Talk:Master Quality Authenticated/Archive 1

Untitled
It should be noted that MQA Ltd is a client of mine. If it is felt that this disqualifies me from contributing to the article, please indicate. I have attempted to be rigorous in the provision of third-party references to content that I have added, and I have reviewed the guidelines in this area. However, I completely appreciate that it may be regarded as inappropriate for me to make further contributions. Please advise. Richard E (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I am no longer associated with this company and they ceased being a client in 2016. Richard E (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"Whether it's lossless or 'only keeps timing information to remove ringing and echo' remains to be seen."

While a factual statement, this has a somewhat skeptical editorial tone. Perhaps re-wording it to, "...has not yet been proven" would fit the encyclopedic intent of Wikipedia.

2001:558:6016:39:70C9:DEF5:918F:562E (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the above statement would need a good deal of additional explanatory material and references to justify its inclusion. Currently it appears purely speculative, and whether or not it is factual would be subject to debate. Richard E (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed references to DRM (Digital Rights Management). There are numerous instances of the MQA originators specifically stating that there is no DRM or watermarking element to MQA (such has here: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/694-comprehensive-q-mqa-s-bob-stuart/ ) and I would suggest there should be evidence to substantiate a suggestion that these statements are incorrect. Indeed, one could argue that as MQA-encoded files can be played on non-MQA-equipped playback systems, by definition DRM is not present in any normal sense of the expression. Richard E (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

About that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGJ5eW-gBxA from 2017-12-30 claims it uses DRM abou copying of content. To cite: [...] how the company so far successfully controlled the narrative by narrowing the understanding of DRM to copying. 178.4.255.35 (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

There are several issues with the page as it stands, mainly to do with lack of references and citations and the inclusion of a number of speculative assertions that require either references to back them up or deletion (for example the above - I cannot locate a reference to this anywhere). This may take a while. Comments welcome: if you think I have removed what I have regarded as speculative content in error, by all means revert it, but I would suggest that a reference should be provided on reinstatement in such cases. Richard E (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I've uploaded an MQA logo - File:MQA_logo_stacked_black200.png - but there may not be a justification for including it here - instead it should go in an article on the company MQA Ltd (currently does not exist). Richard E (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Looking at precedents, such as Dolby Atmos, I've added the logo back. Richard E (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your fair use rationale is for this page, that's perfectly fine from my PoV. What's not okay is the suggested work flow in the template, 20 months later nobody bothered to add |image has rationale=yes . Anybody (excl. uploader) should be able to confirm this, spam fighters (a.k.a. "admins" or "patrollers") obviously have more interesting things to do. –84.46.52.53 (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * (For context purposes only) the statement above, "Whether it's lossless or 'only keeps timing information to remove ringing and echo' remains to be seen.", refers to the Revision as of 20:35, 23 April 2016. Jimw338 (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This page falls short of several wikipedia guidelines: objectivity and reliable sources to name but two. I have worked for the company for a number of years and am well placed to improve the information. I shall be making edits, as well as suggesting improvements on the talk page, and fully understand that as a connected contributor I will be subject to the highest scrutiny levels! MusicTechLondon (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Improving factual accuracy
''As flagged on the Talk tab (30 May), I work for MQA Ltd and would like to improve this page. As an employee I fully understand that any major edits need to be reviewed and also should ideally be made by an independent editor. I would like to start by amending the introduction which is factually incorrect and currently links to an unreliable source. This is my suggested update:''

Master Quality Authenticated (MQA) is more than an audio codec. MQA is a system which combines new findings in human neuroscience with advances in digital audio techniques, to more efficiently distribute high fidelity audio. The technology, which includes digital authentication to verify provenance, can be applied to music streaming, file download and compact disc. Launched in 2014 by Meridian Audio, it is now owned and licensed by MQA Ltd, which was founded by Bob Stuart, co-founder of Meridian Audio.

''The above improves the initial explanation of MQA by adding additional descriptions with links to reliable 3rd party sources. By inserting "more than" it provides a better explanation of MQA (the magazine article referenced - The Absolute Sound - expands further on this). The addition of CD updates the article and is linked to a magazine review. Accuracy is improved through the removal of "using lossy compression" which links to an unreliable blog source; as well as the removal of "fingerprinting" which is likewise incorrect. Apologies if any of the above is not coded properly - I am learning!'' MusicTechLondon (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The proposed change reads like advertising copy, so is not appropriate. Removing 'lossy' is not appropriate since it this word informs the reader which of the two branches of data compression the subject falls into.  Agreed, the Benchmark reference is not the best (as Benchmark might have competing technologies); however, other refs such as Darko and Jim Austin state that MQA is lossy.  The most scholarly article that I can find on the subject is Jim Lesurf’s, where he is clearly describing a lossy process.  The tech. press is in general not scholarly, so whilst it may be appropriate to note what they report, it may not be appropriate to present it as fact.—Aquegg (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

1) Nothing he suggested in the above edit is not verifable 2) He finally raised the psychoacoustic elements of the MQA design which are missing from the page 3) If he removed lossy - it would be easy to add it back in with numerious sources verifiing it is a lossy compression format.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.86.45 (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Think its highly damming of this articles accuracy that you didn't let an MQA engineer provide further information to the page.

The above comment is from me, I forgot to log in Quickstick4 (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy
Added by: Quickstick4 (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC) I have added the tag on factual accuracy on two points (as well as the fact you can see from this talk page numerious users are concerned with the articles accuracy).

1)	Several statements on how MQA works are not verified/no citation supplied. Examples: Other than the sampling and convolution methods, which were not explained by MQA in detail, the encoding process is similar to that used in XRCD and HDCD. However, unlike other lossy compression formats like MP3 and WMA, the lossy encoding method of MQA is similar to aptX, LDAC and WavPack Hybrid Lossy, which uses time-domain ADPCM and bitrate reduction instead of perceptual encoding based on psychoacoustic models.

2)	The criticism against MQA in this article mainly stems from un-authoritative sources. I.e. they are opinion on forums or from people being critical of the business practise of MQA. Most are listed clearly as such, however after seeing a YouTube video cited as a source with no clarifier that it was only opinion – I am scrubbing through all sources in the Criticism section. This may take some time to properly read and evaluate. Therefore this section won’t be changed until I have properly reviewed all sources. This article is missing key information

-It provides no explanation as to why MQA was developed.

-the psychoacoustic elements of the MQA design which were the driving force behind a lot of its design

-There is s no link to Bob Stuarts bio – so for a reader it may appear he is ‘Just some guy’ vs a pioneer and Subject matter expert on Digital audio.

His mini-Bio below : Bob studied electronic engineering and acoustics at the University of Birmingham and operations research at Imperial College, London. In 1972 while working at Cambridgeshire start-up Lecson Audio, Bob met industrial designer Allen Boothroyd. The duo’s debut design, the Lecson AC1/AP1, won the Design Council Award – the first of a record three Design Council Awards for Bob and Allen, and marked the start of a 40-year partnership. In 1977 Bob co-founded Meridian Audio and served as CTO until early 2015. In 2014 he founded MQA Ltd where he is currently Chairman and CTO. While at Meridian Audio, Bob pushed the boundaries of high-performance analogue and digital audio and video technologies. His deep interest in human auditory science drove a lifelong passion to improve the way we hear recorded music. In the 1990s Bob led the team that pioneered lossless compression for audio and introduced it to the industry. In 2000, Meridian’s MLP lossless encoding was adopted as the standard for DVD-Audio and subsequently in 2005 for Blu-ray, when it was acquired by Dolby Laboratories. Innovations in product design included the world’s first consumer digital and DSP loudspeakers and audiophile CD players. Bob and Meridian Audio were also behind the sound systems for the McLaren P1 supercar, for many models of Jaguar Land Rover as well as a sector-defining collaboration with Ferrari, the F80 all-in-one digital audio system. Bob is a lifelong student, researcher and teacher and has published several important papers on audio engineering. He is a Fellow of the Audio Engineering Society and has served on technical committees in the USA, Japan and UK. The Prince Philip Medal is the latest award to recognise Bob’s remarkable, and continuing, contributions to the world of audio engineering.

Legitimate Sources
Wikipedia is very clear on what a Legitimate Source is. []

''"Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, video and image hosting services, most wikis, and other collaboratively created websites." ''

The Criticism section will be updated in line with this by delineating 'User criticism' and professional criticism. 1)	The forum in which the creator of MQA posted/discussed MQA is a legitimate source for this reason, despite being a forum. 2)	YouTube videos are not. --Quickstick4 (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, if an appropriate source would post a video on YouTube, it could be used as a reference. [] YouTube is only a platform, not an originator. The YouTube video can certainly be used as a primary source, and other secondary source (if it exists) can be found that analyses the evidence from YouTube. --109.95.144.195 (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

That page does not make the Video a reliable source. That page still states the video must meet the criteria for a reliable source. The YouTube video does not pass the test due to the fact it is: 1) user generated content/self published content. If he was a professional journalist who did youtube videos on the side, it may be different. 2) Video has no editorial oversight. 3) It relies upon personal opinions (hence I argued if the video is included, the videos criticism from Professional audio journalists should be included). However, it appears you do not think those sources are a response to GoldenSounds video (despite the video by Hans YouTube video being titled: "My response to the Golden Sound MQA test", he may not go into individual claims, but it is a response stating he doesn't agree), so the compromise is to remove the GoldenSounds YouTube video entirely to ensure this article remains in line with Wikipedia policy. Quickstick4 (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Doxing of GoldenSound
A recent edit replaced Goldensound with a real name. I believe this is in violation of WP:DOX

No source was given so the replacement is also not credible. It is clear from reviewing the youtube videos, Discord forum etc that GoldenSound does not reveal his face or name to the public.

There are clear motives for retaliation against GoldenSound, including doxing after he raised concerns about shortcomings in MQA technology and deception by the company.


 * On Goldensounds YouTube about page, the following is written: Reviews of audio gear, and explanations of audio-related topics and mechanics.

This channel and all content is produced and owned by GoldenSound LTD" In the UK, all company directors are a matter of public record. See https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13416588/officers


 * At 29 mins in the Youtube video in question, goldensound displays the response to him on screen and invites viewers to read it if they wish. The start of the message begins "Dear Cameron..." I would suggest this means that they already know who Cameron is.


 * I don't believe that this is a violation of WP:DOX, and I don't believe that sources for the names of those who are quoted are required, nevertheless, the appropriate material is above. As such, I will revert back. gj1 (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, use of his name is not correct and should be removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information Quickstick4 (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)