Dear Dimity,
You are addressing a wide range of people technically, from those who turn their replay on and just listen, through who know something of the topic of the techniques of replay, and a few who actually understand Digital signal replay completely. You cannot possibly tell which people are those who are [in your terms] uninformed and those who probably actually really do know even more than you may.
You cannot quite get away with dismissing the opinions of those who love music and use replay in the home to access something they love, just because they are not experts on modern digital systems. If they love music and hence use quite advanced replay systems, they are entitled to a view on how MQA may iimpinge on them in future if it does not already.
For myself, I am not aware of ever having listened to replayed music at a quality standard than Redbook [CD], and I can say that it is good enough. In some ways it improves on VHF/FM radio, even optimal compared to optimal. I have zero interest in ever getting a better medium for recordings in a library at home than Redbook. It is more than good enough for my use.
Where I come unstuck with MQA, is that Bob Stuart wants to insert this unproven [scientifically] and certainly noise additive system into the recording chain so that I may not be able to avoid an un-necessary complication that [in your own words, and in own stated preference] is only better to you some of the time.
Technically we face a problem. The frequency range of most commonly used microphones does not exceed that frequency range possible from Redbook. Same with the other end, the domestic loudspeaker. However Hi-res digital recording can capture inaudible sounds that are higher up the sound spectrum.
This may seem admirable if they were caught by the microphone or repayable on most home replay systems even if most human adults cannot actually not hear it. But the problem is that out of audible band sonics [even though they a systematic noise rather than musical information caught by the microphone] can modulate the audible spectrum. Much better to cut out the super-aural systemic noise and reproduce the audible frequencies with the least additional noise and distortion possible.
This makes a fine argument against the recording machines from collecting information [noise/distortion] that the microphone cannot collect in the first place.
So why am I not entirely neutral about MQA? [And I know you realise that I am not].
So simple. It brings in non-musical distortions and noise from outside of the audible band, manipulates them and claims to have improve the end result. But the end result is accounting for what is discounted at the very stage of the microphone!
That is fine, but it does stick in my craw is that I may have to buy additional decoding hardware to avoid the effects of undecoded MQA ... this is real enough. I could be totally selfish and say that the mainstream classical record labels have not adopted MQA [yet], but other labels dedicated to other genres have. If the sole offering of these labels and streaming services take on the music that I am interested in I would consider that out of band distortions mixed into audible band replay [because I have no intention of buying into MQA decoding] is a move backwards in replay. For those whose interest is in areas where MQA has already raised it ugly head, I can only express my sympathy and solidarity in their fight for the highest stands to be maintained.
If MQA makes a sonic that in some circumstances some people may prefer, then simply add it to suitable DACs as a filter called MQA enhanced sound.
But I will not refrain from pointing out that MQA is like LP, in that is is always different from the master. Pure lossless digital is bit perfectly a presentation of the master as approved for publication.
I love an honest to goodness fried egg on toast. I prefer to leave the ketchup off it, even if some people prefer it with ketchup. Now where is the parallel in this. MQA as streamed or released [as is the plan] on LP or CD would mean that I cannot do without a condiment that at best is only preferable to some people sometime.
No the answer lies in a filter for MQA enhanced sound at the user end. Jus like tone controls that were normal only twenty years ago.
That is all MQA can be at best. A tone control ...
Best wishes from George
