Yes, but a recording is in a format, so I consider that is relevant, especialy as it influences the overall sound of the music.
We may need to agree to differ on this.
Just looked back and the last few discs I posted, I never mentioned the format although they were CD quality (I listen to a lot of CD quality) others have helpfully mentioned formats though.
I think it is essential for me to know to which format Chris is listening.
I could not find peace without knowing that essential information.
I would miss: Just sayin…that’s the best I heard in the last 1000 years.
In almost every post of yours in this thread you state how much better MQA is than CD.
In this case you don’t seem to care. Why?
This recording is available on
CD
MQA
24/96 hires
SACD
in at least two obviously different masterings. The CD mastering carries way more emotionality than the mastering on the other three formats. It seems to me you did not listen to the CD and compare it to MQA, otherwise you would probably not make the statement you did. The differences are really day and night.
You lot are getting touchy about this. I like MQA, I can’t spend my life comparing anymore as I just want to enjoy the music. I have decided to play MQA if it’s available.
If I think something is good, I will share it. That’s it.
Fine. We’ll agree to disagree on this one.
But IMO, if that’s your personal stance on this, you may arguably deserve all the stick you seem to be getting from the community on this issue
I know this album extremely well, having listened to it since 1973. I was too young before that…
I have three different Redbook masters of this. I also listened to the MQA.
The MQA is slightly louder than any of my Redbook releases. Other than that I found it very difficult to tell them apart. There’s no way I could do it blind. I did this with Roon doing the first stage MQA processing to a non MQA dac.
It’s not “astonishing”. The only observation I’d make is that the differences between the versions I have are “astonishingly small”.
You said that Roundabout in MQA was astonishing. I said it’s no better than any of the redbook versions I have.
Are you now saying you were making a general comment about the recording quality of the album?
Incorrect. MQA is a digital software product, that exists in a domain of human knowledge we know quite a bit about. What we know factually and empirically is that MQA does certain things to the signal that is a degradation to said signal - it is distortion. The opinion that a handful like (and threads like this reveal just how few) MQA’s distortion is explained by bias ($consumption$ - they spent money on it and want to like it), by astroturfing, by many things.
The opinion that all is opinion is radical subjectivism. It’s a philosophy, but that’s all it is. It does not stand up to factual reality…
MQA haters are likely to tell you it adds more “distortion”.
MQA lovers are likely to describe the result as an even “fuller, richer (etc.)” sound than after the 1st unfold.
People who neither hate nor love MQA and who have actually compared the two versions in an ABX test are likely to agree with your observation that the differences are “astonishingly small”.
From time to time various participants have asked the Mods to close this thread. We don’t currently intend to close it, because we think you’d all just start up again somewhere else. This way we can keep it all in one place.
Because I don’t have a strong opinion about MQA, I’ve drawn the short straw and will be responding to flags and keeping an eye on the thread. So I sort of have to be here from time to time.
But you don’t. You are all free to live your lives, commune with your loved ones, listen to music or build scale model trains. You don’t have to come here and endlessly argue about MQA. Take a walk outside even.