I am a bit disappointed and perplexed…. I just purchased Quadrophenia from ProStudioMasters at 96/24 and… just sounds bad. Cost was about $22.
I have four copies of this music and I gotta say, the best sound quality is an EAC rip from my own orignal 44.1 CD. I have SACD, I have my own EAC rip from the Director’s Cut CDs, and now this Hi Rez and…. what a bummer. Except for my first CD, all the other files sound very similar with flat drums, lack of dynamics… just veiled.
What is up with this? I make an assumption that the latest releases from these labels should be improvements… but going backwards? Were the original tapes lost? Quadrophenia is one of my all time favorite recordings… and I can’t get a good rendition?
A long time ago, I exchanged emails with ProStudioMasters and they said something about they get what they get from the music companies. They don’t have control.
Just a bit of a rant, but how the heck are we to know?
I don’t think the issue is the file type, but the source tapes. Sometimes I think the record companies, if they are “music” companies, care. Especially when the very earliest CD I have sounds better than any subsequent release.
Maybe a little late for now: did you try to run the ‘preview’ and can you do that over your system?
Perhaps you can try and hear if you have the same result, to manage expectations next time.
Next, try other familiar albums and hear how that compares.
I’ve had the same response from HD Tracks saying they get whatever the record company supplies. I paid a premium for a release in 24/96 that in reality was 16/96. The additional bits were zero for all tracks. Needless to say that was my last transaction with them. To their credit they did refund my purchase. Now I check all PCM downloads for the stated resolution.
Yes, they are still up… The Chesky brothers own that storefront… odd they would have done that on purpose. If I had a buck to bet, the issue is at the supplier of files not the storefront… but that is just an assumption.
It’s fairly straightforward depending upon your skillset. I use Mac/Unix command line tools to parse the data and dump raw PCM data to the screen. The constant pattern of zeros becomes readily apparent.
I use XLD to convert any compressed PCM (FLAC, Apple Lossless) to WAV. WAV files contain no metadata tags just music data. Then I dump the data using the od command to display the WAV words in hex.
In my case the 24 bit words had nothing but zeros in 8 of the 24 bits. The DirectStream DAC displays the actual number of bits used in the sample not the sample word length. That’s how I noticed it.
The sound quality between 16 and 24 bits, while certainly measurable, is difficult or unlikely to be heard. The issue is charging a premium price for higher resolution when none is provided.
This is one of the reasons I don’t buy digital music anymore if there is no listed provenance of source and conversion method. Just isn’t worth it. Similar guardrails for vinyl.
Qobuz guarantees to work directly with the labels providing their high-res files. Qobuz don’t do any upsampling. Their files are sourced directly from record labels and distributors, so the vast majority of Qobuz’s Hi-Res catalog should be authentic Hi-Res audio, not fake. Mostly they for sure sound like that
Yea, but what you just wrote doesn’t make me want to use Qubuz… all these digital distributors “work directly” with the labels. Its the labels have issue with, not the distributors.
I have purchased A LOT of Hirez music from Qobuz. I have always been pleased as punch with EVERYTHING I buy from them. You can choose the format, I choose AIFF. I always know ahead of time what bitrate I am buying. If it says 24.96 or 24.192 that is what it is.
Nice way of doing it, but I wonder, any 16 bit file that has been dithered to 24 bits ought to have random stuff in the bottom 8 bits, but I would still say that is not a genuine 24 bit file - we can dither to 24 bit at home for free (with some gadgetry anyway)!
My experience is the same as yours with regard to Qobuz files. I’ve never been disappointed. Pretty much any disappointment I’ve ever had seems to have involved the re-mixing / re-mastering process, not the medium. My experience with re-mixing/mastering was before the days of totally redoing from analog to digital, so I don’t know what goes into decision-making during that process, but I’m guessing that a different set of ears is required for each. And I don’t think this is always an analog-to-digital thing. I recently picked up a vinyl of Madeleine Peyroux’s Careless Love and found the vinyl version lacking.
I believe the number one reason for remastering recordings is sadly, to get an opportunity to sell a recording again to someone who already owns an older copy. Sure, a select few do it to improve the sound. Maybe 3% to 5%. The rest are simple cash grabs.
I fall for this over and over again. On absolutely every recording dynamic range is greatly reduced. In most cases I have a strong preference for the original. But I still buy them, hoping, hoping, hoping.
Yeah, I guess I’m too cheap to buy reissues, just gambling that they’ll sound better. But I agree that many of the remasters on Qobuz don’t do anything for me. My favorite remasters are when it’s someone I KNOW was brought in to totally look freshly at something done many years ago. Many Tom Waits recordings have been through that. Of course they’re also trying to make a few bucks, but at least they are saying there was more to it.
