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

Great Story -- But Small Differences Again...

Posted by Doug Schneider on October 28, 2016 at 11:56:43:
Hi,
This is a great story you told. That's also a pretty respectable sample size.
What's interesting to me is that 3/4 found no difference, 1/4 found a tiny difference. What's missing is if the 1/4 found the MQA better, or if they found the other better. Can you elaborate?
What's especially intriguing about this is that a portion of the press has thrown around some pretty big phrases, such as "game changer" and "beyond high resolution." But here we have JA's differences being not reliable and 3/4 of the people here hearing no difference, with 1/4 hearing a tiny difference. That doesn't sound like a "game changer" to me. I also can't help but wonder if that's why MQA doesn't like comparisons. In Munich, I asked for a comparison -- and didn't receive.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!