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: MQA's claims, published in the January 2018 issue of Stereophile?

Posted by stehno on November 26, 2017 at 00:07:23:
It will be interesting to see if Jim Austin's January article on MQA will have anything to do with music. Better yet, MQA's playback performance and any comparative listening sessions.
5 or so weeks ago, Austin stated that he's trying to get his hands on all the MQA reading material he can to understand the technology so he can make an intelligent decision about MQA's value. Yet, he never mentioned that he intended to "listen" to any MQA-related materials.
2 or so weeks ago, Atkinson in response to you, said he was going to take your concerns and the concerns of others in this thread and perform due diligence and listed a handful of things he intended to do regarding MQA. Yet, he too never mentioned that he intended to "listen" to any MQA-related materials.
It just seems too coincidental that Stereophile seemingly routinely overlooks their entire purpose for existing - to review a product or technology's audible performance. But apparently that's too difficult.
And then when Atkinson endorses a product or technology for its musical performance, it's an unbelievable nonsensical over-the-type hyperbola that makes no sense to anybody.
All over the map, no consistency, the name calling, the straw man arguments, the obfuscations, the obtusity, the alligations of wrong motives toward others that they themselves may well be guilty of, etc, etc. I just don't get it. Well, I do actuallym get it, but still I just can't believe they are so in-our-faces with their seemingly dime-store psychology and this carelessness for audible performance.
Go figure.
It all just makes me think matters in the industry are far worse than I thought they were 6 weeks ago.
But again. I really do see MQA as a blessing-in-disguies to help expose all this crap. If it weren't for MQA, we'd be in for another 10 years of them getting away with this behavior and the industry would just become that much more dumbed down.