Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: My Mistake...

Posted by Michael Lavorgna on October 28, 2016 at 07:16:01:
Even though it has been pointed out to you numerous times that "proper comparisons" have been done, you continue with your story. Interesting.
I'm curious Doug - exactly what are suggesting when you say that the comparisons that have been done were not "proper"?
Are you saying that MQA is purposefully misleading people?
That recording engineers who have compared their own music pre- and post-MQA have somehow been mislead?
That every equipment manufacturer and record label who has or is in the process of implementing MQA are doing so based on ignorance of the outcome?
I ask these questions because it appears as if your real argument is simply the fact that *you* have not had an opportunity to compare MQA to non MQA music. Therefore, every person who has is somehow suspect. Do I have that right, Doug?