Qobuz Discussion Thread

[ray4410]

  On 01/01/2024 at 9:14 PM, fjs said:

The more i think about hires the more i think that a lot of it is a big con job. I dont fully understand the recording process although i have done a little of it. The latest hires releases of the red and blue compilation beatles albums is a prime example. To my knowledge many of the beatles albums were recorded on 2,4 or 8 track tapes and released in mono and very soon after in pseudo stereo. It is not possible to my knowledge to produce a hires stereo album from these tapes without a lot of audio manipulation and fakery. I dont believe the pretend hires streams are a fault of the streaming services because i understand that they only stream what the record companies give them. My take on this  is that record companies are feeding us a lot of fraudulent information to make profit. Just my thoughts and would welcome comments from anyone who may know.

Expand  

My take on this  is that record companies are feeding us a lot of fraudulent information to make profit
no big surprise there they have been screwing us for years and unfortunately  i can only see it getting worse Money seems to be the only thing that all these corporate companies care about and deception  is a big part of their greed take a look at the recent Mo F i stuff up
 

Edited January 1, 2024 by ray4410

[Dr.Funk]

It may be just symantics, but the Mo Fi issue was not a stuff up. A stuff up implies someone made a mistake with an unwarranted result. Mo Fi's actions were downright deceitful, with the full intention of separating people from their money!

[fjs]

Sadly the recording industry is riddled with false and misleading claims so back to the original query where a forum member was selecting a streaming service based on the number of hires products i would reiterate my opinion that if you can stream at least cd quality then base your choice on other factors like ui, catalogue, ease of use etc.  I do a bit of home recording and it is very easy to record a song streamed at 320kbs at 24/192 but does that make it hires, i dont think so but technically i could advertise it as a hires recording even though the original recording was of a lesser quality. I dont actually know how we as audiophiles can pressure recording companies to be more transparent. The mofi case was the tip of the iceberg with regard to misleading information even though their product is probably quite good so why resort to deceit.

[wklie]

  On 01/01/2024 at 9:14 PM, fjs said:

albums were recorded on 2,4 or 8 track tapes and released in mono and very soon after in pseudo stereo. It is not possible to my knowledge to produce a hires stereo album

Expand  

 

From an analog tape master, you can create excellent and legit Hi-Res digital version using an analog to digital converter (ADC).  MoFi uses DSD256 in some albums, if I read the news correctly.  (By the way, I know for a fact that some vinyl was prepared from 44.1kHz digital file, so DSD256 is much much better.)

 

In the video world, old film (i.e. analog) can be scanned using 4K scanner to get (digital) 4K video.  Owing to film age it has to be cleaned up and processed a lot to get excellent results.  (Simplistically, if technology advances and higher resolution scanners become available, it is obviously possible to get a higher resolution scan, but once hitting limits at the film chemical / particle layer, even higher resolution scans will become meaningless, i.e. without yielding additional useful detail.)

 

A different case is that when the movie is originally shot in digital.  For example, Star Wars Prequel was shot in digital camera in 1080p.  In that case, a 4K upconversion cannot give you more details from those digital shots.  (A 4K version will likely still look better on a 4K TV due to a variety of reasons, but at the core there should not be more real additional detail.)

 

Back to music: if the only "master" is a 44.1kHz digital copy, then you cannot get a real legit HiRes version from it.

Edited January 2, 2024 by wklie

[Guest]

  On 01/01/2024 at 9:14 PM, fjs said:

The more i think about hires the more i think that a lot of it is a big con job. .

Expand  

It is mastering which makes the difference.  Hi Res is all about marketing which many us have fallen for. 

 

Even though I cannot tell the difference between CD quality and Hi Res in a blind test, I still select the Hi Res album in Qobuz, vainly hoping that it has better mastering ?    

[rantan]

  On 07/02/2024 at 5:31 AM, Snoopy8 said:

Hi Res is all about marketing which many us have fallen for. 

Expand  

 

Yes.

 

Big sampling rate numbers get people to buy into the myth. It's a bit like the big MQA lie.

[maximus]

 

If there was no such thing as Qobuz HI-RES I wouldn't be streaming, probably buy a used disk player 5-10k, the new Denon A110 looks ideal......but that's for another thread.

 

 

 

 

[doogie44]

I 'think' I can distinguish 24/96 from CD quality 16/44, and that 24/96 quality is the rate I set in my Auralic Aries 'preferences'. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with a well-recorded digital file in 16/44 as others point out. The majority of streaming music.

 

But, take Apple Play, said to be CD quality: what is wrong with these files whenever I play them? Ultimately dissatisfying... possibly Apple has stooped to the compressing game as well? Spotify and Apple have missed the Hi res bus (such as it is). Their marketing and corporate greed speaks volumes to me about their disdain for quality music reproduction.

 

Yesterday I was playing the highest resolution streaming files I could find of some very well-recorded favourites (Steely Dan; Carpenters; Beatles; assorted Prince, The Cure, Jimi Hendrix. None were as good as my equivalent LPs. Some came close. One very close indeed.

 

I'll stick with Qobuz. Further sonic streaming improvements ahead, let's hope.

 

Just my 2c worth

[fjs]

  On 07/02/2024 at 7:14 AM, doogie44 said:

I 'think' I can distinguish 24/96 from CD quality 16/44, and that 24/96 quality is the rate I set in my Auralic Aries 'preferences'. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with a well-recorded digital file in 16/44 as others point out. The majority of streaming music.

 

But, take Apple Play, said to be CD quality: what is wrong with these files whenever I play them? Ultimately dissatisfying... possibly Apple has stooped to the compressing game as well? Spotify and Apple have missed the Hi res bus (such as it is). Their marketing and corporate greed speaks volumes to me about their disdain for quality music reproduction.

 

Yesterday I was playing the highest resolution streaming files I could find of some very well-recorded favourites (Steely Dan; Carpenters; Beatles; assorted Prince, The Cure, Jimi Hendrix. None were as good as my equivalent LPs. Some came close. One very close indeed.

 

I'll stick with Qobuz. Further sonic streaming improvements ahead, let's hope.

 

Just my 2c worth

Expand  

One thing to be aware of when comparing your lps to hires streaming is that very often the hires streaming is a remastered or re engineered versions which often sounds nothing like the original version lp. The beatles albums are a good example of the obvious difference between the streamed version and the original lps. Its often out of the control of the streaming company as they can only stream what the record companies give them and license them to stream. There seems to be a big trend by record companies to remaster to bring ‘new life’ back into old albums but sadly there nothing like the original version that we are familiar with. 

 

 

[Guest]

  On 07/02/2024 at 7:45 PM, fjs said:

There seems to be a big trend by record companies to remaster to bring ‘new life’ back into old albums but sadly there nothing like the original version that we are familiar with. 

Expand  

Is there such a thing as the "correct" or "real" version of music?  More importantly, why does it matter as long as we enjoy the music from Qobuz?  

[rantan]

  On 07/02/2024 at 7:45 PM, fjs said:

One thing to be aware of when comparing your lps to hires streaming is that very often the hires streaming is a remastered or re engineered versions which often sounds nothing like the original version lp. The beatles albums are a good example of the obvious difference between the streamed version and the original lps. Its often out of the control of the streaming company as they can only stream what the record companies give them and license them to stream. There seems to be a big trend by record companies to remaster to bring ‘new life’ back into old albums but sadly there nothing like the original version that we are familiar with. 

Expand  

 

Could not agree more.

Much of the time when I hear classic artists/albums which have been re engineered or somehow enhanced, they sound completely different and definitely NOT in a good way.

It's an ongoing irritation for me.

[fjs]

  On 07/02/2024 at 10:33 PM, Snoopy8 said:

Is there such a thing as the "correct" or "real" version of music?  More importantly, why does it matter as long as we enjoy the music from Qobuz?  

Expand  

It only matters if you grew up with a particular version, its where all your memories reside. Me for example was in my late teens during the beatles era and the original lp releases were either mono or stereo where john lennons voice was always only from the right speaker and pauls was from the left speaker so when i hear a remastered version where all the voices are now in the centre it just sounds wrong and is in conflict with my treasured memories so it matters greatly to me. I once watched a video by John Darko wherin he was having the the same experience so he buys second hand of originals. 

[Guest]

  On 08/02/2024 at 1:39 AM, fjs said:

It only matters if you grew up with a particular version, its where all your memories reside. Me for example was in my late teens during the beatles era and the original lp releases were either mono or stereo where john lennons voice was always only from the right speaker and pauls was from the left speaker so when i hear a remastered version where all the voices are now in the centre it just sounds wrong and is in conflict with my treasured memories so it matters greatly to me. I once watched a video by John Darko wherin he was having the the same experience so he buys second hand of originals. 

Expand  

If you do not enjoy Qobuz, why listen?   

[Honreekea]

  On 08/02/2024 at 2:15 AM, Snoopy8 said:

If you do not enjoy Qobuz, why listen?   

Expand  

For me: it's that there is recently recorded music that sounds fine

[Hi-Fi Whipped]

For me, you can’t tell me there’s more cons than pros when using a streaming service like Qobuz, unless your just a grumpy old bastard that finds faults in everything and whinges about them to make retirement go quicker.

[Godot]

I was going to post something about Qobuz but an Antechinus just ran across the deck and now I’ve forgotten what it was. Actually, I love Qobuz, it would now account for 75% ish of my music consumption. But I love seeing an Antechinus even more. 

[doogie44]

We've been waiting for you, Godot! 

 

It's a tough gig being an Antechinus. While we are listening to hi-res music they are preparing for the best--and last--naughty they will ever have...

 

From Wikipedia:

Mating is intense for Antechinus and can last up to 12 hours in some species. The males mate with a number of females and the litters have a number of fathers. During the short breeding window, males expand their home range and are often active during night and day. Male die-off occurs because of an increase in free corticosteroids in the blood, which causes a suppression of the immune system and gastrointestinal ulcers and which result in male mortality. An increase in free corticosteroids is thought to allow males to utilise their reserve energy and maximise their reproductive effort, even though the increase usually proves fatal. If there were no male die-off, there would still only be a small likelihood of males surviving to the next mating period. Thus, it is far better for the males to invest heavily in one breeding season than attempt to survive to the next one.

[Honreekea]

I just went to play a Lyn Stanley album  on Qobuz and it says it's been removed.  How annoying!

[maximus]

What Stanley album, She's alive and well on my Qobuz..

[Honreekea]

  On 01/03/2024 at 9:03 AM, maximus said:

What Stanley album, She's alive and well on my Qobuz..

Expand  

Live at Studio A, London Calling.... and Potions from the 50's

[maximus]

Got them all....Make sure you're searching Lyn Stanley

[Honreekea]

  On 01/03/2024 at 9:29 AM, maximus said:

Got them all....Make sure you're searching Lyn Stanley

Expand  

The albums are still in my favourites, thus I don't need to search for them  but when I go the play.....see attached screen grab

[maximus]

You're right 'Track currently not available' that's for the whole album, yet all my other albums in my favourites  are there and available.  

I've encountered this before but haven't bothered, just played another album instead.

 

It'll probably be all good tomorrow. I'll log back on then and see.

[Dr.Funk]

None of the albums are available anymore, just the track Moonlight in Vermont. If I look in My Favourites, I have five of her albums, all displaying 404 now.

 

It was explained to me that it is to do with copyright issues. When artists change record companies or distributors, the previous owners no longer hold the copyright. Quobuz pays the licensing fee to whomever owns the copyright, if the owner changes, the contract ceases. This is notoriously happening with Greatest Hits albums, because at different times there are different owners to each track. Ten tracks may mean ten different licenses are required??

 

Having said that, I just looked up the label associated with Lyn Stanley and they are all A.T.Music LLC, which blows that theory out of the water doesn't it, Doooh!

 

[Honreekea]

  On 02/03/2024 at 1:27 AM, Dr.Funk said:

None of the albums are available anymore, just the track Moonlight in Vermont. If I look in My Favourites, I have five of her albums, all displaying 404 now.

 

It was explained to me that it is to do with copyright issues. When artists change record companies or distributors, the previous owners no longer hold the copyright. Quobuz pays the licensing fee to whomever owns the copyright, if the owner changes, the contract ceases. This is notoriously happening with Greatest Hits albums, because at different times there are different owners to each track. Ten tracks may mean ten different licenses are required??

 

Having said that, I just looked up the label associated with Lyn Stanley and they are all A.T.Music LLC, which blows that theory out of the water doesn't it, Doooh!

 

Expand  

Not Happy Jan.

 

Lyn Stanleys album Live at  Studio A is so well recorded