Depends to whom. For audiophiles it does matter if it delivers and there are many who are convinced that it does deliver.
For the average consumer it doesn’t matter just if it delivers, it needs to deliver enough to make a difference. The answer here clearly is no, the same way it was no for DSD and HDCD.
The same argument can be made for high res PCM. Does that deliver? Is that really an efficient use of storage space and bandwidth?
The role of ROON and the role of hardware is completely different. But I am afraid you are telling us now, that you don’t have MQA hardware, but judge it as useless? My favourite kind of discussion. NOT. Or can you reveal, which HARDWARE you used for judging.
While we’re on the question of utility and benefits. Try to see if you can tell the difference between mp3 and uncompressed PCM (CD quality).
Here is a simple test:
https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality?t=1620031226903
It seems we actually agree.
The only difference is that I do not want the consumer to pay indirectly or directly for a functionality that does not add anything. There is a huge push to get an MQA license on every device or software decoder.
Why do you repeat this nonsense, but not answer a simple question about your hardware.
We agree (to some extent), but that’s the decision the consumer will have to make for themselves.
The push comes from the manufacturers because the consumer want that functionality. Otherwise they would rather not include it and keep the money form the royalties they have to pay to MQA.
Lossless vs Lossy is a different discussion and I can certainly agree with both sides. But for me it is separate from the MQA discussion. I think there is no problem in saying that a container should be lossless and transparent.
You change the discussion now to another nonsensical part of MQA accusations, just to escape the shameful truth about your hardware.
I certainly appreciate the discussion with Bitracer. This attitude does not invite me to continue.
If it matters.
They are Usher Dancer mini DMD2 with a Hegel integrated amplifier. A Mac mini with Audirvana as the source. Audioquest and PinkFaun cabling.
I don’t change anything. What it brings to the average consumer does not outweigh the disadvantages of MQA
Doesn’t Roon and Audirvana have any added value in the MQA? But they still pay for that?
Which I find interesting. If MQA delivers it as the artist intended. Then I really only have to buy the cheapest DAC with an MQA label. With a pair of inexpensive speakers and Chinese class D amp. Design of power supplies and analog parts of the DAC no longer matter. Why would even more expensive DACs be needed?
Consumers ask for it because they read everywhere that this is the new holy grail. And the manufacturer puts it in because the consumer asks for it.
When MQA just came in the news I had a BelCanto set and I asked the importer if there would be an MQA version. At the time, there was none. otherwise I might have bought it.
Of course Audirvana adds a lot of value with a perfect first unfold. And of course the MQA process covers from A/D to output of D/A , nobody said better amp or speakers would not matter, same as power supplies or cables and ethernet switches (you forgot to mention). And if the engineers in China make better or worse D-Amps as the German or US engineers, depends on manufacturer and knowledge of individual team , not nationality. Your phone comes from China, and their manufacturing is as we all know state of the art. Hope you Hegel amp is a 390 or 590, otherwise you miss MQA still 
But the ADC to DAC is much more complex than MQA leads us to believe. There is not 1 step and 1 correction. There can be an infinite number of variables in the entire process from the artist’s idea to the mastering suite. The chosen ADC may even be a conscious choice by the studio because of the sound.
I cannot find anywhere how MQA guarantees this entire process. The influence of other variables is many times greater than the ADC DAC. And yet MQA ensures that we hear it as the artist intended.
If MQA were an audiophile product. And I would be sure that I would get closer to the artist’s intention. then I would like to buy the hardware for it.
I will not pay any license fees for the MQA as it is now. So no, I don’t have MQA hardware at home.
:-)))) Finally it is out, Jacob tells us what MQA is not delivering and he does that based on equipment which is NOT MQA capable. And he mixes up the creation process in the studio, where all kinds colorations and distortions are maybe wanted, with the sorage and transportation process from master tape or file to the enduser, where all kinds of timing problems or distortions should be avoided. It is fine for all of us here, if you don’t like and use MQA, maybe because you never heard it up to now. MQA as a digital recreation and transportation management system does not interfere with the creation process at all, but helps mastering engineers to bring their result as godd as possible to the enduser, regardless of available HiFi system at the end, as long as it can decipher MQA. And if not, it brings several advantages even to non MQA users. Pls do us a favour and read some basics about MQA before you judge its merits. Or at least listen to a full MQA chain, starts at less than 100 bucks.
Congratulations on your daily happiness moment. Calling someone inferior on a forum. Enjoy your day.
The statement is that we get what the artist intended. Not a random person who cannot be verified.
This part is fairly well explained. What they try to match is the output at the console. It’s the assumption they make that what comes out of the console output is the artist’s intended result and try to compensate for that. This is a 2 step process, one is to account for the production end and the second one is the reproduction end with specific code tailored to the output device (DAC) in question.
The biggest problem MQA has is bit the same problem with DSD. To really appreciate it, it takes seriously high end setup and that also includes the listening environment. You can get closer with good pair of headphones.
If one thinks he’ll be able to fully appreciate DSD with the few hundred bucks DAC, he’s in for a disappointment. That’s why I find it funny when people complain they can’t upsample to DSD512 on a cheap Topping DAC. Nothing against Topping, they make decent gear.
And then we get to the interesting part. The holistic whole from artist to my emotion. On the one hand, the artist with his story. On the other hand, the listener who must be reached. In general, the technology only gets in the way.
Sadly, creative ideas are produced completely to pieces and mastered into one piece with everything else on the market.
I’d rather have a LoFi recording with the soul still in it than all the possible technical breakthroughs.
And on the user side it is almost always sub optimal. And focusing on format or upsampling only makes us busier with capitalism than with the experience of the piece of music.
And for most users it doesn’t matter at all and MP3 / aac is already a great solution.
That’s a sad conclusion Jacob. It means we’ve spent way too much money on our gear.
I guess the hope is that if we take care of the gear, the content will follow and we can reach the audio nirvana. Until then, enjoy the journey.
I do not mean the “audiophiles” by the vast majority of users. We are consciously engaged in the hobby and make choices. based on budget, senses or facts.
The vast majority of music users listen in sub-optimal conditions and have no problem with that. And me neither.
There are also people who appreciate sub-optimal coffee, car, watch, bicycle, wine, etc. Or people who think only the very best whiskey is good enough. Then not all users need a WhiskyQA system to guarantee a better experience.
Everyone has freedom in the pleasures of life.