Qobuz HiRez streaming has finally hit the U.S. and it’s really really good

That's the nature of jokes; they are silly...
Taking the relentless almost warlike nature of posts on every thread remotely linked to either streaming or audio encoding of not only Tidal V Qobuz, but MQA v the rest of it, I do not think it was intended to be a joke! :rolleyes:
 
Taking the relentless almost warlike nature of posts on every thread remotely linked to either streaming or audio encoding of not only Tidal V Qobuz, but MQA v the rest of it, I do not think it was intended to be a joke! :rolleyes:

It was absolutely intended as a joke, it up to you to reconcile your slightly acid response to a lighthearted post. Best look in the mirror friend.
 
It was absolutely intended as a joke, it up to you to reconcile your slightly acid response to a lighthearted post. Best look in the mirror friend.
As was my very similar post also meant to be taken in jest.. As long as it was just funny, and not a bated hook I can have a good laugh at it too..
 
I’ve come to take all the talk about MQA, Hi-Res this or that, scientific this or that as a grain of salt . You can’t convince people that chase numbers that it’s all about the sound because there to busy chasing numbers to just stop and listen to the music . So with that said when someone makes a joke about MQA , Tidal , Qobuz or whatever I take it as a funny joke and move on . I find faults in all areas be it MQA , Qobuz or Tidal , but I also find the positives and that’s where I focus my attention and then come to a decision as to if the good outweighs the bad in a certain area I.e. Tidal , MQA vs Qobuz, Hi-Res.

Audiofreak71
 
The studio could easily take a uncompressed 16/44 and upconvert it to 24/96 and call it a HiRes, show me how you spot that? from a stream?
You’d have to capture it, but some DAW software can scan the file and tell you the effective bit depth. Which, if it’s a loudness war CD, might not even be 16.
 
I’ve come to take all the talk about MQA, Hi-Res this or that, scientific this or that as a grain of salt . You can’t convince people that chase numbers that it’s all about the sound because there to busy chasing numbers to just stop and listen to the music . So with that said when someone makes a joke about MQA , Tidal , Qobuz or whatever I take it as a funny joke and move on . I find faults in all areas be it MQA , Qobuz or Tidal , but I also find the positives and that’s where I focus my attention and then come to a decision as to if the good outweighs the bad in a certain area I.e. Tidal , MQA vs Qobuz, Hi-Res.

Audiofreak71

Yup- and here's the thing, are those die hard Tidal detractors going to treat ALL of the equipment manufacturers that have adopted and incorporated MQA decoding with the same utter disdain that they have for Tidal just because they provide MQA as a streaming OPTION? For goodness sake, Tidal is the first streaming provider in the U.S. that brought us CD quality streaming. Some people here need to get off their high horse and give Tidal the credit they deserve and not let the affiliation with MQA taint that.

It's silly if you think about it, the market will eventually sort itself out. Are we going to think lesser of and shun Brinkman, Mark Levinson, Moon, Pro-Ject, ifi, NAD, Mytek, Quad, dCS and a slew of other manufacturers just because they've partnered with MQA??? Of course not!!, if the product is good we will buy and use it and not get ourselves into a bunched-up panty-wad tizzy just because they support MQA.

With that said, I may be seen by some as an MQA supporter because at the moment I prefer Tidal and don't hear noise, drawbacks or the devils whispers in MQA streams (if I chose to listen to them) yet my current DAC of choice is the Benchmark DAC2 HGC which DOES NOT (and probably never will) support MQA - so there's that.
 
Last edited:
You’d have to capture it, but some DAW software can scan the file and tell you the effective bit depth. Which, if it’s a loudness war CD, might not even be 16.

I'm hoping @botrytis (or somebody else) can do that for us by examining the four examples I provided. I know he's biased but we can keep him honest. ;)
 
Last edited:
Here we go again, MQA victims crying about their petty injustices on a Qobuz thread. You could start your own thread if so inclined! :)
 
Here we go again, MQA victims crying about their petty injustices on a Qobuz thread. You could start your own thread if so inclined! :)

I wasn't talking to you or about any injustices, I was talking to the OP and adding to his post. I can't be an "MQA victim" if I rarely listen to it and I don't feel slighted in any way whatsoever. Just wondering why others like you do...
 
I wasn't talking to you or about any injustices, I was talking to the OP and adding to his post. I can't be an "MQA victim" if I rarely listen to it and I don't feel slighted in any way whatsoever. Just wondering why others like you do...
Nothing feeling slighted in any way, and really feel everyone should enjoy their music anyway they like.
Just that the op has asked several times to keep this thread about Qobuz and not turn it into a MQA or Tidal v qobuz thread
 
Nothing feeling slighted in any way, and really feel everyone should enjoy their music anyway they like.
Just that the op has asked several times to keep this thread about Qobuz and not turn it into a MQA or Tidal v qobuz thread

Yeah, and I was responding to a post where HE brought up MQA and I was agreeing with him. He "liked" my post- what's your problem?

If you look back, you were the one that got into a huff about someones joke and the OP didn't, that was the post I was responding to.
 
Last edited:
Judging by the way things seem to work in the world these days, one service vs the other probably won't matter long as the bigger fish usually eats or buys out the other.
 
Yeah, and he "liked" my post- what's your problem?
I don’t have a problem with whatever anyone likes to listen to , Qobuz Tidal pandora Spotify flac alac lossy hi-res mp3 , who cares enjoy the music . This is a Qobuz thread but it’s ok to mention tidal and Mqa , wouldn’t be thread if there wasn’t a bit of side bar on the opposing team , however turning it into a tidal vs Qobuz and one is better than another won’t be tolerated and I did make that clear , otherwise enjoy the music in this great time we live in to have the choices to select music at the touch of a screen!

Audiofreak71
 
EASY - CD quality or 16/44 or 24/44 has a Nyquist frequency of 20 KHz where it totally cuts off. 96/24 is 48 KHz, 192 is 96 KHz, etc. if there IS NO OUTPUT up to those frequencies, you can be certain they are up sampled.
That's not necessarily true. If it's filtered out in the recording or mastering, then there may be anything there.
Flaming Lips.png
This is the frequency plot of The Flaming Lips' Race for the Prize, 88.2/24, from the DVD-A of The Soft Bulletin. That's a full-digital recording that's rolled off under 25k. There is actually *some* stray content over 22k, which you can't see on this plot, but you can see on the next one.
Lips-2.png
The amplitude statistics on the same track. It's full 24 bit. If you look very closely, you can see a few high-frequency spikes.
Fleetwood Mac.png
Here's an unfiltered example. Fleetwood Mac, Dreams, 96/24, from the DVD-A of Rumours. This is, of course, from the analog master, but there is a good amount of content over 22k.

Anyway, yes, there was *some* content over 22k on the Flaming Lips track, but with more effective filtering, I would think you could see a track that looks like it's upsampled, but isn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom