From Hydrogen Audio Terms of Service:
QUOTE
8. Statements on technical or quality oriented matters are expected to be supported by the author responsible for such statements.
[*]This is quite simple. If you, as a user, make a claim about the quality or general ability of an encoder/decoder/etc to perform in a given situation (for example) which happens to be contrary to pre-existing data, but then do not supply supportive information when discussion follows, you are likely to be receive harsh responses to your posts. The HydrogenAudio staff will not take action against any users which may post these responses.
[*]Explanation:
By not abiding by this rule, you are wasting not only your time, but the time of everyone else participating in the forums here. This is especially true for the authors of such encoders who are then forced to wade through possibly false claims before they can actually work on addressing a valid issue. In the case of noting a quality problem with a given encoder, the proper course of action would be to provide either a test sample, ABX testing results, or ideally both. Please be aware of this matter, the HydrogenAudio community does not take it lightly.
When you claim that MAD sounds "gOOd", please provide ABX results proving that you can actually hear difference between standard mp3 decoder and MAD; otherwise this thread will be closed. Since you don't seem to contribute anything useful to the community and only keep starting useless threads like this one, you will end getting banned if you don't start to learn.