I have no dog in this fight (other than i hope MQA fails miserably) but I see Mr JA wrote some articles on MQA ................ 3+years ago ...... that were (in my interpretation) "somewhat" balanced. Not against, but instead "for" MQA with some concern/reservation (again my interpretation). The basis for being in the "for it" camp were MQA's supposed benefits (lossless, smaller files, etc). But, here we are 3 years later and no change or update to that original position since? This is concerning because the prior position was based upon being, at least partially, factually wrong. Why is that? It makes one wonder. Without clarity and openness, we are left to making our own conclusions which is not positive since you are clearly aware of the new information contradicts your prior article and MQA benefits. To some, this is unfortunate as it points to ones character and why you are likely getting less than favorable responses. It appears as if JA fell for the lies (sorry, non-truths for the PC crowd) and the MQA story instead of actually doing the necessary work by testing to determine the real story. Where are the updates, any testing since 2018? This seems to be regularly done by Stereophile for other things when incorrect information is provided or new information becomes known. But not for MQA, Why? I don't know the answer but it should not be surprising to anyone when responses from forum members point to less favorable personally bad moral or ethical reasons (money and advertising revenue come to mind first). It doesn't mean its right, it just should not surprise anyone. Those responses by members are likely wrong (or at least I hope so) but Mr JA should not be surprised that they come up as he has left the door open for everyone's interpretation as to why. To correct this it would be as simple as updating your article with the new info (even if that means your position has not changed from 2018). Just be warned that an updated position is still based upon non-facts (like your prior articles from 2018) then don't complain when you are barraged with less than favorable responses in an online forum.
BTW - Putting up your credentials does nothing to get you respect and instead makes it seem like you are hiding behind them to avoid something. Is that being avoided because it would require an admission of being wrong or as a minimum being embarrassed for not doing the necessary work (testing) to support that prior position and instead, basing it on a story provided by the MQA consortium? You should know, respect is earned, not just given due to a list of credentials.
I did not read every article Mr JA has written on MQA, only those that came up in the link he provided. That link apparently brings up an historical search for MQA articles from Stereophile mag. If I missed anything, I apologize (and admit my error) but can only point to the provided link (or site search engine) being incomplete.