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...I'm sure, 192/24

Posted by fmak on October 30, 2016 at 08:41:05:
Why on earth would any music company upsample red book asynchronously to 24 192 to archive? There are actually much better technical reasons to archive in DSD or DXD.

Upsampling leaves its own sonic signature depending on the software used. The question of whether touch up software will be used is another question. The marketing phrase 'master quality' that I first encountered in Linn downloads has no real meaning as it depends on the native recording rates and bit depths.

Archiving valuable analog recordings is a subject in itself and should not in any way be linked to MQA.

AS a matter of fact, when one compares the resampled 2L files to the DXD masters, they all sound different. The 2L MQA files played backed on HQ dacs are nothing to shout about either.