2025-12-31 02:37:19 PM

Come on wrote:

That’s a surprise, as I usually also have the warmth bump from the SH/KG when I compare them to UHQR‘s and the improvements from the latter (just as my experience with the Way out west record comparison). This time I heard everything I expected from the UHQR from the first part of the file and this really was very obvious. I’m confused. Even if you had made hires files instead of the 128kbps MP3 quality, neither this, nor further conversions I made, should have been the problem this time. I’m surprised, all those details were audible from a bad MP3 resolution at all, as exactly bass and top end resolution are the weak points of such compressed formats. Also different setups shouldn’t be responsible for differences of such obvious quality and resolution aspects (they might be for tonality preferences). I’ll drink on it this evening.

Have a happy new year later!

• 

  2025-12-31 07:30:39 PM

  Come on wrote:

  Forgot to say: “influence of presentational order”…not sure of the influence…in the AFI Flat comparison half of the listeners preferred the second sample, which was the “non-flattened” file, so at least lately it’s not that folks tend to prefer the first sample generally.

2025-12-31 05:32:07 PM

Will wrote:

Happy New Year

😂

So a good move by Chad K to cash in on the results of this test by announcing yesterday he is re-releasing some old AP Fantasy 45's - I'm only joking. Btw I sold almost all the early AP 45's I had, and have been happier with the more recent 33's 🤷🏻‍♂️

2026-01-02 11:02:29 AM

Rashers wrote:

I have at least a dozen versions of this album - no OG, unfortunately. I have the UHQR and the Craft versions (stereo and mono). I recently did a meta test of all my vinyl and SACD versions. The best were a mid 1970s Japanese reissue and the 2002 AP SACD. I think that the major benefit of both (most versions sounded great) but what impressed me about those was the width of the soundstage - it was narrower - Art was closer to the Rhythm section! If Chad reissued the Acoustec vinyl version I would buy it.

2026-01-02 01:26:45 PM

John Thompson wrote:

Michael have you tried listening to them on say a non hi-fi system or through youtube as we all did rather than the files you originally recorded?

• 

  2026-01-02 05:10:32 PM

  Come on wrote:

  I think you’re right for most listeners, however I listened to an AIF conversion of the video on my setup, otherwise I wouldn’t have heard all the differences, which were not subtle).

  Anyway it’s interesting if Michael used the YouTube 128k video comparison on his setup or the original files. But however it was, it doesn’t explain such contrary listening experiences of not really much system dependent quality characteristics to me. Something with those low res comparison videos is strange, even just that they are able to show such differences.

  • 

    2026-01-03 03:50:51 AM

    John Thompson wrote:

    Agreed. I would theorise the the youtube video has dumbed down both presentations to the point where any obvious superiority of one over the other is lost and the lower resolution makes a relatively worse recording sound nearly on par if not better.

    • 

      2026-01-03 04:49:58 AM

      Come on wrote:

      Maybe I was misunderstood here. I found the differences extremely clear and a less flat bass response (usually also in my experience from the SH/KG cuts) was only one, other differences were more resolution, ambiance, panning related etc. I just heard the opposite of what I expected in this case and wondered how this compression can show it and why it turned out this way. Would love to make the record comparison instead.

2026-01-03 12:13:59 AM

Malachi Lui wrote:

i listened to the youtube comparison on my built-in macbook speakers, i could tell that the first sample was the SH/KG cut because of the midbass bump (and confirmed it with michael before he posted this). i skipped back and forth between them however. the differences are very clear if you know what to look for.

• 

  2026-01-03 03:44:36 AM

  John Thompson wrote:

  Ah but is this not a bit tail wagging dog? You know what you're listening for and therefore can identify the differences. I would think that most people who listened to the two recordings were just picking the one they thought sounded best rather than specifically say the UHQR or SH/KG versions.

• 

  2026-01-03 10:11:08 AM

  Come on wrote:

  Your MacBook speakers must be generously neutral if you can identify a midbass bump from neutral playback on them without knowing the result beforehand. Seems they should better have done the mastering on them ;-)

2026-01-04 11:21:14 AM

chet wrote:

Michel,slightly off the main topic,but… why do I prefer listening to most lps in mono as opposed to stereo?Why Michel,oh why? Happy.We Hope.new year,Chet