Jump to content
  • The Computer Audiophile
    The Computer Audiophile

    My First 24 Hours With MQA

    thumb2.jpg

    1-Pixel.png

    It all started with an email on December 4, 2014. “Hi Chris, It is my great pleasure to provide details on Meridian’s breakthrough technology, MQA (Master Quality Authenticated). The press release is pasted below. And attached is a white paper …” That seems like forever ago. In the ensuing months MQA has been growing like a snowball rolling downhill. More manufacturers getting on board, more content partners signing up, and more chatter within Computer Audiophile community (among others). Based on objective site analytics, I can easily say that since CES 2016 the interest in MQA has grown immensely here on CA. Much of the talk since MQA’s first introduction has been speculative because only a relatively small number of people have actually heard MQA music. Even those who’ve heard it, have likely not heard it in their own audio systems. That was until Meridian officially released the MQA enabling firmware for its Explorer2, Prime, and select components (818v3,*808v6 and Special Edition Loudspeakers) Thursday February 4, 2016. I downloaded the firmware and updated my Explorer2 to v1717. It’s now MQA enabled and I have a DAC that decode and render this content through my own audio system in my own listening room. I’ve been waiting for this forever. I’ve heard MQA at shows plenty of times, but never in my own familiar environment. Now that the hardware was enabled for MQA playback, I needed some MQA music to play. Late afternoon I received an email with a link to download ten MQA FLAC files. Click, save, unzip, play, listen … MQA rules, it’s the best thing since sliced bread. If only it was that cut and dry.[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]

     

     

    Listening To MQA

     

     

    Like most people, I wanted to listen to a single MQA track and have my mind blown by fidelity I could only dream of prior to MQA. I also wanted to compare MQA versions of tracks to non-MQA versions of the same tracks and come to sweeping conclusions that the MQA version was so much better I would never go back to such unsophisticated non-MQA music again. My list of wants was a bit unrealistic, but my expectations were set at a normal level while I hoped for the best.

     

    In addition to the ten tracks sent to me this afternoon, I purchased some content directly from the 2L record label’s website. This enabled me to purchase both the MQA and non-MQA versions of the same music. What could be more telling than two versions of the same thing? Or, so I thought.

     

    First up on my list to listen to was Stille lys (Quiet Light) by Jan Gunnar Hoff (link). I received the MQA version of track one titled Mitt Hjerte Alltid Vanker and I purchased the 24 bit / 192 kHz download of the same track. According to 2L the album was produced in DXD (Digital eXtreme Definition 352.8kHz/24bit). I would have downloaded the original DXD version but the Explorer2 doesn’t support sample rates over 192 kHz. The MQA version of the track appears in Roon as a 24/44.1 track because Roon sees the file like a DAC without an MQA decoder. Fortunately Roon, or any other application, simply needs to send the audio out to the DAC bit perfectly (unchanged) so an MQA enabled DAC can unfold the file into a higher resolution if needed. While playing this track through the Explorer2, the MQA light illuminates blue and the 4x sample rate lights are also illuminated. The LED lights up blue to indicate an MQA Studio file is playing. MQA Studio files are artist/producer-approved studio releases.

     

    Prior to this afternoon I had never heard this album at a show or in my own system. I would have preferred listening to music I am very familiar with, but at this point we have to take what we can get. I started with the MQA version of Mitt Hjerte Alltid Vanker and played it through three times. It sounded wonderful. Right from the beginning I noticed a clarity to the sound of each note as the hammers struck the strings and a superb decay as the tone faded into a black background. It really is a stellar sounding piece of music in all its MQA glory. That said, the 24/192 version of this track is also terrific. The main differences between the two versions of this track are 1) The MQA version has an uncanny clarity and sense of space around each individual note that is just not present in the standard 24/192 version. This space is specifically around each note, not necessarily presented as a larger or more airy soundstage as a whole. 2) The 24/192 version sounded like the microphone was closer to the strings and the sound was more narrow as if each note was compartmentalized its own silo. 3) On the MQA version, the tone of the decay of each note has a purity to it or an appropriate color to it that isn’t present in the standard version. I really noticed this sense of hearing the entire note, from the initial hammer strike to the last decibel of the decay, in all its glory.

     

    I’m not into hyperbole or writing something with which I am unsure. Thus, I gave myself a blind ABX test by putting the two versions of this track into a playlist, listening to them back to back, then setting the queue on repeat and random and pressing the next button several times without looking. I did this several times and immediately selected the correct MQA or non-MQA version of the track every time. Readers should keep in mind that just because I immediately picked the correct version of the track, doesn’t mean the differences are night and day. These things are subtle. But, once heard it’s hard not to hear the differences.

     

     

    Up next was the album Ein Song Frå Dei Utsungne Stunder by Berit Opheim, Nils Økland & Bjørn Kjellemyr, also known as The BNB (link). This album was originally produced at 16 bit / 44.1 kHz by 2L. Playback through the Meridian Explorer2 illuminated the MQA light in blue and didn’t light up the 2x or 4x LEDs. This MQA album remains at the same resolution seen by Roon, 16/44.1. The Explorer2 internally upsamples the audio to 4x (176.4) but that’s a topic for another time. This entire album sounds fantastic. Great vocals and great double bass accented by a sweet fiddle and viola. I noticed two subtle differences between the original and MQA versions of this album. 1) The original non-MQA version contained what I’ll call a plastic edge to the sound of some instruments. There was something synthetic about the sound that likely can’t be heard unless one has the MQA version for comparison. 2) The non-MQA version has a darkness or dullness to it that isn’t present in the MQA version. This isn’t darkness associated with the blackest of backgrounds or a low noise floor, rather its a deadness that’s heard with the sounds of the instruments. As with the previous album, the differences are not equivalent to bumping the volume by a few dB. They are subtle and may not be apparent all listeners, especially when listening to unfamiliar music.

     

     

    Switching to music that I am a bit more familiar with, I listened to a track titled When I Go from Judy Collins’ album Strangers Again. On this track Judy duets with Willie Nelson. Roon sees the track as 24/44.1 while the Explorer2 DAC sees it as 2x (most likely 88.2 as that’s the resolution of the HD version available from HDtracks and others (link)). The Explorer2 also illuminated the first LED as green rather than blue. Blue is the MQA Studio color, but green indicates that the unit is decoding and playing an MQA stream or file, and that the sound is identical to that encoded. I am not 100% sure what this means in terms of the MQA process to turn the music into an MQA album from a standard high resolution album. For all I know it may mean that the album was converted to MQA for its smaller file size, without much of the wizardry that goes into the MQA white glove process of creating MQA Studio files. Don’t quote me on that, it’s just a wild guess. (see edit 2 below) Perhaps that wild guess has something to do with the very small sonic differences I heard on this Judy Collins / Willie Nelson track. I thought if there was one track, out of the ten I received, in which I would really notice a difference, it would be this track. Most of us have heard Willie Nelson a million times and are familiar with folk music (more so than classical for many people). After listening over and over to the MQA and the original high resolution versions of this track I think the only noticeable difference I hear is a touch more natural or appropriately soft sound in Willie’s voice. On second thought, I believe there is also a difference in the sound of the opening drums. (I literally went back and listened a few more times). The MQA version of the track seems to reproduce more of the drum’s frequencies or make more of the drum audible. It’s not that the drum has a super wide frequency response, rather the non-MQA version seems to lose some of the drum sound into the background. The MQA version seems to reproduce a fuller drum sound with better decay than the non-MQA version. Either way, this track was a tough one for me as I struggled to hear the differences I wanted to and I thought I would hear.

     

    Edit 1: I just received a quote from Alan Silverman, Mastering Engineer on the Judy Collins track When I Go:

     

    “We have done many blind comparisons of my original high-resolution masters with and without the MQA process. MQA is the consistent winner. What mystifies me about the technology is the purity of tone and natural realism that MQA unlocks from my high-resolution recordings. The MQA playback is more satisfying and not by just a subtle shade. MQA has educated my ear to digital artifacts that still exist, in spite of the best practices with the best equipment, by eliminating them. It is perhaps a holy grail of digital audio.”

     

    More specifically about the track When I go Alan said, "I’ve just compared the MQA playback with my original 88.2k 24-bit master and find the MQA to be mystifyingly more satisfying, and not by just a subtle shade. Listening to Willie and Judy, their voices sound much more real, at the same time, they have a textural filigree and detail of tone that I am not hearing in the original master! The same holds for the banjo and the subtle electric guitar in the right channel. I am delighted and extremely enthusiastic about the MQA process.”

     

     

    Edit 2: This just in from MQA ltd., "There is no sonic difference between files marked as green or blue, it is only about Provenance or Approval." In addition, "Today Alan Silverman asked us to move the Judy Collins [album] up to Studio."

     

     

    Wrapping Up The First 24 Hours

     

     

    Overall I am happy with the MQA music I’ve heard. I wish I could render an opinion, that would carry across all MQA products and music, that MQA is always better by a wide margin, but this isn’t the case. The differences I’ve heard so far are subtle and my opinions are limited to the music and hardware I used in the last 24 hours. I also have a suspicion that the MQA process will be more beneficial to recordings that were done under less than stellar circumstances (i.e. lesser quality A to D converters, etc…). The 2L recordings are done with the utmost care using very good equipment and very good engineers. While there is still improvements MQA has made to the original 2L masters, I’m willing to bet there are greater improvements to be made to more traditional popular recordings or very old recordings. On the other hand, it may not be easy to compare an MQA version and non-MQA version of some old recordings because the MQA version has been done with the white glove process. It would be the same as comparing two difference masters of the same album, of course they’ll sound different. There will be clear differences with or without MQA. The real question many people will want answered is, how much of the difference is MQA and how much is the white glove process? But, does this question really need to be answered? I’m not so sure because we don’t have the option of getting new white glove masters of some of our favorite music. If MQA is the impetus to get us better sounding music, that’s all that really matters. In a dream world we may have the option of a white glove MQA and white glove non-MQA, but this is the real world. The options are, MQA or live with what we already have. Anyway, the MQA train is finally leaving the building. I’m cautiously optimistic that everything will work out and we’ll have better sounding music without too much trouble.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    System I used for playback:

     

    Roon software running on SOtM sMS-1000SQ Windows Edition server and SOtM sPS-1000 power supply > Wireworld Platinum Starlight 7 USB 2.0 Cable > Meridian Explorer2 DAC > AudioQuest Yosemite 3.5mm to RCA Cable > Constellation Audio PreAmp 1.0 > Wireworld Platinum Eclipse 7 Interconnects > Constellation Audio Mono 1.0 Amplifiers > Wireworld Platinum Eclipse 7 Speaker Cables > TAD CR1 Loudspeakers.

     

     

     

    1-Pixel.png




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    For the bad and good, what's already on the old classic master tapes is a done deal. Just using another size bit bucket or format isn't going to reveal any information that isn't there in the first place. Only recordings that really show improvement over the Redbooks are the ones that folks like Steven Wilson or Steve Hoffman have gone back and remastered to get the best sounding files they can from the old tapes.

    True HDA belongs to the recordings done in 24/96 or higher sampling rates to begin with.

     

    I've listened to many high resolution remasters done by Hoffman and other uncredited people doing the reissues from major labels . In most cases I hear audible improvement. So have other people including the host of this site. Have you actually listened and compared? Or do you form opinions based on what people say?

     

    Let me reiterate, I have no interest whatsoever in listening to newly recorded material from some audiophile label. Why would I do that? To show off my stereo system to guests?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I've listened to many high resolution remasters done by Hoffman and other uncredited people doing the reissues from major labels . In most cases I hear audible improvement. So have other people including the host of this site. Have you actually listened and compared? Or do you form opinions based on what people say?

     

    Let me reiterate, I have no interest whatsoever in listening to newly recorded material from some audiophile label. Why would I do that? To show off my stereo system to guests?

     

    You don't seem to know me very well or even be listening to what I'm writing. Those that do, know I also mainly listen to and purchase classic rock, blues, r&b, motown, etc so we are the same in our tastes and purchase trends.

    I've own quite a number of the reissued classic rock recordings. Some are improvements, some are about the same as Redbook, some are worse. The major labels are mainly in to HDA remasters for the greed. Their releases like Jackson Browne - Running On Empty DR7 and Bonnie Raitt's - Dig In Deep have been dynamically squashed to a DR 7s while the original RBCD and the vinyl releases have a energetic DR13-14. These files were created with no concern for the audiophlile market but only to again resell the old titles and have a master file with squashed dynamics to use for the streaming and MP3 download markets.

    Then there are titles like the The Animals - Retrospective, which when I first downloaded from HDTracks could believe they would actually sell such a horrid sounding mess. I actually requested a refund for that one, LOL good luck with that.

    Lastly there are the beautifully done releases like the Wilson remasters of the classic Jethro Tull. Yes, etc; albums that are truly worth the money and a joy to listen to. But even with these it is MHO that the beautiful sound is due mainly to remastering engineers brilliant job at the console and not stemming from the fact he put then in a HDA format. These reissues like the Mobile Fidelity's from back in the day get their sound from the love and care of perfectionist engineers.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    ...joy to listen to. But even with these it is MHO that the beautiful sound is due mainly to remastering engineers brilliant job at the console and not stemming from the fact he put then in a HDA format. These reissues like the Mobile Fidelity's from back in the day get their sound from the love and care of perfectionist engineers.

     

    I am not sure, but I suspect back in the day, those engineers were more looking for a payday that the perfect sound. Just like today, though there are many more "engineers" today than the in days gone

    by.

     

    Nothing wrong in that at all, but I doubt few are like Barry D., who went off and formed his own company and studio so he could make recordings his way. I do love his recordings, though not always the material he records.

     

    Some older recordings sound glorious, which kind of makes sense. In many cases we have those recordings simply because they sounded good then, and still do now. There are also a lot that have been lost, some quite mercifully...

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    For the bad and good, what's already on the old classic master tapes is a done deal. Just using another size bit bucket or format isn't going to reveal any information that isn't there in the first place. Only recordings that really show improvement over the Redbooks are the ones that folks like Steven Wilson or Steve Hoffman have gone back and remastered to get the best sounding files they can from the old tapes.

    True HDA belongs to the recordings done in 24/96 or higher sampling rates to begin with.

     

    That's what Mark Waldrep says, so it's got to be wrong.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    But even with these it is MHO that the beautiful sound is due mainly to remastering engineers brilliant job at the console and not stemming from the fact he put then in a HDA format.

     

    I think they're part and parcel of the same thing. Folks like Wilson and Hoffman, or Martin father and son with the Beatles' Love album take great care at all stages of the process, from analog tape through remastering through final digital file. It's really remarkable in many cases what can be brought out of recordings that were made 45-50 years ago or longer.

     

    It's nearly impossible be certain you've got identical masterings in different resolutions, so I'm not sure it really means much to debate sample rates. There are Sam Cooke, Beach Boys, Who, and Steely Dan albums where I think the SACD versions are the best I've heard, and Buddy Holly recordings mastered to CD by Steve Hoffman (that I bought for $3 at a used record store) that sound amazing. Rather than sample rate or format, I look for names I associate with quality or try to find other signs of whether care was taken in the production.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think they're part and parcel of the same thing. Folks like Wilson and Hoffman, or Martin father and son with the Beatles' Love album take great care at all stages of the process, from analog tape through remastering through final digital file. It's really remarkable in many cases what can be brought out of recordings that were made 45-50 years ago or longer.

     

    It's nearly impossible be certain you've got identical masterings in different resolutions, so I'm not sure it really means much to debate sample rates. There are Sam Cooke, Beach Boys, Who, and Steely Dan albums where I think the SACD versions are the best I've heard, and Buddy Holly recordings mastered to CD by Steve Hoffman (that I bought for $3 at a used record store) that sound amazing. Rather than sample rate or format, I look for names I associate with quality or try to find other signs of whether care was taken in the production.

    I think Jud makes excellent points here. Like many of us, I've got many "sonic favorites" that cross formats and resolutions: original CD, remastered CD, high-res PCM file, SACD, even vinyl needle drop in some cases. Often the most careful mastering, guided by a sound philosophy (e.g. no brickwall limiting or bad EQ choices) will produce the best-sounding, least fatiguing version, regardless of the audio format.

     

    The only caveat is that with music recorded to analogue tape before the 1990s, tape wear can sometimes be an issue (or in some cases, degeneration of the adhesive binder, which requires "baking"). Lots of otherwise very good recent remasters of music recorded in the '60s and '70s have minor issues related to tape wear - so the remaster can be an improvement overall, but the original 1980s CD has a better-quality source, even if both use the same original master tape, simply because the original CD used the master tape when the tape was much "younger."

     

    That said, given the exact same mastering, I generally prefer SACD when available, followed by high-res digital, then CD, and then vinyl. However, sometimes I can barely tell the difference between high-res digital and CD. And sometimes vinyl can be more pleasant if the digital/CD mastering is harsh.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think they're part and parcel of the same thing. Folks like Wilson and Hoffman, or Martin father and son with the Beatles' Love album take great care at all stages of the process, from analog tape through remastering through final digital file. It's really remarkable in many cases what can be brought out of recordings that were made 45-50 years ago or longer.

     

    It's nearly impossible be certain you've got identical masterings in different resolutions, so I'm not sure it really means much to debate sample rates. There are Sam Cooke, Beach Boys, Who, and Steely Dan albums where I think the SACD versions are the best I've heard, and Buddy Holly recordings mastered to CD by Steve Hoffman (that I bought for $3 at a used record store) that sound amazing. Rather than sample rate or format, I look for names I associate with quality or try to find other signs of whether care was taken in the production.

     

    +1 Yes sir, exactly what I'm saying.

    Back in the day Zenith Television ads used to say, "The Quality Goes In Before The Name Goes On" ;)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The only caveat is that with music recorded to analogue tape before the 1990s, tape wear can sometimes be an issue (or in some cases, degeneration of the adhesive binder, which requires "baking"). Lots of otherwise very good recent remasters of music recorded in the '60s and '70s have minor issues related to tape wear - so the remaster can be an improvement overall, but the original 1980s CD has a better-quality source, even if both use the same original master tape, simply because the original CD used the master tape when the tape was much "younger."

     

    You do also have to take into account the horrid amount of dynamic compression the major labels are now putting to many of the old classics. IMHO many pre loudness war CD's from the 80s-90s sound superior to later releases both Redbook and HDA due to these unfortunate circumstances.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Though it's hard to know if mastering is identical, I still think higher sample rates reveal more fine detail in albums mastered from old analog tape. Led Zeppelin 24-96 remasters sound better to me than the CDs. While good mastering is important, most of what I hear is better than what the labels were releasing on CD. Same with SACD. Everything I've heard on Hoffman's new SACDs give me much more enjoyment than his CDs did. The dynamic range argument is irrelevant. It's not like labels are making you choose between either uncompressed CD or compressed hi-res. You get what they give you. Personally, I think HDTracks insults audiophile's intelligence by selling some of the crap they serve up and defend it as an artistic choice that's out of their control.

     

    My feeling is that 24-96 or 24-192 makes it easier for less talented mastering people to end up with a better sounding transfer because they're not trying to shoehorn it into the smaller window of 16/44 with it's limitations and get it perfect. Likewise, most DACs probably sound better at higher sample rates, because filtering is not as critical.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    +1 Yes sir, exactly what I'm saying.

    Back in the day Zenith Television ads used to say, "The Quality Goes In Before The Name Goes On" ;)

     

    There speaks a man who probably never had to fix one of those cranky dinosaurs. I think the quality went in the top and straight out the bottom! ;)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Though it's hard to know if mastering is identical, I still think higher sample rates reveal more fine detail in albums mastered from old analog tape. Led Zeppelin 24-96 remasters sound better to me than the CDs. While good mastering is important, most of what I hear is better than what the labels were releasing on CD. Same with SACD. Everything I've heard on Hoffman's new SACDs give me much more enjoyment than his CDs did. The dynamic range argument is irrelevant. It's not like labels are making you choose between either uncompressed CD or compressed hi-res. You get what they give you. Personally, I think HDTracks insults audiophile's intelligence by selling some of the crap they serve up and defend it as an artistic choice that's out of their control.

     

    My feeling is that 24-96 or 24-192 makes it easier for less talented mastering people to end up with a better sounding transfer because they're not trying to shoehorn it into the smaller window of 16/44 with it's limitations and get it perfect. Likewise, most DACs probably sound better at higher sample rates, because filtering is not as critical.

     

    The dynamic range argument is not irrelevant, and it is not necessary to accept what they give you. Visit the Dynamic Range Database, look up your favorite classic rock artist, and note the dramatic changes in DR that Sal has referred to. Then visit Discogs to buy high DR and low DR versions, or buy a high DR version and compare it to a low DR version from HD Tracks. I've done this several times, and found that DR is much more significant than hi res vs. CD quality.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    You do also have to take into account the horrid amount of dynamic compression the major labels are now putting to many of the old classics. IMHO many pre loudness war CD's from the 80s-90s sound superior to later releases both Redbook and HDA due to these unfortunate circumstances.

    Absolutely, totally agree with you - that's what I had in mind with my qualification about a good mastering philosophy, with no buzzcut limiting (and no bad EQ choices too).

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Dynamic range is not a guaranty of quality any more than a sample rate is. I've heard great sounding albums which are supposed to have low DR rating. I've heard crappy sounding recordings with a high DR rating.

     

    Record labels are pretty much going do what they want. You don't have to accept that but you're probably listen to silence. Neil Young thought he was going to change their minds but by the time his site launched he started saying "We're giving you what the artists intended" Which was BS.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Dynamic range is not a guaranty of quality any more than a sample rate is. I've heard great sounding albums which are supposed to have low DR rating. I've heard crappy sounding recordings with a high DR rating.

     

    True, but when old issues are DR10 or higher while newer ones are DR4 the higher DR version is generally better.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Dynamic range is not a guaranty of quality any more than a sample rate is. I've heard great sounding albums which are supposed to have low DR rating. I've heard crappy sounding recordings with a high DR rating.

     

    QUOTE]

     

    *If* you're comparing CD to CD, or file to file, of two different issues of the same album, then dynamic range differences of, for example, 3-4 or more can be an important clue to quality. For example, I searched for old used CDs of a couple of Bob Seger favorites, because the new CDs are ssssqqqquuuuuaaaaassshhheeedddd.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think Seger Ultimate Hits double CD sounds pretty darn good. I also believe newer converters are better. How they use them is another story.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think Seger Ultimate Hits double CD sounds pretty darn good. I also believe newer converters are better. How they use them is another story.

    It can be a, one step forward (better converters, higher sampling rates, etc) but two steps back (massacred dynamics) with the releases from today's major pop labels. :( The only good news is with the rock classics the early CD's or LP's are available.

    Wanted to get a copy of David Crosby's If Only I Could Remember My Name, so I checked the database,

    Album list - Dynamic Range Database

    Later 2006 CD releases have a DR of 8, early 1990 Atlantic release is a DR13. Found a nice 1990 copy on ebay for $8 shipped, I'll have it about Wed. :)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It can be a, one step forward (better converters, higher sampling rates, etc) but two steps back (massacred dynamics) with the releases from today's major pop labels. :( The only good news is with the rock classics the early CD's or LP's are available.

    Wanted to get a copy of David Crosby's If Only I Could Remember My Name, so I checked the database,

    Album list - Dynamic Range Database

    Later 2006 CD releases have a DR of 8, early 1990 Atlantic release is a DR13. Found a nice 1990 copy on ebay for $8 shipped, I'll have it about Wed. :)

     

    The DVD version in 24/192 has a DR of 8 and sounds great. Usually I agree with you on this issue, but despite the compression I think it sounds fantastic

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The DVD version in 24/192 has a DR of 8 and sounds great. Usually I agree with you on this issue, but despite the compression I think it sounds fantastic

     

    They started with great bones. I did a little searching on the album and the original CD is reviewed as one of the best sounding commercial CDs ever.

    If you'd like to do a A-B I'd be happy to send you my copy after I rip it, no cost. Just PM me a continental US shipping address. Then post your honest thoughts here.

    Don't know how worthy it would be as a comparo though, the DVD was a complete remastering with both the 24/192 stereo and 5.1 surround mixes on it?

    In any case it's yours if you want it.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Dynamic range is not a guaranty of quality any more than a sample rate is. I've heard great sounding albums which are supposed to have low DR rating. I've heard crappy sounding recordings with a high DR rating.

     

    Record labels are pretty much going do what they want. You don't have to accept that but you're probably listen to silence. Neil Young thought he was going to change their minds but by the time his site launched he started saying "We're giving you what the artists intended" Which was BS.

     

    I think the phrase "what the artist intended" is marketing speak. Most musicians have very little control over what the labels do with their music and many are neither aware or interested in the recording and mixing/mastering process. There are few artists which very involved in the sound quality but are mostly not distributed through mainstream labels.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think the phrase "what the artist intended" is marketing speak. Most musicians have very little control over what the labels do with their music and many are neither aware or interested in the recording and mixing/mastering process. There are few artists which very involved in the sound quality but are mostly not distributed through mainstream labels.

    Here's an idea of where the great producers like Alan Parsons think.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    They started with great bones. I did a little searching on the album and the original CD is reviewed as one of the best sounding commercial CDs ever.

    If you'd like to do a A-B I'd be happy to send you my copy after I rip it, no cost. Just PM me a continental US shipping address. Then post your honest thoughts here.

    Don't know how worthy it would be as a comparo though, the DVD was a complete remastering with both the 24/192 stereo and 5.1 surround mixes on it?

    In any case it's yours if you want it.

     

     

    I'm not in the US, but if you want to send me a couple of tracks electronically in ripped form for comparison, I'm sure we can work something out. The DVD is a DVD/CD set, with the CD being the remaster you don't like. It wouldn't shock me if the original CD sounds better, I've definitely come across that with classic rock remasters.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I wonder what's the reason for compression of reissued hi-res? Not like it's gonna be played on the radio. They gotta know audiophiles don't approve and may not buy it. Hdtracks etc. has been a total disappointment.

     

    Does anyone really expect the MQA correction process to improve some of that junk without starting from scratch?

     

    I still think we're better off buying physical discs from boutique labels.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I still think we're better off buying physical discs from boutique labels.

    If only our favorite music was released by boutique labels :~(

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I wonder what's the reason for compression of reissued hi-res? Not like it's gonna be played on the radio. They gotta know audiophiles don't approve and may not buy it. Hdtracks etc. has been a total disappointment.

     

    Any or all of the following:

     

    1. They don't care about audiophiles. They've simply found out that if you market a "hi-res remaster", you can sell X thousands of units without making any effort. People keep buying them, so....

     

    2. Simple arrogance - laziness- cheapness (take your pick): They make a high res master. But the real point is the Redbook and mp3 remasters, which sell in MUCH greater numbers, and which they assume are listened to on ear buds while walking down the street. So they pump up the volume on the high-res remaster and then produce the Redbook and mp3 from that. Why go to the trouble of keeping a second, different "audiophile" master if they don't have to? One master from which all versions are derived. Easy, simple, cheap. Plus: See #1 above.

     

    3. They've totally bought in to the practice that everything has to be "loud" - otherwise it sounds "old fashioned" or doesn't even "sound good" - because if it isn't LOUD, it can't sound good, right?

     

    There are a few instances of the "hi-res" remaster being given no or moderate volume compression at the same time that the more mass market Redbook and mp3 versions are given the heavier compression. But unfortunately, these examples are the minority.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Guest
    This is now closed for further comments




×
×
  • Create New...