Hi-Res audio (qobuz, etc) in an Apple ecosystem
Discussion
I have a iTunes music library (believe they call it Music now, same as their subscription streaming service, which is just confusing).
Some of it is digitised vinyl or CDs, and some purchased from iTunes. I believe iTunes purchases (as opposed to streaming from Apple Music) are "CD quality" ie 16 bit, 44.1 KHz files. Some sound pretty good, a lot don't.
I prefer to purchase music rather than subscribe to some algorithm, but I do subscribe to iTunes Match. I believe for efficiency they try to match my library to the Apple Music library and stream from there if they have it, I've no idea if that's at "lossless" quality or whatever (come to that, I've no idea what "apple lossless" even is, ie vs "Hi-res", etc). Fun fact: a fair few of the iTunes purchases show as "Lossless" in the library even though Apple themselves say that purchased tracks are only 256/44.1 "cd quality" AAC files.
Anyway.... I got a free trial of Qobuz and of course they offer "Hi res" audio files - so although I don't like streaming I thought I'd use it and check out this "Hi res" business, and see if I can tell the difference.
BUT these days I optimise for an easy life, so mostly listen to music via Airpods or Homepods. It's my (limited) understanding that Airpods and Homepods only play files at 16 bit 44.1 anyway, no matter what the original file is. So playing the Hi-res files from Qobuz shouldn't sound any better... but somehow I was convinced that - in one or two cases - they did.
Then again, just for fun I also had a listen through decent headphones plugged into an Audient EVO (which has a fairly decent DAC). And to my ears it didn't sound much better than the same files on Airpods.
So, here's the questions
1) Is Hi-res audio really a thing, is it worth the effort or is it snake oil?
2) Is it possible the Qobuz hi-res files sound better, even when rendered/played at "CD quality"?
3) Is it more likely that too many years of playing and listening to metal etc means my hearing can't be relied on!
Some of it is digitised vinyl or CDs, and some purchased from iTunes. I believe iTunes purchases (as opposed to streaming from Apple Music) are "CD quality" ie 16 bit, 44.1 KHz files. Some sound pretty good, a lot don't.
I prefer to purchase music rather than subscribe to some algorithm, but I do subscribe to iTunes Match. I believe for efficiency they try to match my library to the Apple Music library and stream from there if they have it, I've no idea if that's at "lossless" quality or whatever (come to that, I've no idea what "apple lossless" even is, ie vs "Hi-res", etc). Fun fact: a fair few of the iTunes purchases show as "Lossless" in the library even though Apple themselves say that purchased tracks are only 256/44.1 "cd quality" AAC files.
Anyway.... I got a free trial of Qobuz and of course they offer "Hi res" audio files - so although I don't like streaming I thought I'd use it and check out this "Hi res" business, and see if I can tell the difference.
BUT these days I optimise for an easy life, so mostly listen to music via Airpods or Homepods. It's my (limited) understanding that Airpods and Homepods only play files at 16 bit 44.1 anyway, no matter what the original file is. So playing the Hi-res files from Qobuz shouldn't sound any better... but somehow I was convinced that - in one or two cases - they did.
Then again, just for fun I also had a listen through decent headphones plugged into an Audient EVO (which has a fairly decent DAC). And to my ears it didn't sound much better than the same files on Airpods.
So, here's the questions
1) Is Hi-res audio really a thing, is it worth the effort or is it snake oil?
2) Is it possible the Qobuz hi-res files sound better, even when rendered/played at "CD quality"?
3) Is it more likely that too many years of playing and listening to metal etc means my hearing can't be relied on!
This is just my opinion and not based on any "facts".
I have a high end hifi system (£10k) and have found:
I can't tell the difference between 16bit and 24bit music.
I can tell the difference between Tidal and Qobuz at the same resolution - Qobuz is better. More detailed and just sounds nicer.
The mastering of the recording makes the biggest difference to my ears - some recordings are mastered beautifully and some are s
t. I have some original 80s and 90s CDs that I prefer to remastered ones.
I can tell if something is less than CD quality (i.e. MP3) but in an environment like a car, it really doesn't matter.
Spending money on speakers is the best bang for your buck.
I love metal music! (this is a fact)
I have a high end hifi system (£10k) and have found:
I can't tell the difference between 16bit and 24bit music.
I can tell the difference between Tidal and Qobuz at the same resolution - Qobuz is better. More detailed and just sounds nicer.
The mastering of the recording makes the biggest difference to my ears - some recordings are mastered beautifully and some are s
t. I have some original 80s and 90s CDs that I prefer to remastered ones. I can tell if something is less than CD quality (i.e. MP3) but in an environment like a car, it really doesn't matter.
Spending money on speakers is the best bang for your buck.
I love metal music! (this is a fact)
Edited by Sixsixtysix on Wednesday 31st December 21:20
Edited by Sixsixtysix on Wednesday 31st December 21:20
Tidal has changed since they dropped MQA encryption, I’d say it now sounds on a par with Qobuz. I did have MQA decryption hardware at the time, that worked well with Tidal, but not really better than Qobuz or Apple Music lossless
These days I’d say go with any of Apple Music, Qobuz or Tidal, whichever has the music you like and subscription plan you can live with
These days I’d say go with any of Apple Music, Qobuz or Tidal, whichever has the music you like and subscription plan you can live with
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff