The question is: what problem is MQA solving? Answer: none.
It isn't needed for internet streaming of hi-res.
As far as sound - opinions differ. What's clear: If it was as great as some of it's fanboys claim, virtually everyone would hear it and agree. The fact that they don't make me think a lot of the opinions are based on expectation bias. How many people have tested it blind and been careful to test it from the same source (If that's even possible)?.
One of the things we see is MQA trying very hard to prevent any objective analysis/comparison of their product to occur. So the question must be asked: If your product is so great and does what you claim, why are you resistant to proper testing? MQA just found out about a musician who did such a comparison of his own files and posted them at Tidal - and had Tidal remove his music.
https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/?do=findComment&comment=1125104And there are other similar examples.
Their technical claims are also suspect. The term "blur" is essentially meaningless. MQA files/playback have been shown not to be more accurate than non-MQA: they are "leaky" filters that allow aliasing artifacts into the results and introduce added distortion.
They also aren't "authenticated" in most cases. Multiple artists/producers/engineers have said the MQA versions have nothing to do with them. And how do 50 year old albums with all the principals dead become "authenticated"? I think in many cases a low level person at a record company "authenticates".
The goal of MQA (they've stated it) is to become the de-facto standard and for standard PCM versions to disappear from the marketplace. This has already happened on a certain scale at Tidal. It seems the ultimate goal of the labels is to make sure their are no unaltered hi-res masters available to the public, but they can still claim to be selling us "hi-res" - even if it is in a lossy format.
I have no argument with someone who likes the sound. But especially if you haven't level matched and blind tested (I have) be a little modest with your claims. Say you like it. Fine. But don't give us all the other BS about how it deblurs, time aligns, and improves the original master.