Qobuz 44.1 downloads feature new remasterings?

[hdlistener]

I've just seen several unusual (not otherwise available) offerings at qobuz.com (e.g., "Replay" and "Allies" by CS&N and "Thoroughfare Gap" by Stephen Stills). Looking deeper into their catalog, I see many things like CSN&Y's "Deja Vu" with a release date of 2012 (while some titles show earlier dates like 1988)! Many of these classic (Rhino/Atlantic) albums are showing release dates of 2009 and newer, but there hasn't been any physical product reissued that recently. Same thing with some WB James Taylor titles. What's happening here? Is it possible we're actually able to buy new redbook remasters (which sound very good in their compromised streaming samples) from these guys? Please help de-confuse me...

[Snowmonkey]

I share your mystification. I've found Qobuz has this huge catalogue of 16/44.1 downloads which are apparently unavailable anywhere else. So far the quality has been very good on those I have purchased. My most recent examples are "Ella Fitzgerald Sings the Cole Porter Songbook" (very good SQ), Nat King Cole - "After Midnight" (also very good SQ) and Muddy Waters - "The Folk Singer" (incredible SQ). It's great to be able to get these classic albums, instead of waiting for HDTracks to release them in (possibly spurious) Hi-Res. I can only conclude it has to do with France having more liberal copyright laws. I have taken the release dates displayed to be the dates on which Qobuz received the music files.

[hdlistener]

I share your mystification. I've found Qobuz has this huge catalogue of 16/44.1 downloads which are apparently unavailable anywhere else. So far the quality has been very good on those I have purchased. My most recent examples are "Ella Fitzgerald Sings the Cole Porter Songbook" (very good SQ), Nat King Cole - "After Midnight" (also very good SQ) and Muddy Waters - "The Folk Singer" (incredible SQ). It's great to be able to get these classic albums, instead of waiting for HDTracks to release them in (possibly spurious) Hi-Res. I can only conclude it has to do with France having more liberal copyright laws. I have taken the release dates displayed to be the dates on which Qobuz received the music files.

 

 

I emailed Rhino, and they told me they would contact their international dept. to find out where these masters are coming from and will let me know. I did purchase a single song last night to learn more about this, and although the 'release date' on the site says '2009' the meta data told me the track was from 1994. After A/B-ing the track I bought and the original CD version I have of that track, I unfortunately agree that it's exactly the same track I already have (from 1994). Might try another one tonight, but my hopes are fading that these are indeed new masterings....

[Snowmonkey]

Why would you want new masterings if the original masterings were well done? As I understand it, a lot of new masterings are just the addition of compression techniques, with an actual loss of sound quality.

[hdlistener]

Why would you want new masterings if the original masterings were well done? As I understand it, a lot of new masterings are just the addition of compression techniques, with an actual loss of sound quality.

 

This is a good question. If, indeed, the orignal masterings were done well I wouldn't be in search of newer ones. I really hate it when engineers start adding compression on new remasters, but sometimes this isn't what they're doing. The catalogs of many artists I enjoy listening to (John Denver, America, CSNY, David Gates, early James Taylor, etc.) have never had their music mastered well on CD (IMO), and I'm always looking for cleaner, non-compressed versions of their songs. My preference is definitely 24/96 or 24/192, but if those aren't available yet for certain titles I'll settle for well-mastered redbook versions.

[Snowmonkey]

Speaking of James Taylor, did you see HDTracks has just released "Sweet Baby James" in Hi-Res? No mention of the album's provenance, so I'm inclined to wait till someone publishes an analysis.

[hdlistener]

Speaking of James Taylor, did you see HDTracks has just released "Sweet Baby James" in Hi-Res? No mention of the album's provenance, so I'm inclined to wait till someone publishes an analysis.

 

 

I was very excited to see that title, and bought it right away. It sounds very good to me, and frankly I trust most of what the folks at HDTracks release. Ladies of the Canyon apparently wasn't a legit hi-res release, but they know this now (after reading posts here and elsewhere) and are waiting for a replacement file supplied by WB (soon hopefully). Really pleased with Sweet Baby James from HD.

[Snowmonkey]

I was very excited to see that title, and bought it right away. It sounds very good to me, and frankly I trust most of what the folks at HDTracks release. Ladies of the Canyon apparently wasn't a legit hi-res release, but they know this now (after reading posts here and elsewhere) and are waiting for a replacement file supplied by WB (soon hopefully). Really pleased with Sweet Baby James from HD.

Thanks for that. I'll get it, based on your recommendation. Without getting into a HDTracks-bashing session, I don't see how it's possible to trust MOST of what they release. How do you know what to trust and what not to trust? Personally, I'm more inclined to trust their releases when they they are willing to state exactly what went into the production. Last time I trusted them was on Ladies of the Canyon.

[hdlistener]

Thanks for that. I'll get it, based on your recommendation. Without getting into a HDTracks-bashing session, I don't see how it's possible to trust MOST of what they release. How do you know what to trust and what not to trust? Personally, I'm more inclined to trust their releases when they they are willing to state exactly what went into the production. Last time I trusted them was on Ladies of the Canyon.

 

I hope you enjoy that one, it's a great album. I don't really fault them for the lack of information they disclose, although certainly I wish there was more. They receive their files from the record companies, and sometimes they know who did the transfer/mastering and sometimes they don't. True, some of their titles have proven to be bogus, but as I've read (and have experienced myself) they correct these problems as soon as they can, if possible. It shouldn't be that difficult to include information regarding what the source tapes are for each release, and it seems they're trying to include that information with most of their newer releases. I don't work for HDTracks and don't have any association with them (other than as a customer who's purchased many titles), but I think they're generally a great company that could use a little more improvement (and quality control). I really wish they'd offer titles in surround/quad, too (as Rhino started to do with their meager two-title campaign).

[CatManDo]

Qobuz has almost no information on remasterings.

 

The release year is no reliable indication, as Rhino/Warner often reissues the same albums in a new edition without remastering them.

 

It wouldn't make much sense for a label to remaster a title and then make it available as a 16/44 download only, on sites that offer hi-rez downloads.

 

So my conclusion is rather that 16/44 downloads are not new remasters.

[Robert Hutton]

Qobuz has almost no information on remasterings.

 

The release year is no reliable indication, as Rhino/Warner often reissues the same albums in a new edition without remastering them.

 

It wouldn't make much sense for a label to remaster a title and then make it available as a 16/44 download only, on sites that offer hi-rez downloads.

 

So my conclusion is rather that 16/44 downloads are not new remasters.

 

That makes perfect sense. No label would remaster anything in 16/44 anymore, let alone to be sold on a hi-res DL site.

[hdlistener]

That makes perfect sense. No label would remaster anything in 16/44 anymore, let alone to be sold on a hi-res DL site.

I'm afraid you are correct. I've sampled a bunch of single songs from hopefully-remastered albums, however they're definitely not remastered. Oh well.

[bleedink]

A bit off subject but Ladies of the Canyon gave me shivers. I haven't seen anything on it so I may be stirring a pot of something rancid but I was seriously impressed with that one.

 

I hope you enjoy that one, it's a great album. I don't really fault them for the lack of information they disclose, although certainly I wish there was more. They receive their files from the record companies, and sometimes they know who did the transfer/mastering and sometimes they don't. True, some of their titles have proven to be bogus, but as I've read (and have experienced myself) they correct these problems as soon as they can, if possible. It shouldn't be that difficult to include information regarding what the source tapes are for each release, and it seems they're trying to include that information with most of their newer releases. I don't work for HDTracks and don't have any association with them (other than as a customer who's purchased many titles), but I think they're generally a great company that could use a little more improvement (and quality control). I really wish they'd offer titles in surround/quad, too (as Rhino started to do with their meager two-title campaign).

[jhwalker]

A bit off subject but Ladies of the Canyon gave me shivers. I haven't seen anything on it so I may be stirring a pot of something rancid but I was seriously impressed with that one.

 

I'm thoroughly enjoying "Ladies of the Canyon" myself - one of my favorite Joni Mitchell albums. I can only *hope* they post an even better version (if, indeed, there's something wrong with the current download) in the future

[Snowmonkey]

A bit off subject but Ladies of the Canyon gave me shivers. I haven't seen anything on it so I may be stirring a pot of something rancid but I was seriously impressed with that one.

Not really off subject. It goes to the point that there are plenty of 16/44.1 albums which sounded great in the first place and don't really need re-mastering and Qobuz has these in spades. I gather the problem with Ladies of the Canyon is that it was upsampled, which is a bit irritating if you've paid a premium for a "high resolution" version, but doesn't diminish its quality.

[hdlistener]

Not really off subject. It goes to the point that there are plenty of 16/44.1 albums which sounded great in the first place and don't really need re-mastering and Qobuz has these in spades. I gather the problem with Ladies of the Canyon is that it was upsampled, which is a bit irritating if you've paid a premium for a "high resolution" version, but doesn't diminish its quality.

I also think Ladies sounds great (from HDTracks), but when comparing it to some other 24/192 purchases from there I can better ascertain that it's 16/44.1. I agree with Snowmonkey that it's possible for a redbook CD to sound great, as seems to be the case here. Apparently, from what I've read in other threads here, the hi-res LOTC sold by HDTracks is likely an upsample, not true hi-res. WB supplied this file to them, and I am told HDTracks will upload the corrected file when they receive it from Warners.