 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, the merits of hi-res music have been debated ad nauseam. Some people claim to hear a difference, some don't. Factors like personal hearing, quality of audio equipment and listening environment play a big part. Would the difference be noticeable when listening on earbuds or from the sound bar of a computer? Probably not. Bottom line is, if you're happy with CD audio or MP3, there's no reason to spend money on hi-res music.
Here I sort of agree and disagree. CDs sound great. Not dismissively great, they sound really great. I doubt anyone who can't play (or even hear, as some claim) higher resolution audio is going to feel like they missed out by only having a CD of Inchon, or even that Justine release you have, which is indeed lovely. It would be on a CD as well, that particular master of that score.
But I'm unwilling to go along with the "only dogs can hear this" quip approach to hi-res audio. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe just for some people, who were given better cochleas than others. If it can matter, get it right. If it doesn't, then either drop it, or if you're going to sell it, and upcharge for it - get it right. Either way, there is no excuse, whether I'll get to fully experience its benefits or not, for charging me for something and then simply not providing it.
But I agree (I don't think I'm misrepresenting you here) that CD audio is magnificent. What's great about where this business model has gone is that now CD quality audio may become the standard, rather than lossy audio, which has been to date. Also, some out of print things are no longer out of reach of our ears, like The 'Burbs and The Haunting.
There's a lot of good happening. But, you know, don't steal from people. Even if you think they won't notice.
"Sounds good to me!" is really the best result of buying music, but if the cheaper files (you know, those stone knives and bearskins level CD ones) would sound just as good, the upcharge for the non-existent upgrade should be off the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't know the story behind Inchon on Qobuz, but in my experience they respond very fast to any questions, feedback, or complaints. However, they don't check files, they just sell what the labels give them.
That's mistake one, and an irresponsible one.
Qobuz is a small company, no way they can constantly check and verify millions of album files. Amazon is a huge company, do they test all the products they get? Hardly. I agree if you buy high-res from Qobuz you should get high-res from Qobuz or your money back, no doubt about it. You have the right to get what you paid for, and it's the retailer that's responsible (and that will get your refund). I'm just saying it's not realistic for Qobuz to verify every single file any more than it is for Amazon to test the products they sell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Qobuz is a small company, no way they can constantly check and verify millions of album files. Amazon is a huge company, do they test all the products they get? Hardly. I agree if you buy high-res from Qobuz you should get high-res from Qobuz or your money back, no doubt about it. You have the right to get what you paid for, and it's the retailer that's responsible (and that will get your refund). I'm just saying it's not realistic for Qobuz to verify every single file any more than it is for Amazon to test the products they sell.
Fair enough, but not doing every single file doesn't justify doing nothing. Can they be expected to check any? To spot check? That doesn't seem unreasonable, and given how common this problem is, should be considered a bare minimum effort.
Should they check files when they're told of an issue? To not do so was unreasonable of them.
Should they give refunds? They should. They don't, as a matter of policy.
Mine had to be taken from them.
A company isn't a bad company because everything it does, it does badly, so it's irrelevant that Qobuz do some things well enough (apparently by accident?). It's knowingly allowing the bad stuff to go on, not correcting mistakes, not improving where it's needed - pointed out, even, that properly applies the label "bad news, stay away."
How many of the labels we know have issued replacement discs due to errors? Rather than saying, "Well, you got an A.I. box, and it has 3 CDs in it, and they all have music, so no refunds," or even, "You're right about the indexing error, but good grief, the CD plays straight through perfectly, and that's what we make, CDs, not file delivery discs, so no Eiger Sanction replacement discs for you! And no refunds ever." They're only selling the discs the manufacturers pressed for them, and they can't check every disc, right? No, that's not how we treat them when they mess up, so why so with Qobuz?
We buy from some good labels. We rightly trust them. We can even trust them if they screw up once a year, because then they address it, usually appropriately (or better, in most cases). The people who are misrepresenting that we'll get what we've been charged for shouldn't get a pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough, but not doing every single file doesn't justify doing nothing. Can they be expected to check any? To spot check? That doesn't seem unreasonable, and given how common this problem is, should be considered a bare minimum effort.
Should they check files when they're told of an issue? To not do so was unreasonable of them.
I agree, I'm just saying that's not my experience with them at all. I have contacted them before (for other reasons) and they were quick to respond and resolve any issue. If they sold you files wrongly declared as high-res, they have reimburse you, no ifs, no buts. And they should remove the declaration from the store.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 14, 2021 - 11:27 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MichaelM
(Member)
|
Didn't Intrada remaster Inchon from the original analog tapes for their latest CD release and then provide the 96/24 files to Qobuz? Are you saying they provided upconverted CD quality files instead? Why would they do that if they are the ones who created the hi-res masters in the first place and could easily provide the files?
No, I'm not saying any of that. I'm saying Qobuz sells 96/24 files containing 41/16 audio. They offer hi-res audio, not hi res files (containing whatever someone chooses to put in them). That's their language. It's no longer relevant how they got those files from Back Lot Music; that's what they sold me. They were given all they needed to confirm this, to say nothing of just having access to the files themselves if they wanted to do due diligence on the complaint (which they certainly should - who am I to take at my word?), and the wording on their site, and the files, remain unchanged. Three months later.
If Intrada remastered from analog, and that resulted in audio that reaches beyond the limits of CDs, it hasn't gotten to the customers. While I expect them to care (if they're even part of this chain - Back Lot Music seems to be relevant), I do not expect them to be sudden experts in a relatively new technology, so if something got downgraded while the audio was in their hands, I'm not sure they'd have a way to know. I guess I'd expect them to know a thing or two about CDs by now, because that's their primary business, but hi-res audio is new, and for their part, they released a CD set. Since hi-res audio in hi-res audio files is what Qobuz does, I do expect them to have a professional grasp on issues surrounding them, such as basic QCing.
How can you tell that your 96/24 files contain only CD-quality music? Do you have software that analyzes the audio and tells you that? I'm not being snippy, I'm genuinely interested. When I check the properties of the INCHON files I downloaded from Qobuz, they are identified as 96/24 flac files with "perfect (lossless)" audio quality. Also, the record label for INCHON on the Qobuz website is listed as Intrada, not Back Lot Music (which, as Ford pointed out, is Universal Music), so they had nothing to do with it.
It's been my understanding that Intrada mastered this version of INCHON using the original analog studio tapes, digitized at the highest resolution possible (probably at a 192 kHz sampling rate), then edited and mastered in that domain, which would indeed result in audio far exceeding anything CD can reproduce. Had INCHON been originally recorded digitally directly to 44.1/16 digital, you would be right, there would be no improvement possible other than EQing, but this being a 1980 recording, I doubt that. So, the 96/24 files created from those masters should still sound better than CD, if your ears and audio equipment can properly process them. Unless something went wrong somewhere in the chain from mastering to delivery at the qobuz website, there would be no reason for me to assume that these file are anything less than genuine 96/24 audio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 14, 2021 - 12:10 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
thx99
(Member)
|
How can you tell that your 96/24 files contain only CD-quality music? Do you have software that analyzes the audio and tells you that? I'm not being snippy, I'm genuinely interested. When I check the properties of the INCHON files I downloaded from Qobuz, they are identified as 96/24 flac files with "perfect (lossless)" audio quality.
@W. David Lichty [Lorien] and I are collaborating on something that will answer your questions in (gory) detail, but in short, yes, there are ways (1) to verify the bit depth of digital audio data, and (2) to assess the true frequency range of content in an audio recording. I've written about this on FSM before, years ago, but what we're preparing now will be much more detailed and with examples of real-world hi-res releases.
Suffice it to say that seeing that a file contains audio at a bit depth of 24-bit and actually having true 24-bit audio in that file are two different things. Same with sampling rate.
It's been my understanding that Intrada mastered this version of INCHON using the original analog studio tapes, digitized at the highest resolution possible (probably at a 192 kHz sampling rate), then edited and mastered in that domain, which would indeed result in audio far exceeding anything CD can reproduce. Had INCHON been originally recorded digitally directly to 44.1/16 digital, you would be right, there would be no improvement possible other than EQing, but this being a 1980 recording, I doubt that. So, the 96/24 files created from those masters should still sound better than CD, if your ears and audio equipment can properly process them. Unless something went wrong somewhere in the chain from mastering to delivery at the qobuz website, there would be no reason for me to assume that these file are anything less than genuine 96/24 audio.
The Intrada website does in fact say the following: "Now - finally - Intrada has returned to the original 1” recording session rolls made by Engel at the Forum Studios in Italy.. And yes, if Intrada used a new hi-res transfer of those analog tapes and provided the result to Qobuz in true 24-bit/96 kHz files, then there would be no reason to doubt otherwise. But from what we've determined, Qobuz is selling 16-bit resolution audio up-quantized straight to 24-bit, and 44.1 kHz audio up-sampled to 96 kHz. Where the process went akimbo is not certain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can you tell that your 96/24 files contain only CD-quality music? Do you have software that analyzes the audio and tells you that? I'm not being snippy, I'm genuinely interested. When I check the properties of the INCHON files I downloaded from Qobuz, they are identified as 96/24 flac files with "perfect (lossless)" audio quality.
@W. David Lichty [Lorien] and I are collaborating on something that will answer your questions in (gory) detail, but in short, yes, there are ways (1) to verify the bit depth of digital audio data, and (2) to assess the true frequency range of content in an audio recording.
No doubt there are ways to do this, but just a few posts up there it sounded as if it should be a piece of cake for a small retailer like Qobuz to verify millions of files countless labels provide them with on the fly with that kind of accuracy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No doubt there are ways to do this, but just a few posts up there it sounded as if it should be a piece of cake for a small retailer like Qobuz to verify millions of files countless labels provide them with on the fly with that kind of accuracy?
There are freely-available tools that can display a spectral view of an audio recording (to check the frequency range of the content within the file) and to verify the bit depth of digital audio data. Granted, they may not be optimized for batch processing and automated results, but given that selling hi-res audio is a part of Qobuz's business, one would think that they'd have a QC process in-place before advertising something as hi-res AND charging more for it compared to CD-quality versions of the same content. I'm sure they could afford to develop or sub-contract someone to develope an automated tool to assist with "hi-res assessment".
And not that you said it, but the Amazon analogy doesn't hold water, since Amazon deals with thousands (millions?) of different types of products. Qobuz's primary (only?) commodity is audio, whether it be streaming or downloadable.
Yes, but Qobuz is a handful of people, Amazon has thousands of employees. If millions of files cannot be easily batch confirmed to be high-res res files according to what the providing labels claim, it's just an apt comparison to say Amazon (or really any retailer who doesn't exclusively sell their very own products) is at fault if the products are faulty. They are responsible to get you your money back and - hopefully - go after the labels who provide the crap, but they can hardly be expected to sit in front of a monitor to check audio files of a soundtrack probably no more than a dozen people will buy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here I sort of agree and disagree. CDs sound great. Not dismissively great, they sound really great. I doubt anyone who can't play (or even hear, as some claim) higher resolution audio is going to feel like they missed out by only having a CD of Inchon, or even that Justine release you have, which is indeed lovely. It would be on a CD as well, that particular master of that score.
But I'm unwilling to go along with the "only dogs can hear this" quip approach to hi-res audio. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe just for some people, who were given better cochleas than others. If it can matter, get it right. If it doesn't, then either drop it, or if you're going to sell it, and upcharge for it - get it right. Either way, there is no excuse, whether I'll get to fully experience its benefits or not, for charging me for something and then simply not providing it.
I agree with you here 100%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first time I found some repackaged MP3s I asked for a refund and got one. I've repeated this pattern twice in a month, and then they told me it would be the "last refund". Obviously that's very wrong. Basically they told me to go away: they prefer to sell to more gullible people who will buy fake files.
What files and label were those? As I said, Qobuz does not upsample, so would be interesting to know who did and then avoid those labels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I said, Qobuz does not upsample, so would be interesting to know who did and then avoid those labels.
If they don't, they're still willing to sell known upsampled files as if they are the real thing. At that point it's immaterial who did it - they know, they persist.
Go somewhere else first, and if you must use Qobuz, go through PayPal, so you can get the refund they won't give you if they've misrepresented what they're selling you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I said, Qobuz does not upsample, so would be interesting to know who did and then avoid those labels.
If they don't, they're still willing to sell known upsampled files as if they are the real thing. At that point it's immaterial who did it - they know, they persist.
It's not immaterial at all, as I would simply avoid labels who routinely provide upsampled files.
Go somewhere else first, and if you must use Qobuz, go through PayPal, so you can get the refund they won't give you if they've misrepresented what they're selling you.
Well, ironically, never read much about this being a Qobuz problem apart from this forum, it's not as if that happens nowhere else or that the competition is huge. (Of course, there are a few rivals.)
In any case, if Qobuz sells something wrongly, they have to reimburse you, period, that's not a question of whether they want to. They have to.
Of course, the difficult thing would be returning the files. I mean, buying a high-res, getting a lossless, and getting your money back, is basically getting a free CD. 
However, I'd just avoid those labels in the future and that's it. Like I would stop buying any brand that sells crap no matter where I buy it, rather than avoid the retailer. Since I like Qobuz' focus on jazz and classical and found their customer service excellent so far, I would prefer just avoiding bad labels rather than switching retailers. There are only a few serious contenders anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What files and label were those? As I said, Qobuz does not upsample, so would be interesting to know who did and then avoid those labels.
I 100% agree that it is how Qobuz got the files, since I checked and the files are also fake on other platforms.
One label I can name is Disques Cinémusique, along with other semi-bootleg labels specialising in pre-1964 material. Yes, that sounds obvious now, but I didn't know when I first signed up to Qobuz.
Of course it is not really different to buying CDs. If you buy from a bootleg label, there is high chance they just printed the CD from MP3. I'm just saying it is easier to check when the files are digital.
Yes, I know I've seen "questionable" files on Qobuz, however, I've seen "questionable" files on other retailers as well. That's then not a Qobuz-specific problem. Qobuz is a small company run by people who care about sound quality. They actually do. But of course they don't have a staff that sits around computers to verify files (against what should they even verify them?) They rely on the labels to provide them what they say. Just like Amazon is not listening to CDs to confirm their sound quality.
Again, in an ideal world, all products sold are terrific, in the real world, it isn't. If you buy junk from Amazon, you get junk, if you buy junk from Qobuz, you get junk. But from legit labels, you usually get legit files.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, ironically, never read much about this being a Qobuz problem apart from this forum, it's not as if that happens nowhere else or that the competition is huge. (Of course, there are a few rivals.)
They're only being singled out because I brought them up, and I brought them up not because they screwed up (which they did), as many have, but because once informed, they've proven willing to let it go on unchanged. I don't care how many people make their company up, or how much they care about sound; in this long thread, they remain the only entity we can be certain know they're selling fraudulent files, and continue to do so. Anyone else might've made mistakes, or discovered that this is more complex than they'd anticipated, or maybe they mis-worded something. The benefit of the doubt remains available. Qobuz don't have that anymore. They will sell non hi-res audio as if it is hi-res audio, and upcharge for it, even after it's been pointed out to them.
In any case, if Qobuz sells something wrongly, they have to reimburse you, period, that's not a question of whether they want to. They have to.
No, they don't, at least they think they don't, and they'l quote their policy to you - no wait, I will, pasted in from my email, "Please note. There are no refunds on purchased music in any circumstance. We strongly recommend listing to the music in the streaming service before making your purchase if you doubt you will be happy with your purchase. The record labels do not allow for returns. There are no exceptions to this rule. I am very sorry."
If they think they don't have to, they won't, so buy through a service that will pull your money back for you, if you deal with these people, because you're right that they should, but you're wrong that they'll have to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They're only being singled out because I brought them up, and I brought them up not because they screwed up (which they did), as many have, but because once informed, they've proven willing to let it go on unchanged.
It would really help to know what the labels are that you are talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
