I agree, you are not arguing this well
Huh, agree with what? I think I'm arguing just fine. You're giving me the Pee Wee Herman rebuttal. "I know you are, but what am I" That's sophomoric.
I stated that my be the case that something else is at work.
Ah, the mystery meat. So it might be the case that bass and treble are boosted by 1db on all MQA tracks? It might be the case that each has added reverb? Tons of filtering? When things are proprietary and secretive, neutrality cannot be guaranteed. No thanks, I'll stick with kosher.
Agreed. Nonsense based on the amount of data not the amount of audio information thrown away. A bad statement which they should have learnt from listing to the reactions to Neil Young's attempts to pursuad people mp3 is bad. I have a feeling Neil Young got this from his meetings with Meridian before launching Pono. I suspect he was hoping Pono would include MQA but it didn't happen.
Well, I wish you could step back to see the fear mongering they have cast upon digital as a whole, not just mp3. If you asked me to pick between a analogue tape master stored in a vault for 30 years, or a digitally encoded copy sitting on a server for 30 years, I'd pick the digital copy each and every time. Unlike tape, there are no digital "preservationists", no sticky shed or soft binder syndrome, no need for temperature and humidity controlled vaults, and no generation loss from transfer. Why on earth anyone would trust an aged tape copy over a digital copy is completely beyond me. Whatever minor errors there would be in digital are nothing compared to the disastrous effect time has on tape (or most analogue formats for that matter). The vilification of digital is unfair, and is always followed up by a sales pitch.
The studio master should sound like the original performance. Of course is doesn't completely even if it is just a microphone into an ADC, as nothing is perfect. MQA thinks it has found one area they can improve if they can control part of the decoding to allow pre encoding to correct it.
Lots of empty claims that somehow MQA has revolutionized digital storage. Yet no proof, or falsifiability either. What does pre encoding even mean? When it's all said and done, the burden to provide is on MQA, they are the ones making the claims. This burden of proof thing is an aspect totally lost on MQA or its defenders. Why should I accept anything without verification? Why does MQA deserve people's money without showing it?
Your assumption. The earth turned out not to be flat after all.
I have no idea what you mean by that precisely. However, I do find irony in the comparison of yourself to the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, or Ptolemy, because the people who argued that the earth is round at least showed up with some proof. "Cause it is" never silenced the flat earthers and "cause it is" won't satisfy audio rationalists either.
Now look at the curves showing 48, 96, 192kHz on that effect. They show more of this blurring than 5m of air. If it matters, then MQA has a point. If it doesn't then it's BS. But just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.
Those curves have nothing to do with frequency rate. Nothing on that graph is labelled as such. Looks like you don't understand it either. But it's still wrong. The 5, 10, and 20, as far as I can tell are "air with distances". And right next to the those distances are plots for "MQA". So I guess MQA is a distance of air? I am 'MQA' tall. My speakers are 'MQA' apart. That senseless graph is just as befuddling to you as it is to me, and you know it.
If anyone can make rational sense out of that graph and explain it to me scientifically, I will chop off my ear Van Gogh style and send it to you as a trophy.
Sorry. People hear are so dismissive here I think it's rubbing off on me. I've got luddite juice in me.
We're not being dismissive for sport. I have spent a lot of my life devoting myself to music, and trying to understand it, and when a company like MQA comes along, I get upset because for the purpose of profiteering it is undermining music itself, and undermining years of devotion and study millions of people have poured into it. They come along, make empty claims, and then try to cajole the entire market to capture, edit, and distribute using their proprietary codec. For someone emotionally invested in this artform, it is infuriating. It's downright dastardly.