@audioisnobiggie, I have briefly looked into the tech of MQA and found it surprising. Here is an excerpt from the article on MQA in Wikipedia:
'MQA encoding is lossy;[24][25] it hierarchically compresses the relatively little energy in the higher frequency bands into data streams that are embedded in the lower frequency bands using proprietary dithering techniques, allowing for an apparent reduction in sample rate and hence file size. After a series of such "origami" manipulations,[26][27] a dithered and shaped version of the original audio, together with a touchup stream (the compressed difference between the original and modified streams), are distributed as a single 24-bit stream, with the most significant bits occupied by PCM audio compatible with non-MQA playback equipment. Depending on the implementation, as few as 13 bits may be reserved for PCM audio, with the lower-order bits rendered as noise by equipment without an MQA decoder"
This strikes me as mumbo jumbo. Why would I want some weird lossy compression with a side stream of the compressed bits that is then recombined in one's system, when I can stream the same thing at 24/96K FLAC through Qobuz? How can a weird "origami" process applied to a 16/44.1K file sound better than a lossless 24/96 stream? To me it makes no sense at all.
As for all you class action naysayers, the harm is that I paid a higher price to have access to something that supposedly delivered high res files, but instead was delivering Redbook files that were artificially processed and then re-processed. Not saying that that is what happened, because I don't yet fully understand the whole MQA tech, but it sure seems like false advertising to get people into the higher tier pricing. The harm is the differential between that tier and the next one down . . .