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
romanesq
86 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. 

 

lowrider57's avatar
lowrider57
5,397 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=

 

 

soix
8,830 posts
 

I don’t think you can generalize this across all music.  Specifically, I generally find the hi-res versions of newer music sounds better than the 16/44.1 version.  My guess is that with your subset of music recorded in the 70s - 80s you’re open to variables such as the quality of the up-conversion/up-sampling process as well as the quality of the original recording.  But it makes sense that with all the variables in play a particular hi-res version could sound worse.  Maybe that’s why God invented vinyl?

More to discover