SOS, QoBuz should have kept their amazing PR man, David Solomon.

[Mike]

One Audiophile Favorite Fails Hard As Engineers Blind-Test Streaming Services on $30K Gear

This blind test proved that even the “best” music streaming service can flop in the right conditions.

www.headphonesty.com

 

[mep]

I take those results with a grain of salt.

 

[nc42acc]

I read that artical too. Seems i get a new" headphonistasy" article at least once a day on FB. I am with you Mark, skeptical. I would want to hear the difference myself.

 

[Michaels HiFi]

To be fair, that is the same site that said cables and DAC's are a scam.

 

[nicoff]

Wait, so blind tests actually back up what objectivists have been saying all along? Shocking. Next thing you know, water will be wet.

 

[W9TR]

I’ve run a few comparison tests with Qobuz, Amazon Music, and my own local sources; CD, SACD, and vinyl. I always come up with confusion. The article nails the reason:

“…… unfortunately, most streaming platforms do not provide detailed metadata about the exact mastering used for each track. This includes whether a track is from a loud CD master, a special audiophile remaster, or even a remastered vinyl.”

When we are streaming, we just don’t know what it is we are listening to. Kind of reminds me of the MoFi digital debacle.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the industry developed the audio equivalent of the DXIF format used in digital photography?

Hell will freeze over before that happens.

 

[nicoff]

Wouldn’t it be nice if the industry developed the audio equivalent of the DXIF format used in digital photography?

Hell will freeze over before that happens.

LOL, exactly. No need to bother—there’ll always be ‘golden-eared’ veterans who swear their aging ears can still detect magic pixie dust in the signal.

 

[JCS123]

I’ve run a few comparison tests with Qobuz, Amazon Music, and my own local sources; CD, SACD, and vinyl. I always come up with confusion. The article nails the reason:

“…… unfortunately, most streaming platforms do not provide detailed metadata about the exact mastering used for each track. This includes whether a track is from a loud CD master, a special audiophile remaster, or even a remastered vinyl.”

When we are streaming, we just don’t know what it is we are listening to. Kind of reminds me of the MoFi digital debacle.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the industry developed the audio equivalent of the DXIF format used in digital photography?

Hell will freeze over before that happens.

That's so true. I often find myself listening to random cuts that follow what I was playing on Qobuz on the desktop, and there is more often than I would like little to no relationship between how good I think something sounds and the sample and bit rates that are displayed. Yes, it does largely come down to the original recording and mastering. But after that, we have no idea how the finished product that we hear has been handled/manipulated.

The shootout would have been more useful if it had all variables eliminated, including a big one - the tracks played.

 

[mep]

I’ve run a few comparison tests with Qobuz, Amazon Music, and my own local sources; CD, SACD, and vinyl. I always come up with confusion. The article nails the reason:

“…… unfortunately, most streaming platforms do not provide detailed metadata about the exact mastering used for each track. This includes whether a track is from a loud CD master, a special audiophile remaster, or even a remastered vinyl.”

When we are streaming, we just don’t know what it is we are listening to. Kind of reminds me of the MoFi digital debacle.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the industry developed the audio equivalent of the DXIF format used in digital photography?

Hell will freeze over before that happens.

I think Qobuz gives lots of information on albums. Bit depth/sampling frequency, flat tape transfer, remastered, RVG remastered, etc.

It's not hard and it only takes a few seconds to figure out what version of an album sounds best to you.

 

[mep]

LOL, exactly. No need to bother—there’ll always be ‘golden-eared’ veterans who swear their aging ears can still detect magic pixie dust in the signal.

Wrong again. Do you really think every digital version of the same album sound exactly the same? If that's your position, you either have a hearing problem or your stereo system has some serious issues.

 

[nicoff]

Wrong again. Do you really think every digital version of the same album sound exactly the same? If that's your position, you either have a hearing problem or your stereo system has some serious issues.

Classic—if science doesn’t agree with you, blame my ears or my gear. Cute.

 

[mep]

Classic—if science doesn’t agree with you, blame my ears or my gear. Cute.

You completely ignored my question. Nice dodge attempt.

 

[W9TR]

I think Qobuz gives lots of information on albums. Bit depth/sampling frequency, flat tape transfer, remastered, RVG remastered, etc.

It's not hard and it only takes a few seconds to figure out what version of an album sounds best to you.

I’ll look for the info. Thanks. I use ROON so not sure if that info transfers over.

Being a vinyl nutjob it’s hard to figure out the providence of many discs. It takes a lot of research. For example, why do the Led Zeppelin re-masters all sound like shit, except the Classic Records ones?

Because Classic Records mastered directly from tape and didn’t mess with the originals.

Everything else Jimmy Page has been involved with was digitized at 24/96 and messed with to “improve clarity.”

I don’t know what A/D they used but I think it came from Wal*Mart.

My god, they sound awful. Anybody want to buy a Mothership box set? Yeccch.

I think it’s complicated enough that it would be hard to get good info on every recording.

So I just listen before I buy. What seems funny to me is that when multiple onlineversions of an album are available, more often than not the 44.1/16 ones sound the best. Could be my DAC, dunno.

 

[mep]

I’ll look for the info. Thanks. I use ROON so not sure if that info transfers over.

Being a vinyl nutjob it’s hard to figure out the providence of many discs. It takes a lot of research. For example, why do the Led Zeppelin re-masters all sound like shit, except the Classic Records ones?

Because Classic Records mastered directly from tape and didn’t mess with the originals.

Everything else Jimmy Page has been involved with was digitized at 24/96 and messed with to “improve clarity.”

I don’t know what A/D they used but I think it came from Wal*Mart.

My god, they sound awful. Anybody want to buy a Mothership box set? Yeccch.

I think it’s complicated enough that it would be hard to get good info on every recording.

So I just listen before I buy. What seems funny to me is that when multiple onlineversions of an album are available, more often than not the 44.1/16 ones sound the best. Could be my DAC, dunno.

I use Roon too, with a Nucleus+ and Keces P14. It will definitely translate for your application.

I've been saying for a long time that many 16/44.1 versions sound way better than the so called hi-rez versions of the same album. You are not alone.

 

[Michaels HiFi]

I've been saying for a long time that many 16/44.1 versions sound way better than the so called hi-rez versions of the same album. You are not alone.

I agree with this 100%. I always see out the "original" digital versions when available over any "remastered" versions.