Streaming vs traditional

Well, the comparison was between high resolution (i.e. 24/96) files and MQA, and (rightly or wrongly - there may be a discussion about the test design) the result was that there were no sonic differences. If true, this allows us to conclude that MQA is not better than Hi Res. However, this may be a correct conclusion simply because anything above cd red book is without additional sonic benefit, or because MQA is no better than Hi Res but both are better than CD.  That is not clear from this test.
I am not decided on the benefits of resolutions above cd red book. There have been blind tests and these do not seem to suggest a difference once the same source file is used (but downsampled). On the other hand, I have a number of BluRay opera discs and these are quite stunning. Is it because the format is superior, or because these recordings were simply done to high audiophile standards of dynamic range etc? Listening is not quite the simple thing it seems.

@willemj

CD is good enough - especially if upsampled and gentle filters are used. However 24 96KHz is usually a bit better quality and the modern DACs are approaching 21 bit resolution on the analog out which suggests you can benefit from 24 bits.

The biggest benefit from higher sample rates is that DAC non-linearities are randomized. Most DACs are rather non-linear between the different levels on an R2R or between the multitude of sigma delta converters on modern chips. This non-linearity is due to slight differences (order of 0.005 %)in the steps in the DAC. If you pass high sample rate music through these DACs then the inaudible high frequencies will help randomize distortion from non-linearity.

Of course, a well designed DAC will not care about sample rate as it will sound the same at all rates with the same source file (at least over the audible range)

@willemj

I think you’re missing the big picture.

I am not saying MQA is better than a high resolution downloaded file. Let’s assume for our discussion that MQA and a high resolution downloaded audio files sounds the same. What about the end user cost of high resolution audio? Would you rather pay $15-35 for each high resolution album, $2 per track (if available, most sites require you to purchase entire album) or pay $20-$25 per month for unlimited high resolution streaming?

As I said, MQA is affording us the opportunity for high resolution audio (currently available as downloads only) streaming at a static monthly fee. Well in case of Tidal, it’s available at no additional cost!!!

As I said, I am not sure higher rsolutions, either lossless or lossy compacted as in MQA are audibly better than red book. I think the jury is still out, but we shall see if someone can come up with decisive test data.
I don't do downloads for the reasons mentioned. I buy disks or I stream. The latter is a wonderful opportunity to get access to an amazing proportion of the world's music. I would like these streams to be of high quality, but at the same time better than perfect is obviously not necessary, and wastes scarce energy resources / pollutes the environment / adds to climate change. The scientists in the famous Phlips physics lab (Natlab) decided that 16/44 was the perfect sweet spot, with a resolution that was neither too low, nor unnecessarily high. Never again was such an outstanding team brought together in audio engineering. But if they were right, it was admittedly at the very edge of perfection, that is clear. These days, we would probably prefer to err a bit more on the safer side, i.e. 24/48.

"The opportunities of man are limited only by his imagination" 

Peace out!