This particular internet person, Archimago, seems particularly obsessed with MQA and I can't say there isn't bias in what I've read but I don't know if he started out that way. The intent seems to be an objective look at it.Spoiling the results? I am always wary of these type of internet tests because I'm guessing those who do it are already biased towards the author's conclusions. Not an example of a well controlled test protocol. So I take them as a sort of data point, just as I do with subjective evaluations.
That's not to say I don't appreciate his work. I do, and I appreciate what he adds to our hobby.
When the alternative is stuff like this from Robert Harley: "Then, seconds into the MQA version, my jaw dropped—literally. MQA’s dramatic superiority made the original high-resolution file sound like a pale imitation of the performance"...
...what choice are we left with? If every time Robert Harley's jaw dropped from a difference there was an actual jaw-dropping difference, we wouldn't be able to put a 1960s tube amp in place of a 2021 amp and even be able to even recognize what comes out as music.