The 'Audiophool' and Streaming

[r042wal]

I am puzzled by the ‘audiophool’ and streaming. Don’t get me wrong, I think streaming can very convenient and is a great way to hear music that you don’t have in your collection. As a matter of fact, I have a Tidal account although I don’t use it much.

However, no matter how good your Internet connection is, there is not the same bandwidth for hi-res music as there is on a local system hardwired with interconnects to coax or i2s. Also, factor in sources like Qobuz, Tital and the like, they are heard to have stripped down copies to conserve bandwidth (compressed) and facilitate more efficient streaming - this being the reason why the same Redbook in your CD collection sounds better than the Redbook CD from a streaming service.

Is anyone on this page with me? How does the audiophool that believes in directional fuses and directional wires reconcile streaming in their mega-thousand dollar rigs?

 

[Somafunk]

Personally I couldn’t care less, Tidal/Apple Music is convenient and I’d be fooling myself if I thought any different, I can stream 4k video so I fail to see how bandwidth is an issue.

And audiophool shite such as cables/fuses can get in the fu**ing sea

 

[Purité Audio]

Roon shows you the exact signal path, I am happy to listen to 44.1, they sound identical to my ripped CDs.
Keith

 

[symphara]

However, no matter how good your Internet connection is, there is not the same bandwidth for hi-res music as there is on a local system hardwired with interconnects to coax or i2s.

You are indeed mistaken. My Internet connection is 10Gbps (fiber) but internally I can only do at most 1.5Gbps wirelessly (WiFi 6) and 1Gbps wired, since I only have 1Gbps Ethernet switches and NICs.

So you pay for a Tidal subscription that you don’t really use and you call other people “fools”? I didn’t get much else out of your post.

 

[r042wal]

I'm not a video expert but every stream of 4k video is compressed 4:1 in comparison to a regular HD frame. No dispute on the 4k video but this help supports my claim that hi-res music that is streamed is also compressed so it is impossible it can have the same clarity and resolution as the original source.

 

[ahofer]

I think streaming services do in fact deliver bit-perfect when promised. They do use different masters, however. See, for instance, Alan Shaw's bit comparisons to CD:

https://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/threads/streaming-services-technically-compromised-compared-with-cd.80585/post-103988

Well, I finally had a moment to compare Michael Tilson Thomas' Romeo and Juliet (excerpts, Track 11: Danse) from the original CD I own (dated 1996), the Amazon Music Prime "HD" delivery and Quobuz "CD 16-bit/44.1kHz" offerings. I don't have access to any other services. It's obvious from the beautifully smooth shape to the entire track's spectral thumbprint that the reason this track sounds so good is that it is technically perfect in its overall sonic balance.

The Amazon stream and the Quobuz stream were captured with the free NHC SoundTap application which grabs audio data in the digital domain as it is streamed from the internet. The physical CD was captured with ExactAudioCopy.

Neither the SoundTap application nor ExactAudioCopy have any adjustable gain (level) controls.

The results are appear to be identical in gain and frequency response as you can see when overlaid. What is even more interesting to me is that the gain is consistent between the bits encoded on the CD and the two streaming services. The implication is clear: these is absolutely no sonic benefit
from owning the CD when a bit-perfect rendition can be streamed and captured.

This may not be true for all music files or for other streaming services. Pending further examination, I must reconsider my psychological hesitancy towards streaming. The further implication is that as the CD is 16 bit/44k and that both basic streaming services deliver as that, it would have no sonic benefit whatever to pay for or expect better from a higher sampling rate.

 

[LTig]

Personally I couldn’t care less, Tidal/Apple Music is convenient and I’d be fooling myself if I thought any different, I can stream 4k video so I fail to see how bandwidth is an issue.

This!

 

[Steven Holt]

I can stream 4k video so I fail to see how bandwidth is an issue.

Thank you for pointing this out and oh I wish more people understood this!!

 

[r042wal]

You are indeed mistaken. My Internet connection is 10Gbps (fiber) but internally I can only do at most 1.5Gbps wirelessly (WiFi 6) and 1Gbps wired, since I only have 1Gbps Ethernet switches and NICs.

So you pay for a Tidal subscription that you don’t really use and you call other people “fools”? I didn’t get much else out of your post.

The point I make is although you have a good fibre connection, Tidal and Qobuz are not streaming at that resolution. It is also a known fact that much of their source material is compressed for more efficient streaming. I'm not sure how many customers Tidal have but if they had 50,000, they are not streaming 1.5 Gbps to each of those customers.

I have my Tidal subscription for a different reason than many of the die-hard audiophiles that flaunt this as the ultimate replacement for vinyl and CDs.

 

[r042wal]

Thank you for pointing this out and oh I wish more people understood this!!

Your 4k streamed video has 4:1 compression

 

[buz]

You are indeed mistaken. My Internet connection is 10Gbps (fiber) but internally I can only do at most 1.5Gbps wirelessly (WiFi 6) and 1Gbps wired, since I only have 1Gbps Ethernet switches and NICs.

So you pay for a Tidal subscription that you don’t really use and you call other people “fools”? I didn’t get much else out of your post.

This.

Never mind that red book is approx 1.5mbps, higher resolution a small multiple thereof.

This is clueless enough that I suspect trolling.

 

[JSmith]

https://tidal.com/sound-quality

Qobuz - Discover and understand high-quality music with Qobuz streaming and downloads.

High sound quality, audio formats, Hi-Fi equipment, resolution and sampling frequency... Qobuz explains and helps you get your bearings.

www.qobuz.com

JSmith

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Audio, even 768 K/24 bit is a low bandwidth application, in these days and ages. 192/24 is only 10 Mb/s... For many Internet connections, 10 Mb/s is considered poor performance. Lossless at 768/24 is easily handled by 20 Mb/s... If you are streaming 2-cha at 44.1/16 ,,, 2 Mb/s is all you need so...
Companies that stream lossless, do not always strip down the masters.
As for CD sounding better than same piece on streams: How did you arrive at that conclusion? If it is with knowledge of what is playing, your results are likely invalid.

Streaming is the present and, yes, future.

Peace.

 

[r042wal]

I notice a lot of speculation on other audio forums whether the streamed CD is the same as the local CD and many comparisons are made.

 

[symphara]

The point I make is although you have a good fibre connection, Tidal and Qobuz are not streaming at that resolution. It is also a known fact that much of their source material is compressed for more efficient streaming.

Is it a known fact? Source, please?

What “resolution” should they stream at? 12 megapixels?

 

[TSB]

The point I make is although you have a good fibre connection, Tidal and Qobuz are not streaming at that resolution. It is also a known fact that much of their source material is compressed for more efficient streaming.

Lossy compression on Tidal? Citation needed.

Also please explain why in the name of Christ they would need 1.5 Gbps for an Audio stream. Uncompressed Losless cd is 1,411 kbps (i.e. 1/1000th of a 1.5 Gbps)

 

[buz]

10mbit would be a super bad day on my low end 4g contract. If it persisted, I'd switch networks

 

[Eetu]

Simply not true, some players show you the bitrate and you can see that for example Qobuz streams you the actual high-res FLAC file.

A lot of early 90s CD versions are different (and often better) than the remasters done in the early 00s. That explains why some people think CDs sound better when it is simply just a case of comparing different masterings.

 

[TSB]

I notice a lot of speculation on other audio forums whether the streamed CD is the same as the local CD and many comparisons are made.

With lossless streaming they are the same. That's why it's called losless.

 

[simbloke]

The point I make is although you have a good fibre connection, Tidal and Qobuz are not streaming at that resolution. It is also a known fact that much of their source material is compressed for more efficient streaming.

Do you have any evidence for this? As far as I know Qobuz stream what they say they stream.

You could capture a streamed track and compare to a CD if you actually wanted to prove it.