FWIW I also have my doubts about the MQA 'doctrine' which takes it as
'axiomatic' that human hearing "beats Fourier" and that very high "time
resolution" is required. So I'm looking into this at present and may add
another page to deal with it.

Great! Seems most of the audio press has swallowed the MQA doctrine
hook, line and sinker...

My personal suspicion is that the main reason companies may adopt MQA is
because they think it might given them a new IPR control mechanism and
platform. Adnd let them re-sell the same old content to us all, yet again.
Money for old rope. For them, 'sound quality' may be the bait they can use
to hook users.

I agree.

But my basic view is that no-one actually needs MQA if they simply want
lower stream rates and smaller files for 'high resolution' audio. There are
alternatives. Bitfreezing is one. Based simply on realising that a lot of
the 'content' of high rate files may simply be over-specified noise bits!
These pad the files/streams to no useful audible purpose.

+1. Too bad nobody has the guts to actually state that in the
mainstream audio press.