It was in 2014. And not irrelevant to the discussion.
1 Like
Carefully crafted wording is what I expect from intelligent people who know what they wish to convey. Why is this seen as a negative?
The criticisms put forward of MQA have been completely debunked in the MQA post I shared.
5 Likes
(post deleted by author)
2 Likes
I canât fathom what is disingenuous about making a list of the people who can approve the encoding? Seriously, this seems like you are reaching.
Itâs a bunch of half-truths, an appeal to authority, an ad hominem,
Iâve been following MQA from a technical level for a long time and I canât see any problem with the technical explanations proposed. Where would you get half-truths (other than perhaps the endless argument about the definition of lossless). The authorities referred to are, in fact, authorities and would stand up as such in any technical forum (e.g. journal reviewing), music forum (RIAA, Recording Academy), or legal forum (lawsuit that was already thrown out about losslessness).
2 Likes
Itâs difficult reading this thread as I have to interpret if each reference to BS is for Bob Stuart, or the other abbreviation 
Clearly we see things differently from a carefully laid out statement. It seems obvious to me that the object 0f the exercise was designed to smear MQA.
1 Like
Agreed. The MQA response is quite clear as to the nature of the exercise, in the last sentence of the General Comment section. I presume they have evidence, given the tone of the response, and there is no need for a complex conspiracy explanation.
As I mentioned earlier, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate has exposed that beneath what might seem like the sinister conspiracy behind disinformation is but a business operation. Monetisation is not just the aspiration of corporations.
Can we review this for a moment [RMAF]? One individual who runs another website attempted to attack the algorithms and work of MQA by hiring an individual, that individual being a non-audio person with limited audio knowledge, to do a set of measurements using a hacked version of MQAâs code. He tried to force this confrontation in a public setting. He submitted his presentation to MQA first, had a written response from them, which he did not bother to include or address in his presentation. So he was smacked down in public, as he most certainly should have been and should have expected to be. What could he have been thinking? With behavior as unprofessional as that, why does he think that he is the victim?
3 Likes
MQA is âsmearingâ the music industry and consumer, so I guess itâs a âsmearâ of a smear.
1 Like
This whole conversation seems to be descending into a morass of personal attacks using claims about things none of the participants have personal knowledge of. I fail to see why any of us continue to find it interesting.
4 Likes
MQA were defending themselves against an underhanded attack. You or I would do the same in their situation. In general I believe they are remarkably patient given the vitriol thrown at them all the time.
3 Likes
I was discussing the RMAF event, which you were referring to also (not the video).
1 Like
I appreciate your position Bill, but I think a few of us have struggled with âbystander effect/apathyâ. Whatever one thinks of MQA, it has always been open season when it comes to personal attacks on Bob Stuart, the intensity of which I find jaw-dropping. I donât know the man, but I think few people deserve such attention.
I think @robbi_burdeck is merely suggesting that some others fan the flame of attacking Bob Stuart, presumably because it keeps people engaged, and is thus good for advertisers, despite the endless repetition of the points made. All of which makes it very hard to appraise whether there is anything worthwhile in MQA to consider. It may only now be of interest to anthropologists.
So MQA has become click bait, which is probably your point, and perhaps the cruellest attack on Stuartâs work imaginable.
4 Likes
Not sure itâs not all over to be honest, I am sure he will be replying in due course to MQAâs posting. I think the issue has still got legs although itâs probably nearing its end, the consumers will now decide if MQA still have any mileage left after all major streaming companies have probably decided which way to jump with there higher quality sound tiers on their individual platforms, the next few months will be interesting to watch
1 Like
Again, the anti-MQA brigade just doesnât understand the science.
MQA quantitizes the original studio ADC characteristics and, through advanced licensed neural network algorithms on the encoding side, looks âbetween the bitsâ to identify useful signal information, discard non-anechoic and out of phase noise, correct unwanted plenarium distortion, and embed the resulting useful bits elsewhere in the signal, where it is hidden from âordinaryâ PCM players. During playback using MQA authorized and licensed software and hardware, the hidden bit signals are decoded and losslessly restored to the original master recording, and then filtered in correlation to the recording ADC and the playback DAC to resolve all timing errors and other quasaic deficiencies, thus reproducing exactly what was heard in the studio. Bonus, the final result is authenticated by the recording artist.
This is all clearly explained on various MQA blog posts. Major studios and streaming services get it, and are all on board. Not sure why this is so hard to understand.
4 Likes
No studios are using MQA as either recording or archiving after nearly a decade, I wonder why ?
Thank you, this questions then the validity of approval then, no one in the studio be it artist producer or mastering engineer signs off an MQA file as being the approved master they sign off what they hear in the studio which will be a derivative of PCM or DSD through the studios ADC to DAC output and DAW workstations settings which will not have been fingerprinted to MQAâs processes at that time or probably any time, as with MQA conversion I am sure itâs clever but in the end itâs a best guess process if no one is available to sign it off (green dot) which the majority of processed files are
Based on your post, I agree that the anti-MQA brigade doesnât understand the scienceâŚ
2 Likes