Yes - there is certainly no consensus as to whether MQA files are as good as their ‘standard’ hi-res equivalents nor indeed as good as ‘Redbook 44.1/16’, and your frequent posts have voiced your opinion.
To put this into context I have pulled in a couple of extracts from some of your other posts:
and
Your opinion as to the sound quality of MQA files versus their ‘Redbook’ equivalents is as valid as is my own, but no more valid than my opinion. The problem I have is that your listening results are much more conclusive and absolute than my own. It’s quite unusual to be so certain in a subjective matter such as music sound quality. You state that MQA coded files in every single case sound significantly worse. My own conclusions using a pretty good system (possibly not as good as your “great” system with “uncoloured speakers”) is that MQA files on Tidal often (but not always) sound subtly better than their Redbook equivalents. I would be very cautious about drawing any conclusive evidence from my own findings, but you seem so positive?
And of course, you say that you cannot make comparisons on Tidal, and that you do not have access to Tidal yourself. Well, that defeats the object of the exercise for me because I do subscribe to Tidal, and the potential benefits of MQA on Tidal bringing hi-res to this service are precisely what interest me.
Could I possibly ask where and with what material you have carried out your “extensive” comparisons, and possibly give us some details of the “great” system and “uncoloured” speakers that you used? I would be happy to give details of my own systems.