Tidal hifi vs. physical flac file sound quality on BDP

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 7514 times.

Krutsch

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 568
Re: Tidal hifi vs. physical flac file sound quality on BDP
« Reply #20 on: 31 May 2017, 10:50 pm »
Based on the above quotes, both the OP and others weren't using Bryston products. To the OP and others - did the device you use for Tidal cache the streamed files? If not, then to answer the questions you posed, you should audition a Bryston or other streamer that uses a cache.

Every streaming endpoint does this; the only question is how much data can the device retain across multiple tracks (and for how long). AURALiC recently made a big deal about adding "caching" to their streaming platform, but what they are describing is really buffering, not caching:

Quote
From AURALiC: Introducing Memory Cache. Memory Cache feature will pre-load track into device memory (not SSD!) to achieve better sound quality, it also helps to improve streaming stability. Memory Cache size for ARIES/ARIES LE: 512MB; ARIES MINI: 64MB. Tracks with size bigger than the memory cache will be buffered by several segments automatically. Memory Cache function does not work under Internet Radio, AirPlay, Songcast, Bluetooth and Roon input method because of the data is streamed in real time from host device.

One way this might (:roll:) "sound better" is reduced electrical noise from the now inactive SSD, which previously was reading data in chunks, continuously, during playback. But, again, this has nothing to do with jitter.

Every streamer I've seen with TIDAL starts playback immediately, after buffering a small amount of data, and then keeping the buffer full ahead of normal playback speed. A larger buffer improves streaming stability as it allows for variations in network speed without "starving" the buffer that is feeding the DAC. But, again, any problems here are seen as dropouts or clicks - not "a compressed soundstage" or "less air between the instruments."

Stercom

Re: Tidal hifi vs. physical flac file sound quality on BDP
« Reply #21 on: 1 Jun 2017, 09:38 pm »
AURALiC recently made a big deal about adding "caching" to their streaming platform, but what they are describing is really buffering, not caching

Just saw your response. What's the difference between a buffer and cache? (I truly don't know). Based on your response, I just listened to a couple of tracks with the cache (or buffer or whatever it is) turned on and then turned off. Neither one had any drop-outs or clicks. Seems pretty clear to me it sounds better with it turned on. Granted, it wasn't a blind test though.