Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

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).

 

BTW, Channel Classics sells they own DSD recordings as "Studio Master HD" (24/192) and "Studio Master" (24/96) PCM files

 

Rachel Podger - Rameau - Channel Classics Records

Claude

Link to comment
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).

 

BTW, Channel Classics sells they own DSD recordings as "Studio Master HD" (24/192) and "Studio Master" (24/96) PCM files

 

Rachel Podger - Rameau - Channel Classics Records

 

+1

 

If some one feel shited, don't buy Qobuz.

 

Roch

Link to comment
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.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment

Good Morning / Evening

 

I am the guy behind Qobuz.

I think that the problem here is only a Metadata error. Everybody can make a mistake, and we will check tommorrow if teh error is from our side or was in the metadatas which were delivered to us.

 

I just want to point out that 100% of what we deliver to our customers is delivered to Qobuz by 1) the labels 2) or their official digital distributor.

 

We spend a lot of time in manual controls and if not checking by the hear absolutely everything, we have two persons only on the 24Bits ingestion process.

 

As far as we are concerned, too, honesty is our main concern and our ETHIC.

 

We are devoted to deliver the best quality - we will not invent a 24/192 if we do not have it really.

We NEVER ripped any SACD, NEVER.

We waited a long time for having the labels or their distributors to deliver us directly, the reason why our HD catalogue at the beginning was limited.

 

And now I think I can say that we have a close relationship with many producers and labels - they can attest the way we are working and our devotion to the quality.

 

We think that by large in asking the labels and the producers to deliver 24Bits we contributed over the last three year to build the segment of the HD files to a bigger market.

 

If you want any details about the "music download business jungle" I will be happy to make a conference !

 

best - Yves

Link to comment
Good Morning / Evening

 

I am the guy behind Qobuz.

I think that the problem here is only a Metadata error. Everybody can make a mistake, and we will check tommorrow if teh error is from our side or was in the metadatas which were delivered to us.

 

I just want to point out that 100% of what we deliver to our customers is delivered to Qobuz by 1) the labels 2) or their official digital distributor.

 

We spend a lot of time in manual controls and if not checking by the hear absolutely everything, we have two persons only on the 24Bits ingestion process.

 

As far as we are concerned, too, honesty is our main concern and our ETHIC.

 

We are devoted to deliver the best quality - we will not invent a 24/192 if we do not have it really.

We NEVER ripped any SACD, NEVER.

We waited a long time for having the labels or their distributors to deliver us directly, the reason why our HD catalogue at the beginning was limited.

 

And now I think I can say that we have a close relationship with many producers and labels - they can attest the way we are working and our devotion to the quality.

 

We think that by large in asking the labels and the producers to deliver 24Bits we contributed over the last three year to build the segment of the HD files to a bigger market.

 

If you want any details about the "music download business jungle" I will be happy to make a conference !

 

best - Yves

 

Thanks Yves. I hope you will find the way to avoid the problems like in this forum and settle the good way with label distribution to be one of the first place to go for high resolution music. Re-check pleas all the issues find there in the thread and come back to us with the conclusion, maybe that's the way to be truly honest to the customers. That's my five cents.

--

Krzysztof Maj

http://mkrzych.wordpress.com/

"Music is the highest form of art. It is also the most noble. It is human emotion, captured, crystallised, encased… and then passed on to others." - By Ken Ishiwata

Link to comment
Good Morning / Evening

 

I am the guy behind Qobuz.

I think that the problem here is only a Metadata error. Everybody can make a mistake, and we will check tommorrow if teh error is from our side or was in the metadatas which were delivered to us.

 

I just want to point out that 100% of what we deliver to our customers is delivered to Qobuz by 1) the labels 2) or their official digital distributor.

 

We spend a lot of time in manual controls and if not checking by the hear absolutely everything, we have two persons only on the 24Bits ingestion process.

 

As far as we are concerned, too, honesty is our main concern and our ETHIC.

 

We are devoted to deliver the best quality - we will not invent a 24/192 if we do not have it really.

We NEVER ripped any SACD, NEVER.

We waited a long time for having the labels or their distributors to deliver us directly, the reason why our HD catalogue at the beginning was limited.

 

And now I think I can say that we have a close relationship with many producers and labels - they can attest the way we are working and our devotion to the quality.

 

We think that by large in asking the labels and the producers to deliver 24Bits we contributed over the last three year to build the segment of the HD files to a bigger market.

 

If you want any details about the "music download business jungle" I will be happy to make a conference !

 

best - Yves

Yves,

 

Welcome to CA and thanks for joining the discussion, and for creating Qobuz, of which I'm a happy and regular customer.

 

However, you have to understand that this nascent highres download industry has been burned with several prominent examples of highres (i.e. significantly more expensive) releases that turned out to be fake.

 

I think everybody appreciates the effort and the ethics your company is putting into the Studio Master Guarantee, but it may take a while before people fully trust it, just from bad experiences elsewhere.

 

Two quick comments:

 

You are not helping the appreciation of the term "Studio Master" by applying it to your BNF collection (see also a separate thread on this forum). This can easily be confusion for the customer, and confusion about your premium label is the one thing that you don't want if you want to instill confidence. Couldn't you create a separate label for the BNF recordings?

 

Second, more FYI, your customer service is currently, at my request, looking into the recent release of Cecile McLorin Salvant's WomanChild. I bought the Qobuz 24/44 studio master, however, the label has stated on some press release that the master is 24/96, and HDtracks also sells a 24/96 version. I'm sure I'll soon hear back from your customer service coworkers on a resolution for this one.

 

As a general recommendation, have somebody in your Studio Master team have a regular look at this site, for early warning signals on potentially fake highres releases. This site is usually pretty good at finding them.

 

And finally, the more information you can provide on your side on the provenience of high-res versions, the better it is. There is a lot of confusion in the market, for an example reading I recommend this thread:

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-audiophile-downloads/carlos-kleiber-beethoven-24-96-studio-master-vs-24-88-2-download-15848/

Link to comment

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.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
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.

 

This is totally confused. No-one claims that every SACD offers up the Studio Master ... which is exactly why SACD buyers are always so concerned to find out what the original recording resolution was. Was it an analog recording, or PCM (and if so, what resolution), or pure DSD?

Link to comment

 

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), ... .

 

Nooooo - Qobuz define a specific meaning to their use of the term "Studio Master" --- in particular, they claim on their page:

 

Toute la musique en qualité Studio Masters*

 

... that files marketed by them as Studio Masters are such that:

 

"
These albums reproduce identically the sound from the studio console output
"

 

... and yet they make these claims for the hundreds of titles that were actually recorded in pure DSD, but which they sell in a down sampled PCM conversion ... not the real Studio Master ... not identical to the sound from the studio console. All of which patently makes a mockery of their guarantee. Yet, they persist in making it. I don't know why they don't just fix this up. They can either:

 

1) remove their Studio Master tag and replace it with: This album was downsampled from the pure DSD Studio Master to PCM, or

2) change their definition of Studio Master to mean: "Pretty good, and better than CD"

Link to comment
Noooo ;)

 

They say "the sound", not "the data" from the studio console output.

 

That's sufficiently vague to allow for a high quality conversion (from DSD to hi-rez PCM, or 24/192 to 24/96).

 

But I agree, they should be clearer about what their guarantee means.

Agree as well. Given that Qobuz' founder Yves is now watching this thread, hope he takes note.

 

The more specific the indications are, the more likely any high-res site is to get the trust of the audiophile community.

Link to comment
Noooo ;)

 

They say "the sound", not "the data" from the studio console output.

 

That's sufficiently vague to allow for a high quality conversion.

 

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.

Link to comment

+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.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment

I have to appreciate and respect the fact Yves has respond to this forum. That means a lot to me. Welcome, by the way.

 

Surely, I hope they gain full acceptance to this community and we get exactly what we pay for. They're a great service and I find things there I do not find anywhere else. It's great to see the library grow, it will be even better if everything is what they say it is. In my experience everything has been awesome.

 

Since the whole Beats/Mog thing, I've been looking to a new streaming service to fill in the gaps. Too bad Qobuz's Redbook streaming is so much. I'd be all over it for a bit less. 20 euros a month is a tough pill to swallow, but waiting to see what happens there. Seems to me with adequate marketing in this community, they would have far more subscribers with that service is it was cheaper. So many more that it would make up the decrease in cost for lowering the price and increase there profitability..... IMHO.

 

I like Qubuz and I'm happy I discovered it.

Link to comment

I am back to answer to various matters with my poor English.

 

I can see agressivity here, probably from people who are no our regular customers and did not experienced by themselves how great our service is ! : ). Which is too sad. The good news is that we have a lot of customers all over the world quite satisfied with Qobuz - they can easily testify that we're not really the kind of crooks incapable as some would describe it here.

 

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.

 

2) BNF ALBUMS

I personally decided to sell them in 24 Bits because they were copied from the LPs in 24 Bits and delivered to us this way, but it is just an option made available for the same price than the MP3 elsewhere. ...The quite poor transfers will be even more impressive : ) . Of course it can not be seen as Studio Masters from the original tapes. As this case was a bit new and particular (last week..) and before changing in fact the vocabulary of our internal brands, we did put a very clear advertisement on the BNF pages. You will see. Here for ex :

4 opérettes marseillaises (Mono version) | Andrex*– Télécharger et écouter l'album

Nice French Marseillaise Operetta ! Special Dedicace !

 

Information importante sur cet album en 24 bitsCette collection est réalisée par numérisation des disques du commerce conservés dans les collections de la Bibliothèque Nationale de France. Selon les cas il s'agit d'un simple transfert numérique brut, ou d'une re-masterisation plus travaillée. La numérisation a été réalisée en 24 Bits, ce qui nous permet dans certain cas de les proposer sans supplément de prix dans cette qualité MAIS il ne s'agit pas de Studio Masters réalisés d'après les bandes originales

 

In the future we will probably keep the « Studio Master » brand only for the work done from original tapes. Allow us a few days or weeks to change the logo ad the index to the best.

 

3) DSD

We do not deliver DSD right now but in a few weeks we will. Then we will deliver DSD flles and make them available to our customers having bought the album earlier. If the debate is « what is a Studio Master i;e. what is the « original tape » - an answer can be : « there are several ones when the work is finished at the end of a mastering work. » After all, assuming that a « mastered for iTunes » is done by the producer, it would be also a Studio Master. For sure we do and we will always fight to get the best one - everybody in good faith can understand.

 

One last thing. Good music is not only sound but also sourcing the great interpretation from the best labels , and providing 10000’s of digital booklets very often only on Qobuz, informations, videos - and from now on in English, German, Dutch etc

 

Sorry - we are not still perfect.

We are trying very hard.

 

Alll the best

Yves

Link to comment
I am back to answer to various matters with my poor English.

 

I can see agressivity here, probably from people who are no our regular customers and did not experienced by themselves how great our service is ! : ). Which is too sad. The good news is that we have a lot of customers all over the world quite satisfied with Qobuz - they can easily testify that we're not really the kind of crooks incapable as some would describe it here.

 

Yves, thanks for taking the time and clarifying your position.

 

I do insist on the fact that we consider the job to have to be done by the labels or their distributors.

 

While this position is very understandable, you also need to understand the final customer that has only you as direct counterpart, and will therefore intuitively hold you accountable for what they purchased from you, at a significant premium nevertheless.

 

I personally decided to sell them in 24 Bits because they were copied from the LPs in 24 Bits and delivered to us this way.

 

In the future we will probably keep the « Studio Master » brand only for the work done from original tapes. Allow us a few days or weeks to change the logo ad the index to the best.

 

I never meant that you shouldn't publish the BNF files in any different file format than 24 bits. But keeping the same "Studio Master" label for this kind of recording was confusing. So I congratulate you for taking a step in the right direction.

 

3) DSD

We do not deliver DSD right now but in a few weeks we will. Then we will deliver DSD flles and make them available to our customers having bought the album earlier. If the debate is « what is a Studio Master i;e. what is the « original tape » - an answer can be : « there are several ones when the work is finished at the end of a mastering work. » After all, assuming that a « mastered for iTunes » is done by the producer, it would be also a Studio Master. For sure we do and we will always fight to get the best one - everybody in good faith can understand.

 

One last thing. Good music is not only sound but also sourcing the great interpretation from the best labels , and providing 10000’s of digital booklets very often only on Qobuz, informations, videos - and from now on in English, German, Dutch etc

More outlets selling native DSD in Europe is a great step forward.

 

With regards to your comment about the various "Studio Master" format, keep in mind that you are selling this to a very special audience. Audiophiles often buy the same recording many times and are therefore very concerned about the origin of a file. And I think it is obvious that we want to have a master that is as close to the original format, without any incremental conversion step.

 

The more you keep the demanding nature of this particular audience in mind, the more successful you will be in gaining their trust.

Link to comment
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.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
  • 4 years later...

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’ ?

Link to comment
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. 

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment

At issue here is quality of recording and recording engineer(s).  Also how well it was preserved.  Equivalents bits is meaningless.  30 years ago we already had hits on the pop charts of some long dead singer doing a duet with his granddaughter.  Take a guess who sounded more natural and lifelike.  If you guessed the one who arose from highly evolved preservationist techniques you'd be right.

 

Transplant your aggrieved visage of how this Jarrett recording is being handled into the current battle for 'the crown jewels' and it looks completely different.  Forget what the labels were capable of three decades ago when they wanted to make a strong suggestion to the consumer palate it should develop a taste for holiday season purchases.  Ask yourself if you would rather have a newly reworked digital master from a point of high technical development of tape in the 70's or an early digital effort from the 80's.  Ask yourself if you have a solid grasp on the strengths and weaknesses of digital technology that could be brought to bear this very moment.  Or dash off the neatly worded complaint to Qobuz calling them disingenuous, and a few other impolite things, you seem ready to prepare.  :)

 

I don't disagree with @firedog.  I just feel it was more of a chore to dance around the issue than to respectfully insist on the type of education that would inform an opinion.  The honest and easy answer is to be accepting of the fact it might not be the best time to collect a new Köln mastering or engage in the politics of why that is.  Forget the strife and go back to enjoying listening to music.  Or at least seek out better examples instead of worrying questionable and impermanent ones.  I can't think of one good reason why you would need to consume thought poor goods merely because they exist.

 

Also, welcome to CA.  We tend to downplay the unrewarding parts of this hobby in the music forums.  The bad recording that pops up from time to time can be as enjoyable to be done with as a good one is to be in the middle of.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...