it wasn’t when i looked = more likely it was or similar to the distribution master that was used as the input into the MQA encoding process.
Qobuz has some AAC only files as well - but they appear as AAC, as opposed to any other AAC encapsulating format like .mp4
The key thing is to look at the label and product ID of the distribution - Qobuz make those available, and tools like Roon make it easy for you to pull them all forgather and compare if you want to. Unfortunately at this time Tidal doesn’t support lossless Hidef - which is a shame - it might change but they might be tied into some agreement with MQA?
This is a real shame as you can see now that much new 44.1/16 has been decimated or downsampled so is not the best you can get.
A Mix Master at 44.1/16 is one thing, having a decimated distribution master at 44.1/16 from a higher resolution mix master is potentially starting to throw quality away.
I think the 44.1/16 version is recorded mono, while the hires one is stereo. So the mono version seems to be more exactly centered. (I am testing with head phones.)
Ok had a listen on Qobuz after a strenuous week as I think most of us have had…
The RevOla 44.1/24 recording appears to have a little more space around Abbey Lincoln’s voice… and there appears good atmosphere for the age of the recording. Sounds rather enjoyable and draws you in to the performance.
The Candid Productions at 44.1/16 is quite similar to the RevOla version, albeit the spacing and atmosphere sounds more shut in and two dimensional… I think this is a quantized version from the same distribution master as used by RevOla. This is still enjoyable.
The CoolNote 44.1/16 version appears far less subtle and sounds like loudness compression has been applied. It notably sounds inferior to my ears compared to the other two… but probably would sound better on cheapish headphones or in the car.
Don’t you folks mean AIFF files? AIFF files are Apple’s uncompressed lossless files like WAV but with better metadata support. AAC files are a better MP3 file that again Apple uses. Apple also has ALAC which are mp4a files which are equivalent to Flac.
Hi, not sure who you are addressing these to; however with regard to the earlier post no I haven’t seen ALAC files on Qobuz, just FLAC and AAC.
Out of interest both AAC and ALAC can be encoded within mp4 containers, which is is often how they are distributed.
Ok then I understand. Indeed I do not have Roon… I am able to get this information on discogs which seems pretty good but then I need to pair it with Qobuz with the risk of making errors.
The reason I do not have roon is because I hear that the sound is better through the naim app directly? Is this correct?
By the way thanks for pointing me to the “bonus track version” of straight ahead…very nice to have the extra tracks.
I wonder if a japanese cd (usually they remaster) would bring a sound quality enhancement…usually they are very good at this.
I don’t believe so generally, and not in my personal experience. However I use an off board DAC which tends to decouple and remove most of such differences.
Roon poosibly also has the edge for many, as Roon transcodes the Qobuz FLAC to PCM before sending to the streamer, whilst with the direct Naim replay, the streamer transcodes FLAC to PCM.
I have found subtle performance differences with different firmwares.
Do the same thing with Living for the City from Inner Visions by Stevie Wonder. The hi-res version on Qobuz is flat as a pancake and lifeless. Original version much better
That is different… both versions are from Motown… and separately mastered from the 1972/73 tape masters.
I will listen later, it may well be the lower definition distribution master made for CD is more compressed for the lower 16 bit quantisation to give more punch and less quantisation error… whereas the 96/24 version probably has less pre processing and therefore more true to the original… therefore differences heard will likely be system dependent on this. In my experience this is not uncommon for distribution masters made from original tape masters.
Interesting. I need to understand this “mastering” process because I thought basically there was “one” master and then this would determine the sound quality (original master–> same sound quality). But now I see that there may be intermediate “technical processsing” from that original master…? Maybe also that is the reason why often the Japanese CDs sound better than the US or Europe ones; because they may be more perfectionnist in this work?
Ahh, no there are many masters…
The Mix Master is the master that is created from the mix… this tends to be a snap shot in time and captures the original recording and locks it down
The Distribution Master(s) ars derived from this mix master, and is optimised for the method of distribution… radio, video, CD, vinyl, MQA, lossless streaming and lossy download/streaming.
Now a distribution master may address more than one category, and there may equally more distribution masters for a category… as we often see for CD or stream. These distribution masters may contain pre processing for the distribution format, such as a degree of loudness compression for CD, or eq tailoring for vinyl… or simply be tweaked for a particular label… such as your Japanese CDs for example.
Sometimes you see the term ‘final mix’ used for mix master, and simply ‘a master’ used for distribution master.
Thanks Simon! Just to clarify this Mix Master is at the source. However sometimes there is a new mix master I imagine for instance the remastering of the Beatles CDs? Is this correct? Or would you rate is as a distribution master?
Nestor - the terms can get muddled by the time it gets marketed - from what I have seen often a ‘re master’ is a new copy of the mix master with some processing and eq adjusted - and also perhaps a new bit rate if previously decimated/downsampled - but the mix remains the same.
A remix is often a new mix master and this is a new interpretation of all the recording channels (now digital channels - but used to be analogue channels on multitrack tape) into a final mix master - a remix then may have multiple distribution masters as above.
There are some remixes that have been done using more modern higher quality mixing equipment - and much effort goes into capturing the original feel from the older mixing equipment. Analogue mixing consoles all had their characteristic sounds - and so did studio effects like Eq and reverb.
As far as the Beatles - most offerings I have seen are new distribution masters - there are very view remixes of Beatles tracks out there that I am aware - but there are a few - and typically there will be quite a back story on how and why it was remixed and what it was looking to achieve. Essentially when you remix you are changing the track and the original creation - when you remaster you are essentially changing how it may sound.
Ok the 96/24 sounds superb, real pace, groove and vibe… and wonderful clarity around Stevie’s voice …
The 44.1/16 is clearly loudness compressed, and so is on average louder, but looses that finesse and wonderful vibe and feel of the hires version to some extent… it just sounds somewhat processed by comparison
Again the 44.1/16 would probably sound better in the car…
Well I was certainly curious about your flat as a pancake expression…I guess different systems may render things differently… but that is certainly how I heard it…and in comparison of the two masters… the differences seemed very obvious.
Simon, yes so this unfortunately means that basically at every change or label or re-edition the sound can/will change even if in the absence of a « « real » remastering… this is a bit worrying.
