Article: My First 24 Hours With MQA

[Sal1950]

I listen to mostly Classic Rock. I don't expect to hear the mic feed. But I want to hear what's on the analog tape. And 16/44 doesn't cut it for me. I don't care what Mark Waldrep thinks. I'm not buying his recordings because of the way he produces them. I'm buying stuff that I want to hear.

 

I can say the same about Bob Stuart. MQA might be great but if I can't find classic rock/ pop remastered using the MQA process, I won't buy it. I'm talking about going all the way back to the analog tape to do the transfer using the MQA process and not old digital masters that have been corrected. That to me sounds like sales BS. Come on, how can something be authenticated from an old digital master?

 

DSD seems to be more accurate with transients and temporal information, but there's something in the treble that's not quite right. Doubtful if any music I listen to will ever get DSD128 or DSD256 treatment.

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.

[labjr]

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?

[Sal1950]

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.

[Paul R]

...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...

[mansr]

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.

[Jud]

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.

[tmtomh]

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.

[Sal1950]

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"

[Sal1950]

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.

[labjr]

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.

[Paul R]

+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!

[PeterG]

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.

[tmtomh]

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).

[labjr]

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.

[mansr]

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.

[Jud]

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.

[labjr]

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.

[Sal1950]

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.

[firedog]

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

[Sal1950]

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.

[monteverdi]

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.

[Sal1950]

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.

[firedog]

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.

[labjr]

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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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

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