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

Comparisons/Marketing/Etc.

Posted by Doug Schneider on October 28, 2016 at 08:13:48:
Hi Michael,
I don't think I've ever read an article on your site, but you've taken quite a defensive position on this. At SoundStage!, I believe if our writers are going to put their opinions out there, they better have thick-enough skin.
As far as your words like "misleading" go, when a manufacturer publishes specifications or claims, do you automatically believe them? When a loudspeaker manufacturer says a bookshelf speaker has bass below 30Hz and a sensitivity of 90dB, do you buy that? Companies try to sell products -- let's leave it at that. But when a company claims "lossless" (which, in the world of computer files, has a pretty strict meaning), but takes a file that's, say, 24/192 and makes it 24/44.1 but gives no way to verify if you can take it back again, doesn't that raise your eyebrows? Maybe not...
Insofar as comparisons go, I believe JA is knowledgeable enough to know that, when claims like the ones MQA are making, comparisons are warranted. And what he did I'd call a start -- and what should have been done LONG ago, before guys like me (and many others) got on the Internet and said, "Hey, where are the comparisons to back up all these claims?" Obviously, guys like us don't just buy in...
As for the kinds of comparisons I'd like to see:
-- Varying file resolutions from 16/44.1 up to whatever.
-- Varying file vintages, meaning the years they were made -- key, I think.
-- Comparisons of varying resolutions of the same file to whatever MQA creates.
-- Ideally, I'd like to see the conversion to ensure any other remastering isn't being done beyond the process itself. Engineers know that a dB difference here or there can change sound drastically.
I could go on, but my cohort in Toronto was ready to supply recordings that go back to the '80s, digitally recorded at the bit depths and frequencies popular back then, right up to modern high-resolution recordings done at 192-384kHz. The whole nine yards, and see what differences there are, and, ultimately, which is better. These were recordings he would've done himself, so, like in JA's case, a good knowledge of what it's supposed to sound like, not like what you think it sounds like.
Is that really asking too much?
Doug