We had exactly the same "analysis" when people complained about harsh digital sound at the birth of CDs. We were told that we couldn't hear that because CDs were "perfect" and brickwall filters were "inaudible". Then when HDCD came out, we were told we couldn't hear the difference because "double blind" tests proved it was inaudible. We were told that what we liked about tube amplifiers is the added distortion. SACD was meaningless, because CD was already perfect.
Now you are telling me that I couldn't really objectively prefer MQA, because you see, in your half-baked opinion of a proprietary system of which you know next to nothing about ("bandwidth limited filters don't ring" - that one needs to be saved for posterity) you declared it a "scam", because it doesn't meet your august judgment of scientific fidelity.
The "analysis" of MQA on this forum is near-worthless, with obvious errors and conjecture by your side. Even the "big paper" that is cited had clear errors in it that I pointed out, which is why it is published on a website of "ambiphonics" vendor and not in IEEE.
When you say "MQA adds aliasing into source material", it is by definition conjecture, because the system is proprietary and you have no access to encoded/decoded test data and you have no design information on their splitter/joiner filter banks. When you say, their patent says "X", so it must be in the implementation, that is conjecture, since anyone who worked with a patent attorney knows that you patent everything you can and you don't implement everything.
What you are clearly trying to do is to kill a technology you don't like, purely based on your personal hatred of it. That's fine, but just be honest about it.
