The 'Audiophool' and Streaming

[voodooless]

Sorry, but what people ‘think’ is irrelevant if unsupported by evidence.

That what you (and I) think Clearly others think otherwise…

 

[Prana Ferox]

To sum up what others have said:

- Network bandwidth in modern systems is a complete non-issue for audio, even uncompressed multichannel (this also goes for any other network concerns that might get bogged down in other pseudo-techno mumbo-jumbo)

- The provenance and 'fidelity' of the source can be hard to determine when streaming, but it can be hard to determine if you're buying CD or vinyl or whatever as well, even from an expensive 'audiophile' supplier, and many of them are flim-flam

 

[buz]

That is true. Lossless video is actually quite a big step up from what we currently see on consumer formats if you are using a big screen.

I would be happy with reasonable bit rate h265, even.

 

[ahofer]

LOL! Nothing in your list matters. All that’s needed is a comparison of the streamed data that comes out on the computer to the CD.

Which is what Alan Shaw did (linked far above), and many others. Case closed.

But none of that protects us from capricious remastering and the “Loudness Wars”.

 

[fpitas]

I think there is a confusion between audio compression and data compression going on here.

Or, intentional trolling . . .

Oh goodness, what makes you say that

Still, a lot of good information here for those who wonder about streaming. So all is well.

 

[ahofer]

Btw, Tidal won’t always match the CD, not because of behind-the-scenes compression, but because of their much-touted MQA feature.

Tidal 'HiFi' is NOT lossless - GoldenSound

It seems that TIDAL's new 'HiFi' tier does not actually offer true lossless music for many tracks. I do some testing to show this.

goldensound.audio

And here’s some more Deltawave and other comparisons:
Post in thread 'Streaming Services Are Comparatively Different, subjectively…'
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ely-different-subjectively….25062/post-855936

 

[LTig]

You seem to help me get across what I've heard: we don't know what we are being served. I assert based on what I've read, often we are served masters made for streaming companies that have less dynamic range and require less bandwidth to stream.

Rather the opposite is true. The higher the dynamic range the more parts in the music have low volume and and can be compressed better (lower datarate) without losing SQ.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Is anyone on this page with me?

Nope. There's no evidence to support most of your suppositions.

 

[Sined]

In any discussion about streaming, the term "compression" is always misunderstood. There are two meanings for the term "compression", when it comes to streaming:

- Dynamic range compression. Might be intentionally applied, or may be due to poor source material.
- File compression, either lossless or lossy.

I get annoyed by people who say that streaming services are "compressed" which is why the sound quality is poor. If they meant the former, then yes of course it is poor. If they meant the latter, then I would have to disagree. There is nothing wrong with lossless compression, and even lossy compression can be difficult to pick unless you really know what you are listening for.

Using JRiver "analyse audio" tool I compared the dynamic range (DR) of an album that I have from both sources, Tidal and CD: no difference at all.

Of course, we can't conclude seriously with only one sample..( ), so I looked at the DR values browsing a bunch of album downloaded from Tidal and while most of them are in the 7-10 range, many of them are in the 10-15 range which is excellent and obviously not compressed. Doing the same with my CDs, I could see that most of them also scores in the 7-10 range, not any better than Tidal.

So, based on this very limited study... I would say that there is no evidence that Tidal processes the audio to lower their DR (for whatever reason..) and like Keith_W wrote, if the DR is low, it is due to poor source material.

 

[MAB]

Jimshoe, you help take the enjoyment out of opening a legitimate discussion on this board. Sorry I brought to topic up. Have a great day everyone!

Hey. I understand we (I) buzzkilled you. Let me try to make good... @voodooless gave a list of things that require understanding before you would be able to sort things out. Learning those would be fun.
For starters, I love this video (I first saw it linked on ASR ...)
It will give you some fundamentals of digital audio, dispel some notions that are endemic in consumer audio sales, and is a step in understanding audio compression, and audio normalization, and the differences.

 

[Peterinvan]

You seem to help me get across what I've heard: we don't know what we are being served. I assert based on what I've read, often we are served masters made for streaming companies that have less dynamic range and require less bandwidth to stream.

It's not my intention to promote or start rumors here. I'm naturally curious and came here looking for feedback and to see if anyone else is on my page. From my personal experience, I prefer my local library over Tidal in nearly all cases. I find music on Tidal can (though not always) sound sharp or lack bass. This is just my experience.

BTW, thank you for all the comments and feedback.

I use Foobar2000 to play my ripped CD collection. If needed I can add parametric EQ to taste.

Most of the time I listen to the Tidal app on my PC. No EQ available in the Tidal app.

I suspect that these two apps serve up the music slightly differently (i.e with no EQ applied), resulting in a slight difference in sound. There is a noticeable difference in volume (Tidal being louder). I listen to the Tidal "Masters", just because of FOMO.

My old ears cannot really pick out a significant difference in sound quality.

 

[Keith_W]

Using JRiver "analyse audio" tool I compared the dynamic range (DR) of an album that I have from both sources, Tidal and CD: no difference at all.

Wow, JRiver can do that? I have been using JRiver for 10 years and there is still functionality that I am still discovering! Thanks, I will go take a look and analyse some albums! I have noticed some drop in quality from some streamed music compared to ripped CD, but I have always put that down to poor quality sources. Now I can see what's going on instead of wondering if it's my imagination!

 

[r042wal]

Gentlemen, thank you, I rest my case. The dialog has been very informative and an eye-opener for me. For the record, I picked up the term 'audiophool' for the first time from Amir and an article he published.

OP

 

[JSmith]

The main issue I have with Tidal and partly why I choose not to use it is their affiliation with MQA... you know not being bit for bit lossless (although is perceptually so).


JSmith

 

[Hatto]

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.

Couldn't be further from the truth. Even if one plays 24bit 192kHz audio, they'd only need 1.1 megabytes per second whereas even the lousiest wifi connection cen provided orders of magnitude better bandwidth than that.

 

[TSB]

Gentlemen, thank you, I rest my case. The dialog has been very informative and an eye-opener for me. For the record, I picked up the term 'audiophool' for the first time from Amir and an article he published.

OP

Your posts after the first one have been in my eyes very respectful, I hope you will forgive our bluntness! I'm not a big fan of the audiophool term myself, it reeks of a sense of superiority from people who happen to have some niche knowledge.

 

[fieldcar]

Your posts after the first one have been in my eyes very respectful, I hope you will forgive our bluntness! I'm not a big fan of the audiophool term myself, it reeks of a sense of superiority from people who happen to have some niche knowledge.

Yeah. I think we need to stop sharpening the blades of troll defense and instead amp up the patient education that this place is built up on. We don't need a flame war every time someone has a slightly incorrect presumption that is preached on other forums.

 

[Deleted member 51584]

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.

I have over 25 units in my house that operate at up to 24/192 and three others that operate at 24/96. They all work wirelessly and are Roon Ready. I can group them with Roon and I've had over 20 playing at once, 24/192 streams (the streaming rate is known from some of the devices), all wirelessly. I have the basic fibre service for where I live, I could have a service twice as fast. I have 90 active IP addresses in our house and no connectivity issues at all. Getting one 24/192 stream to work was a problem in the dim and distant past. A good home network for 100+ devices helps for a larger house, but it's not expense at all these days.

 

[Overseas]

I only know that the vast majority of my CDs sound 1. different and 2. more to my like than same music streamed via Tidal CD quality.

 

[HairyEars]

The music I listen to can be found exclusively on a hand of streaming services, which makes the comparison between local and remote sources moot.