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 1 response by romanesq

romanesq
106 posts
 

Actually, this is not unusual. SACD suffered a similar fate when compressed 44K files were updated for the new format. While some releases were beyond impressive (Dave Brubek's Take 5 for example) others from the Stevie Ray Vaughn catalog were not.

This shows that remasters have a great advantage as many of the rock albums on CD from the 80s and 90s were badly compressed which proved useful for radio play but not audiophile systems. 

This won't change so when I see Qobuz remasters, I almost always leap to hear them. The 24/192 releases are often so similar to the 44K versions, there's not nearly the impact of any decent remaster. 

 

More to discover