@Larry
I don't think it's fair to judge the sound quality of MQA based on a BlueSound Node 2. No offense but the old saying 'you get what you pay for' is in effect here.
I can tell you that me and many friends who have listened to MQA on my dCS Rossini agree that the sound quality of MQA tracks using TIDAL sound noticeably better than the same TIDAL tracks in Redbook format. Even on my 2nd system where I use a NAD M10 integrated streamer/DAC/amp, the MQA tracks sound better. FWIW, both the dCS Rossini and NAD M10 perform full MQA decoding.
The MQA naysayers will point to the fact that MQA is a lossy format. I think the same could be said for most digital formats. The best way to judge is to let your ears tell you what you prefer. But it's got to be on a decent DAC or streamer so it's a fair fight.
I don't think it's fair to judge the sound quality of MQA based on a BlueSound Node 2. No offense but the old saying 'you get what you pay for' is in effect here.
I can tell you that me and many friends who have listened to MQA on my dCS Rossini agree that the sound quality of MQA tracks using TIDAL sound noticeably better than the same TIDAL tracks in Redbook format. Even on my 2nd system where I use a NAD M10 integrated streamer/DAC/amp, the MQA tracks sound better. FWIW, both the dCS Rossini and NAD M10 perform full MQA decoding.
The MQA naysayers will point to the fact that MQA is a lossy format. I think the same could be said for most digital formats. The best way to judge is to let your ears tell you what you prefer. But it's got to be on a decent DAC or streamer so it's a fair fight.