I read the article to. Not being a computer guy myself, Harley's explanation was a little hard for me to follow.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like the key to it is that the data is "packed" into a"container" before being played and then "unpacked" upon playback. Is this essentially it?

David Harper wrote:

...it sounds like the key to it is that the data is "packed" into a"container" before being played and then "unpacked" upon playback. Is this essentially it?

Correct - the bits get packed in to a container and then are unpacked upon playback. The "packed container" is the general principle of digital audio compression formats (and video, for that matter). (Easily-digestible info existing high-res formats can be found here: http://www.crutchfield.com/S-uatytqZyJNh/learn/high-resolution-audio-guide.html). MQA's voodoo can be delivered inside any lossless container, compressed or not, e.g.: FLAC or WAV.

It should be understood by would-be consumers that MQA R&D has focused on converting existing digital sources - NOT applying their proprietary techniques to the analog masters. So it's an incremental add to back-end processing of the source file, as opposed to a proprietary delivery stream that assures provenance.

We'll see soon enough how this turns out.

would MQA eliminate either data compression or DR compression?

The articles about MQA were fascinating, I'm very much looking forward to giving this technology a listen.

I have read commentary that stated that auditioners of the MQA system were noted to be crying with happiness. OK, so first question - does MQA actually sound better than the analog version or is the point simply to get digital music up to the potential level of vinyl? It rather seems like MQA is being pitched by enthusiasts as being better than reality.

Second question, some odd remarks about not ever "possessing" the Master Quality recording. That seems strange to me. If I own an MQA recording with the appropriate playback equipment, it will render the Master Quality. Every time (until DRM is asserted). So, how is it that I don't "possess" that version/level of quality? It rather sounds as if one were to assert that you never actually "possess" the digital version of a recording when you own and play a CD.

There was an MQA demo at a local store recently. I didn't make it, but the owner and one sales person both said they were impressed. I'm not 'sold' with second hand information from salesman, but after doing some research I found a lot of others saying the same thing. This was one reason I decided not to buy a high-end external DAC right now, since they may not be upgradable to MQA. Instead I'm going to get a Bluesound - which will be MQA capable starting next month (free software upgrade - even for old generation 1 units). If I don't like the Bluesound DAC I might still by a separate DAC at some point in the future. Have to wait and see.

One thing is for sure - there is a lot of controversy on this subject. A lot of people are going to be very upset if a cheap MQA capable DAC outperforms their recently purchased multi-thousand dollar non-MQA DAC. And I can understand that.

I hope the Newport show in a couple weeks will have a demo, because I'll be there with ears up (this is how my black lab listens to music - and thus the 'dog' in 'lardog').

Just read the new article in Stereophile about MQA. So, what I need to play MQA material at home is a component with an MQA DAC, is that right? Will this MQA DAC also play back ordinary CD's and high-res source material, 24/192 audio blu-rays? Would MQA eliminate dynamic range compression?

From http://schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa:

Why We Won't Be Supporting MQA

05/26/2016

Schiit Clarifies Position on a Proposed Audio Format

May 26th, 2016, Valencia, CA. Today, Schiit Audio announced that they would not be supporting MQA, a proprietary audio format claiming “studio quality sound you can stream or download.” Schiit Audio feels that it is important to support its customers—and potential customers—by clarifying the company’s position on MQA, so that they may choose another DAC provider that backs the format, if they feel it is important to them.

“Although there are still many questions to be answered about MQA, we feel we know enough to make a decision,” said Jason Stoddard, Schiit’s Co-Founder.

Stoddard outlined the primary reasons:

1. We believe that supporting MQA means handing over the entire recording industry to an external standards organization. MQA wants:
•Licensing fees from the recording studios
•Licensing fees from the digital audio product manufacturers
•Hardware or software access/insight into the DAC or player
•Subscription fees from every listener via Tidal, and/or royalties from purchases of re-releases by the recording industry

2. Our experience with standards-driven industries is sub-par. Consider the surround market. Companies making surround processors now have to support a dizzying array of different standards, none of which is a market differentiator, and the exclusion of any single standard can mean commercial failure. The result is a market in which competition is stifled and consumers are confused.

3. We don’t believe MQA is a differentiator for high-end DACs if it is available on phones. Consider SRS, the Sound Retrieval System, as an instructive example. Before being acquired by DTS, it claimed to be on “over a billion devices.” However, there is little evidence any consumers considered SRS a must-have, differentiating technology.

4. We consider MQA to be yet another “format distraction” that makes high-end audio more confusing and insular. This is a reflection of our position in the market—nearly 1/3 of our revenue is from $99 and under products, and we have one of the youngest customer bases in the industry. It is our experience that when someone starts getting into great audio, they just want a product that will make their current music sound better, rather than one that requires additional investment in streaming subscriptions or new releases.

5. We feel that, even from a market perspective, many questions need to be answered. When will we see MQA on Tidal? At what cost? What percentage of the library will be MQA? How many releases should we expect to see from Warner in the next 12 months? What will be the cost? Again, a historic example may be cautionary. Consider Sony and DSD. DSD is a Sony technology that they promoted, and yet they released very few recordings in DSD.

Mike Moffat concurred, saying, “In addition to the market questions outlined by my partner, there are many performance questions (about MQA) that cause great concern. Actual decoded bit depth for both MQA and non-MQA DACs, claims of ‘lossless,’ the need for MQA to tweak their decode algorithm for a specific DAC (and their ability to perform this optimization on-schedule for a DAC manufacturer who might be, well, a little smaller than HTC,) the impact on the DAC manufacturer’s own proprietary technology and product development, and the impact on the DAC manufacturer’s own competitiveness.”

Moffat further opined that Schiit Audio considers the further development of in support of the primary 16/44.1 PCM format to be of the most value to its customers, citing extremely strong sales of Schiit Audio’s multibit DAC products, and the positive reception to its “DACs for the music you have, not the music you have to buy,” message.

Asked if there was any chance Schiit Audio might support MQA if it became the dominant format in the market, Moffat answered, “If it becomes the dominant audio technology, or even a very popular second-place format, we would have to evaluate it in the same way we evaluate other lossy compression standards, such as home theater surround formats, Bluetooth codecs, and MP3 variants.”

http://schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa

(Omit the trailing colon)

Albeit a tad on the venomous side, came across this perspective:

"MQA has been targeting the weakest players in our world, the audiophiles. And they’re targeting those most dependent on pimping new tech, the audiophile press. Meanwhile, one sided presentations at trade shows leave no time for deep Q and A and any real discussion panels are eschewed by MQA. The most excitement about MQA seems to be from perfectionist consumers who want that blue LED and sense of authentication, pressuring DA makers to send that licensing money to MQA and catch up with a demand invented by MQA."

fairhedon.com/2017/11/05/an-interview-with-mastering-engineer-brian-lucey/

I heard MQA demonstrated. Unfortunately, it was a rushed demo with a large crowd or people at a store. MQA definitely sounded different than the non-MQA track that was played.

One track was played in normal fashion, followed by the same track with MQA decoding. Several people reported that the MQA was definitely better right after the second playing. No opportunity to go back to the original track to do a fair and careful comparison. If you go listen, evaluate thoroughly with a source material you know how it originally sounded.

A non-improvement, that doesn't really matter for a problem that doesn't exist for even most audiophiles. By the late 80's, and with a very good cassette deck, Dolby B or with ferrous tape, Dolby C would lower the noise floor sufficiently that with the extended frequency of modern heads, cassettes had officially become high fidelity, even if your budget wasn't Nakamichi. Just in time for no one (outside of audiophiles who COULD afford the best the format had to offer) to use cassettes anymore.

Now that no one outside of this magazines readership has any desire to stream any better than CD quality to their, as small as they can hide behind the gardenias speakers, we have a format who's technical claims seem specious and even if it achieves exactly what it says it is solving a problem that didn't exist in the first place, like Dolby S. Just in time for no one to really care.

Crazy.

I spoke with Mr. Lucey after a MQA demo which he also attended where he challenged the sound quality of MQA. He basically said during the demo that he compared the MQA playback to his Masters and they do not sound alike. He said, after the demo, his motivation is to raise awareness to what he has found that MQA master quality does not agree with his experience of master quality.

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

I have very little knowledge on this MQA thing, but it seems to me, that the first purpose of it is the same it's always been: Money.

I'm willing to bet, even though it has been stated "there's no DRM in MQA", that the second purpose, cementing the first, is preventing consumer A to be able to playback a music file purchased by consumer B, thus working just like DRM in that respect.

Aside from that, however good a MQA music file sounds, I doubt that the majority of audio listeners are going to buy into lossy formats, except those who already bought into mp3 and the like. Sorry guys, lower your expectations, please...