Ultimate HQCD (UHQCD) - new CD format, King Crimson on UHQCD and more

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by toilet_doctor, Aug 10, 2016.

  1. toilet_doctor

    toilet_doctor "Rockin' chair's got me" Thread Starter

    Location:
    USA
    Jazz tiles are reissue of old mastering:

    Dec. 12, 2018

    Wes Montgomery The Incredible Jazz Guitar Of Wes Montgomery (2003 DSD master)
    Sonny Rollins Saxophone Colossus (2010)
    Miles Davis Relaxin' With The Miles Davis Quintet (2004)
    Red Garland Groovy (2011)
    Art Pepper Art Pepper Meets The Rhythm Section (2010)
    Bill Evans Waltz for Debby (2010)
    Bill Evans Portrait in Jazz (2003)
    Bill Evans Sunday At The Village Vanguard (2011)

    Who has them, please comment on SQ.
     
  2. toilet_doctor

    toilet_doctor "Rockin' chair's got me" Thread Starter

    Location:
    USA
    CCR is very possible, but forget about VdGG - they do new titles now, and it is not Universal any more.
    I went though all VDGG threads and warned all: buy it now, while it's still available, but who listened...
     
  3. brimuchmuze

    brimuchmuze Forum Resident

    Hey TD, so what's the story on no more SACDs?
     
  4. toilet_doctor

    toilet_doctor "Rockin' chair's got me" Thread Starter

    Location:
    USA
    It is a long story, but I will tell it after a few comparison tests.
     
  5. Musicisthebest

    Musicisthebest Exiled Yorkshireman

    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    If you mean undecided MQA v SHM Platinum then then answer is No. They will sound different. A number of folk like the MQA undecoded sound but I don't.
     
  6. toilet_doctor

    toilet_doctor "Rockin' chair's got me" Thread Starter

    Location:
    USA
    You didn't compare them with the same mastering, that is why.
    The titles that you bought are simply not so good sounding (especially Royal Scam) - I will test them too.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
  7. swintonlion

    swintonlion Forum Resident

    Location:
    Manchester UK
    I compared the redbook mqa and platinum cds with the same mastering and found the mqa with the uhqcd to sound slightly better imo.
    regards different mastering then thats when it get selective.
     
    toilet_doctor and Rockstar2112 like this.
  8. toilet_doctor

    toilet_doctor "Rockin' chair's got me" Thread Starter

    Location:
    USA
    Slightly is a right word.
    What title did you compare?
     
  9. swintonlion

    swintonlion Forum Resident

    Location:
    Manchester UK
    Rolling Stones Sticky Fingers,Exile on main street, Dire Straits .Genesis Foxtrot not too impressed with this on either cd,this was a direct a b test,in isolation and from memory you probably harder to tell.
     
    toilet_doctor likes this.
  10. toilet_doctor

    toilet_doctor "Rockin' chair's got me" Thread Starter

    Location:
    USA
    Thank you for your comment. I see you have a neat Hi-End Naim system.
    4 titles - that says a lot. Did you notice that the better transfer was made, the easier to compare and detect the difference in SQ?

    Genesis (except 'Lambs...') - no, no, no. This 2007 remaster is a victim of the Loudness War. I used to have SACD, sold them out of disappointment and later bought Pt CDs - I don't have them anymore. I am empty-handed now and very open to a new remaster, which at present will probably not come anytime soon. (Let's talk about this later).
     
  11. swintonlion

    swintonlion Forum Resident

    Location:
    Manchester UK
    I am a fan of uhqcds in general,on listening i just thought the uhqcds a bit more dynamic and a bit more detail to be had.I have about 10 titles of these and in general they all have the strengths.One on hear that people liked is the Traffic cd i preferred the earlier shm cd so everyone can hear different these are only my take on these cd .
     
    toilet_doctor likes this.
  12. toilet_doctor

    toilet_doctor "Rockin' chair's got me" Thread Starter

    Location:
    USA
    Traffic SHM... do not rash me salt on the wounds. They were Japanese only remaster. I had the SHM Mini LP full set, but when Uni and EMI went the SHM-SACD/Platinum in the Mini LP, I thought all Mini LP would be in High-Res now (I was so naive and maybe still I am) and stupidly sold everything — I regretted it many times. However, I think to see Traffic next year.

    What do you think non-decoded MQA affects the sound or it is completely UHQCD impact? Or both?
     
  13. swintonlion

    swintonlion Forum Resident

    Location:
    Manchester UK
    Probably if these discs came without the MQA bit tagged on i think they could sound better on the redbook bit,but unless they came out like that we would only be guessing,i would buy them if they were only UHQCDS, but on the plus side if you end up with a MQA dac you could hear the benefits as well. Yes i think the UHQCD bit makes the main difference.
     
    toilet_doctor likes this.
  14. tlake6659

    tlake6659 Senior Member

    Location:
    NJ
    Just get the AP SACDs for CCR.
     
    toilet_doctor likes this.
  15. toilet_doctor

    toilet_doctor "Rockin' chair's got me" Thread Starter

    Location:
    USA
    It will be 15% off with free shipping on Thanksgiving at acousticsounds.com.
    So you will be on a safe side for now. If Uni would come with CCR, you can buy the best sounding title and compare in your 205.
    Please don't forget to let us know the result of this test.

    P.S.
    AP (Analog Production) SACD titles are among the best. I have them all (of my favorites).
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
  16. toilet_doctor

    toilet_doctor "Rockin' chair's got me" Thread Starter

    Location:
    USA
    MQA UHQCD vs. Platinum SHM-CD vs. SHM-SACD
    (non-decoded MQA UHQCD experience)

    Universal, Japan Roxy Music Avalon 2015 flat transfer 2018 MQA UHQCD vs. 2015 Pt SHM-CD version vs. 2015 SHM-SACD

    [​IMG]

    Platinum SHM-CD sound better than their SHM counterparts with the same transfer. (We have at least 3 comparison tests from different members in the Platinum thread).
    So is UHQCD against SHM-CD, I tested here.

    Both discs are improved versions of SHM-CD:
    Platinum has a pure Pt 1000 reflective coating, while MQA UHQCD has an additional Photopolymer layer in the liquid state, "able to penetrate into the tiniest corners of pits on the stamper so that the pattern of the pits is reproduced to an extremely high level of accuracy".

    There is nothing to compare pure UHQCD (without MQA) with Pt SHM-CD with the same mastering. However, we have MQA UHQCD with the same mastering. There are about 40 Rock and 25 Jazz titles to chose from. But for the test, I took those which entered category "Best" in the ranking.

    [​IMG]

    Such title is Roxy Music Avalon. I invited my friend for a blind test. We conducted A/B/A comparison of 10 tracks.
    Result: from 10 tracks, he pointed twice to Platinum and 8 times to MQA UHQCD as a better sounding.
    They are close, but even without blind test, the MQA UHQ disc sounds obviously clearer.

    I just put them on to refresh my memory. I started with Pt, from the first note the sound was open, airy, well balanced with fast bass and good dynamics. That is why the Avalon entered the "Best" category, but stood next to the border with "Very Good" section. And there is a reason for that.

    Clarity of the trebles left to be desired, especially when I cranked the sound. And this was important because there was a place where the MQA UHQ surpassed the Platinum disc, being on the same level in the rest of the spectrum. It affected vocal first of all, to be more specific, and high octave instruments (the last instrumental track with an alto-Sax solo comes to mind).

    Then I put the SHM-SACD version. It was equal to the trebles of MQA UHQCD, but the bass was more weightier and tighter. And the sound overall was fuller, more solid.

    Conclusion:
    When we were talking in a Platinum thread that Pt SHM-CD is very close to SHM-SACD, I could not even imagine that would be some another red book CD that can fit between Pt and SACD.
    And after all, it left some impression that with a nice, proper decoding MQA UHQCD could fight SACD further and in some cases exceed it in clarity.

    All three versions are great and highly recommended.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
    Jagger69, ispace, stenway and 3 others like this.
  17. toilet_doctor

    toilet_doctor "Rockin' chair's got me" Thread Starter

    Location:
    USA
    I said it earlier at Mini LP thread, but I want to repeat here:
    There are no dumb questions, when it comes to expensive and Limited Ed. Japanese collectibles.

    (Plan9, please correct me if I am wrong).
    The benefits of the DSD master are laying in its Hi-Res form.
    Take Hybrid SACD with a good mastering and play its CD layer, compare to the SACD layer - here all DSD benefits will pop up: clarity, airiness, separation and soundstage.

    The main thing here is the mastering itself. It is 80% of success. Put a bad master on SACD and all DSD benefits will be drastically reduced, your brain would not recognize them in a bad sound.

    For the standard resolution payback, it is absolutely does not matter in which form it was done DSD or PCM (they are vise-versa convertible).
    To get benefits of DSD master you have to have DSD playback (SACD player or DSD DAC).
    The same thing with PCM Hi-Res CD (MQA UHQCD) - you need MQA player or MQA DAC.

    OK, here is the deal with these MQA UHQCDs:
    When you play them in standard resolution form (without MQA decoding), they still have the benefits the better made of best materials of UHQ discs, equal in SQ or slightly clearer than Platinum SHM-CDs (you like).
    (Please read comparison test Post #1141, Page 46 'MQA UHQCD vs. Platinum SHM-CD')

    As for ripping 'Sticky Fingers', as Plan9 said, it will be the same DSD mastering, but converted to MQA.
    So what you get is standard resolution MQA file (not DSD file), which can be always unfolded in Hi-Res with the right equipment.

    One Japanese guy did rip particularly Stones Sticky Fingers, you asked about, and he shared his experience.
    I posted the translation before, but I see that you missed it... Here it is:

    The Rolling Stones Sticky Fingers MQA UHQCD

    Review:

    (translation)
    "5* You can also enjoy high resolution with the MQA file of 352.8 kHz by ripping the CD!

    I think that the feature of this MQA UHQCDs is the MQA files.

    I am a MAC user, I ripped to WAV's 24 bit file with free application XLD and played the file with ONKYO's DP-X1A.
    What I heard is the 352.8 kHz High Res file, even though it is the same size as the CD.
    What's currently being delivered in Japan is the same master as this MQA UHQCD in 192 kHz FLAC version - 3680 yen.
    This MQA UHQCD is 3,280 yen with quality approximately twice as high as the sample rate, and it is very advantageous, because it also comes with a high quality CD.


    For Mac users ripping is very easy with free software XLD. However, when ripping with XLD, ripping as it is with FLAC; the original MQA file is 24 bit, but it becomes 16 bit of 352.8 kHz. Therefore, I set the bit rate to 24 bits in WAV and set the sample rate to "same as original".
    After ripping is finished, add "mqa" to the file name. This is the procedure necessary to make it recognized as an MQA file. (For example, change to Brown Sugar.wav → Brown Sugar.mqa.wav).


    Wondering if you play with MQA compatible equipment! Although the size of the file is almost the same as CD, it is recognized as a high-res file of 352.8 kHz, and it is the lively sound.
    Unfortunately, audio equipment not compatible with MQA will be recognized at 44.1 kHz 16 bit. This also applies to models that do not support the sample rate of 352.8 kHz.


    In the same series, other titles which use the latest master of 2018 are also recommended, furthermore."
    (amazon Jpn, July 13, 2018)

    JCM, buy Stones not 'Sticky Fingers', but 'Exile'... play it, compare it with your Platinum version to know what it's worth. If it's that good, rip it to your computer and save the file - the first in your MQA library.
    Play the MQA file, compare to the both Pt SHM and MQA UHQCD versions. You will find out what are the benefits of Platinum and UHQ discs in your system.
    Being taking from the fancy discs, the MQA file will lost these benefits, but you can play it later with this little toy on a go, for instance:
    Pioneer MQA/DSD Hi-Res Digital Audio Player, Silver XDP-100R(S)



    [​IMG]
    Then you will know what to do next. These Japanese CDs are like money in a bank...
    The cheapest Pt "Exile On Main Street" I could only find:
    Exile On Main Street-Rolling Stones (Platinum SHM-CD, OOP, Mini-LP, LTD, Japan) | eBay
    Could you imagine that when you bought it 3 years ago?
    Will this Platinum version ever released again? Never...
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
    Mike McMann likes this.
  18. toilet_doctor

    toilet_doctor "Rockin' chair's got me" Thread Starter

    Location:
    USA
    P.S.
    I read that someone said: "this is not high resolution file".
    I want to remind everybody what Hi-Res is:
    Everything above standard resolution of 16 bit/44.1 kHz.
    This little cutie, which can holds 11,000 songs, recognizes "Exile On Main Street" as 24/352.8kHz MQA file and displayed these numbers on its display.



    Pioneer XDP-100R DAP Unboxing And Overview
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
  19. Here is the best way to think of MQA.

    What MP3 is to Redbook PCM, MQA is to Hi-Rez recordings. It's a sophisticated attempt to encapsulate Hi-Rez sound in a smaller carrier and limited bandwidth environment.
     
  20. Hymie the Robot

    Hymie the Robot Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    The marketing attempted to make more of it than that which turns people off. That, and the extra middle man.
     
  21. toilet_doctor

    toilet_doctor "Rockin' chair's got me" Thread Starter

    Location:
    USA
    I agree with what you said, but it's only a small part of what MQA can do.
    Strongly disagree. It, actually, is more than that.

    I deeply believe in my heart (upon what I read in my Hi Fi magazines) that it's also can and does already in full blow encapsulate Hi-Res in wide bandwidth environment with right equipment, of course, like this:
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
    Hymie the Robot likes this.
  22. toilet_doctor

    toilet_doctor "Rockin' chair's got me" Thread Starter

    Location:
    USA
    Mytek HiFi Manhattan II MQA/DSD D/A preamplifier-headphone amplifier

    Herb Reichert | Aug 15, 2017


    "These days, every audio person has an opinion about MQA
    recordings, even if few have actually listened to their favorite
    music in MQA."


    "I think there's only one pertinent question about MQA's virtue:
    Does it make the playback of digitally encoded music sound more
    lifelike, or not? DSD and high-resolution downloads never sound

    completely right or real to me. MQA does."
    (Herb Reichert)





    (from the review)
    "I first experienced the Manhattan II D/A–preamp–headphone amp in Juriewicz's [Mytek's owner, founder, and chief engineer] basement lab and demonstration studio, where we compared MQA and non-MQA files through a pair of vintage Duntech Sovereign speakers. The Manhattan II sat on a table before me, its top off and its circuit board exposed. The room was small and well padded, but the sound was big, hyper-detailed, and powerfully presented.
    Manhattan II is very shiny, bright, broad (17" wide by 2" high by 10.5" deep) and heavy (17.6 lbs). My review sample had the Gold Silver faceplate; Black Matte or Silver Frost Matte are also available.

    [​IMG]


    The Manhattan II is a complete digital and analog service provider: conversion rates up to 32-bit/384kHz, MQA, DXD, and DSD256.
    On the rear panel is every possible input: USB 2, AES/EBU, TosLink/ADAT, two S/PDIF, and SDIF3. There are also two sets of unbalanced analog inputs (RCA): one converts to Phono with the optional phono card ($1495), the other accepts a line-level source. A third line-level input is balanced (XLR). There's also an optional, Roon-ready network/WiFi card ($995) that turns the Manhattan II into a network streamer with maximum throughput of 24/192 and DSD64, compatible with Apple AirPlay, DLNA/UpnP, Spotify Connect, iOS, and Android devices. The outputs comprise one pair each unbalanced (RCA) and balanced (XLR). Also on the rear panel are a three-position headphone gain switch, and two BNC sockets for wordclock input and output. The Manhattan II's discrete, high-current headphone amp has a 0.25-ohm output impedance and two independently driven, ¼" headphone jacks on the right side of the front panel (balanced operation is therefore possible). Absolute signal phase is switchable on the front panel, using the menu and switches. Also available via the Manhattan II's menu are various user-selectable PCM and DSD filter options—none of which are available during MQA playback, which mandates a single, unique filter. The seven PCM filters are... The user can also select one of three DSD filters... or an Auto mode in which the appropriate filter is automatically determined by the DSD rate: Lo for DSD64, Med for DSD128, or Hi for DSD256. The owner's manual is well written and illustrated—but even toddlers will find the Manhattan II's controls and menu intuitively easy to learn.

    The Manhattan II has three selectable line-level inputs, and offers the user a choice of digital or analog volume control. I much preferred the open naturalness of the analog control, which I used for 95% of my listening. It was of high enough quality to eliminate the need for and cost of a separate line stage in even the best systems.

    Listening to binaural MQA through headphones
    These days, every audio person has an opinion about MQA recordings, even if few have actually listened to their favorite music in MQA. I have no interest in and zero knowledge of the business aspects of MQA, and I only partially grasp the technology. But I've listened to a lot of MQA-processed material, and I believe it enhances the verity—and my enjoyment—of digital recordings. I think there's only one pertinent question about MQA's virtue: Does it make the playback of digitally encoded music sound more lifelike, or not? DSD and high-resolution downloads never sound completely right or real to me. MQA does.

    Who knows? MQA may disappear in a few years. All I know is that Camille Thurman's new MQA-encoded CD, Inside the Moment (Chesky JD397), is the most lifelike, 3D-sounding recording I've ever heard. Featuring the tenor sax and voice of Thurman—with guitarist Mark Whitfield, bassist Ben Allison, and drummer Billy Drummond—this binaural recording of a concert at Rockwood Music Hall, on New York's Lower East Side, is outstanding among audiophile recordings because, all the way through, the band, the audience, and the listener at home all sound and feel as if they're in the same room. Plucked double bass, brushed and struck drums, and audience applause were all so hauntingly real that it was distracting. As I listened through headphones with my eyes closed, the air that vibrated around Chesky's binaural B&K dummy head as this concert was recorded felt as if it was vibrating around my head. The Rockwood audience was next to and behind me. In front of me, the band was tangibly present. The intensity of this experience of virtual reality compels me to ask: If you were contemplating the purchase of a new DAC, why would you not want it to include MQA processing?


    In system
    When I first installed the Manhattan II in my system and began playing music over speakers, using the SRMP filter, I kept mumbling to myself, "Wow! That is nice. Damn!"
    ...
    I didn't fully grasp the quality of the Manhattan II until I used it to listen to Fred McDowell's "Shake 'Em On Down" through Zu Audio Soul Supreme speakers driven by the ProLogue Premium preamp and Bel Canto Design REF600M monoblocks. It sounded richly toned, dense, and soulfully engaging.

    ...

    Against the Schiit Yggdrasil
    Recordings played through Schiit Audio's Yggdrasil DAC, which I reviewed in February 2017, display a punchy, tight-bass vivo, natural tone, and conspicuous musicality. Schiit's reference DAC would be my reference DAC—if only it had MQA and emptier empty spaces. In contrast, Mytek's Manhattan II is the most transparent and grain-free DAC I've used.

    The Yggdrasil makes "Red Book" CDs sound a lot like MQA. But real MQA, via the Manhattan II, delivered cleaner, stronger, more obvious versions of all the Yggdrasil's strengths. Compared to Mytek's own Brooklyn DAC, the Manhattan II made MQA recordings feel as if they were emerging from vaster, deeper, more silent emptiness. And silent vastness is what we audiophiles must always pay extra for.


    The most conspicuous differences between the Manhattan II and the Schiit Yggdrasil and Mytek's own Brooklyn: The Manhattan II delivered music of greater transparency and image solidity, and generated a stronger force field that let instruments and voices stand out with greater physical presence.

    Please read a full review:
    Mytek HiFi Manhattan II D/A preamplifier-headphone amplifier

    I have no reason not to trust my favorite reviewers, I have read and enjoyed reviews of many of them for 19 years.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
    Hymie the Robot likes this.
  23. Hymie the Robot

    Hymie the Robot Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    It was touted as better than high resolution which it isn't.

    Personally I don't get caught up in formats. The mix and masterings are more important. My post today was more of an opinion about why people are turned off about the MQA format which I think are valid. I much prefer your thread on the subject than LeeS, which didn't offer anything. Your thread is so much more than that and I thank you for it!
     
    toilet_doctor likes this.
  24. cordobaman

    cordobaman Rich Corinthian Leather

    Location:
    Erie, PA USA
    I have received two of the MQA x UHQCDs, Free "Fire And Water", and Steely Dan "The Royal Scam".
    I have ripped them using EAC to flac and loaded them onto the SSHD of my Auralic Altair DAC/Streamer.
    I have only listened as a 16/44.1 rebook.

    Fire And Water, compare to the SHM-SACD. The UHCD, with the new mastering, it is clearly more detailed in all aspects. You can hear the glorious tape hiss, the percussion is more evident. The pluck of the bass guitar is very distinct. Vocals are slightly more forward. The SACD high frequencies sound almost cut/limited. The bass is fuller, albeit less detailed. However, there is something warm and pleasant about the SACD, that with initial comparisons, I may prefer. Possibly familiarity bias.

    The Royal Scam, compare to an original "plaid back" MCAD-31193 CD. There were less obvious differences at first, very similar tone. As I compared a couple times, the UHQCD has a better sound stage and slightly better detail.

    UPDATE: I have just learned how to add metadata to the flac files, allowing my Altair's DAC to decode the MQA as 16/352.8kHz.
    I will re-compare tonight to hear if this makes a notable difference.
     
  25. toilet_doctor

    toilet_doctor "Rockin' chair's got me" Thread Starter

    Location:
    USA
    Thank you for sharing your experience, cordobaman.
    Please answer to the one only question:
    Did you hear something like this, playing them as a red book in any of yours MQA UHQCDs: "The MQA CDs I've heard are clear & dynamic, undoubtedly, but the musicians aren't playing together." ?
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine