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

About Comparisons...

Posted by Doug Schneider on October 31, 2016 at 10:18:22:
John,
I fully agree with what you did months following -- get your files MQA'd and do comparisons of that. Now, we've talked before about those results, but, regardless, they were done.
This is all I am arguing for -- more comparisons. It was painfully obvious in Munich this year, the company didn't really want to do them -- and didn't. Furthermore, they're trumpeting sonic improvements, but not willing to go the distance to back it up. Is it too much to ask a company making these claims to back it up? Hardly. Should reviewers be pressing for this? Definitely.
You measure loudspeakers, I measure loudspeakers. We know company claims about measurements and actual measurements can differ wildly. I never take a company's loudspeaker-measurement claims at face value. Why would I here? Why wouldn't I say, "Ok, it's better you say. Let's hear it -- before and after."
Doug