Why is it my job to answer that question? I didn't tell you go and buy MQA because it improves your life. I have said don't say things about it that are flat out wrong. That it has DRM. That it is taking over the world. That labels want DRM and will get it through MQA. That they will then stop releasing all in the clear content.
In this forum we go by what we can prove. Yet you all keep spreading misinformation you can't remotely prove. Let's stop that. Go to other fora with that argument if you want to say things where no one knows any better, or worse yet benefits from continued bickering.
And what if MQA sounds better? I thought your beef was with everything else it does regardless of merit.
Not mine at all. My beef is entirely that it doesn't do
anything (useful), and it has no
obvious merit (to me as a consumer) - and yet I have to pay for it in the form of higher prices for components looking to "join the club" (or at least not exclude the deluded). I didn't bring up DRM... at all. What I simply stated was that it was increasing costs (through requisite licensing) to the consumer, and that it was needlessly proprietary - all while using highly deceptive marketing which indicated that any other format was less "accurate and transparent" while not providing any proof of that. I initially believed that DRM would be a part of it, but I do not any longer - because of
proof to the contrary.
The concern I have that is DRM(ish) - while not actually being a form of DRM - is simply that without provenance certification - which is quite likely to increase the costs of the music itself eventually, or at least exclude some independent labels from promoting some artists/works fully. I completely admit and have stated in the past that I don't have "proof" this will happen - because I can't time travel... but it's happened in other markets, and I could easily see it happening here as well. But whatever, that's an aside and not a primary concern of mine at all.
I also never said that it was taking over the world or anything even close to that. I merely stated a concern and complaint (which I have about all closed standards, not just this one) that it was a means of restricting choice while not providing any meaningful "compensation" for that - i.e. higher resolution, smaller file sizes, broader compatibility of devices, etc. Actually the facts are that it does none of these things.
The only reason
you need to answer the question is because
you keep saying no one should have a negative comment/expectation/impression of MQA as a file format, a business model, or anything else. The justifications change from "it's a non-issue" to "it helps sales somewhat for those that participate" to "you do it anyway in other things" to "open-source community failed to provide equivalent alternatives" - but never simply "it's better because...".
If the answer were "there is simply
no way to get sound this
accurate to the source other than MQA format and full unpacking" - then not only would I not have any problems with it... I'd support them
directly and
intentionally as helping to improve audio reproduction and playback technology. As long as there is absolutely no provable benefit at all... then I can't possibly see it as different from exotic power cables, brilliant pebbles, etc. - but I don't hear any defenses of those. Not that I would want you to, just saying if "nothing burgers" are truly that... why bother proving it
anywhere at all.
EDIT - Removed the bit about authorized hardware and software... apparently as long as you're willing to "certify authenticity" (at unknown cost if any)
as the studio - you can get MQA Studio authorization - regardless of what equipment was used in the chain.
