I think you might have missed the point of what he originally said and what I responded to. What was meant is that the quality of the original recording is more important than any end-user delivery format, including MQA versus anything else. They (and I ) were not referring to the same recording supplied on different formats or technologies.
That is true, but iuf we imagine a level playing field and concentrate on the sound of MQA I do believe it is a move forward.
Last night Audirvana V3 was finally released with MQA masters in Tidal integration. I am not on an MQA compliant DAC, so my findings so far are relevant possibly to non MQA DACs (which is most of us at the moment).
I cannot exactly say if the quality jump is because of a bigger resolution file coming through Tidal, or MQA trickery, or both. I am also not sure if it is equal or better than the exact same album as HD downloads from a source such as HD Tracks.
BUT I can say I am convinced to far. I and using Audirvana V3 to unpack the MQA file, and send it to my NOS DAC at max 96K. The MQA files in Tidal pop up as 24/192K or 24/96K. I haven't come across any as 24/88.2 yet. A+ is set to max out at 96K as my DAC chip can handle that res as is an AD1865 chip.
My summary of the difference between Redbook ripped locally from CDs as AIFFs or on Tidal Redbook 44.1 (pretty much the same) v MQA. Bear in mind at the moment there are lots of MQA but it is far from a complete catalogue, mainly Warner, Atlantic and others I think (led Zep for example). Some old stuff, some recent like Beyonce Lemonade and Enya Dark Sky Island for example. Limited dance or electronic so far.
The first thing is the midrange seems to be fuller and more 3D and pops out at you, it took me by surprise in some cases. There is more depth and seemingly more dynamic, even though Redbook is supposed to be 110 dB S/N ratio, no idea, but it is more energetic for sure.
Second, the bass is deep and powerful, more textured and tuneful. It seems to have more energy available.
Third, female vocals and piano seem warmer, less 2D and thin, just more substance somehow.
Fourth, Piano is more realistic and has more texture.
Fifth, the detail is around the same i.e not brighter or tipped up, but it is a cleaner treble and less confusing. Easier to hear tiny background details / ambiance.
It is hard to explain, but I am trying to describe the change v the Redbook version as I hear it on my system. It is different and in a good way I am convinced. Jumping straight back to the Redbook version seems a bit flatter, less 3D and more confused when things really get going (complex passages).
YMMV and quite possibly this will reflect how each type of DAC plays the MQA content. Maybe a DAC with higher res capability may be even better? I can't assess that obviously. But folk on old school R-2R DACs with a limit to 96K will be pleased with MQA I am sure. I would say give it a shot. It takes a while to set up correctly. On my system I also have to set the AOIP network to 96K from 44/1 i Dante and check Audio Midi on my Mac (takes 30 seconds) but never the less it is important to get the best result (for me).