Talk:Master Quality Authenticated

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)