“MQA is a philosophy”..John Stuart

" Some people have way too much spare time. " - Jond

And who would that be - the person with less than 10 posts? Or perhaps the one with 2700 or 6700?

Maybe I'm missing something and this is another example of the "new math"....

MQA and Bob Stuart, yes.
John Stuart? No. 

ptss...

what are you trying to accomplish from this thread? Your last thread on MQA pretty much sums it how you and other Naysayer thinks about MQA.

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/mqa-foolish-new-algorithm-vote

I suggest you try listening to MQA tracks and post your thoughts. 

" My thoughts, I suggest you try and spend some time listening to MQA tracks than wasting your time with these futile posters. "-  lalitk

I don't think anyone here cares about YOUR "suggestion" with regard to whether or not someone has a right to discuss  (correction) Bob's "philosophy". In fact, from a technical standpoint, Stuart's "invention" is more of a philosophy than an actual technical development that improves sound quality. If you actually care enough to enlighten yourself and closely examine the impulse response graphs posted in Stereophile, you'd see that MQA adds latency (distortion) to the signal and also adds dither (background noise) that masks legitimate ripple in the process of encoding.decoding. It is actually inferior to the original format. This also serves as positive proof that most "audiofaithful" couldn't tell the difference between a 192khz/24 bit replica vs. a 14 bit MQA rendition.  Again, no double blind testing has been done to verify any of Stuart's claims. He's just another high priest of audiophooldom preaching to the gullible and vulnerable.