So I admit I don't know much about the whole MQA situation, which is why I sort of went in with fresh eyes here as an outsider and transcribed those conversations from earlier, to get a more clear outlook of what it is MQA is actually claiming and what value they are providing, if any.
To my understanding, MQA is claiming that their transformation is "better than lossless," arguing that the data contained in lossless is wasteful to begin with, and that the data gets tarnished anyway from time-based "blurring" errors as a result of the analog-to-digital-back-to-analog conversions throughout the whole chain between what you hear in the studio and what you hear on your end as a consumer. And this de-blurring process is done on "the music" (as opposed to the noise), which is identified statistically from what they define as "natural" sounds.
The end result is a smaller filesize containing "relevant" data that has this "de-blurring correction," and presumably sounds much more "natural" with the intent being that you get "what was heard in the studio." This is why MQA tries to insert itself at every step of the chain here, to have that control over how the content is transformed and delivered, with the little light at the very end telling you that the whole process worked and you're hearing "what the artist intended."
So my concerns would be as follows:
1. MQA is not lossless, but they seemingly try to use the term anyway to mislead people into thinking that it's one of their advantages, using careful wording to give themselves plausible deniability if questioned.
There is of course the "music origami" video I posted earlier:
Sure seems to imply that they are doing a lossless encoding here by "restoring the original sound" and "unwrapping this perfectly" and "a completely reversibly, lossless process," etc.
An initial reading makes it sound like "you get the lossless file, which is what the rights owner intended," but technically it's saying that MQA gets it, which says nothing about what they do with the file after the fact.
This one is mad shady to me. Again, an initial reading makes it seem like they're claiming MQA is lossless because it "retains all the detail of the studio recording," which is not technically the same thing as "retaining 100% of the data" if they're implicitly assuming that "detail" is not the same as "data." And "MQA retains 100% of the original recording" implies a different context than "an MP3 keeps just 10% of the data" and yet they're put in contrast within the same sentence despite being an apples-and-oranges thing. They're saying they retain the original recording, and by-the-way MP3 only retains 10% of the data. But again, it's worded carefully to give the impression that they're giving you lossless, making you think they are giving you 100% of the data without specifically saying it.
More careful wording, saying they never technically made any
false claims about losslessness (but this is different than making technically-true-but-misleading claims). That said, even on their previous FAQ page, they had "Yes, MQA is lossless," so I'd argue that they technically have made false claims in the past (which would explain the recent edits to "better than lossless"). On that page they try to justify what they mean by this:
Just because I put on a batsuit doesn't make me Batman. Putting lossy data inside a FLAC container and then calling it lossless is really misleading to me.
FLAC is the name of a lossless compression codec, and FLAC also happens to be the name of the container. I mean, it's literally in the name: FLAC = "Free Lossless Audio Codec." Just because you store data in a FLAC container doesn't mean you get to call your data "lossless" compared to the original.
"Delivered losslessly" to me sounds like they're just trying to rely on the ambiguity of "delivery" in context. Are they talking about internet protocols and file transfer integrity? Because that's a different claim entirely than whether the content itself is lossless. Technically this sentence is saying "the file is delivered to you in a format that has been approved." That's it. It's not technically saying the file itself is lossless - but it sure tries to come off that way, in my opinion.
-----------------------------------
Anyway, all of these statements are enough to make me distrust MQA from the getgo. To my eye, they are frequently going out of their way to make carefully-worded, misleading statements to make you think they're saying one thing when ah-ah-ah-they're-not-saying-that. In the interview I partially transcribed earlier, Bob Stuart expresses some dismay at how people are confused about MQA and what it does, but I am not at all surprised when they seem to be causing this confusion intentionally.
2. What's up with ringing / blurring exactly?
If I am understanding them correctly, MQA says that due to the whole analog-to-digital-then-back-to-analog conversions throughout the chain, certain "ringing" and "blurring" effects get introduced. I have never heard of this being some kind of issue that everyone has been scratching their heads over for decades.
The technical guys will be able to say more on this of course since I know nothing about it, but I'd want to see exactly how big of a problem this is to begin with, and be able to transparently compare files / listening experiences in order to see what value MQA's transformations are providing.
I would have assumed that this "issue" (if it exists in any meaningful way) is handled in any quality DAC that tries to faithfully recreate the original analog sound from the digital samples, and I do know that there exists the whole Shannon-Nyquist theorem and all, so I was under the impression that this was a done deal already. I don't claim to know what I'm talking about here, but I think one of the points GoldenSound was making was that MQA makes it difficult to make such a comparison.
From what I can tell, all in all,
MQA is offering a lossy compression with their own transformations applied to the sound, getting the rights owner to approve it, and then delivering this content as the "master" under the assumption that "this is was was heard in the studio according to the artist."
But this is not the same as "you're getting the original" or "you're getting the lossless file."
For example, Neil Young pulled out of Tidal, saying as much:
https://neilyoungarchives.com/news/1/article?id=Tidal-Misleading-Listeners
3. "If you don't like it, don't pay for it."
That's all fine and well for the individual, but I guess my concern would be more systemic, if enough demand is drummed up over misleading claims and questionable benefits that allow MQA to gain a large amount of penetration and market control, leading to equipment costs going up or even just perpetuating more possible snake oil in an industry that already has plenty of it. In general I am already distrustful of MQA simply due to the way they throw around the word "lossless."
Anyways, would appreciate any responses to these specific points, any clarifications to errors you think I am making here, any elaborations on MQA claims, all that jazz. I'm just an outsider here offering my initial impressions after looking at some MQA content. I did have a subscription to Tidal for a while, but don't any longer because I wasn't a fan of the UI, couldn't find most of the stuff I was looking for, and didn't find there to be any significant benefit to MQA over other formats anyway.
Thanks.