bandwidth internet service, I need MQA, Tidal, and Roon.
QED.
There is nothing in your statement that in any contradicts what I’ve been saying all along - MQA can be useful for when bandwidth is an issue. Glad that MQA works for you.
I ve purchased and downloaded lots of hires in the past butTo my ear, I prefer sound quality of MQA better than those. They are now gathering dust! And my next plan is to get MQA DAC to enjoy even more MQA. I wonder if Roon could give people two versions. One for MQA people and one for nonMQA people so they could have had their own MQA-free community.
The available versions don’t come from Roon. They come from your library, Tidal, or Qobuz. You can more or less use the Focus function to get what you want. Tidal without MQA would be pretty useless IMHO.
How do you know you prefer MQA if you don’t have an MQA DAC?
By listening to first unfold layer of MQA done BY Roon or Tidal of course.
I hope that these files are not a hard drive since dust and hard drives don’t get along. 
How do you know what MQA vs the actual High Resolution file sounds like if you are planning on getting an MQA enabled DAC?
Are you listening to just the first unfold now?