MQA-CD is a physical Hi-res music format, but while the discs are relatively affordable, playing them back can be anything but. For more on MQA Watch this video https://youtu.be/pRjsu9-Vznc ********** UPDATE (PLEASE READ)******** The sound quality difference I experienced between the MQA decoded CD and the standard CD audio is because rather than the CD being 16bit (as normal) - the patent says it's 13 bit with 3 bits used for the MQA data - however others now say it’s 15 bit with 1 bit going to the MQA. Apparently the MQA bit(s) get ignored as noise by a standard CD player. I don’t know which spec is true…but the plain fact is that a normal standard CD has the ability to sound better than an MQA CD when played on a normal CD player. There are Loads of complaints about me saying that the "MQA version sounds better" - “how could this be when Brothers in Arms can't ever sound any better than a CD due to the fact it was only mastered at CD quality originally". That's not what was demonstrated in this video. The information below that explains things in more detail. I wasn't comparing the full bitrate CD version of the album vs the MQA version. I didn't play the standard CD version of Brothers In Arms at any point in this video. The comparison in the video was between the *compressed* version of the album (contained on the MQA CD) vs the MQA ‘unfolded’ version (contained on the same CD). SUMMARY: I was comparing the REDUCED BITRATE VERSION vs the MQA UNFOLDED VERSION. And it should be no surprise that the MQA UNFOLDED VERSION sounded the better of these two, not because MQA is brilliant or amazing…it’s just a simple case of the reduced bitrate CD compatible version being audibly hobbled and the MQA one being less hobbled. Just like a 192kbps MP3 sounds better than a 96kbps MP3 one. It doesn’t mean 192kbps is perfect - it’s just better than the 96kbps version. So on to the next question... Could an MQA version of an album that was only ever o