In Reply to: MQA files sound very good on a good posted by fmak on October 29, 2016 at 09:22:41:
>>You Stereophile associated posters need to get off your MQA horse by not just reporting what Bob Stuart and associates say, but consider the interests of consumers who have so far not been able to assess properly the pros and cons of the format.<<
My feeling is that we're dealing on these forums not with impartial consumers who lack information but with critics who have wet their minds set against MQA for whatever reason. No matter what information is provided, they'll remain firm in their positions.
But maybe I'm wrong at least in a few cases, perhaps in yours. So, please help me provide what you're looking for. How can we best serve "the interests of consumers who have so far not been able to assess properly the pros and cons of the format"? The goal of my interview--and the Stereophile piece posted today--was to do precisely that. What have we missed? What information or insight are you seeking that hasn't been provided?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: MQA files sound very good on a good - Jim Austin 11:48:27 10/29/16 (11)
- RE: MQA files sound very good on a good - Isaak J. Garvey 14:20:22 10/29/16 (2)
- RE: MQA files sound very good on a good - Jim Austin 14:52:05 10/29/16 (1)
- RE: MQA files sound very good on a good - Isaak J. Garvey 15:19:23 10/29/16 (0)
- RE: MQA files sound very good on a good - ahendler 13:52:47 10/29/16 (2)
- RE: MQA files sound very good on a good - Jim Austin 14:07:33 10/29/16 (1)
- Plenty of examples... - mlsstl 08:52:43 10/31/16 (0)
- Link? - bullethead 13:34:07 10/29/16 (4)