""In brief, MQA is a philosophy more than it is ‘just a codec’." Really? Really? What?!?!?"
You may not like or agree with the statement but stating MQA's philosophy regarding the technology is quite a reasonable thing to do in the context of responding to a very large number of questions.
"We are very serious about the problem that, in the internet era, the average level of sound quality has declined for most music fans." Again really? So smartphones do not sound better than cassette Walkmans?"
The highly compressed MP3 sound quality being listened to by the average user is probably on a par with audio cassettes. Those that use HD quality files on their smartphones are unquestionably in a minority and certainly not to be confused with the majority
""The fact that the decline of physical media has effectively disconnected several generations from simple discovery and playback has accelerated the process." Ever heard of Spotify or Apple Music or Pandora?""
There is a whole generation out there who only listen to music via Spotify etc. and have never listened on anything remotely akin to a quality playback system
""Q9. Regarding my disappointment from hi res audio (with some exceptions of course) as a holy grail digital format I believe that MQA is the last format standing between Real evolution in digital audio and Redbook-mp3 total domination in the long term.
A9. We are inclined to agree. It’s an important problem we are solving and requires insight, perspective and determination. We are up for the chance to make recorded music more enjoyable and more available. We have been very pleased by the number and quality of very positive comments and support. The key difference is we are taking the solution inside the music industry. This inclusive approach makes it slower to get going, but we hope more effective in the end."
If the above question and answer aren't the very definition of self serving then i don't know what is."
To comment positively about MQA in relation to the question posed I believe is perfectly reasonable response. Labelling the response as self serving seems just a tad bias
""temporal blur" this is a video, not an audio, term."
temporal blur is simply a statement that means degradation of a signal over time and is most certainly not a video term. The term can be used in the context of any data transference.
"The remaining 80 or so Q&As do very little as far as presenting any additional useful information but he does answer lots of pretty much pointless questions, though this is not his fault."
The rest of the question addressed are not pointless. The fact that some have conducted "tests" to disprove MQA and he has systematically pulled their analysis to pieces is very much to the point. I note you have not refuted a single technical point expressed in any of the responses to the questions, (as some questions were clearly quite hostile, his responses are all the more note worthy).
"And in light of the current market forces facing record companies I highly doubt there exists the will to spend time to properly remaster anything short of the Beatles. But that is a different issue than the technological aspects of MQA, which only careful listening will either confirm or deny."
You are absolutely on the ball with the last comment and only time will tell
"Perhaps a better question for the audiophile would be why is MQA even being discussed when it is very clearly works as PCM and is not DSD? (Please note: that is very much meant to be sarcastic.)
[/quote]"
I simply ignored the sarcasm