MQA•Foolish New Algorithm? Vote!

To whatever degree MQA  does good things to the sound for some, it is unquestionably trying to take over the entire, digital audio ecosystem (& may succeed).  John Iverson & Atkinson both warn in their full page As We See It columns in the last 2 Stereophile issues that could both easily modify all recordings in ways, not of our choosing as well as prevent and/or corrupt all future digital formats & improvements. This kind of "format monopoly" Iverson refers to in the current 2018 April issue on the first page will in no way, shape or form drive quality improvements either within MQA & certainly W/O.

The engine that drives capitalism is removing any and all obstacles to generating ever more capital. To what degree will a monopoly allow quality for its own sake to emerge as any kind of priority? Think about it.  Before you don the shining, seductive (at this moment in time only) restraints MQA appears to be. Cries of, "Who knew?" will then be factually answered with, "You knew."  Think about it.  Now & not in the future - after the fact.

Jon Iverson's even stronger condemnation in the new Stereophile won't be officially online likely for another month or so (other than to digital subscribers) >

https://www.stereophile.com/content/more-mqa

I find Brian Lucy’s comment very readable and valuable. He operates Magic Garden Mastering. As a professional his livelihood depends on attention to detail. His comment that the MQA file is not equal to the original is undeniable : reversing the phase of the original and comparing with the MQA version should provide a null and he states it doesn’t. For the MQA version to be truncated(shortened) by 8 bits - and still have the light come on confirming you are listening to an MQA certified file is simply a scam. Having pros weigh in on this is very welcome. 

I've listened to MQA files and like what I hear. To me, it is instantly distinct that there is information  there which does not exist in a non MQA file. I also think that some master files weren't recorded with as much care so those do not benefit from the MQA process.
As for the bandwidth issue, I listened to the same file directly off of a CD (44/16k) and 24/96k files and definitely heard the MQA file sounding much more pleasing.
So, to my ears, I vote YES.. 

Jon Iverson’s even stronger condemnation in the new Stereophile won’t be officially online likely for another month or so (other than to digital subscribers)

I have read Iverson’s latest editorial and it comes across as the strongest condemnation yet of MQA by Stereophile or by anyone in the audio press for that matter.

This appears to run counter to the fawning over MQA at Stereophile’s sister online publication Audiostream.

Be that as it may, as has been oft repeated, no criticism of MQA will have any bearing on anyone’s prerogative to enjoy listening to it.

People will continue to enjoy whatever they enjoy. And this last may just carve the path to MQA’s total and complete success in its own right, to the exclusion of all other considerations - ?technical, ?drm, ?monopoly, etc, etc.

Are we not afraid yet?

Or, why be afraid at all when it is so enjoyable?

Enjoy the Music! :)