Qobuz 24 192 Albums
Cheryll Witting
Does anyone have a recommendation of a good 24/192 album that's available for streaming on Qobuz, that requires gapless playback? I need to test gapless playback of something I'm working on for an article. My go-to albums are only available at CD quality on Qobuz.
I have a problem where Hi-Res tracks in Qobuz are sometimes played in standard cd quality. This is dependant on the album and for some albums Volumio UI reports 24/96 or 24/192 but my dac reports a standard 44 or 48khz stream.
In an album where this behavior is observed, all tracks behave the same.
Yesterday I studied this a bit more. Using qutest the result is the same.
Volumio shows a hires stream but the dac reports (correctly) a different sampling frequency.
This occurs especially in 44/24 and 48/24 tracks it seems. Volumio somehow sees them as 96khz tracks.
S/PDIF leads can cause intermittent issue, perhaps you have a spare phono to phono lead to try coaxial? It does not even have to be a digital cable to test and one side of a cheap stereo lead would suffice.
As a first troubleshooting step I would swap the lead you are using from the NODE with one from the working NODE and see if this helps. Hires tracks not playing back correctly but low res do, this suggests either a Wi-Fi issue or more likely a cable / DAC issue. You made no mention about how you are connected but this is very common with Optical out and less so with Digital coaxial.
Thank you so much for your response, Seppi. I apologize for not including an important piece of information. The Node is connected with coax to a miniDSP SHD that I'm using to process Dirac Live. I tried swapping coax cables and I swapped Nodes from the "bad" and "good" rooms. The coax change seemed to fix things at first but the problem came back. The Node swaps had no effect--the problem in the "bad" room persists. I am using Ethernet (1GB) so that should rule out WiFi issues. Since this is an intermittent issue that seems to be influenced at least to some degree by the use of the SHD (but not always) or Node device grouping (but not always) and with some albums seemingly less likely to output sound than others (but not always), it's really hard to pinpoint the source of the problem.
If this only relates to Qobuz tracks, perhaps a trial with Tidal might be in order? The Qobuz settings in BluOS will of course be ignored if the stream is coming from Roon but I am unsure if your testing is with Roon, BluOS or both?
I'll work on streaming through Tidal to see if the problem persists there, and also try grouping through BluOS. These are all really great suggestions, and I appreciate your taking the time to provide them.
In the meantime, I've had success with just setting the Qobuz streaming settings in Roon to 24/96 and everything has been flawless since then. I'm sure I won't hear the difference between 96 and 192 but I like things to work correctly and it would be nice to pinpoint the problem.
I'll be curious to see if attempting to stream 192 through BluOS and not Roon will work. I've contacted Bluesound support and miniDSP support and I'll report back here if I get some useful info. Thanks again.
I gave up trying to play 24/192 files through my node a couple of years ago as the signal it was sending to my DAC was making the DAC think it was constantly receiving a different sample rate mid song, so was switching to the new one and sending my DAC crazy (If I sent the identical files to my DAC via a different source my DAC handled it just fine).
Hi,
I upgraded to the (more expensive) Qobuz Studio to enjoy Hi-Res streaming through Audirvana.
However, absolutely nothing has changed: the files marked as 32/192 khz Stereo (bottom right of the player) as soon as playback starts, changes to 24/96 khz Stereo.
Qobuz support provides completely useless answers and suggestions about the Audirvana settings (Windows 10/iFI DAC).
Can you kindly clarify whether or not it is possible to listen to hi-res music streaming via Qobuz / Audirvana and a recent DAC?
Best regards
Carlo
For now I have NOT found even 1 single 24/192 Khz album but many 14-bit ones (Studio level subscription).
I doubt that the higher price (around 20%) of the Studio subscription offers any real increase in audio resolution.
OK, I have not explained myself well: I usually use Qobuz but I am currently trying Tidal. I wanted to say that wanting to find some MQA files to try I wondered if Tidal has the kindness to report it on the album cover.
I find it a little frustrating having to open a lot of albums just to find this detail (MQA or not).
Exactly! In fact I wanted to say that for the moment I have found too few files (in my opinion) in Qobuz Studio that go beyond the CD definition. Do you say that instead you find in significant quantities through the yellow label HQ?
Obviously it is not possible to calculate exactly the percentage (only Qobuz can do it) but I would say that 5% of the catalog is an optimistic evaluation.
If then it is more than enough or too little is a subjective evaluation, personally, and bitracer too, we find it a low percentage.
Thanks for the further clarifications. But really previously, as you can read above, when the playback started the data of the resolution in the lower right was modified, according to the real one of the file (which, as explained by Damien, can be read instead in the same line of the file) .
Sorry one more question: what changes, in essence, if one of the various types of forced upsampling is activated or if it is completely deactivated? I mean: is there any actual difference in quality of music reproduction?
Only covering the sound here and the news is not good for a few reasons. First, the sound is bass-heavy, generally "thick" and unpleasant and the perspective is flat. If you bought the UHQR or have an original pressing and don't want to spend $150, you are all set.
The 192/24 Qobuz stream sourced from Bernie Grundman's digital file produced using the same tape he used to cut UHQR lacquers sounds far superior in every way to this vinyl edition. The bass is more rhythmically together and appropriate, the midrange is open and transparent and the top end has added air and appropriate sparkle. And, spatially there is no comparison whatsoever. The stream's presentation is three-dimensional and far more involving.
Does this sound familiar? If you read the Swordfishtrombones review it should. That release was mastered from the original tapes to high resolution digital files by Chris Bellman and cut by Alex Abrash. The Qobuz files sounded way better and the record sounded similar to this Steely Dan.
When you listen to a record you are listening to the mastering engineer's "hi-fi in reverse". These are only two samples but I'm starting to think since the streamed files sound pretty good and thee two LPs cut by Abrash sound thick, flat and unpleasant, either we are hearing his unpleasant sounding chain (including his D/A converter), or he's doing some unpleasant EQ and/or compressor manipulation to the files. The consistency between the Swordfishtrombones and Aja is too strong to be accidental. In other news, the recent Who's Next got five enthusiastic stars from a writer at my previous print endeavor. Oy vey! (that's Italian for exasperation).
It can't be Alex's D/A converter as the analog signal has already been converted to a digital file by Bernie Grundman. Is it Alex's cutting system? Is it the EQ, some other component in his chain and/or sub-optimal pressing by an inferior pressing plant? Would love to find out as a lot of reissues from a digital source tends to (not always though) sound inferior to their AAA counterparts
No, BG produces the digital file using his A/D converter and then hands that digital file to AA. So AA's DAC is therefore part of the chain (and perhaps part of the problem). As MF points out, BG's A/D converter is not at issue because the 24/192 stream apparently sounds fine.
Not to pile on the guy, but I just checked out Mr. Abrash on Discogs and the list of previous titles he has mastered is pretty anemic. Why would a catalog of Steely Dan's caliber be entrusted to him, especially when Bernie is already involved in the mastering?
It's SOP in most industries to actively reduce the quality of a budget offering. Think airlines making economy seats tiny or consumer hifi companies not using the full avaliable functionality of a chip. Nothing unethical just trying to hit all pockets of demand. It's possibly whyMFSL jumped on the MJ estate release saying BG was mastering the cheap vinyl releases.
probably, though it's generally agreed that DSD64 SACD resolution is roughly equivalent to 88.2kHz/24bit PCM. whether you prefer the SACD or the 192/24 stream/download of course depends on your system and your preferences.
Having read this my understanding is that new releases of old albums are represses of new plates cut from old elements, and that this review compares a cutting of 33rpm plates reprocessed into analogue from a digital element with plates recut at 45rpm from a master tape (Did Mr. Grundman provide these lathers 1977 master tape?) Then I see the banner ad above this review for the 45rpm version, ah, I see the small print, the tape itself was copy. Ok, so, instead of making new plates from old elements can we make a mirror metal plate from an original pressing? I guess not. Yes, the original pressing probably sounds good.
Then came Qobuz. At launch, most of their library was already CD quality with a large library of higher resolution formats up to 24/192 kHz. Their interface, which can be downloaded as an App or run in a browser, is much more intuitive and user-friendly. It is easy to find songs or artists or albums, create your own playlists, and ready hints to similar artists are always at hand. I have spent hours, just browsing through similar artists starting with a single song. And their premade playlists, cover a wide range of genres, not just what is currently pop.
64591212e2