Qobuz - When is a 24-96 "Guaranteed Studio Master" NOT one?

[firedog]

See:SHOSTAKOVICH: Symphony No. 13, Babi Yar | Compositeurs Divers par Jan-Hendrick Rootering*– Télécharger et écouter l'album

 

Touted as 24-96 "Studio Master". From the Qobuz site (see attachment):

 

Albums sold by Qobuz as "Qobuz Studio Masters" we are provided directly by the labels. They are not re-encoded from SACD and we guarantee their direct origin.

 

Recorded by BIS; so I went to the eClassical site (BIS owned Web vendor) to see if it was cheaper - the site has has good prices and gives members special offers.

 

eClassical - Shostakovich ? Symphony No.13 ?Babi Yar?

 

At the page on the eClassical site it says "orig sample rate": 44100Hz; their download is 24/44.1

 

I wrote both companies asking what is going on, as one of them is clearly wrong.

 

Qobuz replied asking me how I know that the album was originally in 24/44.1

 

BIS/eClassical replied (reply directly from Robert von Bahr, the CEO), referring to the Qobuz quote above:

 

This is complete hogwash, and I have written to them, asking for a contact with someone responsible. I don't deliver anything whatsoever to them, so how dare they say so? And then sell it under false pretences. They will have to come up with a VERY good explanation...

 

and:

...

How and why Qobuz advertise 24/96 is inexplicable... In 2006 we didn't have those possibilities, and so it was recorded in 24/44,1.

...The files Qobuz have NOT got from us, but presumably from our digital distributor - Naxos of America...

 

and:

 

So the short answers to your questions are

 

- the files are 24/44,1 and nothing else;

- Qobuz are wrongly representing them for being 24/96 and they don't have such files, for the simple reason that they don't exist;

 

The album was also sold as SACD by BIS. So Qobuz may have been given a file resampled to "hi-res" from a DSD version. But clearly their "guarantee" isn't worth much, as they didn't get it from BIS, but apparently from Naxos.

 

I'll update when I get another response form Qobuz. I informed them that BIS had confirmed to me that the master is 24/44.1.

[firedog]

I had the same issue the with Eclassical at some point. When I alerted them they were very helpful and even let me download another album for free:

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-audiophile-downloads/new-daily-deal-eclassical-18365/#post277929

 

However, as with Qobuz above, in these cases at least we're not talking about somebody trying to sell upsampled or padded redbook, but only misdeclared sample rates. I'd assume in both cases these were just honest mistakes. And the good news is, with Qobuz' guarantee and eclassical's excellent customer service, if something is wrong they'll correct it.

 

Yes, but it still puts in doubt their "guarantee" that they get everything directly from the label, which means their guarantee doesn't build as much confidence in file provenance as it might otherwise.

[firedog]

I agree that Naxos is probably the culprit here, as Qobuz is not known to cheat on the sampling rate (they sell many 24/44 albums) and neither is BIS.

 

And yes, the Studio Master guarantee just means that Qobuz does not mess with the files. It's not a guarantee against upsampling, if the label did it.

 

Anyway, the price on eclassical is much more interesting.

 

eClassical generally has good prices, and with BIS recordings they are essentially selling without the middle man, so it would be a bit of price gouging if their prices weren't lower than Qobuz for BIS files.

[firedog]

I'm waiting for another reply from Qobuz to find out what the story is; I didn't want to buy tracks just to find out what they actually are. But their guarantee does say their PCM files aren't derived from SACD. So they are in a bit of a bind on this one in any case. But I agree: If the downloads are really 24/44.1, then it is just a mistake by them. If they are 24/96, then the problem is a bit more serious.

[firedog]

I notice that the "Qualité Studio Master Garantie" label does not show for this particular download. If my memory serves me well, this label was present for this download a couple of hours ago...

 

Not sure what you are looking at. I'm still seeing it, along with 24/96, on the page (and I cleared my web cache).

[firedog]

I just saw it on the new Springsteen album. So maybe they are just in the middle of some sort of edit of the website.

[firedog]

I just looked at the Qobuz listing for all Bis albums in 24/96. Apparently there are a not small number that date from before BIS had 24/96 recording capability.

 

I'll leave it up to BIS to deal with this.

[firedog]

Don't disagree with anything you wrote, but part of the point is that these download sites should be offering us files that are what they say they are. So don't tell me you are selling a "studio master" 24/96 when it was recorded in 24/44.1.

 

And BTW, don't forget they often charge more for the higher sampling rate, "higher res" files.

 

Anyway, the bit depth (16 or 24) is more important than the bit rate (44.1 to DXD), since it handles resolution (SNR & DR).

 

Lossy compression (MP3, AAC, Vorbis, etc.) do not have associated bit depths.

 

Bruce Brown of Puget Sound Studios fame says that he prefers a high bit depth than a high bit rate, if he have to choose. For example, 24/44.1 is better than 16/96 (if such format could exist).

 

BTW, some of us upsample with iZotope. V.G.: 16/44.1 to 24/88.2 - I rather will stay with 24/44.1 original recording, that with an upsampled by the player 16/44.1

 

Some other companies record on 24/44.1 (a very common format on this days) and then master on 24/96

 

My point of view, only,

 

Roch

[firedog]

You can't include PCM/DSD conversion in your Studio Master ideal, because in that case, every SACD release of a PCM recording would be fake as well.

 

What Qobuz claims is that they sell files provided by the label, not files they created themselves from a commercial format (SACD or DVD-A rip), and that the guaranteed Studio Master releases are centrein not to be upsampled from an inferior source (CD).

 

 

Well, on the web page explaining what a Studio Master is, they also say (Google Translate):

 

These albums reproduce identically the sound from the studio console output, and provide comfort listening experience, higher than the CD (usually "reduced" for mastering at 44.1 kHz / 16 bit).

 

These audio files from a strictly identical to that of the recording studio where the work quality was captured, mixed and mastered.

 

So they "guarantee" something more, and there isn't any way an album originally recorded in 16/44 or 24/44 can fit their own definition of "Studio Master 24-96". If they were just being fooled by the labels it would be one thing, but they aren't even doing the most basic checks and quality control. Not to mention, they are selling as "Studio Masters" files that AREN'T from the actual label that recorded the original, in spite of what they claim.

[firedog]

Again, nice sentiments, but little connection to reality.

 

I've already established in the case of material from BIS, they are getting upsampled material, apparently from a distributor. Again, BIS had no capability to record in 24/96 before 2007, so nothing from them on the Qobuz site can possibly be a studio master in 24/96, if it was recorded then. Qobuz has been officially informed of this by BIS. In spite of this, they continue to list dozens of BIS albums from the 90's and early 2000's as "24-96 Studio Masters"

 

You don't need two people to research this or listen to the material to establish whether it is true hi-res in this case. Qobuz may say that

We NEVER ripped any SACD, NEVER.

, but they are letting digital distributors do it for them and not doing even the most cursory check. Even when the SACD itself was only originally recorded in 24/44.1 or 16/44.1 and upsampled to make a MC SACD.

 

If we know this is true for material from BIS, then why should we have any faith in the guarantee for music from any other source.

[firedog]

+1

 

To reference President Clinton, we shouldn't need to know what the meaning of "is" is to know if something is a studio master. Either it is identical to the studio board output, or it isn't. If the bit rate or sample rate has been changed from the board output, then it isn't.

 

Nooo The key word they use is identically:

 

"These albums reproduce

identically

the sound"

 

If you think a studio master just means the same piece of music, they could be offering up Mp3s, or even someone else playing the same piece, which is so absurd as to be ridiculous.

 

I do not see any scope for ambiguity as to what their guarantee means --- which is also why they have got themselves into the soup. And they don't need to be in the soup, so all of this seems totally unnecessary.

 

All I can say is: If I bought a Studio Master recording from Qobuz with their guarantee that it was identical to the Studio master used in the studio, and I then found out that the real Studio Master was actually a higher resolution pure DSD file (and available on SACD), I would be furious that I had been not only misled, but that I still did not have the Studio Master, and would need to fork out more money to get it from someone else.

[firedog]

1) BIS

The error was done by the digital distributor of the label, because part of the album was 44 the other part higher - they oversampled everything. This is now corrected by the digital distributor, we are re-delivered. At Qobuz we know that we are not perfect and we always correct our errors ...and even the mistakes of others. In this particular case this problem is ending to teh fact that we are going to make a new control on most of the deliveries of this purchaser.

I do insist on the fact that we consider the job to have to be done by the labels or their distributors. We do refuse to make any change or correction to the files provided.

In many ways over the last years our work with the labels in the HD field was experimental, asking, learning them how to do in some cases, convincing them to pay for the right mastering etc. This work encouraged setting new standards, we can see it. Lots has to be done, still.

 

I'm assuming Yves has good intentions, but isn't really paying attention to what's been written here.

 

How many times have I written here (as well as the Chairman of BIS) that nothing recorded by BIS before 2007 is in 24/96? Qobuz has also been directly and officially informed of this weeks ago. Yet despite what Yves writes, they still have dozens of BIS albums on their site from before 2007 labelled as 24-96 Studio Masters. He referred in his post to one album.

 

How difficult is it to simply go into the web site and take off the Studio Masters label on the items from before 2007 from BIS? Not something that should take weeks if his intentions are as good as he claims, sorry.

[firedog]

2 hours ago, Liffy99 said:

What of material that is sold as a 24/96 high res file when the original recording can only have been made by analogue tape (with a likely equivalent bit depth of just 12 to 14 bits) ? Sure, the analogue recording needs to be digitised in some format or other but in cases like this I see absolutely no point in using anything better than 16/44.

A case in point is the Koln Concert by Keith Jarrett, recorded on tape in the seventies.

Is Qobuz being similarly disingenuous in trying to sell this as ‘high res’ ?

It's an old argument that won't be settled. It just depends on your POV. There's also tape turned into DSD. And many audiophiles think that is the superior sounding method to convert tape to digital. Many think it's legit to call these tape to digital conversions hi-res. Others, like you, don't. 

Some would also argue that the so-called hi-res remasterings to digital may often be superior sounding remasterings than the Redbook remasterings of the same tape. The two are not always derived from the same remaster/conversion, or possibly the "audiophile" version is done with more care about SQ.  Personally, I prefer the 24.96 version of "Koln" to my CD. But they aren't the same remaster - they were done years apart. 

If it bugs you, only buy Redbook when the source is tape. To each his own.