 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Makes no difference to me. I have chronic tinnitus in my left ear, and can't really hear the difference between a high quality mp3 and a CD anymore.
I'm sorry, Thor. That sucks. 
Is there no type of treatment you can get for this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deepstar Six by Manfredini and recently reissued from Intrada has got the 24 bit 96kHz treatment. Available on HDTracks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I still can't download Islands In the Stream! Anyone knows what's going on with this one? It was supposed to be readily available by now, wasn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those companies are retailers, not labels. They distribute what the labels provide them.
You wouldn't blame Amazon or Best Buy for a lousy Blu-ray transfer, would you? You'd be unhappy with the company that produced the disc. It's the same thing here. These retailers are at the mercy of the content providers.
I think this is a category mistake.
If I ordered a blu-ray and got a DVD, Amazon would take it back. It's not about the quality of transfer, but the kind of product I was promised. I wouldn't blame Qobuz for a hi-res transfer that I thought sounded lousy, but for non hi-res audio sold as hi-res audio? That's on them, responsibility shared equally at the very least. They can't beef up the audio quality, but they can make sure they're not misrepresenting the product, which claims an audio boost, not a file type boost.
I work in flooring. We don't make the floors, and we don't open every carton to verify, which would be unmanageable, but if a customer opens the cartons and sees something different from what we were told they'd get, we take care of them first ourselves, then we do indeed get it from the manufacturers. But we don't make the customers go to the manufacturers, nor use them as a re-direct shield for ourselves.
Plus, Qobuz can verify the files they're selling. It's something they could automate, so unlike the stuff I work with, operationally, this kind of verification is very available to them, and they're all the more responsible for not having done it.
The issue is not the quality of the product. It's that it's the incorrect product.
I recently ordered hi-res audio from Qobuz, and received non hi-res audio contained in hi-res audio files. I'm fighting it - with Qobuz, not the label, with whom I had no transaction. I'm also giving Qobuz what I have on these files so they can deal with this label, because I agree that the label is also responsible, and this not uncommon enough business practice needs to be snuffed early. In that sense, I'm on Qobuz's side, but they need to do their due diligence as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 8, 2021 - 5:28 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
TerraEpon
(Member)
|
I think this is a category mistake.
If I ordered a blu-ray and got a DVD, Amazon would take it back. It's not about the quality of transfer, but the kind of product I was promised. I wouldn't blame Qobuz for a hi-res transfer that I thought sounded lousy, but for non hi-res audio sold as hi-res audio? That's on them, responsibility shared equally at the very least. They can't beef up the audio quality, but they can make sure they're not misrepresenting the product, which claims an audio boost, not a file type boost.
....
I recently ordered hi-res audio from Qobuz, and received non hi-res audio contained in hi-res audio files. I'm fighting it - with Qobuz, not the label, with whom I had no transaction. I'm also giving Qobuz what I have on these files so they can deal with this label, because I agree that the label is also responsible, and this not uncommon enough business practice needs to be snuffed early. In that sense, I'm on Qobuz's side, but they need to do their due diligence as well.
I both agree and disgaree with you. If you give the Amazon example, it's more like if Amazon sold you a DVD sent in a Blu-Ray case that said on it it was Blu-Ray. It's not some error that really could be feasibly be noticed by the seller. Qobuz can only act on what they are told the files contain. Yeah one supposed they COULD check every release before they list it but that sort of manpower and time costs a lot of money.
Now if they are advertising a 24bit track and the actual file you download is only 16bit (i.e. the actual file, not its contents) then yeah, that's a the retailer's fault for selling you an incorrect product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I both agree and disgaree with you. If you give the Amazon example, it's more like if Amazon sold you a DVD sent in a Blu-Ray case that said on it it was Blu-Ray. It's not some error that really could be feasibly be noticed by the seller. Qobuz can only act on what they are told the files contain. Yeah one supposed they COULD check every release before they list it but that sort of manpower and time costs a lot of money.
Now if they are advertising a 24bit track and the actual file you download is only 16bit (i.e. the actual file, not its contents) then yeah, that's a the retailer's fault for selling you an incorrect product.
I have to disagree again, and, like you, also agree. Your example is better. It's exactly what I should have said: If Amazon sold you a DVD sent in a Blu-Ray case that said it was a Blu-Ray, Amazon would take it back. Best Buy would take it back, then stop selling them. So would I. So would you, Terra, if you ran a store, I'd wager.
Qobuz sold me a DVD in a blu-ray box, non hi-res sound in a hi-res package, advertised as hi-res audio. Not a hi-res file, hi-res audio, with better than CD quality sound, for which improvement in sound they charged extra.
Not for a bigger file type.
Where we disagree is that they absolutely can check the files. It's an electronic process, something programmatic that can be set up to analyze any track coming in, validating that they match specs, and notifying Qobuz when any don't, then they employ manpower - and they should - before they advertise the product they are selling as having a higher quality than it does. It's something they very much could do, with little expense and effort.
And if they can't, or simply won't, then they cannot justify a "no refunds" policy. That's what gives their part in this a dank, rotten odor, and they need to man up and increase their integrity levels. I'm sorry, but their own set of circumstances doesn't pass the sniff test.
And 100%, so do some of the labels need to level up in integrity. Period. I like them, almost all of them, but that stops at outright cheating. Too many people are pointing at other people in this one, and without saying it out loud seem to be hiding behind the intellectual vacancy that is caveat emptor.
Whoever claims to sell hi-res audio, deliver hi-res audio to a seller, create hi-res audio to deliver to a seller, they'd all better be doing just that, and making sure of it, or they all need to call it what it is - great sounding, CD quality audio, absolutely no better, and by the way not a bit worse than what we've all loved for 40 years.
There is no excuse for this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
