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: Many reasons...

Posted by Jim Austin on October 29, 2016 at 13:58:40:
Just one clarification: MQA wasn't designed as an archival format but as a transmission/dissemination format. If they're aiming to archive, there's not much wrong with the 192/24 they already had (for much of their catalog). If we're talking historic preservation, DSD is better because it's closer to music (i.e., a future alien race could make sense of it more easily). But there's no archival advantage to creating MQA files from 192/24 files. It's also worth pointing out that this MQA project apparently got them to finally digitize the rest of their analog archives. They could have done that at any time. Considering that MQA is not an archival format, why now?