I’m not going to start an MQA vs either because this is my thread and the purpose is to make others aware of qobuz in the U.S. but my question to you is have you listened to an MQA song and compared it side by side with another hi resolution song ? .There is nothing "authenticated master quality" except in name only. There is nothing "better sounding" about it either (compared to the original HiRes file). Unless the original master recording process was done with MQA encoders (very few newer titles have been), what you are listening to is nothing but an MQA-encoded HiRes file. I don't need MQA to listen to a HiRes stream. MQA was originally marketed as a requirement to be able to stream HiRes files by compressing the data into smaller files. In this regard, MQA is a solution to a problem that does not exist. There are no issues with streaming bandwidth for HiRes files today. There are lossless compression algorithms such as FLAC and ALAC to name a couple. If you want to listen to another audio compression algorithm, OK. Not me. MQA is being sold to audiophiles as the next greatest thing when it is actually a data rights management tool for the music companies. It's all about the money. That's all it is. I'm really surprised at the number of audiophiles who are OK with another lossy compression scheme.
I don't want to start another one of these MQA debates, but I am going to defend my position on this with facts. I have no issue with data rights for the music industry, but I do have a problem with it being sold as some kind of new high fidelity discovery. It is not. I will take my digital as lossless and as bit perfect as possible thanks. YMMV
Audiofreak71