Acoustic Sounds

Patricia Barber




Label: Impex

Produced By: Patricia Barber and Jim Anderson

Engineered By: Jim Anderson

Mixed By: Jim Anderson

Mastered By: Bob Ludwig

Lacquers Cut By: Scott Hull at Masterdisk

By: Michael Fremer

January 24th, 2023


Jazz Vocal Jazz



How Best to Hear Patricia Barber's "Clique!"

some Tracking Angle readers might be surprised

Patricia Barber albums take up a lot of shelf space real estate here. Over the years her many albums have been issued and reissued on vinyl with every reissue sounding better than the previous one, though of course Jim Anderson recorded all of them digitally. Nightclub was recorded to 3348 multi-track and mixed through a Neve analog desk to both digital and analog mix down masters. Anderson said in an email that "....we've always run digital and analogue on the mix, but not on the multitrack."

Split, her 1989 debut had an Alto-Analogue issue (Alto-Analogue was a Germany-based label) mastered by Kevin Gray at his old AcousTech mastering and pressed at RTI—though the liner annotation says Stan Ricker mastered. That tradition carried through to Clique! , which on the jacket says Bernie Grundman mastered but the inner groove area says Scott Hull at Masterdisk.

Premonition did a series of single LPs licensed to Music Direct and mastered by Greg Calbi at Masterdisc (sic), back when he'd left Sterling Sound for a few years. Modern Cool says "directly from the analog master tapes" (which of course began as a digital recording), one says "mastered directly from the session source material", which of course also were digital. A later set of four (café blue, modern cool, companion and nightclub), spread the tunes onto two LPs packaged in deluxe laminated tip-on gatefold packaging, with mastering by Doug Sax at The Mastering Lab in the credits, and in some cases by Bob Ludwig "from the original master tapes" and then mastered for vinyl by Doug Sax. All were pressed at RTI.

Premonition's Michael Friedman sent them, along with this note:

Yes, audiophiles do seem to really like Patricia Barber and her albums! So do non-audiophiles. And Doug Sax did make them sound better than ever. And note the "serious backlog at RTI" ten years ago!

Mobile Fidelity also did a series mastered at 45 rpm, cut by Paul Stubblebine. Interestingly, though there were analog tape mixdowns available, Mo-Fi's notation says "originally mastered at 24 bit resolution from analog sources by ALLAN TUCKER". In other words, instead of using the analog tape mix down from digital, the label chose a digital transfer.

So yes, there are many versions of these Patricia Barber albums available. In fact, yet another edition of nightclub arrived today, this one a double LP set cut at 45rpm by Bernie Grundman using the original analog tape and pressed using the 1 Step process on Neotech VR900 SUPREME vinyl. It's packed in a handsome slipcase in a limited to 7500 copies edition.

But back to Clique!. It's available as a handsomely packaged double 180 LP set, as well as on CD and SACD editions. The SACD includes a surround mix. Both the CD and SACD editions are also MQA encoded, which means if you transfer the CD files onto a computer and load it into Roon or Audirvana, when you stream it from your drive if your DAC does MQA it will unfold the original 384/24 bit DXD "master file". In other words you get the "master tape"! Not a copy of the master, not a third generation of the master, but the master.

So as good as the vinyl sounds cut by Scott Hull at Masterdisk, it only sounds great until you hear the MQA edition through a good DAC. The DXD file sounds better than the disc's DSD layer: cleaner transients, greater transparency, etc. I didn't het play the surround mix but I will.

Is this Jim Anderson's best sounding Barber album yet? I don't like to dance on the head of a superlative so let's just say it's a "you are there" recording. If you're used to the vinyl edition and then hear the DXD version, you'll know from the opening bass line of Lee Hazelwood's "This Town" that this version is in another class. Barber's voice sounds "sweet" on the LP. She sounds eerily in your room on the master file. There's a serious uptick in overall transparency and macrodynamic detail and resolution.

The album's been reviewed all over the place so I'm not going to do that other than to write that if you like Patricia Barber you'll love this album of well chosen and interpreted standards with Barber backed by a trio of sympathetic musical souls. The tunes are "One Note Samba", "I Could Have Danced All Night", "The In Crowd", "Shall We Dance?" "All in Love is Fair" and a freeform interpretation of Monk's "Straight No Chaser". I wasn't familiar with Alec Wilder's "Trouble is a Man". Maybe you are. There is also an instrumental original called "Mashup".

Jim Anderson has co-poduced and engineered all of Barber's albums. All of them sound great but this one and Higher! the previous release from the same sessions are, as annotator and self-admitted Barber cult member says, among Anderson's best recorded efforts and among the best sounding albums you can add to your collection. The sound of Neal Alger's guitar alone should knock you back in your seat. The same is true of Barber's performances. Her "One Note Samba", which she sings in Portuguese as a languid meditation is a highlight.

P.S.: There are many reasons who digital files can sound better on vinyl and why the mixed to analog digital multitrack recordings can as well. However, when you can have delivered to your system the actual master file, there's no arguing with it conceptually or by the hair raising sound it delivers.

Music Specifications

Catalog No: IMP 8323


  • 2023-01-25 03:31:11 PM

    David wrote:

    Thank you for this. Your ears are always the judge. You told me way back that you were “not anti-digital” just “pro good sound”. It’s come a long way and you are acknowledging. I never thought we’d ever get this far.

    • 2023-01-25 10:34:50 PM

      Yousef wrote:

      How ironic Mr. Fremer is "acknowledging" digital with lossy slop like MQA, which in NO WAY is a clone of the master, but a DSP'd, altered version.

      • 2023-01-26 09:20:14 PM

        Michael Fremer wrote:

        Well it's Yousef versus Jim Anderson so I think I'll get Jim to clarify this...or Bob Stuart, who for some reason has become the "enemy" for some audiophiles.

        • 2023-01-27 12:03:17 AM

          Yousef wrote:


          • 2023-01-27 03:15:36 AM

            Andrew Quint wrote:

            "Appealing to authority"? You mean to the guy who actually made this recording and has won 11 Grammys? Jim Anderson (and Ulrike Schwarz) really are authorities and you ought to at least listen to what they have to say. This is a engineering topic and some some moral imperative worthy of the outrage you sputter. You come across as hysterical and more than a little ridiculous, The ALL CAPS don't help. C'mon, Yousef— we could all use a bit of civil discourse on this topic.

            • 2023-01-27 03:28:28 AM

              Yousef wrote:

              all caps, no does not change the fact that MQA cannot, I repeat, cannot, produce a master that is over 18 bits, 96Khz. These are F A C T S.

            • 2023-01-27 12:24:05 PM

              firedog wrote:

              Andrew- You know better than this. The basic engineering facts of MQA are know. Even MQA doesn't deny that MQA samples/encodes 17/96 max. Anything above that is essentially upsampling. There is no 24/384 MQA file. It doesn't exist. I haven't heard anything Jim Anderson said on the topic, only Fremer's second hand report of it. Let's see if Jim Anderson will specifically say that my statements about how MQA encodes are wrong.

              • 2023-01-28 12:20:35 AM

                Michael Fremer wrote:

                If you think I'm lying please don't visit this site.

                • 2023-01-28 01:43:46 AM

                  Yousef wrote:

                  Let's be clear, no one thinks you are lying. You just are incorrect, and don't understand in the least how MQA works.

                  In a very easy to understand way:

                  MQA CD 24/44.1 then is "unfolded" to 17/88.2 Khz.

                  If you have an "MQA ready" DAC, the 17/88.2 file is then UPSAMPLED to reconstruct the original 352.8 file.

                  I think that is pretty clear.

                  Clear graphics and proof here:

                  • 2023-01-28 02:01:13 AM

                    Yousef wrote:

                    Sorry, of course I meant the 16/44.1 MQA stream, not 24. Apologies.

                  • 2023-02-02 06:03:13 PM

                    Peter Veth wrote:

                    Incorrect: It is impossible to reconstruct 24/352.8 by upsampling 24/44.1. It can only be done by MQA folding/unfolding. MQA hierarchy and bitdepth is explained here:

                    • 2023-02-02 07:00:05 PM

                      firedog wrote:

                      I can get 24/352 anytime I want from 24/ 44.1 by upsampling. You really don't know what you are talking about. A program like Roon or JRiver will do it at the click of a button.

                      • 2023-02-02 08:04:16 PM

                        Peter Veth wrote:

                        Yes, of course you can upsample CD quality, but you will never be able to reconstruct the frequencies above 22 kHz.. That's an intrinsic difference with MQA unfolding, which surely is capable to reconstruct these

                • 2023-01-28 01:45:16 AM

                  Yousef wrote:

                  and to add to that, there is no musical content above 44.1 khz (88.2 khz. sample rate) Nada. You can upsample something to infinity, but you cannot add information.

                • 2023-01-28 02:05:13 AM

                  firedog wrote:

                  Don't think you are lying. Just don't understand why you refuse to educate yourself about the basic technical facts of MQA, and then continually propagate misinformation about it. Saying you get 24/384 master from MQA is simply not true, and if you took the time to understand the basics, you'd never write that or try to defend that statement. I don't care in the least if you prefer the sound of MQA or not.

                  • 2023-02-02 08:43:37 PM

                    Peter Veth wrote:

                    The MQA reconstruction is indeed intrinsically different to the orginal DXD master, since MQA corrects for the pre- and post- ringing artefacts. Even a DXD can be improved

            • 2023-01-29 09:17:58 PM

              Hammers Rocco wrote:

              First of all Mike, love your site and your writing - I disagree completely on the MQA thing BUT the reason I write is that "Appeal To Authority" is a known logical fallacy - not only that, the credentials of the authority are irrelevant. In fact, in practice, that is probably the reason that people fall into faulty "appeal to authority" arguments, which are really not arguments. Again, the problem is not that they are not authorities ( imho, my problem with MQA is the "solution to an unexisting problem" thing ) but that just mentioning them is not an argument. In order to create a proper argument, you can of course quote them BUT you have to make an argument - again, peace - love the new site, channel and column.

          • 2023-02-02 05:30:07 PM

            Peter Veth wrote:

            Incorrect: MQA fully unfolds 24/192 as well as 24/384 spectrum. Example

            • 2023-02-02 06:57:43 PM

              firedog wrote:

              Nope. You are wrong, as usual. It unfolds to either 88 or 96 (depending on the source file); after that what is inaccurately (on purpose) called additional unfolding is just upsampling.

              • 2023-02-02 08:12:39 PM

                Peter Veth wrote:

                Well.. we can continue to say YES-NO but it's easier to check the facts and measure at the analogue output to what extent the original DXD recording has been reconstructed. "Fig.2 shows the frequency spectrum of the run-in noise and several seconds of music for an MQA file and the original DXD file it was very likely encoded from. DXD noise is blue, MQA noise is turquoise; DXD data are magenta, MQA data are orange."

                • 2023-02-05 12:33:25 AM

                  firedog wrote:

                  You keep quoting that article, but it doesn't show what you claim. In addition JA says he can't hear the difference between the DXD and the MQA. So then, what's the purpose of MQA? Apparently none, other than to make money for Bob Stuart and his investors.

              • 2023-02-02 08:15:55 PM

                Peter Veth wrote:

                3rd Unfolds of MQA up to 180 kHz can be seen in the measurements here:

        • 2023-01-27 12:04:14 AM

          Yousef wrote:


          • 2023-01-28 12:21:15 AM

            Michael Fremer wrote:

            Next time you do all caps, you will be out.

    • 2023-02-04 06:11:09 PM

      Steve H wrote:

      I find the timing of this interesting concerning MQA.

      I thought I was going to get another shot at the trust your ears crowd, but Mobile Fidelity is settling their class action lawsuit with the plaintiffs not providing any evidence or the defendants putting on a defense. A missed opportunity.

  • 2023-01-25 07:05:44 PM

    Lyndon Bolshaw wrote:

    Oh Superb review love to hear her version of " One Note Samba " & " I could have danced all Night "

  • 2023-01-25 07:07:46 PM

    Fred Morris wrote:

    For what it’s worth, there is an MQA version on Tidal.

  • 2023-01-25 07:10:11 PM

    firedog wrote:

    "Both the CD and SACD editions are also MQA encoded, which means if you transfer the CD files onto a computer and load it into Roon or Audirvana, when you stream it from your drive if your DAC does MQA it will unfold the original 384/24 bit DXD "master file". In other words you get the "master tape"! Not a copy of the master, not a third generation of the master, but the master."

    The above is factually incorrect. MQA is an altered/processed version of the master. There is no such thing as 24/384 MQA. The maximum bits/bandwidth of MQA encoding is 18/96. What you are getting when you playback MQA and it says 24/384 is an upsample of the 18/96 MQA encoding of the master, when the master was 24/384. You are not getting the "original master". MQA isn't FLAC. It doesn't uncompress into a lossless version of the original.

    If you think it sounds great, that's fantastic. But please don't misinform your readers. And if you think I'm wrong, it means you haven't done your homework and don't understand how MQA works.

    • 2023-01-26 09:43:54 AM

      firedog wrote:

      Sorry, I actually misstyped something. The max encoding of MQA is 17/96. Everything else is discarded. A 24/384 file will be encoded at 17/96 and compressed to 48K. The first unfold is to 96k. Then an MQA DAC will upsample it to 24/384 and filter it with an MQA filter. No such thing as the master here. It simply isn't the Master. And btw, so called "MQA CD" isn't even 16 bit. It's 13-15 bit. This all in the patents for MQA and is confirmed by analysis of MQA files and their output. MQA themselves have confirmed that the encoding is at a Max of 17/96.

    • 2023-01-26 09:18:33 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      Jim Anderson wrote to tell me that everything I wrote in the review is correct. So, there's that. That's the person i trust here. I think it's time to get him to comment.

      • 2023-02-02 05:33:55 PM

        Peter Veth wrote:

        You are correct: Jim Anderson and mastering engineer Morten Lindberg understand very well the difference between unfolding and upsampling.

  • 2023-01-25 10:33:42 PM

    Yousef wrote:

    Poster firedog is CORRECT. You are posting misinformation 3 or 4 years after MQA has been corrected numerous times for technical lies. The information is all over the internet. Please do you research and correct this article. Thank you.


    • 2023-01-26 09:16:01 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      Jim Anderson read the review and said everything I wrote was true and correct. What's all over the Internet is the usual nonsense. What you have posted is more of the usual nonsense. Or is Jim Anderson, who recorded, mixed and produced this recording and disc, under some strange influence. Or maybe his problem is that he's not read the "information all over the internet. YOU need to correct your comment. I do not need to correct my article.

      • 2023-01-27 11:47:19 AM

        firedog wrote:

        I don't know what Jim Anderson wrote you, but you clearly don't have even a basic understanding of how the MQA encoder works. This has nothing to do with "all over the internet". It's written in the MQA patent and has been publicly confirmed by MQA. Do your homework.

  • 2023-01-26 06:09:13 PM

    Steve Lefkowicz wrote:

    On Tidal, if you have a DAC that does decoding and rendering, it does show up as 352Khz streaming. I'll have to compare that to the Hi res stream on Qobuz later.

    • 2023-01-26 09:13:59 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      It would be interesting to compare the streaming service 352/24 with the version ripped from the CD or SACD. I'll try that.

      • 2023-01-27 01:31:12 AM

        Yousef wrote:

        He just told you the MQA version is NOT A CLONE of the master. End of story.

      • 2023-01-27 01:37:14 AM

        Yousef wrote:

        It is odd you don't understand that MQA version throws out 8 bits, and does not produce frequencies above 44.1K (88.2 sample rate) and the DXD version shows information up to 176.4 (352.8 sample rate).

    • 2023-01-26 10:33:32 PM

      Ulrike Schwarz wrote:

      Dear Steve, The master file for the MQA version was treated slightly differently from the master file one for the Qobuz release in 192kHz. Of course you are welcome to do this comparison. If you would like to hear the master file that Jim, Bob Ludwig and I consider the master of all master files I would suggest to get the DXD file from NativeDSD.

    • 2023-02-02 05:35:59 PM

      Peter Veth wrote:

      The Tidal MQA version is the only album I am aware of which unfolds to 24/484 MQA Studio Master and it sounds magnificent :-)

      • 2023-02-02 05:38:33 PM

        Peter Veth wrote:

        correction: 24/384 MQA :-)

  • 2023-01-26 08:57:39 PM

    Keith Sowerby wrote:

    The vinyl is a single disc only, at least my Impex copy is. The CD contains an MQA layer and obviously can't be unfolded to DXD. The SACD is just DSD, no MQA involved or possible. NativeDSDmusic I believe has distributed DSD and DXD files and the latter is what I have at 24/352. Can't comment on streaming as I don't have access. What Mikey is on, who knows.

    • 2023-01-26 09:12:43 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      I'm sorry but you really don't understand this. What i have been "on" are panels that I moderate with Jim Anderson and Ulrike Schwarz. Yes the vinyl is a single disc only. Did I write otherwise? The CD does not contain an MQA "layer". The MQA capability is contained within the CD files. And it can be unfolded to DXD by doing what I wrote: you "rip" the CD to your computer then put it into ROON or however you stream from your digital system and then it unpacks in your DAC at 24/352. Or as Jim Anderson wrote in an email to me yesterday, "Thank you for the review. Everything you wrote it true and correct." Keith, with all due respect, everything you wrote is wrong.

      • 2023-01-27 12:18:40 AM

        Yousef wrote:

        MQA cannot reproduce frequencies above 48Khz (96Khz sample rate) Period. 18 bits MAX.

      • 2023-01-27 11:44:16 AM

        firedog wrote:

        Nope. If you are going to write about this stuff, please learn what you are talking about. The MQA encoder doesn't encode anything above 48Khz, period. In other words the file is a 96Khz file, not a 384Khz file. When you play it back on an MQA DAC it is upsampled from 96Khz to 384. This isn't "vitrol", it's simply fact, and described in the MQA patent, as well as publicly confirmed by MQA. You are not getting the original 24/384 master with MQA. For that you need a 24/384 Flac verson. Again, if you like the sound of MQA and want to say it sounds great- wonderful. Just don't misinform people.

      • 2023-02-02 06:16:33 PM

        Peter Veth wrote:

        Yes, you are correct: A detailed explanation of how a DXD file is folded can be found here (Google) "About MQA (for JAS)"

    • 2023-01-26 10:23:29 PM

      Ulrike Schwarz wrote:

      Dear Keith Sowerby, I’d like to chime in here. The CD is a DDP with MQA files embedded. That means if your CD player or your AV/Receiver (if you are connected digitally to the CD player has an MQA decoder, the CD will expand to DXD. The CD layer on the SACD contains also the MQA version. The SACD has a stereo (MQA-)CD layer, a stereo DSD64 layer and a 5.1 DSD64 layer. I hope this helps to get the discussion back onto a civil level.

      • 2023-01-27 12:17:20 AM

        Yousef wrote:

        No, the MQA cannot expand to DXD. Check the frequency spectrum. It upsamples to show the appearance of DXD. You were sold a bill of goods.

      • 2023-01-27 11:49:48 AM

        firedog wrote:

        It doesn't expand to DXD. It expands to 96Khz and then upsamples to DXD. It can't do anything else as the MQA file doesn't have any material encoded that can "expand" (decompress) to 384K without upsampling. 96Khz is the upper limit.

  • 2023-01-26 09:25:43 PM

    Michael Fremer wrote:

    Well, this is an interesting series of comments. I have moderated numerous panels with Jim Anderson and Ulrike Schwarz and they've talked about this recording and the various ways it can be accessed. After this review was written I had Jim read it and he responded that everything I wrote was correct and true. The anti-MQA vitriol is all over the Internet and I for one don't understand it. When I compare MQA and non MQA files of the same recording, which I've gotten to do numerous times, I prefer the MQA file. It's far better focused and three dimensional. As for the comments about the unfolding and bit rates, I think it's time Jim Anderson or Bob Stuart chime in here and I'm going to try and make that happen. Thanks to all so far for commenting but trust me, I'm not "on" anything. I'm going by the main source here, Jim Anderson.

    • 2023-01-27 12:04:49 AM

      Yousef wrote:


    • 2023-02-02 07:59:09 PM

      Peter Veth wrote:

      Luckily, a lot of serious information can be found on the internet. This article for example:

  • 2023-01-27 12:16:15 AM

    Yousef wrote:

    detailed analysis here: MQA clearly the inferior of all versions aside from Redbook.

  • 2023-01-27 02:55:46 AM

    JuzDisGuy wrote:

    So if I read this review correctly, this digital version is on a whole different level when played on a “good” dac versus his 6 figure turntable? Seriously? So Mr. Vinyl has basically just anointed digital music as the superior format? Vinyl is dead?

    • 2023-01-28 12:34:02 AM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      you didn't read the review correctly. I am not capable of anointing anything. I am not Mr. Vinyl. You are welcome to leave and never return.

      • 2023-01-28 05:02:03 AM

        JuzDisGuy wrote:

        But that is what you stated, correct? That a simply “good” dac wiped the floor with your 6 figure TT when playing this digital version compared to the vinyl? So digital has finally achieved supremacy over analogue? Should we all throw away our turntables?

  • 2023-01-27 11:56:18 AM

    firedog wrote:

    Sorry Michael, but MQA has been out in the wild for about 8 years, and you've never taken the trouble to understand what it does and how it works. Not very professional of you. This isn't "internet vitrol". If you like the sound of an MQA file and want to say it's great - that's fine. Just don't misinform people about what it is. It doesn't matter what Jim Anderson wrote you. Have the professional integrity to know what you are talking about when you make technical claims about MQA, instead of depending on a third party email (which doesn't specifically relate to the technical claims made here) to claim you are correct. You simply aren't. The fact that you refuse to check what's actually true is astounding.

  • 2023-01-27 12:18:24 PM

    firedog wrote:

    See: Around 31:00 Bob Stuart confirms the MQA decoder is max of 17bit in depth.

    Bob Stuart confirms MQA MQA max sample rate is 96k.

    See MQA patent, which clearly shows MQA can't encode above 17/96. It samplea at the 24/384 master at 17/96. The delivery format is a file at 48Khz. First unfold is to 96Khz, which is what the original MQA encoding is. Nothing else is there. In an MQA DAC you get upsampling to 384Khz and MQA filtering.

    • 2023-01-27 02:27:59 PM

      Yousef wrote:

      All correct, and verified.

      Yes, I have been generous below quoting 18/96.

      Quick note, the 352.8 encoded MQA file would expand to 88.2 max, correct?

  • 2023-01-27 03:54:00 PM

    Yousef wrote:

    2017 Press Release by HighResAudio of Germany, one of the most respected download stores-

    HIGHRESAUDIO has stopped offering MQA. MQA is NOT lossless, the original signal is never recovered, estimate to recover at most 17bits (reduces the sampling rate), reduces the frequency range, SNR reduced by 3bit, aliasing with artifacts at 18kHz. MQA encoding filters manipulates drastically the original source. No analysis tools are available to verify the encoded MQA content. Therefore no quality control is possible. stands for offering purity, original mastering source, none manipulated, tweaked or up-sampled content and codecs that are widely supported and offer use of freedom. 

    “We hope that MQA will adjust all the above issues. We are truly disappointed, the way MQA has progressed in the past year. We have been mislead and blinded by trust and promises.”

    MQA Claims:

    – Compressing High Resolution Audio for Streaming Applications by keeping the audio quality.

    – Applying adaptive filters to do “time domain optimization”

    MQA Summary:

    – MQA is NOT lossless!!! The original Signal is never recovered!

    – We estimate that MQA is only able to recover at most 17Bits at 96kHz

    • 2023-02-02 05:07:01 PM

      Peter Veth wrote:

      Incorrect. Highresaudio offers currently over 2700 MQA Studio Master albums and each week new MQA releases

  • 2023-01-27 10:09:28 PM

    Grant wrote:

    MQA or not, but did Fremer just give a digital recording a Sound rating of 11?

    • 2023-01-28 12:36:09 AM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      I did. I am not anti-digital. I am anti low quality analog and digital. I am still not a CD fan. This recording deserves the rating and the means by which it's distributed does as well.

      • 2023-01-28 02:09:33 AM

        firedog wrote:

        True, and I've actually defended you at places where others have said you are anti-digital. But again, the MQA-CD is actually lower resolution than standard CD (max 15 bits, not 16) - it's not the digital master or anything close, so it's interesting that you praise the sound of it.

  • 2023-01-28 02:23:57 AM

    firedog wrote:

    Note that Mr. Schwarz wrote in comments below that the actual master is the DXD version on sale at NativeDSD, not, as stated in the article, the MQA version.

  • 2023-01-28 12:09:16 PM

    Come on wrote:

    Absolutely correct, the DXD version smokes all others incl. the vinyl by far. Should be an exception as usually the vinyl is mastered from the source files.

    The LP is by no means an 11 in my opinion anyway. Not to speak of the music being no 10. But that’s just me and a matter of taste.

    • 2023-01-30 12:01:57 PM

      Ian Melville wrote:

      I got the LP at the weekend and its the first Patricia Barber one for me as the previous ones sounded more like HiFi test records. This is a good album and I compared it to the Qobuz stream which is 24/176.4 according to Qobuz. It is also very good but I think I slightly prefer the LP which has more soundstage depth to me. I would love to hear the DXD file. What kind of DAC would l need to handle this?

  • 2023-01-30 10:30:46 PM

    PeterPani wrote:

    Even the reel to reel is made from DXD:

    So, if all original sources are digital- no wonder that a digital format sounds best.

  • 2023-02-02 06:14:51 PM

    Yousef wrote:

    Warning: Peter Veth is a known compensated shill for MQA. Hi online presence promoting MQA and repeating it's technical lies is beyond the pale. Ignore him. I am sure he knows good and well MQA cannot unfold this album beyond 88.2 withouth the DAC usampling it.

    • 2023-02-02 06:38:05 PM

      Peter Veth wrote:

      Why do you call me a shill? I just share my opinion, just like you are doing. I can assure you that MQA does unfold frequencies above 48 kHz. The measurements done by Archimagoi are limited because they've been done on the MQA Roon core decoder, which is limited to 1st unfolds only. spectrum analysis on MQA should be done by resampling the final analogue output.

      • 2023-02-02 07:08:27 PM

        firedog wrote:

        Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Archimagos articles have been confirmed by others and even when years have gone by, MQA has never factually refuted them. They've only tried ad hominem attacks against him, and have never actually refuted the content. Why? B/c they can't refute him on the basis of the facts.

        • 2023-02-02 07:52:42 PM

          Peter Veth wrote:

    • 2023-02-02 06:39:19 PM

      Peter Veth wrote:

      And I can also assure that I am NOT compensated by anyone to give my opinion about MQA, I regard that as an insult.

  • 2023-02-02 08:32:38 PM

    Peter Veth wrote:

    Thanks for your review of this fantastic album! In the end, we cannot listen to a file, but to the music itself and I appreciate your honest opinion very much. :-)

  • 2023-02-03 12:12:55 AM

    Yousef wrote:

    How very pathetic Mr. Veth. With an estimated 20,000+ posts about MQA online and a private facebook group that includes Bob Stuart, you are the king of shills.

    • 2023-02-03 03:27:34 PM

      Peter Veth wrote:

      Well, Mr Youssef, there are people who appreciate the improved sound resolution and have a passion to understand a new technology like MQA Others dislike MQA without even listening to it. For me it's all just fun, nothing more or less.

  • 2023-03-03 04:11:40 PM

    Bob wrote:

    The biggest audio upgrade one can buy! I was sceptical about MQA but this recording in MQA studio on my Technics SU-R1000 Amp (with MQA decoder built in) is very excellent indeed. Very lifelike presentation. Thanks for this review!

  • 2023-11-19 09:59:16 PM

    Manel wrote:

    Well, I have the DXD 24·352.8 file purchased at nativeDSD. I picked DXD as being the actual master. I also have de vinyl records of these 2 recordings. I have to say that the DXD file clearly outperforms the vinyl records sound. On previous P. Barber recordings I prefered the vinyl ones. My DAC is dCS Vivaldi One, upgraded to Apex + external dCS Vivaldi Clock. I think it is also the one used by @Michael Fremer, right?

    • 2023-11-20 09:24:27 PM

      Malachi Lui wrote:

      yes, michael uses the dCS vivaldi one