I. Preamble:As expected, MQA articles are popping up at the usual audiophile sites. So far, what has been disseminated to the public about the technology remains rather nebulous beyond the basic core ideas. Probably the best technical descriptions come from John Atkinson's article back in Dec 2014. It focuses on the "encapsulation" process of reconstructing high-frequency content. Then there's the Robert Harley articles from May/June 2015 where there seems to be more attention paid to supposedly important time-domain factors and MQA's role (alas, the PDF link I referenced in this post got taken down!).
Since CES2016, I see that articles continue to focus on subjective experience, and there's a chorus of testimony about the greatness of MQA (see here, here, here...). Notice the vacuousness of interviews like this. Testimony is fine and is what it is. I'm sure the MQA folks are smart... And I'm sure Mr. Stuart is a great guy... Yes, clearly Mr. McGrath can show off some well recorded material... But it was perhaps surprising how there remains so little spoken further about what the algorithm is doing or even better yet, providing technical clarification on simple questions. In sum, there's little to suggest that the science makes sense in the way it's supposed to make the music sound "much" better despite vague claims like how research in neuroscience is supposed to support the benefits of this technology (Meridian/MQA, care to reveal which neuroscience papers you're talking about?!).
I posted 7 questions on the comments section to this Stereophile article before CES; for completeness, here they are: