Is this MQA news a big deal?

Here's a summary of issues surrounding MQA that agrees with both of you and makes an essential point: there was no need for MQA in the first place. The author has spent serious time with the issue.

www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

Find that 4k, streaming, and MQA all share a single purpose: copyright control.

I bought a Bluesound Node 2. I wanted to be able to access my digital music without using a computer. Even though the Node 2 enabled me to control my stereo with my phone or Ipad and play decent sounding music simply and at a budget I could afford it was not until I streamed MQA files that I heard a remarkable and better sound. Is it better than a quality vinyl rig or CD player or even hi-rez digital downloads? Maybe not? But to say we do not need it? My experience is that it made streamed music sound better and I am not the only one who thinks this. I dont think MQA or DRM is going to be the end of music playback. It is one option for music playback, among many.

@craigl59

Good article. MQA is a lossy format which injects a ton of up imaging noise into the high frequencies. If it sounds better then

1) The master audio file used to create the MQA file is better than the other master you are comparing to
2) Your DAC is suffering from poor linearity (very common especially with R-2R) and the inaudible ultra high frequency noise added to an MQA file is helping to randomize your DAC non-linearity.

Find that 4k, streaming, and MQA all share a single purpose: copyright control.

I'm no fan of MQA, in that I cannot tell it does anything better, but copyright control (aka Digital Rights Management or DRM) is not one of the problems.

MQA recordings can be encoded to any common format like FLAC or ALAC, and copied like any other computer file. There is no DRM in MQA. None.

Best,
E

I heard the MQA it’s really good, I preferred it over DSD. It’s the one that came close to vynil, in the system we were listening...