|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Feb 15, 2017 13:22:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Feb 15, 2017 14:34:22 GMT -5
Interesting, as I have an autographed surround SACD from him. Why go MQA when he embraced DSD?  Post script: I see why. He's a pioneer |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 15, 2017 14:36:08 GMT -5
Interesting, as I have an autographed surround SACD from him. Why go MQA when he embraced DSD? $$$ ? |
|
hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,950
|
Post by hemster on Feb 15, 2017 15:05:18 GMT -5
Happy to oblige. Granted my scant exposure to MQA barely scratches the surface so I can only vouch for the following that I personally auditioned. I Feel for You - Chaka Khan
The title track of this album was written by Prince, had a harmonica solo from Stevie Wonder and cameo'd a rap by Grandmaster Melle Mel. In fact, Prince recorded his version before Chaka Khan but his was not successful. Hers soared to number one on Billboard's R&B singles chart. To me, this sounded really really good with MQA compared to a CD version. I heard a more expansive soundstage with some steel-funk detail that I had not heard before. Space Oddity - David BowieThe album that catapulted Bowie into the limelight (in the U.S. at least) sounded the same as the CD and hi-res PCM version. I could not tell the difference between these. Could it just be the quality of the digital remaster recording? Perhaps. Primitive Cool - Mick JaggerStill in his early solo career, this album sounds on CD somewhat brash in places. For example, on the track Peace for the Wicked the vocals sound somewhat slurry. While on the MQA remaster, this was the same. However Jeff Beck's guitar playing sounded much more impressive with MQA. I felt that Paddy Moloney's Uillean pipes were more engaging with MQA. Caveats/ConclusionThe above is a small sample and reflective of my musical taste (which spans most of the genre spectrum but omits rap and most C&W). Of course, on listening and comparing, we each would vary on our conclusions since at the end of the day, our impressions are subjective. Direct comparisons are no guarantee to pick a "winner". For me the jury's still out. So while it's 2/3 for me, I remain open-minded and want to explore MQA more before I throw the baby out with the bathwater. I agree with your assessment that terms like " folding" really don't help. When the dust finally settles, we may well find that MQA is a technical success but a marketing/business failure. Or vice versa. I'm going to bite here...... Since the MQA encoding is supposed to produce an audible improvement, which is audible on a NON-MQA DAC (even though you're not getting "the full effect"), do you have any specific recommendations of music that is currently available in an MQA version that we will all find terribly impressive? It would be better if the same exact content, from the same master, is available in high-res PCM, or at least regular CD, so we can do a direct comparison between the two versions - to see if we hear a difference - and which one we like better. (Since re-masters always sound different for a wide variety of reasons, it may be difficult to figure out what to credit to the MQA process, but I'm game to at least try.) I would urge those that haven't auditioned MQA to try it. Go in with an open mind and see hear for yourself. Don't knock it till you've tried it. I personally think it depends on the recording. Some may sound great, yet others you'd be hard pressed to hear a difference. It is beginning to get traction now so it'll be interesting to see how it fares. BTW, one would not rationally expect Linn to sing MQA's praises... just sayin'.  |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Feb 16, 2017 14:27:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Feb 16, 2017 14:49:26 GMT -5
Is MQA trying to be the Bose of digital sound??? This is going down as my favorite quote of the year, so far. |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Feb 16, 2017 14:59:43 GMT -5
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 16, 2017 15:32:33 GMT -5
As a generality studios are eager for any excuse to offer yet another round of remasters.... Although, in this case, it sounds like they're ONLY going to be streaming content, which would make this another competitor for Tidal (not a bad thing). (Well, not a bad thing unless they each become protectionist of their catalogs to the point that you have to subscribe to both to get the music you want.) I would assume they've got a good enough deal to justify the cost (and remember that MQA is in fact an excellent high-efficiency streaming CODEC). I guess we (and they) will find out if the value-add (either in terms of some actual benefit or simply of customer perception) justifies the cost. And I don't see that this has anything to do with independent music producers... (If they wanted to court independent producers, they'd offer to encode the first album for any new customer for free  ) As I said, I personally will be waiting to see what music becomes available that I can download and own.... so I can see if it really sounds better than the other remasters that are already available. I would never say that yet another option is anything but a good thing. We can always use one more format for music downloads  . As long as it doesn't devolve into a monopoly or add more licensing fees without giving better quality in return. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 16, 2017 15:52:33 GMT -5
Here's an interesting bit of trivia for you......
Do you know what format/CODEC is used by the largest streaming service in the world.
That would be Spotify.... with 100 million subscribers - about 30 million of them paid ones.
(Compare to Apple Music with a mere 20 million.)
And that might just make it THE most widely used CODEC on the planet for streaming audio.
Here's a hint.... it starts with the letter "O".
Or, perhaps, you don't really care - since it's handled inside the player anyway.....
(I'll admit that not many people seem to find it all that exciting.)
The answer is Ogg Vorbis...
My point here is that the fact that a bunch of studios have decided to use MQA as their streaming CODEC doesn't surprise or impress me.
From what I understand it is a very good streaming CODEC, and probably a good choice....
And I think it's great that we'll have another choice besides Tidal for high quality streaming.
(As I said, as long as it doesn't become so competitive that, no matter which one I subscribe to, they only have half of what I want to listen to.)
But, as long as their client software takes care of the decoding, I really don't need to know what CODEC they're using.
And none of that really has much to do with the music I buy or own.
For that I'm still waiting to hear remastered copies of stuff I already like, or versions of new stuff I like, that sounds better than 24/192k PCM.
And, if they can really deliver on that, then I'll probably buy it.
And, if it really sounds better on an MQA decoding DAC, then maybe I'll buy one of those.
AND, if enough people think it's worth paying for, you'll probably eventually see support for it in some Emo equipment.
(We're always happy to add new features if enough of our customers consider them to be a value-add to justify the cost of adding them.)
My guess is that we'll start seeing MQA downloads pretty soon - right next to 96k WAV, 192k WAV, FLAC, ALAC, and AIFF; there's always room for one more.
And I'll be waiting to hear whether the MQA version sounds better than the 24/192k version of the same remaster.
In fact, we'll ALL get to hear for ourselves.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 16, 2017 16:01:37 GMT -5
SO MUCH FOR MQA DACS......
According to the latest press releases, the next version of Audirvana (the popular music player for Apple computers) will do FULL MQA DECODING IN SOFTWARE.
I would expect to see similar support to appear in other major players sometime soon.
==================================
After reading a few more of the latest press releases it all becomes very smoky and confusing again....
Apparently some hardware will act as an "MQA renderer" - which will do something wonderful to the sound after the software decoder gets through with it.
(Note that the renderer isn't a full player; it must be used with a player.)
Yup, you heard that right, the software decoder will unwrap the audio to 24/96k (or 24/88k), and you can play it that way on a regular DAC.
But that's not quite as good as a real full-up MQA decode (you'll be needing a full hardware decoder or a software decoder AND a hardware renderer for that... whatever exactly that means).
However, the renderer will take the 24/96k output of your software decoder and unwrap it again - to 24/192k (the renderer MUST be used along with software decoding because it ONLY does the second unwrapping).
(It's a bit confusing what something like the Audioquest Dragonfly can do as a renderer if you feed it the 24/96k software decoded file - after all, it only plays up to 24/96 anyway, so 24/192k would be a wash.)
It all starts to sound like "if you buy anything with an MQA sticker it will sound wonderful, but, if you buy more stuff with MQA stickers on it, your music will sound even better".
(It's also starting to sound like they're trying very hard to figure out more pieces to sell you.)
And, as has now been pointed out repeatedly, it's difficult to compare an MQA file or stream to the original unless you actually have the same master to compare it to.
(You would expect a 24/96k master or an MQA version created from it to sound better than the 16/44k red Book CD created from it.)
I'd really like to see MQA, 24/96k PCM, and 16/44k PCM files of exactly the same original content somewhere (original at 24/96k or 24/192k - NOT a CD) so I can compare them myself.
That way I'll be able to tell how much different the 24/96k PCM version sounds from the CD, and how the MQA one compares to both of them.
Without that it's really hard to figure out who gets credit for what.
(I was never very good at following that walnut under those three cups either.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Feb 16, 2017 16:54:41 GMT -5
SO MUCH FOR MQA DACS......
According to the latest press releases, the next version of Audirvana (the popular music player for Apple computers) will do FULL MQA DECODING IN SOFTWARE.
I would expect to see similar support to appear in other major players sometime soon. I actually wonder if DAC manufacturer's hesitance to jump in led MQA to modify their strategy a bit? I guess some of the huge AVR manufacturers are jumping on board so maybe the cautious folks like Linn, Schiit and PS Audio are not that relevant. Player or network delivery software makes more sense in my mind because of the relative ease of iteration compared to hardware. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 16, 2017 17:30:27 GMT -5
So, if I understand the Linn guy correctly, he doesn't know (or care) if MQA puts the end listener directly in front of the band as it plays. He doesn't give a hoot what MQA sounds like. He just objects to MQA's making money. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
I've bought the same music again and again (8-tracks, cassettes, phono albums, CDs, SACDs, etc.). If I can get the master tape quality out of my home rig, then you're damn right - I'm off the "buy-it-again" go-round, and that's worth MONEY to me.
Can MQA do that? Maybe, maybe not. I haven't heard it, so I have no idea.
It either delivers or it doesn't. If not, then it'll die the rapid death the Linn schmuck predicts. But it doesn't seem to be going away, despite its predatory business model. So maybe there IS something to it. I withhold judgement until I hear it for myself. But IF I think it's worth the money, I'm in.
Let MQA make some money off me. If it gets me better music, then I'm willing to pay for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 16, 2017 17:44:01 GMT -5
SO MUCH FOR MQA DACS......
According to the latest press releases, the next version of Audirvana (the popular music player for Apple computers) will do FULL MQA DECODING IN SOFTWARE.
I would expect to see similar support to appear in other major players sometime soon.
One second. Is this mqa decoding the "full" one or just that it does the first unfold like the PC software in Tidal. Either way, that is a big deal because if Audirvana can do it, it's just a matter of time before our favorite software players can at least do the first unfold. Also...one thing that is exciting...whether MQA sounds good or not or whether it's "deblurer" is not just more techno jargon or not....now with Universal jumping on, there is a whole lot more hi-res content about to flood the market place. That's a big deal. You'll have MORE content in hires hopefully in actual hi-res and not some glorified CD upsample. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 16, 2017 18:26:03 GMT -5
As they describe it, what the software decoder does is "the first unfold"...... However, smoke and mirrors aside, it's rather difficult to figure out exactly what that means. They talk about "a second unfold that gets it to 192k" - but DACs put out analog audio (so where is that 192k?) And the Dragonfly (which is an "MQA renderer") only supports 96k anyway. It sounds to me as if what they're really claiming is that "the MQA renderer does some more stuff to further optimize how their encoded content sounds". (My guess is that it constitutes further decoding of some sort, perhaps using algorithms that are customized to the particular DAC.) As I've mentioned before, I personally find their whole "folding" and "unfolding" paradigm to be totally obtuse, not at all informative, and somewhat misleading. Any talk about the sample rate of the original is more or less moot.... Remember that the original has been ALTERED by their encoder to "improve" the way it sounds. Nobody is claiming to be able to get you back to the original; that is no longer the GOAL of the process. The goal of these decoding steps is to get you to the ALTERED (and presumably improved) encoded version. Therefore, the only real question is whether each step gives you a significant improvement. (As I've mentioned, the fact that any claimed improvement is going to be subjective sort of worries me, but that may be just me.) We now come to other interesting questions.... For example, is an "MQA renderer", which does that second level of decoding, but doesn't itself sound especially good otherwise, going to sound better than an otherwise really good DAC that skips that second level of encoding? I guess we'll have to wait and see (or hear).... Note that: 1) you cannot actually get back information that's really gone 2) you can sometimes add fake information that, under limited circumstances, may be a good guess (which MIGHT get you closer to the original) 3) even if the new information is totally fake, or you've simply removed some things you think are obvious artifacts, you may like the end result Think of it as "synthesized high-res" - which is not to say that it might not sound good (my 4k TV makes pretty good fake 4k from HD content). I would compare all this to the various de-blurring options in Photoshop..... (and, as with them, I would certainly want the option to turn it off in particular cases where I especially don't like the result). That's why I would personally much prefer a separate "MQA processor" - which I could turn on and off - rather than yet another pervasive ecosystem. SO MUCH FOR MQA DACS......
According to the latest press releases, the next version of Audirvana (the popular music player for Apple computers) will do FULL MQA DECODING IN SOFTWARE.
I would expect to see similar support to appear in other major players sometime soon.
One second. Is this mqa decoding the "full" one or just that it does the first unfold like the PC software in Tidal. Either way, that is a big deal because if Audirvana can do it, it's just a matter of time before our favorite software players can at least do the first unfold. Also...one thing that is exciting...whether MQA sounds good or not or whether it's "deblurer" is not just more techno jargon or not....now with Universal jumping on, there is a whole lot more hi-res content about to flood the market place. That's a big deal. You'll have MORE content in hires hopefully in actual hi-res and not some glorified CD upsample. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Feb 16, 2017 18:44:47 GMT -5
I don't understand why one would need a MQA DAC. If MQA is simply an interesting new take on a Lossy Compression CODEC which tries to make the best use out of channel bandwidth by taking Human Perception into account, then it could be uncompressed into 192kHz/24bit PCM just before being fed to a DAC. Just like we already do uncompressing FLAC containers of 192kHz/24bit audio. As we already do for MP3.
I suppose if the MQA decompression step was computationally really expensive one could consider a DAC with a hardware MQA decompression assist. But I haven't heard that's the issue.
To be honest, if they had a much simpler description of what they're doing I'd be a lot less suspicious. But given the incredibly vague and vigorous hand waving and obfuscated descriptions I see, my Spider Sense is tingling with Fraud Alert.
Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 16, 2017 18:46:32 GMT -5
As they describe it, what the software decoder does is "the first unfold"...... However, smoke and mirrors aside, it's rather difficult to figure out exactly what that means. They talk about "a second unfold that gets it to 192k" - but DACs put out analog audio (so where is that 192k?) And the Dragonfly (which is an "MQA renderer") only supports 96k anyway. It sounds to me as if what they're really claiming is that "the MQA renderer does some more stuff to further optimize how their encoded content sounds". (My guess is that it constitutes further decoding of some sort, perhaps using algorithms that are customized to the particular DAC.) As I've mentioned before, I personally find their whole "folding" and "unfolding" paradigm to be totally obtuse, not at all informative, and somewhat misleading. Any talk about the sample rate of the original is more or less moot.... Remember that the original has been ALTERED by their encoder to "improve" the way it sounds. Nobody is claiming to be able to get you back to the original; that is no longer the GOAL of the process. The goal of these decoding steps is to get you to the ALTERED (and presumably improved) encoded version. Therefore, the only real question is whether each step gives you a significant improvement. (As I've mentioned, the fact that any claimed improvement is going to be subjective sort of worries me, but that may be just me.) We now come to other interesting questions.... For example, is an "MQA renderer", which does that second level of decoding, but doesn't itself sound especially good otherwise, going to sound better than an otherwise really good DAC that skips that second level of encoding? I guess we'll have to wait and see (or hear).... Note that: 1) you cannot actually get back information that's really gone 2) you can sometimes add fake information that, under limited circumstances, may be a good guess (which MIGHT get you closer to the original) 3) even if the new information is totally fake, or you've simply removed some things you think are obvious artifacts, you may like the end result Think of it as "synthesized high-res" - which is not to say that it might not sound good (my 4k TV makes pretty good fake 4k from HD content). I would compare all this to the various de-blurring options in Photoshop..... (and, as with them, I would certainly want the option to turn it off in particular cases where I especially don't like the result). That's why I would personally much prefer a separate "MQA processor" - which I could turn on and off - rather than yet another pervasive ecosystem. One second. Is this mqa decoding the "full" one or just that it does the first unfold like the PC software in Tidal. Either way, that is a big deal because if Audirvana can do it, it's just a matter of time before our favorite software players can at least do the first unfold. Also...one thing that is exciting...whether MQA sounds good or not or whether it's "deblurer" is not just more techno jargon or not....now with Universal jumping on, there is a whole lot more hi-res content about to flood the market place. That's a big deal. You'll have MORE content in hires hopefully in actual hi-res and not some glorified CD upsample. Well one thing that an MQA DAC does is...surprisingly .... remove pre-ringing ! And apparently this is not pushing the pre-ringing in to post ringing....but removing pre-ringing. I'm not sure how they did that. But that's my understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by jolaca on Feb 16, 2017 19:25:59 GMT -5
Hi Keith and all, the HD to 4K interpolation being good does not seem a good analogy to me (because it's just a perfect 4:1 pixels upsample, quite easy to do) and I really don't see it as simple to 'unfold' audio from a 96kHz sample rate freq to 192kHz, I really don't get how this can be done. So I agree with you,this "synthesized high-res" is, at the very least, quite suspicious.
BTW, don't you think that Spotify being a market leader as it is that is losing lots of customers in Tidal's favor has to come up with something really soon to stop that trend and to completely spoil current Tidal's 'lossless' competitive advantage?? Having to serve music to 30M premium subscribers in highres maybe easier for them using something like 'folded while streaming' MQA files, don't you think??
|
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Feb 16, 2017 19:45:59 GMT -5
It all starts to sound like "if you buy anything with an MQA sticker it will sound wonderful, but, if you buy more stuff with MQA stickers on it, your music will sound even better". (It's also starting to sound like they're trying very hard to figure out more pieces to sell you.) If I were a DAC manufacturer, I wouldn't consider MQA hardware implementation for a while. |
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,950
|
Post by hemster on Feb 16, 2017 19:55:24 GMT -5
... My guess is that we'll start seeing MQA downloads pretty soon - right next to 96k WAV, 192k WAV, FLAC, ALAC, and AIFF; there's always room for one more. And I'll be waiting to hear whether the MQA version sounds better than the 24/192k version of the same remaster. In fact, we'll ALL get to hear for ourselves. Yes, one can already buy MQA downloads from the likes of www.hiresaudio.com. However there are no guarantees that 24/192k version of the same remaster are available for purchase.  This makes direct comparisons very difficult. Clickety the image below to enlarge.  |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 16, 2017 21:24:29 GMT -5
Personally, I think MQA will stand or fall on its own merits - after all, either it DOES sound better or it DOESN'T sound better, and even if it does sound better, are people willing to pay a premium for it. I am still skeptical and think it is just another money-making ploy that depends on it becoming the buzzword that everyone thinks it is better just because it says it is supposed to be better. I don't think MQA is any more credible than that guy who supposedly improves various products, including Emo gear, by removing RMF or EMF or whatever interference with his voodoo methods, that was a topic of discussion several months ago. Here is Dr. Aix's take on it from his e-letter today: MQA: It's Everywhere, It's Nowhere
Dr. AIX
The good folks at MQA have done a great job at getting their technology and message out. Never mind about the benefits of the "authentication" process or the technical merits of the "origami" folding of ultrasonic frequencies within the bandwidth available to streaming companies, they've succeeded in convincing a couple of the major labels (and a number of smaller ones), some hardware manufacturers, and production studios to endorse and collaborate with them.
As I opened my email this morning, I clicked through to a press release issued by MQA and Universal Music Group. The title "MQA and Universal Music Group Collaborate on Advancing Hi-Res On-Demand Streaming" means that UMG, holders of one of the largest and most valuable catalogs of music has joined Warner Brother Records in support of MQA. With the world rapidly moving away from digital downloads to streaming, the move to associate "hi-res audio" — made possible by MQA processing — with the new distribution paradigm is interesting. Brace yourself for the second wave of "so-called" high-resolution audio/music promotion.
On the other side of the coin, I also received a heads up from a friend about an article written by Jim Collinson of Linn titled, "MQA is Bad For Music. Here's Why". You can click here to read this very compelling argument against the MQA technology. His take is rooted in the fact that MQA is great news for the labels, for the streaming services that will extol the virtues of "hi-res" and potential charge more or attract more subscribers, and MQA but doesn't provide any real benefit for end users. His article is well worth the read.
And finally, I read a couple of posts at Archimago on the technical aspects of MQA. In early February, he authored a couple of well-documented articles. The first "Musings: Discussion on the MQA filter (and filters in general)..." drills into the bit-depth basis for timing accuracy. He successfully addresses some of the confusing and incorrect claims made about sampling in other publications as they apply to MQA. His other piece is "COMPARISON: Hardware-Decoded MQA (using Mytek Brooklyn DAC) ", which uses an MQA enabled Mytek DAC to evaluate hardware MQA decoding. Those of you who are more technically minded will appreciate the information and graphics in these posts. They confirm many of my apprehensions about this technology.
The labels are all about trying to license their catalogs again — this time under the banner of "hi-res" streaming. They extracted many millions of dollars during the "hi-res" download period (2007-2016) and are looking at reaping the same windfall as TIDAL and others play the fidelity card. The reality is that the world doesn't really care about fidelity. They want convenience over sound quality. If adding an extra imperceptible octave to a recording from 50 years ago using MQA floats your boat then it's time to get excited. As far as I'm concerned, streaming CD-specification sound surpasses my own requirements. If you want real high-resolution audio/music, avoid streaming.
The press release reads as follows:
LONDON AND SANTA MONICA | FEBRUARY 16, 2017 – Music technology company MQA and Universal Music Group (UMG), the world-leader in music-based entertainment, announced today that the companies have entered into a multi-year agreement that will encode UMG’s extensive catalogue of master recordings in MQA’s industry-leading technology, promising to make some of the world’s most celebrated recordings available for the first time in Hi-Res Audio streaming
Today’s announcement comes shortly after the launch of the cross-industry marketing campaign “Stream the Studio”, launched at the 2017 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas and spearheaded by The DEG: the Digital Entertainment Group, to raise awareness of the advantages of Hi-Res Audio streaming.
Mike Jbara, CEO of MQA, commented, “We’re very pleased to be working with Universal Music to achieve our goal of moving studio-quality sound into the mainstream. Universal’s timeless catalogue and impressive artist roster will fuel music streaming services worldwide and enable the premium listening experience for all music fans.”
Michael Nash, Executive Vice President of Digital Strategy at UMG, said, “The promise of Hi-Res Audio streaming is becoming a reality, with one service already in the market and several more committed to launching this year. With MQA, we are working with a partner whose technology is among the best solutions for streaming Hi-Res Audio, and one that doesn't ask music fans to compromise on sound quality for convenience. We’re looking forward to working with Mike and his team at MQA to make our industry-leading roster of artists and recordings available to music fans in the highest quality possible.”
MQA – the award-winning technology which delivers master quality audio in a file small enough to stream – debuted on global music and entertainment platform, TIDAL, at the beginning of this year, and is also available internationally on several music download services.
About MQA
Using pioneering scientific research into how people hear, the MQA team has created a technology that captures the sound of the original studio performance. The master MQA file is fully authenticated in the studio and is small enough to stream, while also being backward compatible, so you can play MQA music on any device. MQA’s award-winning technology is licensed by labels, music services and hardware manufacturers worldwide and is certified by the RIAA. MQA is a UK-based private company.
For more information visit www.mqa.co.uk
About Universal Music Group
Universal Music Group (UMG) is the world leader in music-based entertainment, with a broad array of businesses engaged in recorded music, music publishing, merchandising and audiovisual content in more than 60 countries. Featuring the most comprehensive catalog of recordings and songs across every musical genre, UMG identifies and develops artists and produces and distributes the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful music in the world. Committed to artistry, innovation and entrepreneurship, UMG fosters the development of services, platforms and business models in order to broaden artistic and commercial opportunities for our artists and create new experiences for fans. Universal Music Group is a Vivendi company. Find out more at: www.universalmusic.com |
|
)
.
This makes direct comparisons very difficult. 
