The 'Audiophool' and Streaming

[Zensō]

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.

In an increasing number of cases, you may be listening to un-decoded MQA at the Tidal HiFi (CD) level.

 

[Zensō]

Just as a follow up to the OP… There’s nothing inherently wrong with streaming. It’s possible to obtain pristine audio quality while streaming, it just takes a bit more effort to validate the quality of the source.

 

[r042wal]

I got my Qobuz subscription last month as it is finally available in Canda. It sounds great but for the most part, the music on my Aurender sounds better and CD for CD coming from Qobus vs. from Aurender, I find my local music much richer with deeper bass and higher highs.

 

[TSB]

I got my Qobuz subscription last month as it is finally available in Canda. It sounds great but for the most part, the music on my Aurender sounds better and CD for CD coming from Qobus vs. from Aurender, I find my local music much richer with deeper bass and higher highs.

No offense but nobody cares unless you do a proper level-matched double blind test

 

[ahofer]

I got my Qobuz subscription last month as it is finally available in Canda. It sounds great but for the most part, the music on my Aurender sounds better and CD for CD coming from Qobus vs. from Aurender, I find my local music much richer with deeper bass and higher highs.

Yeah, these comparisons aren't useful unless properly controlled (see my signature quotes). But the idea that the frequency range goes lower or higher from streaming to local storage is absurd*. Even if the streaming were somewhat lossy, the highs in the audible range would remain. My guess is that there are level differences between the two sources, which tend to affect human perception most at the lows and highs (see Fletcher-Munson). Otherwise there are low and high-pass filters operating in your electronics.

Some people use this information to make their lives better, some take offense that they were fooled.

*presuming the same master recording locally and streaming, which is often not the case.

 

[NiagaraPete]

I don't think you need much more than a hundred MB NIC to handle audio on a network and I fail to see how streaming would be different.

 

[r042wal]

Yeah, these comparisons aren't useful unless properly controlled (see my signature quotes). But the idea that the frequency range goes lower or higher from streaming to local storage is absurd*. Even if the streaming were somewhat lossy, the highs in the audible range would remain. My guess is that there are level differences between the two sources, which tend to affect human perception most at the lows and highs (see Fletcher-Munson). Otherwise there are low and high-pass filters operating in your electronics.

Some people use this information to make their lives better, some take offense that they were fooled.

*presuming the same master recording locally and streaming, which is often not the case.

I'm glad I've branded myself a 'music lover' because it takes 'the audiophool monkey' off my back and the need to put forward an argument or defense.

 

[r042wal]

No offense but nobody cares unless you do a proper level-matched double blind test

I care and that's really all that matters. BTW, happy to keep my findings and opinions to myself. What's the expression, 'no sweat off my 3alls'

 

[MoreWatts]

There is a financial consequence to 'caring' in this case. If you care, you must buy each CD. If you don't, you can just enjoy almost all the music for the cost of a CD a month.

 

[r042wal]

There is a financial consequence to 'caring' in this case. If you care, you must buy each CD. If you don't, you can just enjoy almost all the music for the cost of a CD a month.

Yes and no. First I did say I like my Qobuz and as a music lover, everything do not all need to be CD quality. I certainly have no problem enjoying music on Qobuz.

 

[HairyEars]

Yeah, these comparisons aren't useful unless properly controlled (see my signature quotes). But the idea that the frequency range goes lower or higher from streaming to local storage is absurd*. Even if the streaming were somewhat lossy, the highs in the audible range would remain. My guess is that there are level differences between the two sources, which tend to affect human perception most at the lows and highs (see Fletcher-Munson). Otherwise there are low and high-pass filters operating in your electronics.

Some people use this information to make their lives better, some take offense that they were fooled.

*presuming the same master recording locally and streaming, which is often not the case.

Also different sources could have different jitter levels. From my experience, a more jittery source tends to muffle the low end.

Yes, I've blind-tested my hypothesis. Focusing on the low end was cue enough to distinguish which was the source. I'm aware people here believe the DAC "takes care" of incoming noise and jitter, but in my case, the DAC inside my Genelec monitors is audibly affected.

 

[ahofer]

Also different sources could have different jitter levels. From my experience, a more jittery source tends to muffle the low end.

Yes, I've blind-tested my hypothesis. Focusing on the low end was cue enough to distinguish which was the source. I'm aware people here believe the DAC "takes care" of incoming noise and jitter, but in my case, the DAC inside my Genelec monitors is audibly affected.

DEMO / MUSINGS: Let's listen to some jitter simulations with sideband distortions...

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

 

[r042wal]

I keep an open mind gentlemen. My SACD connects directly to my preamp. My Aurender is also a streamer so I stream Qobuz from that, through my DAC, and then to my preamp. There is an extra step in the chain and no doubt it is not an even comparison. BTW, I don't use any equalization.

I have a spare set of Celestion Ditton 66 studio monitors. I just received the last of my caps from Falcon and plan to rebuild the first crossover.

I am going to do n REW sweep before I swap out the rebuild cap, then do another sweep with the rebuild in. I will do a second sweep for comparison and would be glad to share my results. At this stage, I'm going from electrolytes to polymer so no account for ESR (yet).

Thanks for the feedback. I live in a small town of 24k people. I'm 2-1/2 hours from big city or a hi-end music shop. I have to wing this as I go along. Someone told me not to be too concerned about restoring the original sound of the Celestions because no one knew what they sounded like when they were new.

Cheers!

 

[NiagaraPete]

I think it's safe to say that this thread has been debunked,

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

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

Pallas's cat?

 

[Hatto]

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.

The bandwidth requirement for RAW 4K footage at 24fps is 637MBps (excluding any audio channels) and it's compressed down to 2-4MBps. Now the bandwidth requirement for RAW redbook stereo audio (16bit-44.1kHz-2ch) is a mere 0.17MBps, which is insignificant in today's day and age. By comparison, the latest WiFi6 standard offers sustained 850MBps throughput (4820x CD-audio bandwidth requirement).

Even if you stream at 24bit-192kHz (which is totally unnecessary due to being audibly indifferent from CD quality) the bandwidth requirement is 1.15MBps which is still much less than compressed 4K video, let alone modern networking speeds.

So NO, hi-res music that is streamed does not need to be compressed at all. As such, it is NOT compressed when advertised as uncompressed. Since it is the same resolution as the original source, anty perceived clarity and resolution differences are either psychoacoustic or due to different masterings.

NOTE: By "MBps" I mean Mbytes/ses, NOT Mbits/sec

 

[voodooless]

I think you mixed up some Mbps and MBps. Redbook is about ~1.4 Mbps, not 0.17.

 

[buz]

I think you mixed up some Mbps and MBps. Redbook is about ~1.4 Mbps, not 0.17.

And no streaming video comes in at 15 MByte/s (sadly)

 

[Hatto]

I think you mixed up some Mbps and MBps. Redbook is about ~1.4 Mbps, not 0.17.

They're all megaBYTEs, just a capitalization error.

 

[Hatto]

And no streaming video comes in at 15 MByte/s (sadly)

You're right, I corrected the numbers, though the point still stands.