Yes, you are right about my post, specifically. The jesting about MQA is not based on scientific proofs about any weakness, but is rather about my perception of the agenda behind it, and my reaction to that, both rational and emotional. Others on this forum and elsewhere, some of whom have replied to your posts, are much more knowledgeable than I about the scientific merits and demerits of MQA in terms of audio resolution. I personally have no basis to question or critique the scientific creativity and ingenuity of the creators of MQA.
In the first place, the audible benefit of greater than 20-bit 48kHz resolution remains a contentious topic. But for argument's sake, let us grant a benefit from 96/24 or 192/24 resolution, and assume you can find a reconstruction filter setting on your DAC which would allow such high frequency content to pass through. Given the availability of such resolution in the form of FLAC files and streaming (from some services), what is the benefit of MQA, unless for some reason you are wedded to Tidal? As member mansr pointed out, if you cut out the same content from FLAC files that is cut out of MQA, the resulting file sizes or bitrates will be similar, so the argument of limited bandwidth or file system space does not favor MQA. If consumers demand equivalent resolution FLAC streaming, the industry will provide it. Also, it has been mentioned in the press that many of the high-res files available as FLAC, without DRM, at HDTracks and High-ResAudio and other sources, are actually the studio masters. So, those do not have the "filters" (whatever that may be; I am interpreting it as different mixes, and not the filters of the thread title) that you refer to in a later post.
I breathed a sigh of relief and silently cheered when the Amazon Music HD announcement of last September made no mention of MQA. Amazon's HD quality corresponds to CD quality, but their growing UHD (ultra HD) collection corresponds to high-res files, access to which is included as part of the Music HD streaming subscription. I view MQA as a bad form of DRM, disguised as a benefit of compact size high-res audio of (supposedly) studio masters, but without being actually superior to other high-res audio formats that do not carry an extraneous licensing fee.
There is always DRM in the streaming subscription world that almost everyone prefers to downloads on basis of lower costs. I respect the entertainment industry's wish to protect the content it owns. I respect the artists' right to non-piracy of content that they and the industry create and distribute, and make a living off. I have never illegally received or distributed music or movies or books. Thanks to the industry, and recording and reproduction technology, billions of people worldwide are able to enjoy much more entertainment conveniently than would otherwise be possible. In the streaming present and future, the industry is able to protect their content from piracy by most consumers using non-MQA DRM built into the software (with OS, driver and hardware support) that they use to stream the content on your phones and other devices. But with MQA, the consumer has to pay extra licensing fees for software decode and (if you buy into the value of the final hardware decode) MQA-capable hardware. As consumers, each of us has a choice, and the collective choice of the majority will determine whether MQA becomes the dominant distribution format for music or not.
The availability of high-res FLAC files unencumbered by DRM (except possibly by fingerprinting/watermarking), for purchase and download, may be a temporary phase, and will disappear if it is not profitable in a majority-streaming world. But if I do purchase such files, I feel good to know that I will always be able to find a FLAC software player that will play them back for me on practically any hardware, and in high-res on a much wider choice of sufficiently capable hardware without MQA licensing fees.
Hi-res FLAC vs MQA reminds me of CD vs SACD/DVD/Blu-Ray. In the post-optical-disk world, never having pirated any content, I am left holding a huge collection of CDs, DVDs and Blu-ray discs that I spent tens of thousands of dollars to collect over more than three decades in the case of CDs. I bought into the industry hype of Blu-ray being the best format of the future. Since CDs did not have any significant DRM, at least I can rip the CDs to FLAC, and consume them in very flexible and convenient ways (though in an era of cheap high-res streaming subscriptions, it would be insanity to put in all the time and effort to rip the music and tag with metadata). However, what can I legally do with the DRM-encumbered DVDs and Blu-rays when good quality DRM-capable hardware players are no longer manufactured? Spending like a prince on soon-to-be-worthless DRM-laden content helped turn me into the pauper I am now. This is why I am now against restrictive DRM that interferes with my abilities to flexibly enjoy what I bought, while protecting the content owner's rights. Want me to buy your high-res audio files as downloads? Sell them to me as FLAC files (possibly inaudibly watermarked to track your content), not as restrictive MQA files.
