 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.252.111.23
I enjoy listening to my own library using Roon, mostly ripped to ALAC from CD, but I also enjoy sampling new music from Qobuz and keeping up with recent releases. My perception is that more and more releases are coming out at 96/24 resolution or better, and that seems to be the new status quo rather than redbook at 44.1/16. I'm loving it.
What's been your experience?
. . . in theory, practice and theory are the same; in practice, they are different . . .
Follow Ups:
I agree, most of the new music, especially the already mass audience musicians now are releasing in high resolution. This is very good for the customers.
My experience with Qobuz:
Depending of
1. time-of-the-day (overall server traffic or network load/quality ??)
2. type of application
3. settings within applications
4. different versions (links) of the same album
you may get different - rather random - sample-rates streamed.
Further, you simply don't know what track version would be the "master" track - the one that's not been resampled (if that exists on the streaming platform !?!?).
How do I know that the offered track is not just another resampled, thus lossy (because basically every DSP causes losses), track !?!?
Bottom line. The whole Hires-streaming thing I consider a gamble for best sound.
However. 24bit material should always be better than 16bit material (if these 24bits were not derived from a dithered 16 bit recording - Do we know that !?!? Grrr).
Actually - We'd need a label that'd be called "Recording-Master" - there'd be only one - to make sure we're listening to the least manipulated data stream.
Enjoy.
PS:
And do not forget. Your audio interfaces may also resample - another time - causing even more losses. Advise: Try to feed your audio interface
with the best-matching stream-samplerate to avoid another SRC or to limit the losses from that on-DAC SRC. I know - it's gonna be difficult if we face rather random stream-samplerates all the time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
blog latest >> The Audio Streaming Series - tuning kit pCP
> > Depending of
> >
> > 1. time-of-the-day (overall server traffic or network load/quality ??)
> > 2. type of application
> > 3. settings within applications
> > 4. different versions (links) of the same album
You forgot one other factor -- the listener's mental and physical state at the moment.
I'm the biggest variable in my system.
"Actually - We'd need a label that'd be called "Recording-Master""
Didn't they try to convince us of something like that with the MQA smoke and mirrors deception ?
MQA has nothing to do with that "Recording-Master" I am talking about.
MQA was a doomed-do-fail proprietary lossy format. Even the marketing
machine coming up with that weird term "Master Quality Authenticated"
couldn't help. You're the best example that they were quite successful.
It's still in the heads.
MQA was simply made for lowering the bandwidth requirements on audio streaming and to introduce DRM as a goody (for the industry).
MQA had nothing to do with that "one-and-only" studio-digital-master file that's on the table once the studio (post) production was finished.
One claimed intent of the MQA authentication feature is to assure that the recording is genuine and unadulterated from the MQA processed studio master recording.
"You're the best example that they were quite successful."
Ah no, because I didn't fall prey to their deception.
Of course, in the classical world which I mostly inhabit, we don't get loudness wars so much.
It's been that way since I first subscribed. Almost all new releases are 24/44.1 or better. On top of that so much of the old stuff has been released in hi-res too. I always wonder if these were remastered in 24/96 or better for re-release as CDs/SACD/DVD-A and now are just made available. Even garage recorded music is done at 24/96. There's no reason not to.
I'm seeing more albums available at 24/96 on Qobuz these days but I understand that those greater bit depths and higher sample rates don't guarantee a better sounding album vs CD 16/44.1 at playback.
Edits: 05/19/24 05/21/24
When 24/96K and higher first appeared I think it was an incentive for the producers and engineers to take advantage of the extra quality and they put their best foot forward. I suspect that as it is becoming more commonly available on the streaming services that these people are going to revert back to their old habits. Hopefully we won't return to full-blown "loudness wars" but I fear that many of the high-rez releases will simply be wasted file space.Edit -- an additional comment -- the CD has a dynamic range of 96 dB versus the 60 to 70ish dB range of LPs and open reels. Think about how many CDs have bothered to make any use of that extra dynamic range....
Edits: 05/29/24
I have some 16/44 recordings that are among the best sounding. I agree that how the recording is recorded / mastered makes more difference than the word length or sampling rate. But perhaps 24/96 or 24/192 recordings are made with newer, better equipment that inherently has better sound."Hi-Res" is a marketing term. There is no additional audible "resolution" in a 24/192 recording compared to 16/44. This is because with 20-20k bandwidth of human hearing (and that's a young person with very good hearing), 16/44 perfectly reproduces all sounds within that bandwidth.
Longer (24 bit, etc) word lengths give more leeway when editing, avoidance of clipping, etc then they can be reduced down to 16 bits in the final product.
A higher sample rate (96, 192, etc kHz) reduces the quantization noise. It does not add any more 'resolution', but can increase the signal to noise ratio so more low-level detail can be heard. However, the dynamic range of a 16/44 recording is already large enough that home listening environments cannot reproduce the full dynamic range without risking permanent hearing damage. Forget about 24 bits, you will either never hear the low level details (below the average 30 dB residential noise level) or suffer pain and hearing damage if turned up enough that the lowest level signal is above the 30dB level so it is audible in the room.
Most of the above is summarized from a recent article I read debunking "Hi-Res" audio (will post a link if I remember where I read it)
Edit: see article link below.
Edits: 05/19/24 05/28/24
If it sounds good, it is good. The resolution of the recording doesn't always correlate to whether it sounds good.
I've got older CD's that sound terrific. Then, someone tool that same recording, "remastered" it and reissued it in 24/96. I told myself that I had to have it in the new, "hi-res" version.
In the process of remastering, they compressed all the dynamics out of it. I categorized that purchases as some of the worst money I've ever spent, deleted the recording and queued up the CD version.
nothing is recorded in 16 bits these days. The new floor is 44/24 or 48/24 with as you observe more in higher resolutions. Why not?
We're no longer stuck with the limitations of late 70s optical media.
Except its niche marketing.
The overwhelming number of new releases may be recorded in hi-res, but they're not going to be made available in 24/96. If the masses saw value in hi res, they'd be demanding that all new releases have a hi res version available for purchase/download/whatever.
With more of the buying public listening on portable devices rather than a decent home stereo setup, hi res doesn't make sense for them. My daughters like the personal nature of streaming off Spotify, and sharing their favorites with friends. Even though I've offered to pay for family subscriptions to hi res music services, they begged to keep Spotify.
Hard to make money with lots of players in a niche market.
Except its niche marketing.
If you consider Apple Music with its support up to 192/24 a niche player, so be it!
How many PAID subscribers does Apple Music have? No one knows because Apple doesn't release those numbers. Apple does a fine job of giving its product away for 3 months or 6 months. Estimates are that they have about 78 million paid subscribers. Sounds like a good number.
Now how many of those subscribers typically listen on the Apple product that their free subscription came with? Their iPhone? Maybe through their ear buds? Who knows? Apple doesn't release those numbers either.
However, I'd wager that most of those 78 mil are like my daughters. Their weapon of choice is Spotify. But their listening habits, like most folks, don't involve the need or even the desire to stream at even CD quality to enjoy their music.
So, yeah, hi res music is a niche market.
How many PAID subscribers does Apple Music have? No one knows because Apple doesn't release those numbers
Yep, the have a lot of subscribers, but my question was how many PAID subscribers do they have. Paid, as in parting with hard earned dollars to maintain access.
Best I could find - because as I stated earlier, Apple and other streaming services are circumspect about releasing their subscriber data - is this info, indirectly from the Financial Times: https://www.idownloadblog.com/2018/11/30/apple-music-56-million-subscribers/
This info suggests the PAID subscribers are far less than the claimed subscribers.
But, that's not even the point. The point is that Spotify, with their MP3 stream - is still the global leader in paid subscribers. Couple that with the fact that Apple, Tidal, Amazon, etc., don't release specific data about how many folks are streaming in low resolution versus higher resolution, and yeah, high res is still a niche product.
Lossy Spotify is more expensive than Qobuz Studio.
I'll take the 24 bit master instead. :)
Now you're venturing into the realm of subjectivism. Qubuz is more expensive than Tidal or Apple Music, and some prefer those services over Qubuz.
Of course, those that are expressing those preferences are members of the niche market that Spotify doesn't cater to at present.
Qubuz is more expensive than Tidal or Apple Music, and some prefer those services over Qubuz.
First of all, the product is Qobuz not Qubuz.
You're mistaken when it comes to yearly plans:
Of course, those that are expressing those preferences are members of the niche market that Spotify doesn't cater to at present.
Exactly! For those who don't care about sound quality, go for Spotify. ;)
First of all, thank you for the spelling correction.
Second, while you were correcting my spelling, you missed my statement entirely. I stated:
"Qubuz is more expensive than Tidal or Apple Music, and some prefer those services over Qubuz."
You then posted a screenshot of SPOTIFY pricing, compared to - I'm assuming - Qobuz. Why, I don't know.
Bye now.
Why, I don't know.
$10.83 <$11.99.
I've often wondered how tiny Qobuz is able to provide the service and get the hi-res recordings.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
