|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
For Sale Ads |
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.
Original Message
RE: Dreaming in Technicolor...
Posted by Doug Schneider on October 31, 2016 at 07:45:15:
I can see why you wouldn't want to address those points. So you use three tracks then?
The way your article is written, it's seems clear the MQA track was always second.
Also, if the differences are that obvious, it should be a snap to pick them out blindly. But way below, we have that person from an audio society saying that out of 20 people, 15 couldn't hear any difference and the 5 that could said it was extremely subtle. This was a test they controlled. I would think that if the differences were really obvious, public comparisons would be easy to do.
And no one is making accusations. It's just knowing every point about what is involved before hanging your hat on something and endorsing it. I can't remember which one, but years ago there was a hybrid SACD out where people were saying that the SACD layer sounded markedly better than the CD layer. It was later found out that the two layers were from two masters.
It's just in my nature to question things. Shouldn't it be yours and every reviewers'? And when you do, sometimes the differences you uncover are worth noting -- I know this from our experience doing loudspeaker measurements with Canada's National Research Council. Very telling.
In the end, if you're satisfied with the rigor you've put in, so be it. As I said, carry on. As it stands now, the company's own lack of willingness to do comparisons in the demonstrations has left me unconvinced.
Doug
SoundStage!