2002 "Art Pepper Meets the Rhythm Section" 45rpm VS UHQR

you asked for it (here it is with cautionary note)

Here's an audio comparison between the 2002 double 45 released by Analogue Productions mastered by Kevin Gray and Steve Hoffman, and cut by KG at AcousTech Mastering and plated and pressed at RTI and the current UHQR cut by Bernie Grundman and plated and pressed at QRP.

The cartridge was the MUTECH RM-Hayate MC ($7500) mounted on the SAT CF1-12 tonearm ($ don't ask), mounted on the Wilson-Benesch Prime Meridian turntable ($$ don't ask), feeding a voltage gain input on the CH Precision P10 phono preamp. The MUTECH has a generous .45mV output and a low 1.75Ω internal impedance so you'd think the current input would be ideal but it is not. Full cartridge review coming up.

The signal was digitized at 96/24 using the excellent Lynx HiLo A/D converter. Because the two records are cut at noticeably different levels, I put the files into Audacity and did "loudness normalization" so the levels are similar on the recording.

Remember: the files were then put into a video editing program, then exported to YouTube, which does some degrading. This is the best I can do since at this point the site doesn't have a means of posting hi-res files directly. Hopefully in the future it will.

So make of this comparison what you will. For now I'm not saying which is which. However what should be clear is the excellence of the MUTECH!

Comments

2025-12-19 01:48:41 PM

bwb wrote:

I've owned and used most of the high end ADC like the Hilo and Apogee and Antelope and others, and had at that time an equivalent high end DAC. In every case, without question, there was a significant loss of the qualities that keep us spinning vinyl.

So I appreciate the effort, but speaking for those of us (maybe just me) who don't currently have or intend to get a high end DAC, and don't see much use in comparing an analog record after it has been digitized and then processed to alter it even further, and put no faith in the opinions of people who listen to these digitized, processed files through whatever DAC they may have, and have absolutely no interest in taking the time to compare digitized recordings even if we did have the DAC...If you care to offer it, I am really just interested in your opinion of them played back through your analog system.

thanks
- 2025-12-19 03:01:53 PM
  
  Michael Fremer wrote:
  
  Will get to that after more "audience participation" and yes I agree, that digitization is still audible though much improved. However, when I played the files through my DAC (dCS Vivaldi One), the differences I heard "live" were very easy to hear with both digitized.
2025-12-19 03:09:26 PM

Stephen CP Carroll wrote:

As between those two, I enjoyed listening to the first, and that’s the one I chose to replay in full after hearing them both and doing some switching back and forth. I own them both, and will be digging them both out when I get home - with music that good I’ll gladly take any excuse to listen. But I HAVE to! It’s for SCIENCE!
2025-12-19 05:16:15 PM

David Paris wrote:

I'm with the first poster... much more interested in hearing your opinion; but then, you already shared that in your review.

I'm actually shocked that I could hear as much of a difference as I could, considering the digital processing. The first rendition had so much more nuance and space between instruments. In fact, the whole thing seemed spacious. The symbols radiated in a way that made them sound way more real. The breathiness of the sax was palpable. The second recording sounded compressed by comparison, and generally, not very real. I'm personally not a big fan of this album, but that first rendition was quite enjoyable. I almost wanted to listen to the whole album. The second was tiring and boring after a few minutes. (I listened through my dedicated computer stereo, which uses Audio Physic Brilon 2.0 monitors).
- 2025-12-20 09:56:22 AM
  
  bwb wrote:
  
  The review was of the UHQR so we got his opinion of that version. but there was no mention of the Analogue Productions version in that review so no comparison, which is the point of this exercise. As someone who has most of Art Pepper's recordings on vinyl including the AP 45 version, I was really hoping it stood up to the UHQR so I didn't have to buy it. Not looking good for me though.
  - 2025-12-20 02:33:01 PM
    
    David Paris wrote:
    
    I hear ya, but I disagree there was no mention and no comparison. Yes, it's not specifically called out, but we know he has the original AP 45, if nothing else, from the fact this post exists. He states, "If you love this record and think you're done and don't need this UHQR I promise you are making a mistake! It's as close to a master tape as I've heard a record sound... There's nothing subtle about how much better this UHQR sounds compared to the others I have..."
    
    Clearly the AP 45 would be included in "others I have," and as close to the master tape as he has heard... well, that's pretty bold.
    - 2025-12-21 02:10:24 AM
      
      bwb wrote:
      
      I hate to be "that guy", but I guess I am.
      
      He never mentions the AP 45 in his review of the UHQR, he states that he has 3 versions, he lists them, and the AP is not one of them.
      
      When I say in the comments that I have the AP and interested in a comparison he says "Turns out I have the double 45 AJAZ 7532 and will add a comparison to this review ASAP!" He does not add that comparison until now in this article.
      
      Since did not mention or realize he had the AP when he wrote the UHQR review, clearly, the AP was not included in the others he had.
2025-12-19 06:14:17 PM

Thomas Ream wrote:

This is not relevant to the current discussion here, but to the release itself. I own the SACD of this, which sounds good but lacks the final presence and "you are there" quality of a good LP. But - I am bothered by the hard left-right stereo - what I refer to as dual mono - quality here, and I might prefer a high quality mono. Is there a currently available high-quality mono LP? I don't see one on Acoustic Sounds.
- 2025-12-19 06:35:09 PM
  
  Come on wrote:
  
  There is an RSD Craft mono ( I just listened to it, too). But this UHQR seems to use the space between left and right better than the other stereos. Anyway the Craft mono is very nice and I think at least the second best choice after the UHQR, depending if you’re a stereo or mono guy (I’m mostly in the stereo camp due to usually more available ambient room sound).
  
  I experienced that the preference of mono or stereo partly develops with the quality of the setup. Better 3D resolving setups have less of a problem with hard left/right panning because they reveal much more ambient room sound out of them than less resolving setups, where sound then often really more or less just comes straight out of the two speakers.
2025-12-19 06:18:51 PM

Come on wrote:

Easy choice. The first has a quite perfect transition from bass to midrange, a more nuanced and articulate sax, especially a load more tonal colors, resolution and nuances in cymbal sound, room sound is more airy and the cymbals extend more towards the center, space between instruments is more filled with ambient sound. Seems to be as perfect as the Way out west UHQR, damn, regardless of the old 45, I thought the Craft is enough (but the difference to the UHQR seems to equal the corresponding Way out west comparison), now I might have to buy the UHQR.

Lower bass of the second is a bit too pronounced and blends less well into mids. The rest as described above, just the opposite.

Bernie (and Chad) really nailed those UHQR’s.
2025-12-19 09:27:30 PM

db wrote:

First is better. More involving.
2025-12-20 02:49:31 AM

Bret wrote:

So the first one is the UHQR, right?
2025-12-20 11:49:39 AM

JEB-42 wrote:

I found the first cut to be more involving. Much better dynamic contrast and delicacy. The second was flatter. More linear. Background music.

I preferred the first cut.
2025-12-20 01:05:14 PM

Come on wrote:

It would be interesting if you can find out, if Bernie made EQ/mastering changes between his Craft and the UHQR remastering (or similar parallel Craft-UHQR remasterings in general) or if all differences come from other reasons...and if he made changes, why so? With your access to people, such insights would generally/regularly be interesting here I think.