Isn't a bit of a contradiction to ask what temporal deblurring achieves, but at the same time, be so upset with MQA because a bit-perfect match was not found in these test? What would happen if somebody demonstrates there are audible effects in that deblurring? Still the tests would be prominent in your judgment?
In turn you, but ideally GoldenEar may answer:
- Is it right to ask for a bit-perfect match to a system that by design replaces floor noise with information? If not, wouldn't that be enough to invalidate the whole test that pretends to qualify the system by this criteria? And please don't argue that this is hidden information, because this is explained in every single article about MQA, the issue is so well known that even without reading any article of them you would know it in advance. If there is one thing for sure about MQA, is that. Or do you believe the folding process just makes bit space for the folds to appear out of nowhere?
- If the MQA patent refers to previous art, patents of their team specifically dealing with noise shaping, a research done by this team literally for decades, why do you think those references are for, when those patents and research deal exactly with the way to make use of that otherwise useless and inaudible noise space? Then, even knowing that, why do you still will keep measuring as if that useless original noise is to be kept intact? And to add insult to the subject, then make a scandal because the bitmap doesn't look the same, which is this way by definition?
- If it is accepted, as it is implicit in the question of RichB, that MQA tries to correct time domain issues (leaving aside for now your doubt about how useful or not it is; if someone doesn't bother to read the articles explaining that, he is in his right to keep in doubt and ask, but not condemn until acquiring that knowledge); therefore with the implicit consequence that the source file will be modified... Is it right to ask again for a bit-perfect match which is precisely what the system is trying NOT to achieve?
- If the system is looking for a noise floor to process it, as every recording has by definition as analyzed in unbelievable extents by MQA, and you provide a signal without it because you didn't add a dithered noise to the file... are you expecting that system to behave the same way, as you seems to be so alarmed that the ground noise is showing anomalies, aliasing, and the flaws that are precisely the things this design is tying to fix?
- If documents of MQA go in great extents about the dynamic envelope of music, pages and pages about it, dozens of graphs with luxury of details, and btw a fact backed up by the very physics of music, why do you think they go into those extents? If you conclude in fact that they are trying to make use of that analysis instead of just wasting ink, what else instead of discarding those higher amplitudes without music could this discussion be aimed for?
If the unavoidable conclusion is that, in fact, those upper band and ultrasonic high amplitudes will be discarded in MQA, why are you measuring content that you know in advance that the system is not designed to deal with? Are in you opinion those ultrasonic high amplitudes of square waves or white noise useful for the music the system is trying to faithfully with?; if the documentation informs you advance this analysis of music content is because their intention is to recover that space for other uses (filters are specifically mentioned)?, Then, is it appropriate to conclude the system if behaving badly to those tests you were previously informed that they wouldn't considered in the system? I know... because they used the forbidden word: they say they are "lossless", and that is egregious to you if they can't fully reconstruct a square wave.... But the point here is they say they are lossless to the music content in the master they are using as input, not against middle steps in the process or any possible content regardless if it is music or not, which is what you are measuring here.
- In sum, did you read any paper or article about MQA design principles before doing those tests? This is a tough question: If you say yes, then why you prepared a test that purposely contradicts those documents? Is you say no, well...no further comments other than the mention of amateurism is precisely because of this.
We all may disagree with those MQA axioms, we may even find it is all vaporware, and those axioms would be a useful thing to discuss here. But what's wrong is to justify this credo with a test that is deeply, fundamentally bad designed.
I was eager to read GoldenEar answer to these issues, sadly he didn't.
To be fair, I think he has a point about how closed the details of MQA are and unhelpful MQA could be about testing its system. I do agree with him in that. But that doesn't justify to make a faulty test (in fact, exactly the opposite: if you don't exactly understand what the system is doing, the responsible thing to do is to inform yourself first; and please don't argue that they are hiding this: I am much less knowledgeable that you and yet, I am aware of the things I'm saying, just reading the information that is available in the internet).
Either way, a wrong test, driven by naive enthusiasm could be a mistake. What is not a mistake is to drive the kind of conclusions GoldenEar did about those tests, because he knew in advance the kind of results he would get feeding the test with out-of-context data. It is at least irresponsible. And it is more serious, as the kind of accusations in the conclusions of the video are just insulting. You may not agree with the business model of MQA, but using a purposely wrong test to demonstrate ... what? and then tell the world that MQA people are a bunch of con-artists is completely disgusting, in my opinion.
That's why GoldenEar there are some here upset with this. You are purposely leaving a stain in what I believe, and my ears tell me, is a system that performs admirably playing music (If the criteria is how it sounds, installing a MQA DAC is among the best upgrades I have ever made to my equipment, for a fraction of other costs) Which in the end, I thought it was the purpose of this, after all. The reason why we all read this site.