The coherent sense of space and fluid progress works on larger scale pieces too, bringing a sinuous articulation to the building power of Kleiber’s Seventh (UCCG- 40069), order, shape, weight and impact to his crescendos. The massive dynamic sweep of Batiashvili’s Tchaikovsky (UCCG-41048) and the explosive eruptions of the Elgar’s climax (WPCS-28424) are handled with the same impressive aplomb.
Of course, the use of the UHQCDs for comparison raises the issue of introducing multiple changes in a single step. Relative to a stock CD, the UHQCD introduces four potentially critical differences: the harder plastic envelope (akin to SHM); the photopolymer interface, the silver alloy pit layer and the MQA encoding. So which bit is contributing what? That’s not an easy one to answer, but with CD, SHM CD and UHQCD/MQA versions of the Rickie Lee Jones album to hand, I can get at least part way there…
The SHM disc (WPCR-17421) brings a dramatic sense of crisp impact and substance, focus and separation to the music – a result that’s totally inline with previous CD/SHM CD experiences. It’s spectacularly successful on a track like ‘Chuck E’s In Love’, all angular rhythm and instrumental attack, less so on the gentler instrumental wash of ‘Last Chance Texaco’. In contrast the UHQCD MQA disc (WPCR- 18243) is not as immediate but it has a more coherent, rounded and cohesive presentation – more of a band, less the individual instruments. That physical and spatial integrity extends to the holistic presentation of the tracks, which is less startlingly impressive than the SHM disc but more musically involving. The vocals in particular, are more intimate and expressive, especially on ‘Last Chance Texaco’ where the fluid phrasing and heartfelt performance are particularly affective.
Any head-to-head comparison like this is prey to differences in mastering and production, as well as any physical or encoding differences, but while the sonic and musical distinctions outlined in this case might be stark, they are echoed to a greater or lesser extent by other listening. In as much as it is fair to separate attributes, SHM’s superior disc envelope (when compared to standard CD) seems to add presence, substance and transparency, but more importantly, a lower noise floor, dynamic discrimination and resolution. MQA on the other hand, seems to temper the starker, more exposed presentation of SHM with a more rounded, coherent and dimensional sound, greater rhythmic and temporal security and a more expressive and communicative overall performance. Yes, you’d be right to conclude that I’ve become – somewhat to my surprise – a fan of MQA encoded CD. In the meantime I’ve taken steps to further investigate the MQA/SHM conundrum and will report later if anything concrete emerges.
What of the difference between MQA and MQA STUDIO? Whilst direct comparison is of course impossible, I will say that MQA STUDIO discs do sound consistently good and (as far as it is fair to generalise) superior to their MQA cousins. However, this issue is less clear-cut. Analogue masters produce consistently excellent results. Discs derived from digital masters are far more variable – to the point that an MQA transfer of a really great analogue recording can sound better than a compromised, digitally derived MQA STUDIO disc. Which just goes to prove, once again, that not all recordings are created equal and all the mastering, stamping, pressing or encoding technology in the world can’t alter that fact.
