I will answer it for you
Note that the market demand for high-res is much higher than what objectively can be explained. MQA is taking advantage of that need to to deliver a solution.
The content owner can advertise that with the suitable decoder, the same bits will become high-resolution -- something the CD can't do.Well, I‘ve just counted, and I probably missed a few...
I personally asked about “benefits of the 16/44 MQA (aka MQA-CD)” within this thread 7 times! Got 0 (zero) answers.
MQA team produced an award winning peer reviewed paper that showed filtering high res audio can create audible differences. This lay the foundation for MQA not peforming such down sampling. They did not go past this to produce other studies. The anti-MQA team has also not produced any listening test to show that application of MQA to CD format is harmful.I asked for a “proof of [any] MQA sounding better than non-MQA, through controlled listening or measurements” 11 times! Guess what, 0 (zero) responses.
MQA is not just about high sample rates but also bit depth. I have shown a lot of evidence as to why we need this. I have also shown that I have passed one such blind test. The extra bandwidth is also useful for noise shaping and can avoid aliasing artifacts with some non-linear effects. Overall the benefits are small but to the extent they are there, why not.I asked about why we need ultrasonics at least 5 times (while the hearing curve published by MQA/Meridian stops under 20kHz)... same story.
I must be a cellophane man... Or, maybe there are no answers!?
Note that the market demand for high-res is much higher than what objectively can be explained. MQA is taking advantage of that need to to deliver a solution.