The 'Audiophool' and Streaming

[buz]

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

I wholly agree on music being easy to stream uncompressed

 

[antcollinet]

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.

Hell Yes!

 

[Keith_W]

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.

The network being able to handle the stream is one thing, the streaming company that has to pay for the bandwidth is another.

 

[jhwalker]

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.

Your "known fact" ... isn't.

They stream, bit-perfect, at full resolution up to the limit they support.

So your whole premise is incorrect.

 

[Hatto]

The network being able to handle the stream is one thing, the streaming company that has to pay for the bandwidth is another.

I don't see streaming providers intentionally lying about their promise to the customer to save on paying for bandwidth as a plausible possibility.

I've also remember seeing a test of streaming from Tidal/Qobuz being "bitperfect", though I couldn't find it just now.

 

[voodooless]

I definitely want my Redbook streams to fill my GBit connection

 

[TSB]

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.

A perfectly reasonable thing, but a bit weird on a website that has the opposite agenda

 

[antcollinet]

A perfectly reasonable thing, but a bit weird on a website that has the opposite agenda

what? You think here we want to put the audiophool monkey ON peoples backs?

 

[TSB]

The network being able to handle the stream is one thing, the streaming company that has to pay for the bandwidth is another.

You can't just "secretly send less bits", the streamer receiving it will run into trouble

 

[HairyEars]

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

You see, that's a form of extremism.
You're asking me to belief an internet post and reject my own blind-test findings. "Who do you trust? Me, or your lying ears?"

 

[AndrewC]

The network being able to handle the stream is one thing, the streaming company that has to pay for the bandwidth is another.

Tidal and Qobuz don't stream directly to consumers, they employ CDNs globally, mainly Amazon CloudFront.

 

[Steven Holt]

Pallas's cat?

It is indeed. Cute cat and bad temper (no resemblance intended!)

 

[antcollinet]

You see, that's a form of extremism.
You're asking me to belief an internet post and reject my own blind-test findings. "Who do you trust? Me, or your lying ears?"

Problem is

1 - We don't know how good your blind test protocol was (blind tests on actual equipment are hard to do well). And your ears (like everyone else's) will lie to you at every opportunity.
2 - Even if there *was* a difference in the audio for you to hear, we have no idea if that was due to jitter or some other characteristic of the source.
3 - We DO know that jitter has to be much much worse than even barely competent dacs will allow through, in order for it to be audible.

So Occam's razor is applied.

 

[Galliardist]

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.

That's true, you're not really in a position to make claims about the sound quality of the files when playing through different DACs, especially when one is the DirectStream DAC which is measured here (controversially, as I understand it) to have sufficient distortion to sound different. If I remember rightly, the two devices you are using also output at different voltages, so there would be some work needed to level match, etc. If there is really a difference between CD and streaming, the device chain is far more likely to be causing it than the source, assuming the same master. It should be hard to tell the MP3 option in Tidal from a CD, and certainly difference between streaming and disc should not be obviously deeper bass and higher highs, as you report.

It doesn't matter that much, really. If you are hearing consistently inferior streaming though, it's worth investigating because you may have something wrong in the replay chain holding it back. Having said that, I get some inferior streaming due to differing (remastered) files on streaming services: but I've also found better, so it isn't a guaranteed thing.

It seems that dynamically compressed music actually makes for higher bitrate FLACs from the way the compression works, but I can't find certain proof of that claim and surprisingly I don't have examples in my collection! So the possible reading I had for one of your comments, which was that the streaming services dynamically compress music to save money, doesn't appear to hold either. Maybe someone here can demonstrate one way or the other.

 

[HairyEars]

Problem is

1 - We don't know how good your blind test protocol was (blind tests on actual equipment are hard to do well). And your ears (like everyone else's) will lie to you at every opportunity.
2 - Even if there *was* a difference in the audio for you to hear, we have no idea if that was due to jitter or some other characteristic of the source.
3 - We DO know that jitter has to be much much worse than even barely competent dacs will allow through, in order for it to be audible.

So Occam's razor is applied.

When it comes to digital streamers, the only characteristics are jitter and noise level, given you play the same file.

 

[antcollinet]

When it comes to digital streamers, the only characteristics are jitter and noise level, given you play the same file.

And the streamer doesn't manipulate the file in some way. Plus - the discussion was about different sources feeding the streamer (I think). So far from certain the file is the same.

 

[r042wal]

There are hundreds of conversations on the Internet about the sound comparisons of privately owned CDs vs CDs from streaming companies, Qobuz in my example. I am not in the 'subjectiveness' category contrary to my CDs seeming to sound better than the same CD played on Qobuz. Is it possible that streaming companies use CDs that are 'version specific' to their field where there might me some compression or the top and bottom ends have been lobbed off to preserve bandwidth and allow streaming companies to stream with more efficiency at their end? I'm just throwing this out.

BTW, listening to Chicago on Qobuz this very moment and it sounds great. I have never had a problem with Qobuz since being a subscriber 5 weeks now.

 

[r042wal]

That's true, you're not really in a position to make claims about the sound quality of the files when playing through different DACs, especially when one is the DirectStream DAC which is measured here (controversially, as I understand it) to have sufficient distortion to sound different. If I remember rightly, the two devices you are using also output at different voltages, so there would be some work needed to level match, etc.

I have no argument with my DirectStream. It was a price I could not say no to, but it did make a big improvement to what my ears had been hearing before. However, that being said, I would never by another PSA product again and it has nothing to do with my DAC.

 

[HairyEars]

And the streamer doesn't manipulate the file in some way. Plus - the discussion was about different sources feeding the streamer (I think). So far from certain the file is the same.

No, the discussion was different streamers feeding the DAC.

 

[Galliardist]

And the streamer doesn't manipulate the file in some way. Plus - the discussion was about different sources feeding the streamer (I think). So far from certain the file is the same.

I was definitely discussing processing. Devices used for streaming can have DSP features, additional software volume control even on digital outputs, normalisation, you name it. It always pays to read the manual.

In this case we are also discussing a comparison where the CD is being played on a completely different source.