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

Dear Jim Austin,

Posted by rt66indierock on November 14, 2017 at 16:37:25:
On October 21, 2017 you said you don't understand the technology behind MQA and yet you are going to write a series about it?

Your series should make interesting reading because in that same October 21, 2017 response to stehno you called him an idiot "for not at least considering that they (Peter Craven and Bob Stuart) might understand things better than you do." For you to be intellectually consistent you now have to consider others may understand things better than Peter Craven and Bob Stuart do.

In your series on MQA Technology I would like the following addressed at a minimum.

1. I want you to look at the research supporting the technology of MQA and tell me if it supports the claims MQA Ltd is making. Next I want you to tell me if the math supports the claims MQA makes. To write objectively about the research and the math you will have to analyze both sides pro MQA and anti MQA.

2. Moving on the filters MQA uses they are not new so I want to know why MQA Ltd decided to use these filters when so many others have chosen not to use these types of filters.

3. MQA uses Peter Craven's patented method for degrading files and reconstructing them. Why is this step necessary? Following this train of thought why aren't other methods of file compression equally as valid as the method MQA uses?

4. People in studios who were shown MQA found that it changed their masters in 2014. It took until last month at the AES convention in New York City for MQA Ltd to acknowledge the problem and promise a solution so engineers could hear how the final product would sound. I want to know why MQA needs to change the master when other high resolution files don't change the master.

You have made a few comments defending the industry and the press for its lack of technical rigor concerning MQA. You actually indicted the industry and the press. This is why people outside the industry realized if the technology behind MQA was going to be examined that we would have to do it ourselves. And we did on the Computer Audiophile site starting January 2, 2017.

Sincerely,

Stephen