 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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."
Not sure about the US currently, they would have to reimburse you in the EU if they did false advertising, but once again: it would greatly help to pinpoint and identify the labels in question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would really help to know what the labels are that you are talking about?
I'm not talking about labels. I'm reaming Qobuz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not talking about labels. I'm reaming Qobuz.
And which albums in particular?
Sounds like he's just on a vendetta. He's saying Qobuz is "bad", but when asked which labels sold him the crap, he just doesn't answer. As if he just wants to shift the blame to Qobuz. Like you bought a soundtrack CD on Amazon and then complain it doesn't sound like the FSM/LaLaLand CD. Without naming that what you bought was the Tsunami CD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not talking about labels. I'm reaming Qobuz.
And which albums in particular?
It's all above. Qobuz knows that they have CD quality audio in their hi-res files for Inchon. They've known for months. They continue to sell the hi-res files at a premium for having a higher "audio quality". Not a "hi-res file," but better audio quality, that's their wording. It's something they could have verified or disproven, but even if they didn't, they were given plenty of data to know that their hi-res audio is CD quality, like the CD audio - it's an exact match, not worthy of any upcharge.
Here's a screen cap from a few minutes ago:
The really dumb thing is that they could just sell the CD audio for their hi-res price, because it's a great price for those three CDs worth of Inchon. It's that much more inexcusable that they've chosen to knowingly sell misrepresented stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like he's just on a vendetta. He's saying Qobuz is "bad", but when asked which labels sold him the crap, he just doesn't answer. As if he just wants to shift the blame to Qobuz. Like you bought a soundtrack CD on Amazon and then complain it doesn't sound like the FSM/LaLaLand CD. Without naming that what you bought was the Tsunami CD.
No, Nicolai, I'm just keeping things straight. Good grief, man read before you post.
What Qobuz did stopped being a label issue once they knew, and did nothing to correct it. I think you actually get that, but you keep going back to labels. That's a bee in your bonnet, apparently, but that's it's own thing, and very worth discussing and pursuing, but Qobuz is responsible for their own actions regardless of how they started, something I think you also get. Maybe. Maybe you just don't like it, in which case, fine, you don't.
But presently, only one entity discussed is definitely, knowingly acting in bad faith, and that matters. That's a reason for me to warn people to go elsewhere first, or cover their cash. Period. That's it.
Vendetta. Good grief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not talking about labels. I'm reaming Qobuz.
And which albums in particular?
It's all above. Qobuz knows that they have CD quality audio in their hi-res files for Inchon. They've known for months. They continue to sell the hi-res files at a premium for having a higher "audio quality". Not a "hi-res file," but better audio quality, that's their wording.
Nowhere on Qobuz' site nor in your screenshots do I see them claim that INCHON sounds better in high-res than in lossless (let's face it, INCHON will always have sound problems far greater than any audio resolution could solve), but it seems here INCHON is provided by Intrada as a high-res file, not Qobuz upsampling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
But presently, only one entity discussed is definitely, knowingly acting in bad faith, and that matters.
Not yet established who, Intrada or Qobuz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 15, 2021 - 4:24 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
thx99
(Member)
|
Nowhere on Qobuz' site nor in your screenshots do I see them claim that INCHON sounds better in high-res than in lossless (let's face it, INCHON will always have sound problems far greater than any audio resolution could solve), but it seems here INCHON is provided by Intrada as a high-res file, not Qobuz upsampling.
You're mixing apples and oranges here, speaking of "high-res" vs. "lossless". They're not the same. Hi-res comes with expectations of sampling rate (higher than 44.1 kHz) and/or quantization (higher than 16-bit). Lossless just means "ZIP for audio", as I stated before in this thread.
Qobuz is selling Inchon as "Hi-Res 96 kHz" as depicted in the graphic above. When purchased from them, you get WAV files containing 24-bit/96 kHz audio data. But when that data is analyzed, it's readily apparent that you're getting up-quantized/up-sampled audio, not true 24-bit nor true 96 kHz audio.
As a sneak peak to what we're doing, here are plots of the quantization level analysis and frequency analysis of one file from Inchon:
Note that the frequency content drops precipitously at 22.05 kHz, which would represent the original bandwidth of a 44.1 kHz recording. And between 22.05 kHz and 48 kHz (the bandwidth of the 96 kHz audio), you have noise and no true audio content.
As for the quantization level analysis, it essentially depicts a bar graph on the vertical axis representing the number of occurrences of samples at each possible quantization level at 24-bit. See how the bars are spaced out at intervals of 256 levels? That means the 16-bit audio samples are simply up-quantized to 24-bit by adding eight 0s to each sample value. When you add eight 0s to the end of a 16-bit number, you are multiplying it by 256. In the end, you have no audio samples in the 24-bit signal with anything but a value that is a multiple of 256. Here's a graph that illustrates what true 24-bit audio would look like and what simple 16- to 24-bit up-quantized data looks like:
Now, where the blame lies is still in question, as pointed out repeatedly. But one thing's for sure, Qobuz has been put on notice and is still selling the up-quantized/up-sampled files.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nowhere on Qobuz' site nor in your screenshots do I see them claim that INCHON sounds better in high-res than in lossless (let's face it, INCHON will always have sound problems far greater than any audio resolution could solve), but it seems here INCHON is provided by Intrada as a high-res file, not Qobuz upsampling.
You're mixing apples and oranges here, speaking of "high-res" vs. "lossless". They're not the same.
Hm? I'm perfectly aware of what "high-res" and "lossless" mean. I was just pointing out that Qobuz does not specifically state that the high-res files of INCHON actually provide better sound.
Qobuz is selling Inchon as "Hi-Res 96 kHz" as depicted in the graphic above. When purchased from them, you get WAV files containing 24-bit/96 kHz audio data. But when that data is analyzed, it's readily apparent that you're getting up-quantized/up-sampled audio, not true 24-bit nor true 96 kHz audio.
That's obviously what we have been talking about here all this time. Again, I am just pointing out that Qobuz does not mention that the sound of high-res INCHON is better than lossless INCHON sound.
Now it seems INCHON was specifically announced as a high-resolution file (by Intrada)
https://www.facebook.com/intradacds/posts/new-intrada-release-inchon-remastered-3cd-newly-remastered-3cd-release-of-1982-j/2769497473263581/
https://www.soundtrack-board.de/topic/18224-intrada-records-jerry-goldsmith-inchon-remastered-3cd/
I thought I remembered something like that.
And HD Tracks is selling INCHON as high-res as well, so Qobuz does not seem to be the culprit:
https://www.hdtracks.com/#/album/60805d317894fb11c5001223
As pointed out repeatedly: these are retailers. They sell what and how the labels provide. The product specs are up to the labels, NOT to Qobuz (or HD Tracks).
I am pointing this out because this thread has been specifically against Qobuz, as if this is a Qobuz specific issue. It is obviously not. It does not even seem to be a retailer issue at all. And again: these are retailers, they do NOT check the files. That's not their job either, they rely on the product information that labels provide them. That's what other retailers do too.
All retailers rely on correct product information by their suppliers, not their customers.
And if Qobuz (or HD Tracks, the first other retailer I checked, as was suggested that it's a Qobuz problem and other retailers fare better... does not seem to be the case) charge "extra for Hi-Res 96 khz 'Audio' (not file type) Quality on Inchon, something which does not currently exist", the "irresponsible" mistake (as suggested by W. David Lichty ) seems to have been made by Intrada rather than Qobuz (or HD Tracks). They announced it specifically as 24bit/96kHz resolution.
http://www.intrada.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8627&hilit=inchon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What Qobuz did stopped being a label issue once they knew, and did nothing to correct it. I think you actually get that, but you keep going back to labels. That's a bee in your bonnet, apparently, but that's it's own thing, and very worth discussing and pursuing, but Qobuz is responsible for their own actions regardless of how they started, something I think you also get. Maybe. Maybe you just don't like it, in which case, fine, you don't.
This has nothing to do with what I "like" or "dislike". It's not about liking or disliking, it's about pointing out how things work and who is responsible for what. Labels, NOT Qobuz or HD Tracks or any other retailer are responsible for the product specs of the files THEY provide. Retailers sure don't sit there with audio software and monitor them for accuracy, that is not their job. If a label provides them files as high-res files, they sell them as high-res files, simple as that. Again, that has nothing to do whether you or I like or dislike that, or how you or I wish how things should be, this is just the way things actually work.
I just think the blame should be put where it belongs.
We are down to the following options:
a) The Inchon files are actual 24bit/96kHz files and W. David Lichty and thx 99 lie about them.
b) The Inchon files are actual 24bit/96kHz files and W. David Lichty and thx 99 are mistaken about them.
c) The Inchon files are not actual 24bit/96kHz files and Intrada lied about them.
d) The Inchon files are not actual 24bit/96kHz files and Intrada just didn't know any better.
c) The Inchon files Intrada provided were actual 24bit/96kHz files, but retailers like Qobuz and HD Tracks are selling upsampled lossless versions instead nevertheless.
d) Intrada never provided anyone with 24bit/96kHz files, the retailers just made that up to get high-res sales.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was just pointing out that Qobuz does not specifically state that the high-res files of INCHON actually provide better sound.
I'm sorry but it is quite obvious that upsampled files can not be sold as high-res, and MP3 files can not be sold as lossless.
Very true. But Qobuz does not upsample files.
The wording on the website is irrelevant in this case as it is very clear what the customer is expecting, and what the seller should be providing.
I think it is very bad that these fake files are still available because critical checks were not made. Basically both the label and store have failed to do an easy check that would take a few seconds for that particular release mentioned above.
The store has not failed in that none of the stores -- not Qobuz, not HD Tracks, not Amazon -- play the files, listen to the files, check the files with audio software, etc. That is NOT their job. You may not like that, fine, but that's the way it is. Fact is that the online retailers rely on the specs and files the labels send them That's it. They provide the platform for distributing the music files the labels provide them. No more, no less. That's it.
Retailers like Qobuz and HD Tracks are not a control instance. Now you may wish they were and think they should, again, that's fine, but current status quo is: they are not. Amazon is not checking if the products they sell fit the description, Qobuz or HD Tracks or whoever is not checking if Deutsche Grammophon or any other label really has the rights to the music they provide them with or if the files really live up to the specs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What Qobuz did stopped being a label issue once they knew, and did nothing to correct it.
There is also a misconception here that just because you or someone might have TOLD Qobuz that a high-res file a label provides is not a high-res file, they actually KNOW this therefore to be a fact right away. Stores get told lots of things by their customers, not all of these things are invariably true.
First and foremost, stores like Qobuz provide a platform for music distribution that labels use to distribute their music. And first and foremost they rely on the labels to provide accurate information, not on customers. And it seems at least right now that Intrada distributes INCHON as 24bit/96kHz files. And it also seems that it is not exclusively Qobuz selling these files as such, so it does seem to be a label issue indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 16, 2021 - 5:23 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
thx99
(Member)
|
Hm? I'm perfectly aware of what "high-res" and "lossless" mean. I was just pointing out that Qobuz does not specifically state that the high-res files of INCHON actually provide better sound.
...
Again, I am just pointing out that Qobuz does not mention that the sound of high-res INCHON is better than lossless INCHON sound.
So a "small company run by people who care about sound quality" (quoting you) offers downloads of Inchon (or any other album) at two different audio qualities ("Hi-Res 96 kHz" and "CD") and charges US$4 more for the "Hi-Res 96 kHz". If not for "better sound", what am I supposed to be getting with the "Hi-Res 96 kHz" for the additional US$4? Why have the hi-res option at all if there is no advantage to the customer?
And HD Tracks is selling INCHON as high-res as well, so Qobuz does not seem to be the culprit:
...
I am pointing this out because this thread has been specifically against Qobuz, as if this is a Qobuz specific issue.
Agreed! @W. David Lichty [Lorien] has simply been relaying his personal situation with Qobuz, but I have had similar issues with HDTracks, which I stated above. We have examples from HDTracks as well.
I just think the blame should be put where it belongs.
...
Fact is that the online retailers rely on the specs and files the labels send them That's it. They provide the platform for distributing the music files the labels provide them. No more, no less. That's it.
No argument on your first point, but at present, neither we nor you have proof exactly where it belongs. Just speculation.
But even assuming it's the fault of a party prior to the retailer receiving the files, I still believe that some fault lies with the retailers, especially when put on notice that the product doesn't deliver on how it's advertised. (BTW, should retailers not take complaints from customers seriously? Do I need to send them my professional resume to support my findings?) They market options for downloads and charge more for an allegedly premium version, yet when called on the carpet that there's nothing premium about it, they scold the customer and do nothing more. At the very least, they should check in with the label and advise them of the issues raised. I'm not sure that we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this, and that's fair.
But Qobuz does not upsample files.
And how do you know this? You've stated it several times now, but are you just assuming that to be true, or do you have proof? I'm not saying that they or HDTracks or whoever are guilty of up-sampling/up-quantizing files. I just don't have any proof that they don't. Having said that, I acknowledge that it's unlikely that they do.
The point of what @W. David Lichty [Lorien] and I are working on is to draw attention to an issue for the sake of the consumer and to have it serve as as call to action for labels, retailers, and other intermediate parties alike. If there are pitfalls in the workflow (from transfer to remastering to final export to intermediate party to retailer), they should be addressed by the responsible party (or parties) to ensure that true hi-res audio files make it to the retailers and subsequently to the consumers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So a "small company run by people who care about sound quality" (quoting you) offers downloads of Inchon (or any other album) at two different audio qualities ("Hi-Res 96 kHz" and "CD") and charges US$4 more for the "Hi-Res 96 kHz". If not for "better sound", what am I supposed to be getting with the "Hi-Res 96 kHz" for the additional US$4? Why have the hi-res option at all if there is no advantage to the customer?
It seems to have to ask Intrada the question in case of INCHON. W. David Lichty has stated that 24bit/96kHz files of INCHON do not exist, yet Intrada advertised files as such.
I have bought other high-res files from Qobuz, all of which appear to be perfectly ok and of the claimed resolution. So it's not as if their high-res files are usually not what they claimed.
Agreed! @W. David Lichty [Lorien] has simply been relaying his personal situation with Qobuz,
He has specifically stated to go to other places before Qobuz, implying that this IS a Qobuz issue, rather than a more universal issue. He has not named the “other places” where he goes, obviously not HD Tracks. (I’m leaving out Spotify and Apple who only recently started to even consider sound quality.)
But even assuming it's the fault of a party prior to the retailer receiving the files, I still believe that some fault lies with the retailers, especially when put on notice that the product doesn't deliver on how it's advertised.
Though they might do exactly that, deliver the product as advertised. At least if Intrada stated “here are 24bit/96kHz files of INCHON” and those exact files were what Qobuz sold. What these files actually CONTAINED is up to Intrada, not to Qobuz. It’s a music retail platform, there are no guys sitting around on computers with pro tools checking files.
(BTW, should retailers not take complaints from customers seriously?
Oh, absolutely.
Do I need to send them my professional resume to support my findings?
You still seem to think this has something to do with your findings. Qobuz sold 24bit/96kHz files, what is CONTAINED in those files is not up to Qobuz. Qobuz is NOT a control instance that checks the music quality output of record labels. They check that the files are correctly marked and labeled (mistakes there can happen, of course).
#) They market options for downloads and charge more for an allegedly premium version, yet when called on the carpet that there's nothing premium about it, they scold the customer and do nothing more. At the very least, they should check in with the label and advise them of the issues raised. I'm not sure that we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this, and that's fair.
Qobuz gets millions of files from record labels from all over the world. They do NOT check the actual sound quality of these files, they rely on the labels to provide the information. That is not JUST Qobuz, that is standard procedure. You think they go pull out the file and listen and check charts every time someone contacts them? Of course not. They are not a control instance and they are not a sound judge. Heck, there are high-res mono Furtwängler recordings, for cryin’ out loud, and people buy and want them, even though they sound no better than the original shellac. Now you may not like that or agree that is how it should be, but that is how it is and Qobuz is no different there from any other retailer.
But Qobuz does not upsample files.
And how do you know this? You've stated it several times now, but are you just assuming that to be true, or do you have proof?
I am just assuming that to be true. It is just highly unlikely. I do not know anybody personally at Qobuz, however, I do know some people at Universal Music Group, and Qobuz’ reputation there is excellent. I also know they have an excellent reputation among high-end audio manufacturers such as AVM and T+A Audio, both of which have used Qobuz files for demonstration purposes (on very high-end systems). Also, I know a little bit about online and e-commerce, so I know how music platforms work. It’s not as if there are a bunch of guys sitting in an office, pulling out files and checking them with pro-tools when a customer complaint comes in. NO such platform does.
If Deutsche Grammophon comes and says “these are 24bit/96kHz remasters of our old mono Furtwänlger recordings”, they will be sold as 24bit/96kHz remasters of Furtwängler recordings. No matter how they actually sound. They will sound like old mono recordings sound... no matter what the resolution is.
And that's a point: just because something is a high-resolution does not automatically mean it sounds better. The problems with the sound in these old Furtwängler recordings is that they will sound flat, no matter what the resolution is, because the original analog recordings are very, very old and worn and just not all that great.
Also, if Qobuz or HD Tracks upscaled files, would be more profitable to do this with files that actually SELL, instead of INCHON, which is really very niche.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. David Lichty has stated that 24bit/96kHz files of INCHON do not exist
Wrong. David said Qobuz should not charge "extra for Hi-Res 96 khz 'Audio' (not file type) Quality on Inchon, something which does not currently exist"
I did not say the file types did not exist. I did say that Qobuz has no higher quality audio to provide, for which they continue to charge a premium. Please read the posts, or at least stop mischaracterizing others' statements.
I was just pointing out that Qobuz does not specifically state that the high-res files of INCHON actually provide better sound.
Wrong again. That's what the words audio quality mean. I posted a picture, to ensure I was not misrepresenting their wording.
We have another music source which says “WAV files are stereo, 24-bit PCM.” While a previous poster's comment that they know what customers expect is true, and they may be letting someone down if the audio within is the same as the CD quality, what the customer will get will be exactly as described, and in some cases no extra money is even charged for the files; they come with the CD purchase. No one has been cheated there.
But when Qobuz offers two levels of "audio quality," and they only have one, the less expensive one, they are ripping off those who pay for the higher audio quality.
He has specifically stated to go to other places before Qobuz, implying that this IS a Qobuz issue, rather than a more universal issue.
Wrong again. Your broad 'it' is biting your argument in the butt. The problem specific to Quobuz, which cannot be applied to any other entity we've discussed here with confidence, label or seller, is that of lying. Not of having lower than hi-res audio quality, but knowing they don't, which they do know for the reasons I've given (They were not only told, they were shown.), and continuing to sell it as such.
What these files actually CONTAINED is up to Intrada, not to Qobuz. It’s a music retail platform, there are no guys sitting around on computers with pro tools checking files.
Their unwillingness to check an issue presented to them is no more an excuse than their having a no refunds policy is for not refunding on a bad faith sale. It can be done, and in this case should be; they're just not doing it.
Amazon doesn't manufacture safety materials, but when told that many items which claimed to protect against COVID were not what they were said to be, they pulled them. They do it all the time with less crucial products, as they should. That is the responsibility of any seller. I'm not sure why Qobuz is exempt in your eyes, but they are not in mine, and I hope to help others avoid the problems. Other sellers may refund if the material is not as advertised; Qobuz will not. Others may verify a complaint about the product and act accordingly, or they may not. Qobuz did not.
Therefore go somewhere else first, or at least only buy the CD quality files, and in any case, verify your purchase and protect your wallet.
Qobuz is NOT a control instance that checks the music quality output of record labels. They check that the files are correctly marked and labeled (mistakes there can happen, of course). ... Qobuz gets millions of files from record labels from all over the world. They do NOT check the actual sound quality of these files, they rely on the labels to provide the information. That is not JUST Qobuz, that is standard procedure. You think they go pull out the file and listen and check charts every time someone contacts them? Of course not. They are not a control instance and they are not a sound judge.
Because they can check the quality, as has been explained by another poster, and because this is, as you rightly say, not an isolated problem, they should check. If they won't do all files, they should spot check. If they won't even do that, they should check on any issues brought to their attention. That's base level business. It is a proper expectation.
The only reason their name has had to pop up so much in this thread is because I have to keep setting you straight on what I have actually said or claimed after you've re-written it into something else, or to re-explain it in case you just didn't understand it the first few times, which I don't believe is the case. While we may not agree on some things, and that is very fair, in that you seem like a smart, even pretty level-headed person, but I do not appreciate misrepresentations of what I am and am not saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. David Lichty has stated that 24bit/96kHz files of INCHON do not exist
Wrong. David said Qobuz should not charge "extra for Hi-Res 96 khz 'Audio' (not file type) Quality on Inchon, something which does not currently exist"
I did not say the file types did not exist. I did say that Qobuz has no higher quality audio to provide, for which they continue to charge a premium. Please read the posts, or at least stop mischaracterizing others' statements.
Okay, here is the exact quote: "And as I post, they still charge extra for Hi-Res 96 khz 'Audio' (not file type) Quality on Inchon, something which does not currently exist. " (Italics mine)
I am actually agreeing with you much more than disagreeing with you, which is why it is kind of funny that it may look here at first glance as if we are in an embittered argument. We are not. (At least not from my point of view.) And I certainly do not wish to misrepresent anything you said.
24bit/96kHz is a resolution and not in any way a guarantee for a particular audio quality. A 24bit/96kHz file can be of very poor sound quality and still of a high resolution. If they still sell INCHON as 24bit/96kHz, it is likely because it is provided to them as 24bit/96kHz, or, also possible, the file was mislabeled. I have no idea what the actual files of INCHON are, I just all along take your word for it. As I have said before: if they sold you the wrong files – not poor sounding 24bit/96kHz but upconverted 16bit/44.1 files, they should and have to replace your purchase. Again: no ifs no buts. I am just concerned with how the files got there in the first place.
He has specifically stated to go to other places before Qobuz, implying that this IS a Qobuz issue, rather than a more universal issue.
Wrong again. Your broad 'it' is biting your argument in the butt. The problem specific to Quobuz, which cannot be applied to any other entity we've discussed here with confidence, label or seller, is that of lying. Not of having lower than hi-res audio quality, but knowing they don't, which they do know for the reasons I've given (They were not only told, they were shown.), and continuing to sell it as such.
Exact quote again: “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.”
Once again: it is certainly not my intent to misrepresent anything you said.
Amazon doesn't manufacture safety materials, but when told that many items which claimed to protect against COVID were not what they were said to be, they pulled them. They do it all the time with less crucial products, as they should. That is the responsibility of any seller. I'm not sure why Qobuz is exempt in your eyes, but they are not in mine, and I hope to help others avoid the problems.
They are absolutely not exempt. As I said, they should have to replace your files, period. And of course they should pull the files if they are wrong. The key here is though that IF these files are provided by Intrada (it’s Intrada in case of INCHON) as “high-res” files, they will continue to sell them as “high-res” files (as will any other retailer). They do not check the actual quality of the files. That is not their job, that’s the label’s job. And to remain with the DVD/Bluray analogy: they have not sold you a DVD instead of a Bluray that you ordered, but apparently rather a Bluray with the movie in DVD resolution. Not good, no, but not exactly the same.
Therefore go somewhere else first, or at least only buy the CD quality files, and in any case, verify your purchase and protect your wallet.
Where would “somewhere else” be? Again, you make it sound as if that is a specific Qobuz issue. I have had an issue with something I purchased at Qobuz before and when I reached out to them, they gave me several times my investment in other files, so I was quite happy. As I said, my experience with them obviously was a completely different one.
Qobuz is NOT a control instance that checks the music quality output of record labels. They check that the files are correctly marked and labeled (mistakes there can happen, of course). ... Qobuz gets millions of files from record labels from all over the world. They do NOT check the actual sound quality of these files, they rely on the labels to provide the information. That is not JUST Qobuz, that is standard procedure. You think they go pull out the file and listen and check charts every time someone contacts them? Of course not. They are not a control instance and they are not a sound judge.
While we may not agree on some things, and that is very fair, in that you seem like a smart, even pretty level-headed person, but I do not appreciate misrepresentations of what I am and am not saying.
That’s fair enough; now I just want to state one more time that it is not my intent to misrepresent anything you said, and that we agree much more than it seems.
We both believe retailers are responsible for what they sell, and we both believe high-res files should be actual high-res files. No excuse for selling upscaled files. We just disagree with who should be first in the center of fire. Since the 24Bit/96kHz seems to appear elsewhere and not just on Qobuz (though we have not yet established if the files elsewhere are different), I just don’t see Qobuz as the first in the line of fire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
