Please don’t Feed the Trolls. They eat too much as it is and when they get fat they begin to cause structural damage to the Bridges they lurk under.
Worst part is, I'm still wondering just what their actual position is. The best I can muster in summary they seem to be the typical "don't knock it till you try it", but I'm not seeing anything apparent where they can use as evidence in support of the claims MQA purports it can deliver. With the other guy being also a DSD proponent claiming MQA isn't as good, but close, yet much better than redbook.
I'm guessing they also hold to the idea that all current demonstrations presented by OP are failures simply in virtue of the assertion that the encoder can detect 'non-real music' (begging questions about the threshold in which it is able to do so, and even how, if I were to insert a picosecond's worth of DSP, and it should produce identical encoder failure to where the entire music track gets polluted as OP's did even though he didn't have the entire track be simply test tones - remember, their red flag mechanism at least was good enough to detect that when he first tried to pass off pure test tones).
It's just a really comedic situation because I see a few nitpicks about certain here-or-there aspects (like the focus about square waves, yet leaving the entire rest of the arguments OP makes unaddressed). But I'm not actually seeing or hearing what their position even is. It simply seems to be an assertion that OP's experiment isn't conclusive of any and all concerns, thus MQA is great and delivers! Yet the company cucking back and forth in the shadows and for years not providing the simple access required to establish veracity of their product's claims -- that's somehow deemed as the more rational position, or at least the side that is rationally the one that should be defended. Especially hilarious given the usual scandals with corporations that eventually lead to shit like Tidal removing true lossless files as a result of MQA's slow encroachment. Like EVEN IF we had no technical evaluations of their MQA files ever (like imagine it was some magical file format that couldn't even be examined like some quantum anamoly), MQA's behavior alone is enough to not grant them benefit of the doubt.
In principal, if you had no idea what MQA does or how, agnosticism is the only sensibly rational position you can take at best. In practical reality, because MQA's behavior is such garbage, you have far more merit for hard skepticism of their claims, and dismissal of them actually - for as long as they keep cowering in the shadows and simply pontificating like lawyers in a court room where evidence isn't being disclosed to the other side the moment anyone like OP raises good reasons to assume their guilt in fraudulent contexts. Also practically concerning in the real world, where somehow MQA themselves concerned themselves of the ordeal to such a degree, they decided to act, and are somehow able to pressure the publisher and Tidal themselves in having someones work removed. If this wasn't a video (which at first it wasn't), they wouldn't seemingly care. But all of a sudden, they start responding..
Straight up perplexing at this point trying to surmize what it is these MQA defenders hold to. No idea if they're shills or whatever (doubt it personally), but they could stand to at least not use the post-hoc rationalization MQA themselves is using for their defense. It's hilarious when the hypocrisy kicks in, claiming OP's trying to wrongfully get his readers against MQA - yet MQA is pulling this takedown bullshit and as always, making nonsense claims that are dubious at best, but even if truly believed, would still be an instantiation of MQA trying to sway people to their ideas, and hiding whenever someone wants to properly have their claims tested.
I simply cannot understand for example how a file with some test tones present (with the rest being music) can entirely pollute the whole file, and this be an argument as to why the encoder failed and isn't mean't for OP's sort of submission to Tidal, but yet rationalize that the failure of the encoder to prevent such an issue in the audible band and music-portions of the file; as somehow a position that stands as a 'good' defense MQA itself.
