2. digital
  3. 180883-1363

Qobuz Hi-Rez Not Necessarily the Best Sound

Hello:

I stream Qobuz using Roon into a Bricasti M1SE DAC/Streamer into a Benchmark HPA4 headphone amp and then into various Kennerton or RAAL headphones.

Lately I have been comparing different versions of recordings on Qobuz.  For instance, lately it has been Depeche Mode but also Pink Floyd, Steely Dan, and Supertramp.  Oftentimes there are several versions of titles, usually Hi-rez files of 24/192 or similar, versus the standard 16/44.1 resolution versions.  Sometimes there are remastered versions in various resolutions.  

Quite by accident I have found that the highest resolution versions are not necessarily the best-sounding versions, often preferring the remastered and/or standard resolution recordings.  Today, for instance, I was listening to DM's A Broken Frame.  The 24/192 sounded a little sharper with perhaps a little more detail and spaciousness but was amazingly dynamically compressed.  The difference was not subtle.  Going from the 24/192 to the 16/44.1 remastered version was going from a bland recording to one that came alive.  I guess it goes to show that higher rez files are not necessarily superior sonically.

Anyone else found this to be the case in their streaming?  Thanks.

rlawry

Showing 5 responses by lowrider57

lowrider57's avatar
lowrider57
5,418 posts
 

I guess it goes to show that higher rez files are not necessarily superior sonically.

Modern day remasters suffer from high compression. The goal in the beginning was to make the recording louder for air play and for ear bud listeners. See the Loudness Wars.

When the music recording business transitioned to digital, record labels transferred analogue masters to digital formats, typically 24/96 or 24/192kHz. It was now easy to reissue a remastered album. The use of compression became overused to pump up the volume to make the album stand out against lower volume releases. This decreased dynamic range and made music sound flat and lifeless.

Check out how dynamic range decreased over the years due to compression and digital processing. These so-called remasters were touted as having improved sound. You can see how Depeche Mode's earlier albums had more dynamic range allowing the music to sound lively and less processed.

https://dr.loudness-war.info/?artist=Depeche+mode&album=

 

 

lowrider57's avatar
lowrider57
5,418 posts
 

@soix makes a good point. I also find that newer music which has been natively recorded in hires, then mastered at a high sampling rate does often sound better than the "CD quality" version on Qobuz. Music from the 70s, 80s, 90s has been subjected to digital processing from analogue and upsampled. And the provenance of the source must be considered; eg, is it an original analogue master or is a later generation used, or maybe it’s a remaster that’s being used as the source and converted to hires for streaming.

 

This is another possibility where the album was not subject to the Loudness Wars.

 

 

lowrider57's avatar
lowrider57
5,418 posts
 

+1 @mapman . Very well stated.

lowrider57's avatar
lowrider57
5,418 posts
 

@mapman 

I assume you're using your Axis/Denon MC to transfer vinyl. What sampling rate are you digitizing to?

When you use dynamic range normalization, can you hear a difference between your digital playback and spinning the album live?

lowrider57's avatar
lowrider57
5,418 posts
 

Thanks @mapman . I asked because by using dynamic normalization you can tweak the bass. Many classic LPs are bass-shy or lack low-end definition. It's a good tool to increase dynamics in a subtle way.

More to discover