I’d be curious to know what number of albums you are talking about, and whether you could sell them on.
Still, I guess it keeps some people awake just to think they have MQA files or equipment…thanks to those videos, we’ll no doubt soon see bonfires of MQA decoding equipment in the streets.
Don’t worry. The loud naysayers are a tiny lot. There won’t be bonfires of anything because they’d immediately realize the financial returns on selling versus burning 
And at that point, their ad listing will extol how wonderful the equipment is. Such irony.
The sad reality of life 
All of the albums I currently have in MQA are digital downloads. I may delete them and call it a small financial loss. The one thing I am happy about is that I only bought a Coldplay MQA album two years ago and none since last week. I bought seven albums right before I saw the jaw-dropping video on YouTube. I truly feel for the individuals who have hundreds or thousands of MQA albums 
.
By this time you should know that the jaw-dropping video on youtube was a mess and completely inaccurate due to the originator’s lack of knowledge of how MQA encoders work and his ignoring (or ignorance of) the many error warnings that appeared during encoding. Most of his files failed to encode at all. Read MQA’s response (which is at their blog) and go on enjoying your MQA files as before.
Why?
Presumably those people who have bought hundreds of MQA albums did so because MQA albums sound good on their systems. This will not change.
I only have 3 MQA album downloads on my NAS because I personally do not find that they sound better than hi-res equivalents from Qobuz. However, I do very regularly enjoy listening to MQA encoded albums on Tidal.
No, it was not.
The video asked: “Does MQA encode losslessly?” Where a FLAC encoding would have no problem, MQA failed, showing that it does not encode losslessly.
This is the takeaway from that video. It simply doesn’t matter what the video maker knew or didn’t know, because whether he’s an idiot or a genius he showed that MQA is not lossless.
Hell, even MQA themselves changed their marketing because of this. I don’t know that they did this because they knew they were busted, but that is the most likely explanation. If they could rebut it, they would have, because “lossless” is a powerful marketing word in audio. So powerful, in fact, that MQA is rushing to trying to redefine it from its usual meaning. “We didn’t mean that kind of lossless…”
Looks like the word ‘Lossless’ has again made popular by Apple promoting lossless music. MQA claims it is ‘lossless’ is referring to FLAC encapsulation. Other than that, MQA codec itself, the main component core is lossy. This is fact and they are smart in putting in that way (marketing)
But MQA have been defining what they mean by lossless for the entire past 7 years. Anyone bothering to read would know that. Their method, by design and intention, does not include the low level bits and very high ultrasonic regions that are inaudible. The originator of the video proved NOTHING other than that he doesn’t bother to read. In other words, he verified what MQA have always said.
Couldn’t be better described😊!
Isn’t MQA effectively ‘dead in the water’, now that Apple has gone lossless…? 
They are definitely on island on there own with just Tidal to prop them up. Once Spotify deliver lossless too they could be in a very difficult position to develop any more market share in streaming. So we shall see what they have up there sleeve
I think now that Apple have delivered Dolby Atmos via AAC and also offer lossless at no extra cost, ‘the writing is on the wall’ for MQA.
IMO Spotify are now firmly ‘behind the curve’…
Let me get this right.
Someone buys something and must enjoy it as they keep buying more.
Someone else tells them it’s crap.
They get rid of everything they bought as they must have deceived themselves?
I’m off to burn all my vinyl…no correct that I’m off to play my vinyl and not give two hoots what anyone thinks.(no vinyl was harmed while trying to get a point across.)
Yeah that war will be between apple and Spotify but the door is definitely closing for MQA directly, indirectly they could get the three major record companies to deliver MQA to all streaming sites as the record companies have a financial interest in MQA ltd, it’s a long shot but it may be there only way to claw revenue back which won’t be be good for consumers as they will lose choice
What they have up their sleeves is… Share.
And they have utterly failed communicating this, because they have been so very content that people think “lossless” simply means “lossless”. That is, until that video came out and showed that it was in fact a different kind of “lossless” they meant, one which wasn’t lossless in the usual sense.
I agree with you that practically every Tidal subscriber believed that MQA lossless was actually lossless. Those who bothered to read were deprived of proper reading material apart from MQA’s web pages (which was mostly the self-contradictory “Is it lossless? Yes! And also it’s better than lossless!”).
The actual documentation does not exist, because MQA is a closed system intended to extract licensing money. It makes sense for MQA to keep their tech hidden, but that also means that they should be upfront with what their technology actually does. It is not lossless, but it was marketed as such, with the caveat “but not lossless like you think, it’s a different type of lossless”. The amount of people paying for MQA who “bother to read” are few and far between because MQA have made it so.
How do you know what the design and intention is, apart from those few graphs on MQA’s “Bob talks” web pages? All the actual information about how MQA works is found in various reverse-engineering investigations which infer how it’s all put together. I know that the “origami” technique stores “musically relevant” information in the lower bits, but that’s just a different type of music compression. What makes MQA more special than AAC or MP3?
And yet what he revealed was highly controversial. Does that mean that nobody bothered to read, or that MQA haven’t been perfectly clear about what they do? If nobody gets what you’re trying to say, it just might be that you haven’t said it clearly enough. We’re not talking about postmodern philosophy here, we’re talking about audio technology for the consumer market.
What do you mean, lack of proper reading material?
How do you know what the design and intention is, apart from those few graphs on MQA’s “Bob talks” web pages? All the actual information about how MQA works is found in various reverse-engineering investigations
All you have to do is make the effort if you want to know how it works.
These have the caveat that this might or might not correspond with tech in MQA, which makes sense as they need to keep the recipe a secret. However, it does keep the recipe a secret.
I’m sure that you can get somewhere if you really want, but do you agree that since the GoldenSound video came as a bombshell, people don’t seem to want to make the effort of reading journal articles and patents that might or might not be relevant, if they can just keep believing that MQA is actually lossless?
I had no idea there were 700 Q&A’s in Stereophile, could you point me to them please? Those other short papers, are they press releases or technical info?
Also, since @robbi_burdeck does not know, all the JAES publications released about MQA are not peer reviewed documents, which questions the validity of the research.