[AmpDesigner333]

 

I had a record and CD of the same recording one time. The first song, the record sounded much better. The second song, the CD sounded better. Just engineering?

In the cases I’ve found like this, there are different people mastering various tracks or formats.  So, it’s almost luck when you find the best one.  It’s often due to your individual tastes as well. Take Heart for example.  Most of their stuff sounds tinny and bass starved, but I heard a remix of Alone that actually had BASS!  I “shazamed” it, and it was from a compilation album!  I guess the remastering engineer was like “let’s give this baby some bass!”.

[AmpDesigner333]

At the time the standards were being developed. 16/44 was a stretch The developers were reaching for the future.... The early devices were 14 bits because no one could make a 16 bit device yet. The MYTH about 24 bits is total fantasy!... calling it a 'story' is right on. Plus it has to have been made up in the past ten years. NEVER heard that fluff before LOL.
As for The time limit length, yes THAT IS TRUE it was to fit Beethovens 9th on one CD.

Excellent point!  It was about how much data then.  Thanks to cheap memory and gobs of bandwidth, we can be assured of no bottlenecks in the conversion process, assuming proper recording techniques and high performance playback equipment.  I’d like to think Cherry DACs and amps play a part in realizing performance potentials!

[Freo-1]

Excellent point!  It was about how much data then.  Thanks to cheap memory and gobs of bandwidth, we can be assured of no bottlenecks in the conversion process, assuming proper recording techniques and high performance playback equipment.  I’d like to think Cherry DACs and amps play a part in realizing performance potentials!

Agree, but the real issue is getting good source recordings.  There just isn't all that many recordings currently that would fully realize the benefits of hi-res playback.  The best we can hope for is getting a near perfect copy of the original master recording. 


The only recordings I have come across from recent offerings that are sourced from high res are classical.  If anything, most pop/rock recent recordings are no better or worse than older legacy offerings.

[Elizabeth]

"Near perfect copy of the original master recording"
If you only realized how useless that can be! Take (for an example) original recordings which were then mastered for release by Bob Ludwig,, THOSE LPs are worth multiples of what other Lps are worth, Because he CHANGED the Master to sound better..
Also some new releases 'true to the original master' Sound like garbage, since ALL original tapes ware ALWAYS adjusted when being made ready for pressing.. And not left as is.
True having an actual master to START WITH is nice, ... But they are only starting points.

[Freo-1]

"Near perfect copy of the original master recording"
If you only realized how useless that can be! Take (for an example) original recordings which were then mastered for release by Bob Ludwig,, THOSE LPs are worth multiples of what other Lps are worth, Because he CHANGED the Master to sound better..
Also some new releases 'true to the original master' Sound like garbage, since ALL original tapes ware ALWAYS adjusted when being made ready for pressing.. And not left as is.
True having an actual master to START WITH is nice, ... But they are only starting points.

I understand quite well the trials and tribulations of getting a recording to be the best it can. 


Over the years, I've moved away from vinyl for many reasons.  Digital has gotten to the point where at the upper end of the spectrum, it exceeds vinyl both technically (factual) and sonically (IMHO).   I remember someone quoting that "Digital is improved analog".   I realize that many here on the site will take issue with this position, and that is fine.  There is plenty of room on the audiophile train for everyone to ride in musical enjoyment. 


Here a link to an article one of the more important aspects of deltas with recordings:


http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6234

[AmpDesigner333]

I understand quite well the trials and tribulations of getting a recording to be the best it can. 


Over the years, I've moved away from vinyl for many reasons.  Digital has gotten to the point where at the upper end of the spectrum, it exceeds vinyl both technically (factual) and sonically (IMHO).   I remember someone quoting that "Digital is improved analog".   I realize that many here on the site will take issue with this position, and that is fine.  There is plenty of room on the audiophile train for everyone to ride in musical enjoyment. 


Here a link to an article one of the more important aspects of deltas with recordings:


http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6234

Thanks for the link. A great quote from there:
“To believe that vinyl LPs are capable of capturing and reproducing the sound of live performance is crazy because the dynamic range of the very best vinyl LPs (direct to disc LPs) is about 60-72 dB.”

[AmpDesigner333]

Anyone here running Qobuz in the US?

[Randy]

Anyone here running Qobuz in the US?

A guy named Tyson who posts a lot on the Classical forum uses Qobuz.

[bacobits1]

I have studio level Qobuz for the last 2 months.

[Kal Rubinson]

Yes.  I've had it for about a year.

[AmpDesigner333]

A guy named Tyson who posts a lot on the Classical forum uses Qobuz.

Tyson?  He’s a great guy!  Also a fan of Cherry amps, by the way (:  Thanks for the head’s up!

[AmpDesigner333]

Yes.  I've had it for about a year.

Where are you located ?

[AmpDesigner333]

I have studio level Qobuz for the last 2 months.

What do you think of the service ?

[firedog]

I switched from Tidal to Qobuz a few months ago.
No regrets. I bought the most expensive Sublime+ subscription, because I still buy downloads and that subscription often gives you a 50% discount on album price, making it the cheapest version availalble.
Sound quality is very good. It is still technically in Beta and they are still expanding the catalog, but it is all good IMO.

[bacobits1]

I think the service is very good, It has been flawless as I mentioned in another thread.
They will expand the library in due time. I did compare to Tidal and chose Qobuz.
I am also biased against Tidal, MQA especially, etc.
Tom, what in particular were you wondering about?

[AmpDesigner333]

I think the service is very good, It has been flawless as I mentioned in another thread.
They will expand the library in due time. I did compare to Tidal and chose Qobuz.
I am also biased against Tidal, MQA especially, etc.
Tom, what in particular were you wondering about?

Just how you like it so far.  Thanks for the kind post (:

[Tyson]

I use Qobuz, it's a bit spotty for me but I'm playing with some settings to help alleviate that.  From a sound quality perspective, it's better than Tidal in direct comparisons on my system.  Qobuz just sounds more open and slightly less claustrophobic than Tidal.  Qobuz also has a much, much better selection of Classical music (and I think Jazz too).

[AmpDesigner333]

I use Qobuz, it's a bit spotty for me but I'm playing with some settings to help alleviate that.  From a sound quality perspective, it's better than Tidal in direct comparisons on my system.  Qobuz just sounds more open and slightly less claustrophobic than Tidal.  Qobuz also has a much, much better selection of Classical music (and I think Jazz too).

Just started streaming 96/24 with Qobuz through a Squeezebox Touch.  I also have a Volumio to try later.  So far, so good, but no critical listening yet.  Super cool stuff !!

[bacobits1]

Yea I was impressed with Qobuz quality after borrowing the Bluesound 2i for a weekend.
Love getting rid of USB too. Replaced the PC and using a good Wywires SPDiF cable. They are worth more than the device itself. Makes a difference.
Their library will improve too.