high resolution streaming

"We do not alter or produce the music on our service in any way."

No ones saying they do, but they probably use the easiest to get latest remastered versions, which are usually the "loudest" and "most compressed" rubbish.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=supertramp&album=Crime+of+the+Century

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Pink+Floyd&album=the+final+cut

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Pink+Floyd&album=wish+you+were+here

Great album, though there were no good versions of this released, just try listening to Adel’s 21 one of the worst to put on a good system.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Adel&album=21

Cheers George

Ask Sebation
He sez Qobuz:
"receives the music for our service directly from the rights holders via their distribution company. We do not alter or produce the music on our service in any way."
If it's fake or upsampled blame thje record companies.
You can trust them, right?

I have Qobuz and really like it, however some titles labeled as HiRes are identified by my DAC as 24 bit 44.1k SR.   The Elvis Costello catalog has a lot of "HiRes" releases and many are identified as 24/192,  others are 24/96... these are obviously remasters and vary in quality.  

I forget who said it but an industry person basically said some of these tracks id'd at 24 bit are 16 bit of audio and 8 bits of noise , so why?  

I agree with you George.

Upsampling doesn’t bring any new info to the recording from 16/44.1 so can they be even considered hi res? Unless they go to the original analogue master and remaster it 24/192.

Absolutely correct. I always like to see that the producer has used the original analogue sources (or master). Jimmy Page went back to the analogue sources for the LZ remasters, but at some point they were digitized.

I don’t work in the biz anymore, but engineers can work in the digital domain at 48 kHz, 88.2 kHz, 96, 176.4, or 192 kHz.

music are majority of them truly remastered at high resolution from master recordings

Re-Masters to me usually spell two things.
"louder remastering" which is useless, because we have enough gain already.
"compression" which just make everything loud, and never seem to give quite sections for the brain to relax, just try listening to Adel’s 21 one of the worst to put on a good system. http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Adel&album=21

Just compare an "earlier release" digital albums, to the later "re-masters"
Green is good, uncompressed. Yellow/orange/red is compressed.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=supertramp&album=Crime+of+the+Century

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Pink+Floyd&album=the+final+cut

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Pink+Floyd&album=wish+you+were+here

Cheers George

Upsampling doesn’t bring any new info to the recording from 16/44.1 so can they be even considered hi res? Unless they go to the original analogue master and remaster it 24/192.

For quite some time music has been mastered at 24/96, then 24/192kHz.
Older analogue recordings were mastered at 16/44.1 during the CD generation and later at 24/96. These hires masters were down converted for CD distribution.

When remastering older recordings they are upsampled and become new "hires" masters. They can then be distributed as hires files (streaming, downloads) or converted back down for Redbook.

So all remasters exist as hires masters today.
But there are still many original digital masters that are streaming at 16/44.1. However, they're being replaced with upsampled remasters.