1. The video discusses authentication, so are we supposed to listen to MQA tracks with the assurance that ALL tracks have been approved by the artist?
2. Authentication is not related to the lossless vs lossy. In fact the most revealing part of the video was the japanese engineer. If you notice he was the most specific and referred to MQA as being the best BALANCE for streaming. I thought MQA was supposed to be lossless? If they are openly marketing as a lossy advanced compression format I have no problem but that does not seem to be the case.
3. Blind testing or non-blind testing is irrelevant to how MQA processes the music. I can process an audio file all by myself with my own dithering and you might like it better than the original but doesn't mean it's 'master quality'.
In fact the more I research MQA the more confused I am as to what they are doing.
(1) "Authentication" is a marketing term, meant to sell MQA. It means whatever MQA wants it to mean.
(2) MQA is lossy and proprietary. It will inhibit development of digital signal processing (because it won't output a fully decoded digital signal) (bye-bye, MiniDSP), and it may very well inhibit development of better DACs. The savings in bandwidth for Tidal, etc., would better be addressed by fixing US Internet speeds to be as fast as South Korea, Sweden, Norway, or Japan.
(3) I agree completely.
and . . . you are not meant to know what they are doing. If MQA wanted you to know exactly, they'd put their process into the public domain, instead of turning it into a licensing and copy-protection scheme.