Jump to content

sdolezalek

  • Content Count

    1156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About sdolezalek

  • Rank
    Intellectually Curious Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Bay Area, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

9145 profile views
  1. sdolezalek

    HQ Player

    Fixed the issue. Upgrading Roon to version 1.6 reset the setting in my NAA from HQ Player as "Active" to Roon ready as "Active." Just needed to find that setting and reset it to HQ Player.
  2. sdolezalek

    Article: Roon 1.6 With Qobuz Integration and More

    As to the above: 1. I notice that if I favorite the hi-res version in the Qobuz app itself, when I open Roon it shows up as say 24/192 and plays as such. If, on the other hand, I'm in Roon and search for that title, even though it shows as 24/192 when I choose it that way it plays as 16/44. So it appears that Roon isn't distinguishing between low-res and hi-res licensing rights when you search in Roon, but Roon does pick up the difference for albums selected in Qobuz itself. I have tried this across about a dozen albums and the difference is holding up. 2. Interestingly when I listen to the Tidal standalone app versus the Qobuz standalone app, i hear significant differences. When I listen to Tidal vs Qobuz vs actual downloaded files, all three sound more alike and I'm having a hard time telling any difference at all between a Qobuz 24/192 file and the same album downloaded in 24/192 from ProStudioMasters (which is as it should be). Similarly, I can hear the same minor differences between Tidal 16/44 and Qobuz 24/192 as I hear between originals at 16/44 and 24/192 (again as it should be). 3. Give me unadulterated 24/192 over MQA any day...
  3. sdolezalek

    Article: Roon 1.6 With Qobuz Integration and More

    I fixed it. Upgrading to version 1.6 seems to have reset my NAA to Roon ready rather than HQ Player as the default. Going into the NAA setup and resetting it to HQ Player fixed the problem.
  4. sdolezalek

    HQ Player

    For some reason Roon 1.6 with Qobuz seems to have broken the ability to work with HQ Player. I'm now getting an error message in Roon: "Playback failed because $ couldn't connect to HQ Player." In HQ Player under settings I also suddenly can't see my DAC anymore even though in my NAA settings the DAC clearly shows up. Any ideas?
  5. sdolezalek

    Article: Roon 1.6 With Qobuz Integration and More

    Oops...Although it works great on my desktop system, Roon version 1.6 seems to have broken the ability to work with my HQPlayer/NAA setup as HQPlayer no longer recognizes the NAA and Roon gives an error message in connecting to HQPlayer: "Playback failed because $ couldn't connect to HQ Player."
  6. sdolezalek

    Article: Roon 1.6 With Qobuz Integration and More

    Wow, can't wait till the weekend -- loooong listening session coming up switching between Tidal and Qobuz versions. So far the integration is seamless (of course my library got almost twice as big overnight). Roon has handled this extremely professionally -- not getting out ahead of itself, but getting the timing perfect to coincide with the US beta period for Qobuz. Congats! Very nicely done!
  7. sdolezalek

    Relative importance of differences in stereo systems

    With the big Magnepans I can't disagree with your percentages, but the 10% that came from DSP, with calibrated microphones and lots of testing in REW that got fed back into Roon and HQP and keeping adjustments below the 500hz level (adjustments above that seemed to lose the PRAT) made much of the difference in creating that last little bit that allows you to fool yourself thinking you are there in the venue...
  8. sdolezalek

    Qobuz USA launching soon!

    I think you are right that the MQA mastering accounts for a lot of the differences; particularly the boomier bass; but the greater air/clarity on Qobuz versus more euphony/smoothing on Tidal seems to occur across same versions of a recording on both (at least after a dozen or so comparisons mostly on classical music). Almost like the difference between PCM 16/44 and DSD64. I'm doing these comparisons on headphones so I'm probably being picky at a level I wouldn't be through speakers, and, as with most differences, I can't say I uniformly prefer one over the other.
  9. sdolezalek

    Relative importance of differences in stereo systems

    I find that to be far less true, and even less so when I go to audio stores looking to hear something that will wow me. I used think it might be that my system was just that good; now I realize it is that I'm just that used to how my system sounds. Inasmuch as I tried to build an "audiophile 7.1 system" I also used to think that good surround sound recordings on BluRay sounded better than stereo, but that was before I started optimizing my stereo sound in terms of room treatment, DSP to address room modes, upsampling through HQ Player, getting speaker distances and timing exactly right, etc. Now the sound of my stereo is far far better (clear and with better soundstaging) than my 7.1 system. But it is theoretically possible that if I did all of those tweaks on all 8 channels that surround might once again sound better -- but I doubt it.
  10. sdolezalek

    Qobuz USA launching soon!

    In listening to the "same" recording on Tidal and Qobuz I'm surprised at how different they sound. Tidal seems to have a more rounded bass-heavy sound to it compared to a clearer but bass light sound to Qobuz. The difference is greater than I normally hear when listening to a 16/44 and a 24/192 version of the same recording. Anyone else hearing these same differences?
  11. sdolezalek

    Qobuz USA launching soon!

    Does anyone know what happens to Qobuz hi-res content you buy for download during the beta period if you don't continue to subscribe afterward? Is it treated any differently than content I might purchase through HDTracks or ProStudioMasters? Thanks
  12. sdolezalek

    Subjective / Objective , Philosophy of Science

    Did you mean to ignore the other half of my comment? The part that said: "The opposite, is equally true -- just because I think I hear a difference doesn't mean there actually is one -- again perhaps 99% of the time it is expectation bias, perception or simply differences between end users, but here too that last 1% is the interesting one because it opens the door to asking whether there is something there, that we may previously not have paid attention to, that might be both measurable and matter." I completely agree with you that "scientists live for an opportunity to find something yet unexplained by existing theories, something that can result in a new theory and maybe even help overturn an old one." I think the problem we face on "Audiophile Style" is that we have as many non-scientists representing or clinging to scientific theories they don't fully understand (but declaring themselves as objectivists) as we have subjectivists wanting to believe their imperfectly formed impressions. The combination of noise on the right plus noise on the left has a tendency to drown the signal in the middle.
  13. sdolezalek

    Subjective / Objective , Philosophy of Science

    That is an interesting point. Do you really think lack of testing protocols is the biggest (or at least a large) limiter in making audiophile progress? I'm not disputing the point, but I don't hear many efforts on these pages trying to suggest new or better protocols. Perhaps there should be.
  14. sdolezalek

    Subjective / Objective , Philosophy of Science

    Unfortunately, that is part of the standard "objectivist" platform -- "we have measured everything that matters, if you are hearing something else, it must be perception rather than reality." Even if that is true 99% of the time, progress occurs in the other 1% and by dismissing its existence we inhibit progress. The opposite, is equally true -- just because I think I hear a difference doesn't mean there actually is one -- again perhaps 99% of the time it is expectation bias, perception or simply differences between end users, but here too that last 1% is the interesting one because it opens the door to asking whether there is something there, that we may previously not have paid attention to, that might be both measurable and matter. After all, few people perceived we needed either cell phones or personal computers 50 years ago and it would be really had to find measurable data from back then that suggested our forward progress as a society depended on inventing and perfecting those things.
  15. sdolezalek

    Subjective / Objective , Philosophy of Science

    Our ears tell us that buying all the equipment that meets the highest measurement standards we have established so far will not, by itself, deliver us into audiophile nirvana. That could mean that there are important measures we have ignored or not yet captured, it could mean that the order in which we prioritize different measures is wrong, it could mean that the trade-offs we made in choosing excellence in one domain over excellence in another were the wrong ones, etc. It doesn't mean measurements are wrong or unimportant. They are because they establish guideposts for further learning. Without measurements, rules and principles, everything would be open to debate. But the existence of measurements, rules and principles should not end the debate or the questions.
×