That what you (and I) think Clearly others think otherwise…Sorry, but what people ‘think’ is irrelevant if unsupported by evidence.
That what you (and I) think Clearly others think otherwise…Sorry, but what people ‘think’ is irrelevant if unsupported by evidence.
I would be happy with reasonable bit rate h265, even.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.
Which is what Alan Shaw did (linked far above), and many others. Case closed.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.
Oh goodness, what makes you say thatI think there is a confusion between audio compression and data compression going on here.
Or, intentional trolling . . .
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.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.
Nope. There's no evidence to support most of your suppositions.Is anyone on this page with me?
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.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.
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.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!
I use Foobar2000 to play my ripped CD collection. If needed I can add parametric EQ to taste.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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
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.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.
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.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.