This whole thread is quite strange I think, and very infected by strong emotions. I have now read from the beginning (but not all the way to the end) because I wondered how it derailed and who actually said what. An early reaction was that I thought much of the criticism of
@amirm was in fact unfair. But after a while it also strikes me that it's probably really about something else. The argument about MQA reflects that there are strong feelings involved in the issue of pros and cons of MQA. As I see it, the argument is on several levels. It's only partly about MQA and sound quality. But at the bottom I think there is a completely different thing that is about who has control over what. The most critical fear that MQA is ACTUALLY about something completely different than sound quality. MQA is considered a form of DRM and revenue generator that is introduced under false pretenses of being something else. It must also be said that MQA themselves have really managed to incite that kind of suspicion with their lousy misleading marketing, their secrecy and their often incomprehensible comments and explanations. Fair criticism or not, I think that's the way many have perceived Bob Stuart and others behind MQA. But if someone says then, we have Blue Ray, Dolby and several other licensed codecs, what's so special about MQA? I think you have to see the issue in its context when it comes to music. There is a rather sad history around DRM and copy protection, where large companies have secretly installed rootkits (eg SONY), when purchased CDs have not always been playable in all CD players due to copy protection, hassle in various ways with making things work. ETC. I think those who have been involved in music and sound reproduction and who have experienced this, sort MQA into the same category. This is why many are outraged at
@amirm or others who declare neutrality. Being neutral is not OK when something is perceived as a threat. Hence all invective and personal attacks. Anyway. I think this is a bit simplistic at the bottom of this infected discussion. When it comes to music, unlike film, it has largely been characterized by open formats, or relatively open formats. All attempts to date to lock in music in licensed formats, or non-open formats, have been moderately successful at best. Companies that have chosen locked exclusive formats have, as I have understood it, in fact lost market share. Therefore, I think that MQA can only get really wide acceptance if it is done openly and freely, but maybe not even that helps. I see no direct benefits with MQA, and in the long run consumers are usually uninterested in technology that does not provide an obvious advantage. And the real HiFi nerds are such a small niche that it does not matter so much. Personally, I have no strong idea about the possible advantages or disadvantages of MQA, but I am skeptical. I'm very doubtful if it has any advantages, at the moment it clearly has some disadvantages I think, but it probably has no future, so MQA does not make me very upset. Especially not as I can now opt out of it by subscribing to Qobuz instead of Tidal.