Talk:Master Quality Authenticated

Legitimate Sources

Wikipedia is very clear on what a Legitimate Source is. [[1]]

"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. [[2]] 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)

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)

References

• 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)

• Comment Think its highly damming of this articles accuracy that you didn't let an MQA engineer provide further information to the page.

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)

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.

Quickstick4's comments here show a clear agenda/bias and should eliminate him from contributing

The portions of this talk page complaining about "legitimate sources" and "factual accuracy" are clearly being made in bad faith against the truth. I expect better from Wikipedia.

Happy to stop contributing (I don't have the time frankly). However, the vast majority of contributions to the critisim section are biased (due to being opinion) against MQA in their content. Wikipedia is meant to be un-biased and based on fact, not opinion. Its an open encyclopedia. I have provided my reasons for the removal of the YouTube video several times. I won't go over it again. Quickstick4 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

Seeing as Goldensounds in his second video implied that some of my edits were "by MQA" - I thought I should make this clear: I do not work for or have any association with MQA/Meridian. I work in a government role specialising in Audio Engineering. My interest in editing this page is to try and bring it up to standard and provide balance. My OPINION on the goldensounds videos are that they use flawed methodology to prove his point. My reason for petitioning for his video removal is that Wiki Guidelines are clear: self-authored content such as his video are not a valid source of content for an encyclopaedia. Quickstick4 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

-- Seeing as I have a section just on me, I thought I would add this here: Several comments I added to GoldenSounds youtube video where I challenged his methodology have been removed. Here are the offending screen shots that were removed:

WAV file before MQA conversion File after MQA conversion (differences highlighted)

Changes to sample points: Sample Point Comparison I included this to show why the DeltaWave differences exist. I.e. MQA attempts to fix jitter (they call it De-Blurring) meaning sample points are altered, hence the DeltaWave spectogram looks how it does Delta Wave. This was reference his arguments about noise, distortion etc and that it wasn't as bad as he reported.

I am not going to re-write numerous comments from a different website here. But I find it concerning that I am being labelled an MQA shill on this site (and others), but yet my comments providing evidence of my concerns on the validity of this source of information (i.e. the goldensounds video) are being removed. Quickstick4 (talk) 22:00, 30 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)

Unsupported attributions

The article has no apparent issue with unsupported attributions, hence my removal of the warning. Yet there are two instances where weasel words are embraced; in the Criticism section fourth paragraph, and Hardware and software decoders section second paragraph. While the two are not "bad" (see Wikipedia:Embrace_weasel_words) they could be improved by clarifying if the statement is supported by majority or minority. Tanyesil (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

This article's lead section seems purposely obtuse and does not follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style

For whatever reason, a significant change was made to the lead section during this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Master_Quality_Authenticated&diff=prev&oldid=1143171728

There are many issues here. Calling MQA a "three part process" is not a clear description of what it is. Is it an audio codec? A transfer protocol? Thinking cynically, the long and arduous description almost seems like it's meant to bury/obfuscate the fact that MQA is a "lossy format" as was previously stated quite clearly.

The Wikipedia Manual of Style on lead sections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section) clearly states that the first sentence should tell "nonspecialist reader[s] who or what the subject is" using "plain English." The first sentence, as it stands, is in clear contravention of this.

Furthermore, the manual states that the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." MQA has been subject to significant controversy and it is not mentioned in the lead at all.

And finally, what in the world is the relevance of MQA Ltd. being sold? This has absolutely zero place in the lead, as it doesn't even refer to the topic of the article. It also happens to be completely uncited, which is again in contravention of the manual's guidance for lead sections. 50.5.233.172 (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and fixed it myself, which meant having to actually go to their stupid website to gather some basic information that was missing (seriously, the article doesn't explain what the "authentication" actually is).

With that said, I have a PhD and still struggled to make sense of the MQA website and Bob Stuart's articles on the technology because it's literally nothing but weasel words, flowery vocabulary, and very little substance. It's extremely clear that their intent is to obfuscate the truth about what the technology is and does (their website now hilariously claims that by reducing file sizes, they are lowering the carbon footprint of music streaming... you seriously can't make this stuff up).

However, I still managed to tweak the lead section to provide a clearer picture without allowing my anti-MQA bias to come in. MQA shills, take note; it's really not that difficult. 50.5.233.172 (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually I am still fairly intrigued by the concept of "master quality" in the MQA context, having the impression that it is in itself misleading. My impression would be that "master quality" should mean identical to the 2-track master mixdown as signed off by the record executives and artists. These days I am presuming that this would most commonly be at 96kHz/24-bit. MQA is less than this but in reality aspires to offer "quasi master quality" from a smaller file (packed differently, with some information thrown away - in other words it cannot be re-expanded to be identical to the original 96/24 master, just something close to it possibly), but this cannot legitimately be called "master quality" - or can it?

Not sure whether this is in scope for the lead or, anywhere in the article, but it seems to be a failure of logic and/or deliberate deception to me. Your comments welcome. Tony 1212 (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree at all. The frustrating thing about researching this forsaken topic is that the developers have been consistently dishonest about the technology. When faced with criticism over the unfolding not being bit-perfect, the developers have been evasive, and moved the goalposts by claiming that "because the human-audible content is unadulterated, it IS master quality" (paraphrasing).

That's why Bob Stuart's articles have all kinds of disclaimers about neuroscience, psychoacoustics, and other nonsense. Here's an excerpt: "Our viewpoint is that ‘Resolution’ is a concept of Perception, best interpreted in the analogue domain. This pioneering insight is better aligned to listening experience than to digital domain definitions of quality." (https://bobtalks.co.uk/blog/mqa-philosophy/mqa-authentication-and-quality/)

And here's an entire article that shifts the goalposts about what "high resolution audio" means: https://bobtalks.co.uk/blog/insight-series/mqa-problem-solved-2-high-resolution/

It's all a smoke and mirror show to avoid admitting that the recording is digitally lossless because they know that's what audiophiles care about. For what it's worth, I think the idea of authenticating that a file came straight from the gold master is valuable; they just tried to monetize it in the scummiest way possible by coupling the authentication with an unnecessary format. 50.5.233.172 (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The inventors do claim MQA is more than a codec. I would call it a business model. The three part description seems reasonable to me. Maybe it doesn't need to be presented in list format. It would be good something about controversy. ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"three part process applied to digital audio music recordings consisting of: 1) modifying and controlling the end to end digital filter response; 2) preparing the high-quality audio for transfer to a smartphone or audio device using a lossy audio compression format; and 3) decompressing the recording for playback."

You're welcome to explain how this is appropriate for "nonspecialist readers" and is written in "plain English."

At the end of the day, it's a codec with the added feature of "authentication." The methodology behind how the data is compressed and uncompressed is not appropriate for the lead section. The Manual of Style recommends explaining the what, who, and when, but not the "how." 50.5.233.172 (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Made an account to better track my comments. DoctorSwift (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I've taken a crack at restoring some of the information in a non-obtuse manner. ~Kvng (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I apologize as I am still a novice at editing wiki articles, but I edited the MQA page before I found this talk section. However, I believe I did mostly what was discussed here. Particularly adding the paragraph about controversy and simplifying the first paragraph. I restored the three part process statement discussed above since it is an accurate description of the MQA system. There are sections in the article that describe the main parts of this: Codec, Audio processing, and Authentication (new section I added, which could use more detail). I have not figured out if there is a good way to link from the three part process sentence to those sections, but that may be a good idea. Dr Digital Audio (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this! ~Kvng (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

MQA format's simple technical capability & flaws is demonstrated

GoldenSound reported technical outcomes and using metrics to objectively evaluate performance. he puts those claims against MQA's supposed claims as well as original high res and low-res content.

further discussion about MQA's validity is bogus from this point on as we have objective information in place of what was previously room for opinion.

he has proven MQA format is a scam, regardless of only using polite language. wikipedia should reflect this objective proof as self-evident from now on, as evident as gravity. it is merely what MQA does, not someone's opinion.

Furthermore, on the social side of matters there is plenty of predatory and/or marketing/hype behavior which seems quite dodge. It should not be this hard to realize something is a scam & move on. 101.98.243.2 (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources for these sorts of assessments. Can you suggest/cite any that have made this determination? ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

is just an obvious scam. it seems the majority of this talk page is having a lot of trouble trying to come to terms with this. why? because we cant simply state the basics of what the thing is.

i dont know how many times it needs to be explained over & over by people here or online. a basic description of what IT IS is enough to indicate that it is a scam. and that should be enough. and we can move on.

we shouldnt need to be sources away to be able to cite factual information in a comment on a talk page.

its clearly a gimmick, and it shouldn't be an uphill battle. scammers dont have any prerequisites for saying things, and will outpace wikipedia at this rate. thats the source of the 'controversy': a failure to outpace misinformation with simple factual info. 203.184.27.191 (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You can say whatever you want on this talk page but if you want the article to describe MQA as a gimmick, that statement will need to be supported by reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the introduction twice recently due to a detrimental edit and then a reversion from the two IP addresses above. I consider the reversion as bad faith vandalism. I will watch the page more frequently for a while. Dr Digital Audio (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)