|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: RE: I'm with you, Doug posted by John Atkinson on August 20, 2017 at 06:03:52:
Hi John,
I know you responded to Sue, but since that was in response to my post, I need to clarify something.
It's somewhat surprising that you'd want to defend yourself with "fake news" when we all know that today that terms is used to deflect real issues.
To be clear, and what I've stated over and over again, is that I've acknowledged that there have been some comparisons done. Maybe you should print this email out as a reminder because although I've stated it publicly, that seems to have been forgotten time and again. I will stress "some comparisons" here, though, and talk about that.
However, first, there have been obvious cases where the virtues of MQA were written about with no comparisons -- Munich High End 2016, perfect example. I was there with the same journalists and the folks at MQA played only MQA tracks.
Also, about the times where there were comparisons and to bring up words you just used "known provenance." ("Provenance" seems to be a favored word in MQA circles these days)
1) I believe your files are "known" -- and I asked if you'd put them public for others to experiment with, as it would surely be helpful.
2) And as far as I can tell, the 2L files that are already publicly available seem valid for comparisons.
So, we really have one set of files right now consumers have access to -- 2L (why I'm encouraging you to add yours into the mix). Still hardly any in total, but we're just at the beginning here.
But the rest of the material that has been cited? Are we REALLY sure we know? For example, in your newest issue, Michael Fremer talks about a "The Nightfly" MQA demo. Again, though, what was the comparison material? It's well known now that on Tidal, the non-MQA version is not from the same master as the MQA one. You can check the levels on it, but easier than that are the track lengths -- about half the track lengths differ. That's a sign there. So what was used in the MQA demo at the LAAS show. If it was the Tidal version, well.... And if it wasn't the Tidal version, did anyone independently verify that the MQA and non-MQA versions come from the same master? So I'm asking you -- Did they?
Writers have been very quick to say "MQA sounds better," but are we sure the comparison was valid? This isn't "fake news," John, it's real news.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: I'm with you, Doug - Doug Schneider 08:53:42 08/20/17 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
