MQA is a proprietary quasi-solution to a conjured up problem. Thus far there is no compelling evidence it is beneficial, yet there is some evidence that with certain demos MQA has "sweetened" the mix to create a false difference.
As rcohen has said, from what I have read MQA is just a lossy metadata compression scheme. All the "special-sauce" filters is the "scientific" smokescreen to convince folks that there is something new and compelling being brought to the table.
At this point in the Hi-Fi audio world the only thing will actually improve sound quality would be establishing sensible audio mixing and engineering standards.
And let me guess, the basis of your belief is the articles put out by meridian competitors such as Linn or Benchmark or Schiit?
Since they aren't biased at all.
If you are going to argue with science, then you should try and use science to do so. Did you read the article I posted?
It is somewhat ironic you mention mastering standards since that is the other half of getting full MQA quality.
The closest equivalent technology to what MQA is trying to do is actually Dolby Vision.
For example the claims about DRM are totally bogus. MQA is designed to fall back to its parent container, and MQA encoding can improve audio even if it is never unpacked. But the only part of the data with DRM is the dedicated MQA bits for time correction, which aren't particularly useful without a MQA processor.
They encoded this part to avoid having people reverse engineer their metadata and try and find their own way of using it, which seems fair to me. They are NOT doing anything that would prevent playback or copying of files. That is just fear mongering bs.
I can understand skepticism, but you aren't even considering that it COULD be better. You are just assuming they are lying.