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

I'll stick to the technical points then

Posted by Dave_K on November 3, 2016 at 08:57:34:
I edited my post and deleted the last paragraph. It was kind of beside the point.

The main point I really wanted to convey was that when employed as an end to end technology such that the system impulse response described in the Stuart paper is achieved, the result is a blurring of the signal. Conventional anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters do not blur, and when employed at higher samples rates where the cutoff is above the musical spectrum they don't add any ringing either. Using a high enough sample rate eliminates the problem of filter artifacts that plagues Redbook. No Meridian special sauce is required. I find it ironic that Stuart & co. are marketing MQA as an end to end technology that minimizes temporal blur, when the reality is that they have chosen a target impulse response that adds blur.