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

The point of these points is lost on me.

Posted by PAR on November 3, 2016 at 01:16:04:
Seemingly endless objections to MQA on AA and elsewhere. What is the point?

1. Most objectors have never heard MQA.

2. It has not yet reached the consumer market except in a very limited way.

3. Its primary purpose at this juncture seems to relate to streaming media where , whatever its limitations, it promises better sound than exists is this medium now.

4. Do people think that perhaps their arguments (often technically incorrect) may influence Bob Stuart to change it?

Why waste time now on this subject when in there is a real and present problem with digitally distributed recordings - the use of watermarking. Yet the comparative amount of forum postings on this subject is fractional.