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

RE: It's the text, stupid

Posted by stehno on November 20, 2017 at 11:51:40:
You are correct, people should be focusing on what is said by an authors, rather than focus on the authors themselves.
And for most, that's exactly what's been going on for nearly 3 years now. But after 3 years, many are still unable to find any meat and potatoes regarding MQA's "godsend", "experiencing the birth of a new world", holy grail-type of performance levels claimed by these authors who refuse to rescind or retract their claims while more and more people with substance continue to come forward asking, what the frick is going on here with MQA?
Some are confused more than ever because even after all this time there remains more questions than answers. Those authors seem to be dodging many of the questions, while passively trying to let their claims stand, I assume hoping others won't notice their lack of stability or potential hypocracy.
Perhaps it's because many thirst for more and better performance, but IMO many have given MQA, Stuart, and others the benefit of doubt far too long already.
So now comes the check and balance phase and accountabilty phase. You know, the phase where the masses can no longer take such claims at face value and must now start to dig deeper and beyond the initial claims. Now those who have a dog in the fight (everybody who listens to music) or even those who simply care about real performance must now start to ask the uglier questions regarding the authors' listening skills, their ethics and morals, their credibility, and yes, even their potential motives.
And since MQA is attempting to introduce a new standard that will potentially affect every last listener financial-wise and performance-wise, it makes all the sense in the world for many to stop taking these outlandish performance claims on their face and try to get to the real reason MQA was created and why the potential sell-out by those with potential influence in the "high-end" audio sector.
There's potentially billions of dollars at stake here. And since we're talking from a "high-end" audio perspective and we're in a "high-end" audio forum and since "high-end" is supposed to imply performance, and those few backing MQA have essentially claimed it to be the performance holy grail and MQA being all things to all people, IMO, every last aspect of these authors and their publications and their historic claims of other products should all be brought into question.
And IMO rightfully so as I've tried warning others about MQA since I first read about it over 2 years ago that this was perhaps the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the "high-end" audio community. And I'm confident that anybody worth their weight in any sector of the music industry will eventually concur. If they're not already doing so now.
More importantly, some (including me) believe that this is far from the first time such hoaxes have been attempted by those in positions of influence on the "high-end" audio community. But that it took something so outlandish as MQA and its performance promises to bring this tom-foolery to light.
So from my perspective, although MQA is potentially damaging to the industry should it succeed (or not go away), I see MQA as a real blessing because it has the potential to expose much more than just MQA.
Holding leaders or those in positions of influence accountable is never pretty. But it sure can be enlightening.