Hi dbtom,
I could do something to equalize the volumes, but I don’t wan to.
I’ve just done an A/B comparison between the 44.1 and MQA tracks. What differences are there are, to my ear more indicative of different re-mastering than MQA itself.
In particular, there are some obvious level changes happening in the first 30 seconds of the piece and they don’t seem to be matching across versions.
Also, the double bass has a larger piece to play in the MQA version. I don’t think this is from an MQA superiority so much as deliberate mixing choices. I think the bass sounds a little smoother and decays more slowly as a result. I think most would call this a "fuller" sound. It's nothing to be impressed by in comparison to PCM or DSD however. It's just a mixing choice.
In each of these two tracks the level changes are pretty horrible. It’s like listening to some guy at the stereo shop who is constantly changing the volume.
Call me cynical, but I thought the MQA version was kind of pumped up for maximum dynamic range effect, and it was pretty nice, but again, past the "wow" moment, it's just volume.
If MQA does anything positive at all, I could not tell from these tracks.
I am however becoming less and less impressed with the recordings from 2L.
In terms of sonic quality, if I had to vote, I’d put DSD 64 as the best of the three formats I spent listening to. I didn’t A/B it so much as I seemed to prefer listening to it.
Best,
Erik
I could do something to equalize the volumes, but I don’t wan to.
I’ve just done an A/B comparison between the 44.1 and MQA tracks. What differences are there are, to my ear more indicative of different re-mastering than MQA itself.
In particular, there are some obvious level changes happening in the first 30 seconds of the piece and they don’t seem to be matching across versions.
Also, the double bass has a larger piece to play in the MQA version. I don’t think this is from an MQA superiority so much as deliberate mixing choices. I think the bass sounds a little smoother and decays more slowly as a result. I think most would call this a "fuller" sound. It's nothing to be impressed by in comparison to PCM or DSD however. It's just a mixing choice.
In each of these two tracks the level changes are pretty horrible. It’s like listening to some guy at the stereo shop who is constantly changing the volume.
Call me cynical, but I thought the MQA version was kind of pumped up for maximum dynamic range effect, and it was pretty nice, but again, past the "wow" moment, it's just volume.
If MQA does anything positive at all, I could not tell from these tracks.
I am however becoming less and less impressed with the recordings from 2L.
In terms of sonic quality, if I had to vote, I’d put DSD 64 as the best of the three formats I spent listening to. I didn’t A/B it so much as I seemed to prefer listening to it.
Best,
Erik