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

I've never heard about LeeS, but Archimago, who posted 4 Agitator's (who actually did of his best) MQA UHQCD reviews on facebook, comparing discs with different mastering as some kind of revelation about MQA. Although, this is just a comparison of mastering itself.
How can I trust him on his own MQA reviews after that?

MQA Project moves on.
MQA UHQCDs have a good value and sound at the Pt SHM level, no less.
As always, it all depends on the recordings and transfer.
From what I heard in my own system, there are good and bad recordings and transfers of master tapes - the same as in the previous project.
I see no reasons to blame MQA for that.
We will do more tests and comments, just like we did in the SHM-SACD / Pt SHM threads.

We have to buy only good sounding CDs - this is the purpose of this thread.

If people only could buy only the best audio CDs, there would be no bad ones at all.
(sorry for the double "only" I put).

Imagine that companies will listen to what they produce and select the bad ones out.
It looks surreal, but it’s a simple quality control.
We do not buy bad furniture or other everyday things.
My wife always brings bad food back to the store, and they take it back.
Why not CDs?

 

Uni releases John Coltrane The Lost Album sessions again. This time, it's a 3 disc set in the UHQCD format with additional albums, covering all 1963 releases:

Dec. 12, 2018

John Coltrane '63: New Directions (3 UHQCD)

"This set, available as a 3-CD, highlights everything Coltrane recorded in 1963 in the order these songs were recorded. This is a must have for any Coltrane fan interested in hearing the amazing progression of this jazz giant in a pivotal year in his illustrious career."

It also comes as 5-LP box set and should be remastered, but I couldn't find any info on remastering.

"The contents of this release will be identical to the worldwide release, except for: Discs are UHQCD format and pressed in Japan. A set of three UHQCD discs focuses on John Coltrane's recordings done in 1963. The recordings include: "The Lost Album" sessions, "John Coltrane & Johnny Hartman," "Selflessness Featuring My Favorite Things," and "Live at Birdland." This Japan edition exclusively features the high-fidelity UHQCD format."

Price for 3 UHQCD set is $35.73, while world-wide release - $32.61 (at amazon UK)

(translation)
1963: New Directions [UHQCD] [Limited Release] / John Coltrane
"A set of three pieces that compiled the official recording of 1963 when John Coltrane revolutionized musically in the jazz world's best charisma. Starting with the "The Lost Album" session which became the biggest hit of the jazz world in 2018, a gentle famous record "John Coltrane & Johnny Hartman", a spectacular announced after the death of Coltrane From 1963's track that led the golden quartet to extensive practicing activities to the live board "Selfresidence Featuring My Favorite Things", "Live at Birdland" combining live and studio recording Recorded in the order of recording. Imported artwork specification (Disc is domestic press)."

 

Now my DAC is processing the MQA.
I was quite surprised that MQA vs. redbook (of the same disc) was so distinctly different.
The bass was more pronounced. The tone was slightly brighter.
The statement "musicians aren't playing together" is an interesting way to describe their sound.
I would call the sound very clear, detailed, and technically accurate. But I was less drawn in to the music.

Compared the Free MQA x UHQCD (decoded) vs. the SHM-SACD (different mastering), I still prefer the SACD.
Once you hear the naturalness of DSD, you cannot "unhear" it.
The MQA x UHQCD (decoded) sounds very, very clear, but was too hot on the cymbals for my taste.

An interesting revelation though. For the song "Fire And Water", on the MQA x UHQCD I could hear a "ring" tone with each cymbal crash, what was that?
Came to realize it was (I believe) a tambourine being played at the same time!
You could not hear that ring tone on the SACD at all. But to me, the SHM-SACD sounds warmer, more analog, and is more engaging.

For the Steely Dan, the MQA x UHQCD was again very, very clear.
Compared to the different mastering of the old CD, the old CD has better midrange and slightly stronger bass.
Once again, I prefer my old plaid-back CD, for its tone and being more engaging.

Bottom line, the MQA x UHQCDs (decoded) are extremely clear and detailed.
If that is the style of sound you prefer, the MQA x UHQCDs are the ones to get.
Bonus, the packaging is beautiful.
But I think I may put them in the classifieds for someone else to enjoy.

 

Again, thank you for your comparisons and comments.
I understand it like this:
Decoded version sounded better than non-decoded one of the same disc - more clarity, details and even bass was more pronounced. Is not it?
However, you preferred SHM-SACD sound as more natural to you. Right?

If so, let me ask one more question:
Did you note that decoded version "sounds great at first but quickly a musical shallowness is revealed. Like it’s all surface. Strange. Each time we preferred the normal [non-decoded] CDs..." played on the different player?

 

P.S.
I have an impression, you think that my very first question: Did you note that "musicians aren't playing together"? was about decoded MQA.
But it was about non-decoded version. Did you note something like that in your non-decoded listening?

 

Musicisthebest, please post me bar-code number, I'll buy it to compare with MQA UHQCD.

 

My copy's so old it doesn't have a bar number!

MCD-37044 but also DIDX-370

A copy should be easy (& cheap) for you to find in the US.

Note that this isn't the only CD with the Roger Nicholls master - see Steely Dan CDs Different Masterings: The Royal Scam & then Steely Dan CDs Different Masterings: The Summary Thread

Yes, it's a lot to read through, but it's easier than seeking out & then testing all the Steely Dan variants yourself!

Happy hunting!

 

No one specify CDs by catalog number, but LP.
Can you provide at least release date?

 

Thank you!
If this is the one, I'm not going to pay $40 bucks for 16-bit mastering, even it was so good.
NEAR MINT STEELY DAN ROYAL SCAM (1976) EARLY JAPAN DIDX AUDIOPHILE CD MCAD-37044 | eBay
Our resale stores do not take CDs without bar-cods - they cannot scan them for the inventory.



As I said it before: almost all my 16-bit Gold DCC and MoFi real audiophile collectables with a very fine mastering are gone, because they may stand dynamics, bass and clarity, but fell short in soundstage, separation and air - they just sound flat, metallic and non-vital, much further from analog than contemporary 24-bit masters. Although my system does squeeze from them max details.
I still keep only one old Gold double album, thou - Jesus Christ Superstar, because it was not remastered since then. And it is a really nice remaster, but sounds exactly like I said above.
Comparison test - did not take place...

 

I can appreciate that these UHQCDs sound great. They do. Give me a disc that sounds good and I can hear that it does. I keep my eyes open for new titles here, I just wish more titles were available in UHQ.

 

It should be a way to listen to MQA UHQ discs through your Altair in 24/352.8kHz. It will be more and more software updates over time - keep CDs as new tech music samplers. You may need them for trying in some audio store or Hi-Fi show, or another system. These discs have a big potential realized with each system upgrade. Who knows how everything turns out...
Please read Post #1o74, Page 43 and my next review.

 

- comparison test -

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

Universal, Japan Wishbone Ash Argus (2013 flat transfer) 2018 MQA UHQCD vs. 2013 Pt SHM-CD version vs. 2016 SHM-SACD (all the same transfer).


"I'll be very interested in hearing how
that Wishbone Ash contest turns out."
(PhantomStranger)






4 shades of green:


Music

I checked out what I wrote at the Platinum thread about Argus more than 2 years ago:
Wishbone Ash may not have been the inventor of two solo guitars in one rock band, but was one of the pioneers and used such a thing for great success. Argus was their album that put them on the map. Some songs here have long interludes, starting with very, very quiet and slowly growing guitar parts, which require a little patience from the listeners. But the beauty of this music reveals very quickly.
Pt Wishbone Ash Argus surpassed SHM-SACD, which already stood firmly in the "Best" category.
In my opinion, this album belongs to any rock collection.
I'd like to add, two solo guitars interplay, acoustic and electric guitar interchange, great melodies, a gentle approach and soulful vocals - that's what I fell for in 70's, and nothing has changed since then.

Sound

Please note:
When I said that Pt Wishbone Ash Argus outperformed SHM-SACD, I meant the very first 2010 SHM-SACD cardboard sleeve release with the 2010 transfer from the Japan dub tape.
Pt release was 2013 new transfer from OMT (Original Master Tape). It was a time when they decided on 3 Mini LP versions of each title: SHM-CD, Pt SHM-CD and SHM-SACD. For this particular title, Argus, for a stupid reason, they released only two versions SHM-CD and Pt SHM-CD in the box. SHM-SACD with a new transfer was not released at all.
In November 2014 (they always do that in a holiday season) they re-released 100 Rock titles in jewel cases, including Argus. However, it was old 2010 transfer. Why? When the best sounding 2013 transfer was on hands? That how they did everything through the ass-hole, adding one mistake to another and the Project finally collapsed. (The story to be told).
Then they used Pt transfer for the latest 2016 SHM-SACD jewel case release. So I sold my 2010 SHM-SACD in a favor of this 2016 release.

Comparison:
I started from the very beginning - track #1 'Time Was'. This is a long track over 9 min with a long intro of acoustic solo guitars and vocal, then changes in tempo with more instruments getting in, and then again the quieter part. So I divided the song into 3 parts, comparing Pt, MQA UHQ and SACD in each of them.
Pt was great, confirming his place in the "Best" section. Everything was as it should be, a very good soundstage, airiness; acoustic guitars and vocal sounded clear and natural.

Nevertheless, just I put MQA UHQ version, it struck with huge soundstage, like someone added more air inside, and it filled entire (17' x 23' x 9') room. I find myself walking across the room, hearing one speaker being at another. Sound was simply outstanding in its clarity. Even the bass guitar, which appeared at about 1:30, was a bit better pronounced.

This bass guitar, however, was much better presented, when I put SHM-SACD on. The bottom end and lower mid were the real strength of the SACD. It made the sound overall more balanced and fuller, while at the highs it reached MQA level. The soundstage was also approximately the same. I expected such a great sound from SACD, as I heard it before, but not from the MQA UHQ disc.

In other tracks, Pt fought back with a denser sound than MQA, and narrowed margin.
On some tracks, there was a slight brightness of the vocals (in all versions), but in fact there is nothing to worry about. Nevertheless, it prevents me from putting all 3 versions in the upper part of the “Best” section, but in the middle.

I looked, who made such a good transfer back in 2013?
Yes, the same guy who did it for Free and Traffic in 2018 - Richard Whittaker.

Thanks again to Richard, I wish to thank him with each new release.

Speaking about comparing MQA, I noted that I could evaluate it much better when I listen to the album first for at least 20-30 min. The brain adjusted to the different sound. It becomes more recognizable, easier to get into details.

Conclusion

Any of these versions sounds amazingly good, but 2016 SHM-SACD is a killer.
People actually don't know what is what, they think that it is the same thing or just a reprint, but...
The best part:
Pt SHM and 2014 SHM-SACD are out of print,
while 2016 SHM-SACD with Richard Whittaker 2013 Flat Transfer still available at the lowest price ever - $26.71

http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/product/UIGY-15033?s_ssid=e344b55bc6da106a1

System used:
Player: Cary Audio 360 Pro SACD
Power amp: Coda Technologies 'KiloWatt Monoblocks'
Preamp: Coda Technologies
Speakers: B&W Nautilus 802 (500W)
Interconnects: Acoustic Zen Absolute Silver
Speaker Cables: Acoustic Zen Absolute Silver Shotgun


P.S.
I'm thinking to buy more of Richard Whittaker works in this series.

 

P.P.S.

"After decades, still enjoy the whole album, from start to finish.... a masterpiece."
(comment)


- "Incredible English group, with an unparalleled sound and these guitars ... wow ... awesome! I first heard the album Argus in the early 70's and it was love to the first guitar chord! The amazing thing is they do not use any special effects or synthesizer. It's basic guitar, solo, drums and bass, which makes them unique. Great Wishbone Ash, the best ever!"
- "Listen to me my friends. This is music. This doesn't require overdubs, this doesn't require reverb or fancy mixing boards. This is pure music! Please enjoy!" (comments)
The King Will Come

 

TD, I would say that I preferred the stronger bass from the decoded playback.
However, the highs became a little too pronounced for my taste.
It very well could be due to the difference in mastering.
The clarity was great with both non-decoded and encoded, very precise.

As far as "musical shallowness", I do not have enough comparison listening time (between non-decoded and encoded) to make a statement.

 

When ripping with EAC, it sees the MQA x UHQCD as a regular CD and rips at 16 bit.
I had to manually add these tags to the file metadata in order to get my Altair to decode the sampling frequency:
Encoder: MQAEncode
OriginalSampleRate: xxxxx
Where xxxxx is original sampling frequency in Hz, for instance 96k is 96000 and 352.8k is 352800.

The Auralic uses their own proprietary decoding, not a true MQA experience.
But on their support forums some say that the Auralic method is practically as good.
When streaming Tidal I get the 24 bit when applicable.

 

It costs that much because it sounds that good

Seriously, if you look for all the versions below I'm sure you'll find one for less than $40.

These are the versions to look out for

Mastering 3:
96.4/90.1/96.4/96.4/96.4/93.0/93.0/96.4/96.4
MCA USA MCAD-31193 (listed as ADD on back cover???) / Matrix: MCAD-37044-1T 26
MCA Germany MCD 01708 / DMCL 1708 (BMG Ariola) / Matrix: MCD 01708 50169 141 02, Made In Germany by MMDC
MCA USA MCAD-31193 (listed as ADD on back cover but AAD on disc???) / Matrix: MCAD-37044-1T 14
MCA Germany MCD 01708 DMCL 1708 (alu hub) / Matrix: SONOPRESS I-5626/ MCD01708 B
MCA Germany 250 505-2 (MCAD 37044) / Matrix: 250 505-2 SRC-02
MCA Japan 20P2-2115 / Matrix: 20P2-2115 1M TO
MCA Germany 811 708-2 MCD 01708 DMCL 1708 / Matrix: MCD01708 811 708-2
MCA Japan MCAD-37044 / MCAD-37044-U2E10
MCAD-31193 DIDY000370 (Artwork Made in USA, CRC SPARS code ADD) / Matrix: DIDX-000370 3
MCAD-37044 DIDX-370 (Mfd in Japan for MCA) /Matrix: MCAD 37044 M1E1
MCAD-37044 DIDX-370 USA / Matrix: MCAD-37044-M1 E11

I'm surprised you've given up on early CDs. I believe the mark of a good hi-fi system is that it can make bring the best out of any recording ie you can hear what's good about a recording rather than its flaws.

On second thoughts as you don't like early CDs you might want to give this one a miss.

 

Thanks for the comparison review. I noticed Whittaker's name frequently popping up on the better SHM-SACD releases. They sound like mostly flat transfers in pure DSD.

 

Well, against my better judgement, I purchased the MQA-CD of Steely Dan's The Royal Scam, since it's a favorite and it seems SHM-SACDs are dead.

I don't have an MQA decoding player, but I compared against the original CD, Citizen Steely Dan, and the 1999 Remaster.

It sounds most like the 1999 remaster to me.

I am a bit disappointed, as the 1999 remaster is not my favorite. The MQA-CD seems overly aggressive on the high end. I can't really fault MQA necessarily, but I don't expect a change if I had an MQA decoder.

I think most fans will be happy with the balanced sound of the original CD, but YMMV.

I am against the concept of MQA-CD and MQA in general, but thought I would give it a chance here. Don't think I will risk the $$$ again.

I do have some SHM-CDs/SHM-SACDs that I enjoy. Maybe it's down to the mastering.

 

Thank you for your comparison and comment on the Royal Scam release.
You don't have to be upset. It's a new title, you took a chance (we all do), and this is the result.
Does this mean that all other titles (that are on the way now) will sound like their previous versions?

I bought two titles (Roxy Music Avalon and Wishbone Ash Argus) just for a comparison sake.
I'm not a rich person working to pay my dues like everyone else. I spend my hard-earned money (secretly from my wife) to get the idea where we are with this new project, new CDs.
(Real rich guys, who has phenomenal systems and can easily help with comparisons, they don't want to do this. Maybe they have their own reasons for that... You have to be a rich man to completely understand them).
I wish, you would do your comparison earlier so that others could learn from you.

In a mean time, I'm will soon post Aja comparison test, and then comment on the Royal Scam.

 

Actually I am not really upset. I've been listening some more to the MQA-CD and it does have some virtues. It's pretty dynamic. But I can't shake the fact the high end seems a bit abrasive/fatiguing compared to the original which I like. Could that be due to listening to an non-decoded disc?

If someone finds the original too soft/warm maybe it's the disc for you.

I just received it yesterday. I posted as soon as I had done some initial listening, maybe too quick

Looking forward to that.

 

Question ;

.. so I see the UHQ-MQA CDs are playable on a regular CD player, but, is the SQ the same or better than a standard CD?
(as long as the SQ doesn't fall below standard CD quality when played on a regular CD player (no MQA playback) then I will buy them)

@toilet_doctor :

I know that translations to English from Japanese can be tricky. I do not quite understand what is meant by " masks the sound quality " (?)

In English, the word "mask" can have the meaning "to hide".

 

I just pulled the trigger on an order for a UHQ-MQA CD, so I will find out in a week or two (it's shipping from Hong Kong) if the playback on standard CD player is good.

I hope that the 16-bit/44.1 kHz (or better) layer is not affected by the alteration to the source master that is implemented in the MQA encoding, and that it still sounds as good as (or better) than a standard CD on a non-MQA player

 

By design, undecoded MQA CDs can't have "better SQ" than a CD. There is only one standard to make a Redbook CD.
Technically, when undecoded, MQA CDs fall below the resolution of Redbook CDs. Whether that's audible or not depends on you.

 

Heh ! I guess I will soon enough find out.
I have very keen hearing. I guess it will depend on how lossy it ends up being. I mean if we are talking technically lossy but to an insignificant degree, then it may not be noticeable at all. But if the resolution falls to a degree that is detectable, then that means they miss the market by not offering a true double-layer encoding playback, like an SACD hybrid where you get at least as good as a redbook with a standard CD player.

*edit:
I should be able to still pick up a redbook CD copy of this title that I now have on order, so I will be able to do a comparison and report back to this thread.

 

Lossless resolution of the MQA CDs is 13bit, with added dithering (quite a bit by the looks of it) to mask the "lossyness" of the remaining 3bit. It makes little doubt, in view of the technical documentation we now have, that if they had just pressed the same mastering to a standard CD, it would have had better resolution, technically. Hybrid SACDs would indeed have been ideal, since those masterings come from DSD transfers sources: no conversion and silly encoding necessary to hear the original, "pure" sound of the transfer.