My experience with MQA was through a PS Audio DirectStream Jr and was entirely positive. Some tracks I am very familiar with over decades sounded better than I had ever heard them, and I noticed the improvement without knowing they were MQA tracks and actually I didn't even know what MQA was at that point. I just noticed they sounded amazing with my (then) new Tidal subscription and started digging further to figure out why.
What I can tell you after thoroughly educating myself about MQA and digital audio in general is that nearly everything I see people write online is wrong. Most people have no concept of time resolution at all and harp on and on about frequency response, which is basically a non-issue in modern audio (modern including the last several decades) and something the human ear is far less sensitive to than time. You can take all the measurements you want but that doesn't tell you how the human ear perceives sound, just like anyone can show you a 1985 CD player measures better in every way than a record player, but lots of people think it sounds a lot worse. Alas, this MQA thing has gotten totally out of hand and people spew so much vitriol that it's become the right wing versus left wing argument of the audio world. Everyone could do well to take a deep breath and actually learn a little about what Bob Stuart has done for audio reproduction over the past 30 years before slandering everything involving the letters M, Q, and A.
That said, the simple answer to your question is you just have to listen to it. Audio is like food - there is no best and no one can tell you if what they like better is something you will like better. Try just using the BlueSound as a DAC for MQA and compare the same tracks with non-MQA versions. If you like MQA better, great, go for it. If not, don't. I'm not going to tell you vanilla ice cream is horrible and a scam because I like chocolate better. I wish people could see different file formats that way and stop telling everyone else what's good for them.
What I can tell you after thoroughly educating myself about MQA and digital audio in general is that nearly everything I see people write online is wrong. Most people have no concept of time resolution at all and harp on and on about frequency response, which is basically a non-issue in modern audio (modern including the last several decades) and something the human ear is far less sensitive to than time. You can take all the measurements you want but that doesn't tell you how the human ear perceives sound, just like anyone can show you a 1985 CD player measures better in every way than a record player, but lots of people think it sounds a lot worse. Alas, this MQA thing has gotten totally out of hand and people spew so much vitriol that it's become the right wing versus left wing argument of the audio world. Everyone could do well to take a deep breath and actually learn a little about what Bob Stuart has done for audio reproduction over the past 30 years before slandering everything involving the letters M, Q, and A.
That said, the simple answer to your question is you just have to listen to it. Audio is like food - there is no best and no one can tell you if what they like better is something you will like better. Try just using the BlueSound as a DAC for MQA and compare the same tracks with non-MQA versions. If you like MQA better, great, go for it. If not, don't. I'm not going to tell you vanilla ice cream is horrible and a scam because I like chocolate better. I wish people could see different file formats that way and stop telling everyone else what's good for them.