-
without any way of telling
Well, there's always ears.
I don't get why anybody is still using any kind of lossy compression, that seems like it should be a thing which died out when we all got ADSL, since you can download 16bit/44kHz linear PCM as fast as you can listen to it once your data rate goes over about 1.5Mbps
Checking that a file is as it was intended to be is just an ordinary part of information technology and doesn't need proprietary methods.
Stopping piracy is basically impossible, anything which can be rendered to the human senses can be copied.
gbj_tester-
You can't tell if you have a close representation of the master without having the master to compare to. So your ears are only part of the equation.
For example, I have a CD release of LZII which has the channels reversed, if you've never compared it to the original you wouldn't know, these sold in huge quantities. Kate Bush's first album became more and more compressed until all the tracks started to have the same dynamic range, again you wouldn't know without the original to compare to. Abbey road released a half speed remaster of OMD's first three albums which have a channel imbalance of more than a few DB but how do you confirm whether the original tapes had this too?
I'm not advocating lossy compression but I don't think MQA is either. It works as a wrapper for high bit rate music too.
Checking that a file is as it was intended to be, well, see the examples of bad mastering. Of course there's no checking going on in the file sharing world, there is no ordinary part of information technology as it refers to mastering being applied here.
Stopping piracy will only happen if individuals decide that stealing music from artists is wrong and stop doing it on an individual level. If governments or the industry were capable of convincing the public to do that they could achieve a lot more stuff besides. Piracy of music is rife because it's easy to steal music and there don't appear to be any consequences.
-
Having said all the above, it is a big deal if they are messing with the files as part of the process because it's supposed to be a guaranteed master, basically signed by the engineer who produces it.
They do however compensate for the DAC the studio use and the DAC you play it back on. This could account for the problems the guy is highlighting.
To be clear, I don't use MQA and I'm not an advocate for it.
Airhead
I might have inadvertently been too flippant due to a relaxed attitude regarding alcohol.
Selling people on MQA because they need the blue light to light up on their DAC is cynical but people are stupid enough to fall for it and I don't have time to fix that problem.
There is a problem with file sharing and possibly streaming where the tracks can be altered or degraded massively without any way of telling if you don't have the original to compare. This could be a big problem in the future. That problem already existed in mastering in any case, switched channels, channel imbalance, brick wall compression etc.