AudioCircle
Industry Circles => Bryston Limited => Topic started by: wplash666 on 22 Feb 2020, 12:59 pm
-
Tried Qobuz this week and just seems to me my ripped cds sound better. Anyone else come to the same conclusion? I'm using a BDP-2 thru an SP-1.7.
-
Not my experience. I have a fairly highly resolving system and cannot reliably tell the difference between CDs (played on Bryston CD-3), ripped CDs or Qobuz or Tidal. Often differences in masterings are noticeable. In all honesty though I don't spend much time comparing. If I don't hear a difference in the first 30 seconds or so I drop it and move on. I'm using a Lumin T-1 Streamer/DAC. Perhaps the Bryston is more revealing of subtle differences.
-
It is quite common for streaming services to be a notch down audibly from ripped cds or hi-rez downloads. I've heard it several times. I don't know what you're experiencing, but in the comparisons I've heard the differences aren't in tonality, but rather the size/depth of the soundstage, and a more 2 dimensional presentation from streaming rather than 3 dimensional from a server.
-
Qobuz is VG. I as well prefer my server. Have yet to try Hi-Rez downloads. The only ones I would buy are ones recorded in DSD or 24/192. Not a fan of upsampling. Bluecoast Records offers DSD download just have to like the music selection. IMHO the best recordings I have in Digital.
charles
-
It wouldn't surprise me. The Bryston BDP's are very sensitive in the sound produced as a result of what inputs/outputs (NAS vs. USB) are engaged and what service (MPD vs. Tidal vs. Roon) is used despite playing the same identical file. With Qobuz and streaming services in general, you first have to confirm whether your local ripped files are same as what Tidal offers. Local playback of uncompressed WAVs is what's the best to my ears.
-
Tried Qobuz this week and just seems to me my ripped cds sound better. Anyone else come to the same conclusion? I'm using a BDP-2 thru an SP-1.7.
I came to this conclusion a while back.Ripped CDs sound better than both Qobuz and Tidal. Its no contest. In fact, ripped CDs sound better than high resolution downloads from HD Tracks. This is the reason I continue to buy CDs rather than bother with downloads or Qobuz. So, you are absolutely correct in your conclusion.
-
Glad I'm not the only one.
-
And I thought I was ear-llucinating. :lol:
Flac CD rips, MP3-320 downloads > most hi-res 192/24 and DSD > Tidal
YMMV as usual. :roll:
-
Streaming almost anything whether Youtube, Spotify etc... have all been far less hi rez than direct FLAC files off your hard drive.
Mainly most people streaming are using generic devices to play back thru a headphone jack or other 200 dollar all in one DACs.
But I can assure you I have done extensive testing and streaming cannot sound as good as most FLAC files direct from your equipment. Even vs. Aurilic devices etc... that I have put plenty of time in with.
An example recently the new Tool Album Fear Inoculum came out on many streaming sources.
I then got the 24 bit download from HD tracks.
Forget it not even close. The HD tracks direct from the FLAC file is basically like comparing listening to MP3 on everything with streaming.
I have found this to be the case 99% of the time regardless of album.
But many people will defend streaming to the death because they literally don't have the Hi rez downloads or the original Redbook CD ripped thru a lossless program to even honestly directly compare, or verify the same albums so they think it sounds as good, and it is good, but its just not as good without a lot of hassle :-)
[In a car, portable Blu tooth setups, or headphones streaming will always sound good, but on a serious large hi rez - hi end system you will always hear a difference vs. pure FLAC files, or Vinyl, or even Redbook CD almost every time on basic equipment it just won't matter enough for the money though.]
-
Off topic. I have been ripping into server using WAV. I found WAV to sound better than FLAC. Am I alone on this ? Streaming is convenient, less expensive at the press of a button. Using iPeng instead of Roon at $10/year. Cheaper and sounds better.
charles
-
Rollo, Do you use IPeng with a computer as a server/front end or with a streamer?
I like IPeng.
-
WAV vs. FLAC should essentially sound identical.
The problem with WAV is tagging, and much equipment and software does not play WAV as well. But its not really a choice between better or not. FLAC is much more universally capable is really what it comes down to in the end.
From experience in the early testing years ago WAV was a bit more grainy sounding than equivalent lossless FLAC add on the tagging metadata issues... FLAC is the all around winner and why most hi rez files are sourced from FLAC today vs. 1999 when WAV was a primary simple format from redbook.
-
And I thought I was ear-llucinating. :lol:
Flac CD rips, MP3-320 downloads > most hi-res 192/24 and DSD > Tidal
YMMV as usual. :roll:
So, you are saying:
MP3s are greater than hi-res, and hi-res is greater than Tidal
Did I get that right?
-
So, you are saying:
MP3s are greater than hi-res, and hi-res is greater than Tidal
Did I get that right?
Nope. Read the post. Important qualifiers in it.
-
Other than SQ, my main issue as a classical music nut, is getting the specific performance I want to hear.
Examples: The Verdi Requiem has over 40 different performances available on Redbook CDs.. Beethoven's 9th has over 50. Brahm's First has over 30, etc.
By the time it takes to find and get the specific performance I want to hear - - IF the server has it available - - I can slip the requisite Redbook CD from my collection into my BCD-3, sit back and listen.
Guess I'm truly antediluvian.
-
Streaming is decent for exploring efficiently new musik that's unfamiliar to me.
Discs collection, download library, that's for stuff I know I like, keepers.
In the end, I go back to my owned libraries for listening at top SQ on my system. No Streaming.
-
As I said in a similar thread, I think I might know what is happening. My hypothesis is as follows:
It isn't just you- but it's also not an innate fault of streaming. Listening to streamed audio from a PC? Not sounding the same as directly played CD? Here is my suggestion from this thread:
Assuming you are using the streaming app on a computer (I use a Mac but that is not important to what follows), open the app and look at the volume control setting within the Tidal app.
If it is all the way up (to the right), which is the default, there is your problem. You might (as I did) assume that full volume on a digital slider would provide unity gain (one of my player apps actually states this), but you’d be wrong. The Tidal app (along with many other audio apps) actually applies gain at maximum volume setting, which results in clipping on loud passages. I discovered this after installing SoundSource on my Mac. This app has small meters that change color when the signal clips. Clipping is bad and will sound bad, and you will notice immediately once it is gone.
Fortunately this problem isn’t that hard to fix- its just that nobody seems to know about it*. For those who use a Mac, buy Rogue Amoeba SoundSource ($20). Play an album with really loud peaks (Chick Corea’s Trilogy works well) (another good candidate would be the infamous Telarc 1812 cannons) and adjust the volume down until the little meters stop turning red on the loudest passages. This will actually be about 2/3 of the way up on the slider. NOTE, selecting the DAC as the output device grays out the System volume adjustment (on a Mac anyway) so you must set the source app correctly. Reducing the volume downstream doesn't 'un-clip' a clipped source.
If you use a Windows machine, you’ll need to do a little research to find the appropriate software to accomplish the same thing. What you need is probably a VST metering plugin that incorporates some type of clipping indicator. You need it to sample the output of the player or streamer app directly. I'm sure there is something on the Windows platform that does something similar to SoundSource or AudioHijack. Set the meter to 'Peak' mode and experiment as described above.
I have found that virtually all digital music apps with their own volume controls have this problem - both web-based streamers and standalone player apps. Only VLC has a little tick mark on their volume slider denoting unity gain. On a player app, you can also play a calibrated test tone through a metering plugin to accomplish calibration. Streaming apps are a little more challenging to set.
I think you’ll find, as I did, that a signal that isn’t clipping sounds better than one that is. My Modi Multibit sounded like a whole different animal after getting things right. Garbage in, garbage out.
I wonder how much business the lossless streaming services are losing due to people not actually getting the SQ they’re paying (extra!) for. Judging by the discussions I see on this site alone, I'm guessing quite a few. I see debates about which streaming service does the best job delivering the exact same digital file to your DAC. I also wonder how much money gets spent on faulty solutions. This question came up in another thread, and the OP was inundated with suggestions about which magic USB cable to buy. Eliminating the clipping is the first step, if that is in fact what is happening in your system. Ever hear someone say that digital in general (or streaming in particular), sounds ‘hard’? I can't help thinking this could be why in at least some cases. After I solved this problem, local ripped files and streamed versions sound indistinguishable (to me; YMMV).
*Including the streaming providers, who showed little interest when I contacted them.
Hope somebody finds this helpful.
-
Off topic. I have been ripping into server using WAV. I found WAV to sound better than FLAC. Am I alone on this ? Streaming is convenient, less expensive at the press of a button. Using iPeng instead of Roon at $10/year. Cheaper and sounds better.
charles
Charles, WAV files will sound better than FLAC on a good system because the server has to "uncompress" the FLAC file on the fly, requiring processing power and effort, adding noise. You can uncompress your FLAC files back to the original size as WAV with Db Poweramp and maintain the tagging. These are called Uncompressed FLAC, and are the same as an original WAV rip. Win, win.
-
WAV sounds hoarse to me, compared to Flac on my system. Almost never fails. Can be subtle, but in the end, I like Flac.
In the end, if the rec is well mastered to begin with, file format is irrelevant.
-
dB Cooper and Undertow,
Thanks for both your inputs. Definitely something for me to think about particularly dB’s advice. We absolutely don’t want to be clipping the digital signal prior to sending it to the DAC! I am one of those dinosaurs who has yet to make the jump to streaming and don’t have Tidal or Qobuz account primarily cause my ISP can get choppy at times. Everything I have is ripped from CD’s or are downloads (AIFF or FLAC) from online.
Given that the great majority of music was streamed in my last attended audio show (Florida Audio Expo) you can imagine if the problem starts from the source, the entire equipment chain will render a muddied performance!
I wonder if the Roon digital engine with Tidal or Qobuz running within corrects the egregious deficiencies dBCooper has stated? Anyone know?
Best,
Anand.
-
dB Cooper and Undertow,
Thanks for both your inputs. Definitely something for me to think about particularly dB’s advice.....
Some of dB's comments could be valid in general, but aren't the reason why streaming services universally sound slightly duller and less dimensional than streaming from a good server. I don't know the reason but can confirm what the OP asked, that the services don't sound quite as good.
WAV vs. FLAC should essentially sound identical......
WAV and "uncompressed" FLAC do sound exactly the same, if taken from the same source, as they are exactly the same file. WAV and "compressed" FLAC can/do sound different depending on the source.
......FLAC is the all around winner and why most hi rez files are sourced from FLAC today vs. 1999 when WAV was a primary simple format from redbook.
No, FLAC is the winner with hi-rez downloads because the file size is smaller than WAV making it easier to store and transfer. You should still uncompress your hi-rez FLAC files (and even 16 bit files) to full size after downloading/ripping. You don't want the server to "uncompress" files on the fly for best sound quality.
-
There's some really good information on this thread. Thanks everyone.
I don't do streaming (yet) but have recently been converting my WAV library to FLAC. In the process I'm tagging the files and adding album artwork. Because of this thread I'm confident that I'm on the right track.
-
I guess because some are over complicating the reality in differences here...
The fact is END user equipment and storage of files are going to dictate how good, or high end you really can make any of these files sound.
1 - When possible highly suggest not using a full blown PC or Mac running standard operating systems, best to have a dedicated simple music server interface when possible. This also eliminates the noise and processors adding heat, and power draw from already insufficient power supplies for audio.
2 - Definitely try to use SSD drives and Flash drives. Again dumps excess power draw on already non-audio power supplies, gets rid of Mechanical movement, and noise which is similar to eliminating the CD transport in the first place and running static files off a hard drive. No real lag, buffering etc...
3 - Yes it is difficult to accomplish this because most "Audiophile" dedicated server components with a basic visual interface to access files can get ridiculous in price considering you can buy a near top of the line Laptop today for $400 to $700 and do your taxes, run audio, stream movies, and every other business, and gaming function on the planet when these stand alone machines with one piece of software, and basic USB interfaces can cost you in the thousands.
4 - I agree you need to source the FLAC files from a good lossless process, rip with DB poweramp, convert with DB poweramp etc...
-
Rollo, Do you use IPeng with a computer as a server/front end or with a streamer?
I like IPeng.
No I use a music server. I stream Qobuz through the server. iPeng controls the library and selections.
charles
-
There's some really good information on this thread. Thanks everyone.
n the process I'm tagging the files
I don't do streaming (yet) but have recently been converting my WAV library to FLAC.
Why would you do that? You seem to be working backwards. If you import with dbpoweramp, you get cover art with both .wav and .aif files which are uncompressed. Flac is a lossy file whose compression maybe inaudible, but it is compressed just the same. I use .aif and now .wav.
-
Why would you do that? You seem to be working backwards. If you import with dbpoweramp, you get cover art with both .wav and .aif files which are uncompressed. Flac is a lossy file whose compression maybe inaudible, but it is compressed just the same. I use .aif and now .wav.
FLAC is lossless, not lossy. :wink:
-
FLAC is lossless, not lossy. :wink:
Well sort of. Flac compresses and decompresses for space saving. However, as a purest, I say the less conversion, the better, so why bother with Flac when space is so cheap that you can import files in .wav and .aif? Again, with dbpoweramp, you get cover art for both, and to me, a better sound.
-
FLAC is lossless is lossless is lossless. Period. There is nothing lossy about flac.
FLAC is compressed by default. Most ripping and transcoding software typically have FLAC set at level 5 as the default. With software like XLD, you can get uncompressed FLAC which will produce the exact size as WAV and AIFF. This way you can reap all the benefits of FLAC's near-perfect compatibility with metadata (whereas AIFF can sometimes have certain data fields appear incorrectly or entirely missing. WAV is obviously a further step down in this regard.).
You can go with FLAC compressed or FLAC uncompressed. I always recommend a master FLAC un/compressed library for the initial download/rip. A secondary WAV library can always be batch transcoded in the future for actual playback if needed. However, never rip or download in WAV from the start.
You can load and compare FLAC compressed, ALAC, FLAC uncompressed, AIFF, and WAV from either a singular device/location or cross compare different formats between different locations (USB vs. NAS vs. internal for those with BDP-2/3). You can use theoretical reasoning whether there is actually any difference or not. If there is difference, what are the overall impacts of decoding and I/O read operations between compressed and uncompressed counterparts. FLAC compressed decoding is more broadband/random. Uncompressed decoding is more predictable and has a clear processing pattern. What is better or worse in different regards? You can always your ears to come up with your own personal choice.
I do find slight audible differences between these different configurations that remain consistently present over years. What sounds 'better' or 'worse' can be subjective. I'm personally more interested in understanding 'what's the most accurate output option?'. However, this can only be conclusively answered with objective data and measurements. I hope one day a user or Bryston is able to produce measurements/graphs to conclusively answer this question. I feel confident that these differences are real and thus should be measurable. I'm not sure what suite of measurements will finally provide some insight to this story.
-
For BDA-1 owners (and perhaps even -2 or -3), Bryston indicated that AIFF files were not optimal for their DAC, something to do with processing complexity.
Flac still sounds the best to my ears in my system. And yes, it is lossless.
:popcorn:
-
Where is the “bottleneck” in your processing chain? If it your processor (CPU) then you may want as little data compression as possible to ease the load. If it is data throughput (from whatever storage and bus you use), FLAC can be smaller and will go through faster. Realistically, though, even hi-res music files are much smaller, and the data rate much less, than the video files that we watch (play or stream) and that gamers use; it seems unlikely that any of the file formats or storage types should matter, compared to the programs and hardware we are using to play the files.
-
I remember when power amps measured near zero distortion but didn't sound so good. Audio in general and music in particular is too complex to be solely analyzed by numbers. The numbers can convey important information about what the audio information is but not what the music will sound like. Just as quality musical instruments can have have subtle and nuanced differences in sound it does not make one right and the other wrong. High end audio hardware and software is in effect a musical instrument as well. Whether tubes vs solid state, digital vs analog, or flac vs aiff, there is no right or wrong but rather a matter of individual preference.
-
Amen!
-
FLAC is lossless is lossless is lossless. Period. There is nothing lossy about flac.
FLAC is compressed by default. Most ripping and transcoding software typically have FLAC set at level 5 as the default. With software like XLD, you can get uncompressed FLAC which will produce the exact size as WAV and AIFF. This way you can reap all the benefits of FLAC's near-perfect compatibility with metadata (whereas AIFF can sometimes have certain data fields appear incorrectly or entirely missing. WAV is obviously a further step down in this regard.).
You can go with FLAC compressed or FLAC uncompressed. I always recommend a master FLAC un/compressed library for the initial download/rip. A secondary WAV library can always be batch transcoded in the future for actual playback if needed. However, never rip or download in WAV from the start.
You can load and compare FLAC compressed, ALAC, FLAC uncompressed, AIFF, and WAV from either a singular device/location or cross compare different formats between different locations (USB vs. NAS vs. internal for those with BDP-2/3). You can use theoretical reasoning whether there is actually any difference or not. If there is difference, what are the overall impacts of decoding and I/O read operations between compressed and uncompressed counterparts. FLAC compressed decoding is more broadband/random. Uncompressed decoding is more predictable and has a clear processing pattern. What is better or worse in different regards? You can always your ears to come up with your own personal choice.
I do find slight audible differences between these different configurations that remain consistently present over years. What sounds 'better' or 'worse' can be subjective. I'm personally more interested in understanding 'what's the most accurate output option?'. However, this can only be conclusively answered with objective data and measurements. I hope one day a user or Bryston is able to produce measurements/graphs to conclusively answer this question. I feel confident that these differences are real and thus should be measurable. I'm not sure what suite of measurements will finally provide some insight to this story.
You must be using free ripping software. I use to use free ripping. But since I paid for dbpoweramp, I get all metadata in both wav and air with covert art and all. :wink: Space is no longer an issue so why Flac?
-
:oops:
-
You must be using free ripping software. I use to use free ripping. But since I paid for dbpoweramp, I get all metadata in both wav and air with covert art and all. :wink: Space is no longer an issue so why Flac?
Hi gbaby,
I've used all kinds of ripping software for CDs like EAC, XLD, iTunes, and Roxio Toast. However, I haven't used any CD ripping software in several years as I've switched exclusively to digital downloads. There is no 'ripping' going on.
My WAVs also have cover art and metadata as I choose INFO and id3 chunks. With software like Audirvana Plus, I can all the fields and cover art identical to FLAC counterpart. In Manic Moose, if you take a closer look at the playlist tracks on left, after the timestamp there is simply a dash "-" and then nothing afterwards. This is not the case with FLAC.
Furthermore, WAV with embedded metadata and cover art isn't always recognized correctly in all softwares. FLAC is handled far better universally. AIFF is practically there as well in compatibility on most devices and platforms. WAV is problematic in that regard. My WAV library with metadata and cover art did not do so well with Roon for example as it was creating issues with splitting a single album into multiple albums or having weird order of tracks. The original mixed FLAC/ALAC library on the other hand worked flawlessly with Roon and just about every software.
That is why I prefer to always have a master library of FLAC. As you point out, space and hard drive is cheap so an identical and secondary WAV library can be derived at any moment with batch transcoding in hours for use with playback if one feels they get better sound with WAV. The second library can also serve as a second/third backup. I hope that clears it up?
-
Space is no longer an issue so why Flac?
Hi,
I also forgot to include that there are some Bryston BDP users and reviewers that have experimented and compared these formats themselves for sonic quality and found the compressed FLAC version to sound better than the uncompressed option. So for them, they are using FLAC not for saving space but for sound quality. Most BDP users do tend to prefer the uncompressed format sonically.
For example, the very last page of this 'The Absolute Sound' review of BDP-2 has the reviewer compare FLAC and WAV. He explains his reasoning behind it with some data as well as comments on exactly what he's hearing. He also reviewed Bryston BDP-1. Everyone has a different system and listening preference. With Karl's reviews, you can at least understand what he's hearing and where his preferences lie. Reviews that simply state X is better than Y without any explanation are rarely helpful. Karl typically prefers SPDIF, FLAC, and USB hard drives. He isn't fond of MPD with NAS drives or flash drives at all either.
http://old.bryston.com/PDF/reviews/2015_12_Review_BDP-2_Absolute.pdf
(Good job Bryston on fixing the old Bryston links :thumb:)
On the other hand, there is Naim where both the company and users explicitly and unanimously prefer WAV over FLAC. They all use the on the fly transcode to WAV option.
-
^ In other words, listen for yourself and decide what's best in your system. :D
-
http://old.bryston.com/PDF/reviews/2015_12_Review_BDP-2_Absolute.pdf
I had not read this before, but Kal makes basically the same points I mentioned in my earlier post (as have many others, I don't claim to have originated the ideas)
-
If we're talking about 'true' bottlenecks, then FLAC has shown to be the more problematic one on BDP-1 with high-res material (24/192). I think Krutsch had issues with FLAC 24/192 (in big files?) and stuttering, however the larger WAV 24/192 played perfectly and you could skip along perfectly.
There's an older thread about CPU processing here:
https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=134583.0
WAV/AIFF do show lower CPU numbers. (I still have no idea how to look up individual Cpu processes in BDP rather than a singular percentage number in Services which isn't all that useful given it looks almost identical through all playback methods MPD, Roon, DLNA etc.).
Interestingly enough, Chris does say: Fat32 will have the least amount of overhead in comparison to NTFS or hfs+. Using a samba share (NAS), will have even less impact on the CPU.
If I'm interpreting Chris correctly, playing the same file off of the NAS will result in less CPU load (and potentially noise) then playing the file from a USB drive? If I'm wrong, please correct me Chris. I'm not sure how the overhead and CPU processing differs between an internal drive and NAS.
-
I've never had any playback issues with 192/24 Flac on BDP-1. Zip.
Methinks it may depend on library sizes that are attached or internal to the player?
And I was using an old version of MM.
-
...
WAV/AIFF do show lower CPU numbers...
This appears to be a difference between the BDP-1 and BDP-2, where WAV/AIFF show higher CPU usage
-
WAV sounds hoarse to me, compared to Flac on my system. Almost never fails. Can be subtle, but in the end, I like Flac.
In the end, if the rec is well mastered to begin with, file format is irrelevant.
What software do you use to import music?
-
Hi,
I also forgot to include that there are some Bryston BDP users and reviewers that have experimented and compared these formats themselves for sonic quality and found the compressed FLAC version to sound better than the uncompressed option. So for them, they are using FLAC not for saving space but for sound quality. Most BDP users do tend to prefer the uncompressed format sonically.
For example, the very last page of this 'The Absolute Sound' review of BDP-2 has the reviewer compare FLAC and WAV. He explains his reasoning behind it with some data as well as comments on exactly what he's hearing. He also reviewed Bryston BDP-1. Everyone has a different system and listening preference. With Karl's reviews, you can at least understand what he's hearing and where his preferences lie. Reviews that simply state X is better than Y without any explanation are rarely helpful. Karl typically prefers SPDIF, FLAC, and USB hard drives. He isn't fond of MPD with NAS drives or flash drives at all either.
http://old.bryston.com/PDF/reviews/2015_12_Review_BDP-2_Absolute.pdf
(Good job Bryston on fixing the old Bryston links :thumb:)
On the other hand, there is Naim where both the company and users explicitly and unanimously prefer WAV over FLAC. They all use the on the fly transcode to WAV option.
Thanks. Nice post and link. I'll let you know what I think after I digest it. 8)
-
This appears to be a difference between the BDP-1 and BDP-2, where WAV/AIFF show higher CPU usage
That's good to know. BTW how do you track this? Just keep an eye on the CPU% in the 'Services' Tab?
-
What software do you use to import music?
XLD for rip and convert. Mac user.
-
That's good to know. BTW how do you track this? Just keep an eye on the CPU% in the 'Services' Tab?
Sorry, just reiterating Kal’s findings. If you message him he can explain more.
-
Sorry, just reiterating Kal’s findings. If you message him he can explain more.
Do you mean 'Karl' from the article I linked above? Only clarifying as I didn't want to assume since you very well may be talking about 'Kal' from Stereophile who has ALSO reviewed Bryston BDP players. :green: :duh:
Karl did that test on a Windows machine and not the Bryston BDP players themselves.
FWIW, on my various previous Macbook Pro 15 i7's in Audirvana Plus or other players, WAV always loaded instantly and quicker than FLAC. FLAC also played perfectly, but FLAC definitely took more time. It was more apparent on bigger, singular continuous files.
On a side note, I remember reading somewhere (which I can't find now) that the increased I/O of WAV in comparison to FLAC was actually nowhere near detrimental to SQ in comparison to the increased CPU% for FLAC. Of course, the increased I/O workload is a real thing and can be shown in readouts - yet WAV was still the favourable option. I remember the person was qualified and a designer himself.
-
I've found there to be a pattern in what happens to the sound between the dichotomy of options WAV/FLAC, AES/SPDIF, USB/NAS. There is a change in tonality/presentation as you go from WAV to FLAC for example. I notice similarities in the kind of changes that take placed between the other options as well. I'd group them as this: Group 1: (WAV, NAS, AES, Jitterbug used on PC USB output to DAC) + Group 2: (FLAC [compressed], USB drives, SPDIF, No Jitterbug used on computer)
Group 1:
This group sounds more open, smoother, darker and duller sounding, and relaxed but can feel lacking in detail (especially initially or when going back and forth between their counterparts) and lacking in punch, but has more body.
Group 2:
More exciting, narrower soundstage, image feels more locked in, upfront and exciting, a sense of increased dynamics and more punch. There is no smoothness going on here as it applies to both vocals and instruments.
In quick testing, Group 2 always sounds more detailed and exciting. Group 1 on the other hand can seem less detailed, less dynamic and diffused. This feeling does go away after long and continuous listening. I feel it takes a lot longer for the brain to calm down and adjust and buy-in to the sound of Group 1. Going to Group 2 and getting acclimated on the other hand takes little time as it's exciting.
However, when I listen exclusively to one group without any switching and forget about fidelity or SQ, I feel I can listen longer and with less fatigue to items on Group 1. It flows better and is easier on my ears. The opposite tends to happen with Group 2. It starts off great, but overtime can feel fatiguing. Another side note about dynamic range. With compressed and popular music, I think Group 1 can seem less punchy. However, when you play material with a large dynamic range, I find that I can hear both the music get loud (with ease) but also get very quiet. With Group 2, it always feels more lively, but you never feel it quieten down as much.
I'm not stating this as a universal truth. It's just been my experience over the years. Perhaps I've been conditioned this way due to pre-existing biases, my current ears, or the content I'm listening to and the speakers/headphones and room I have.
If Group 2 is the more accurate group, I can totally understand that as it always sounds locked in and exciting from the start. Perhaps, it's my equipment/ears that for some reason doesn't let me listen to that configuration for a long time. I can also understand Group 1 being better as it can start off weak, but it sounds relaxed and fatigue free in the long run.
-
This is good, zoom.
But methinks you are right about all this being
- system-dependent
- mood dependent
- musik dependent (slow, fast, classical, blues, etc)
- room specific
etc
like trying to hit a moving target :o :roll:
-
His name is Kal, not Karl
-
Do you mean 'Karl' from the article I linked above? Only clarifying as I didn't want to assume since you very well may be talking about 'Kal' from Stereophile who has ALSO reviewed Bryston BDP players. :green: :duh:
Can you post the link to Kal's review on Stereophile?
I'm only aware of Larry Greenhill's reviews of the BDPs, on 'phile. Not "Kal".
EDIT: I found this: https://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-60
But Kal did not review Bryston BDPs -- he did Oppo's BDP players.
cheers
-
Yes, my mistake, although I think Kal has posted elsewhere about preferring FLAC to WAV. However, I could be wrong about that as well. I’ll just withdraw before my suspect memory results in more embarrassment :oops:
-
^ thanks for the clarification. I was actually replying to zoom's earlier post, but he's busy comparing wav and flac under 1001 diff conditions :lol: :green:
-
Sometimes I wonder how many potential hours of musical enjoyment I have wasted making comparisons of one type or another. Cables, source components, digital file types, streaming vs CD, vinyl vs CD....etc. Yes I know the quest for the best is part of this hobby and we all delight whenever we hear a difference. As I have gotten older, the tedium of these comparisons are just not worth the effort. Maybe my hearing is not what it once was and I cannot detect the subtle differences in sound quality....or maybe these differences are just not that important anymore. As the quality of the hardware and software has improved there just seem to be fewer "night and day" differences. Even when I can detect a difference it is even more difficult to determine whether that difference is an improvement....or just a difference. Interestingly the less I worry about finding the absolute best nuanced sound improvement, the more I a enjoying the music. Sure, I am curious about new and potentially "better" sounding components but I am less driven to go down that rabbit hole.
-
I agree. As one matures, the quest for the “ultimate” sound becomes more elusive. In addition, one faces the law of diminishing returns as well as the inevitability of downsizing
-
Sometimes I wonder how many potential hours of musical enjoyment I have wasted making comparisons of one type or another. Cables, source components, digital file types, streaming vs CD, vinyl vs CD....etc. Yes I know the quest for the best is part of this hobby and we all delight whenever we hear a difference. As I have gotten older, the tedium of these comparisons are just not worth the effort. Maybe my hearing is not what it once was and I cannot detect the subtle differences in sound quality....or maybe these differences are just not that important anymore. As the quality of the hardware and software has improved there just seem to be fewer "night and day" differences. Even when I can detect a difference it is even more difficult to determine whether that difference is an improvement....or just a difference. Interestingly the less I worry about finding the absolute best nuanced sound improvement, the more I a enjoying the music. Sure, I am curious about new and potentially "better" sounding components but I am less driven to go down that rabbit hole.
Yes!!! :thumb:
-
+1 (or 2) :D
-
Saturn94,
Agree! I've reached the point where I just slip a CD into the BCD-3, sit back, and enjoy the music without attempting to analyze and assess the variables.
-
:thumb: :dance: :beer:
-
@RandyH: Add another resounding yes!! to the collection. What is the point of all this, if not to enjoy the music!
-
^ thanks for the clarification. I was actually replying to zoom's earlier post, but he's busy comparing wav and flac under 1001 diff conditions :lol: :green:
:lol:
-
This is good, zoom.
But methinks you are right about all this being
- system-dependent
- mood dependent
- musik dependent (slow, fast, classical, blues, etc)
- room specific
etc
like trying to hit a moving target :o :roll:
True post My point of reference on the sound of the difference codecs is the BDP-3, which can also sound different using the different rear USB inputs, and sound different depending on using AES, optical, coax or USB inputs. But, I have consistently found that the music I import on dbpoweramp, always sound better than any of the 100 or more sound downloads I have purchased from HDTracks. I no longer buy downloads but I still purchase CDs from Amazon and import them without ever playing them on a CD player.
-
I no longer buy downloads but I still purchase CDs from Amazon and import them without ever playing them on a CD player.
:lol: :rotflmao:
(https://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=205424)
-
Tsk, Tsk. You need to hire a music Reference Librarian!
-
Tsk, Tsk. You need to hire a music Reference Librarian!
Nonsense. More like a psychotherapist.
-
I was being polite
-
I was being polite
I wasn't.
-
I am also still forced to order a CD or find one for cheap at a used store if its critical enough if not offered on the only real download FLAC site such as HD Tracks.
I can't really understand why Amazon has not offered FLAC downloads and only MP3 for way to much money considering the average MP3 cost is about 10 bucks an album anyway, and the same or 11.99 for a CD.
And again seems people are hung up on format because they read something on paper as to be a superior spec. which in real playback is so minor .wav, .ALAC, .FLAC etc... all can work just fine. With the right playback equipment and configuration its honestly nearly impossible to decipher any serious SQ difference with todays software.
Believe me there are also 20 year old used 800 dollar amplifiers that sound as good and some cases better than a brand new 4000 dollar amp today so truth is you need experience, and having multiple sources over the years to arrive at your own conclusion on this topic.
For a newbie I would not get to caught up in this. Use the current dominant and available file format FLAC forget about the rest it just complicates matters 99% of the time in reality.
It's like when I tell people not already into Vinyl. If they want to become a collector fine, but don't expect much from it unless you want to spend a lot more on some type of Ultrasonic cleaner, correct storage method with sleeves, and don't forget thousands on proper table, cartridge, and setup to really get your system to a level in order to take real advantage of that format.
Unlike digital and trying to attempt ripping a CD or getting a remaster, you can drive yourself crazy trying to find 200 physical copies of vinyl for albums "You must have" in good shape, and sound.
-
:lol: :rotflmao:
(https://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=205424)
Canadian Maestro, is this your collection? :o
-
I haven't performed a comprehensive comparison. But I did recently try TIDAL as I needed it at the Florida Audio Expo to demo my HPA-1 headphone amp.
The only album I've found so far on TIDAL that sounded significantly worse than my original CD is the remastered version of Dire Straits, "Brothers in Arms". I don't know who remastered that CD, but it is unlistenable (both in the remastered CD format and in the remastered version on TIDAL, which is included in some of their playlists). It is insanely compressed. The original 1986 release of the same CD is fantastic, albeit recorded at something like -20 dBFS to prevent clipping, which is probably why it ended up in the compressor for the remastered version.
I'm pretty sure if you dial up the album on TIDAL, you'll get the album art for the remastered version, but the bits from the original CD. I have no idea why they would have both the remastered and the original version stored, though.
Unfortunately Qobuz is not available in Canada, so I can't give them my business. Their loss...
Tom
-
Canadian Maestro, is this your collection? :o
gbaby, the mountains here are beautiful but can be boring.
we must do what we can to keep amused. :lol: :roll:
-
gbaby, the mountains here are beautiful but can be boring.
we must do what we can to keep amused. :lol: :roll:
I am very impressed with this collection, and the way you have it stored. 8) It is a beautiful room. If I were you, I'd get me a hard drive, and spend every waking hour importing those CDs. However, I would only use dbpoweramp. I use to use iTunes to import my CDs. But, on a trial basis, I imported some CDs using dbpoweramp, and not only did I get covert art, the sound compared to iTunes exhibited better stereo imaging, weight and and body. I spent every day while at home re-importing my entire library using dbpoweramp due to the improve sonics and the cover art. I put the music on a two terabyte Toshiba hard drive. The music from the hard drive is imported to individual 256 USB drives. This is how I access my music using either my MacBook Pro, which is always next to me, or my iPhone 6s. I have my entire music collection at the touch of my finger. I tried downloads, but sonically, they don't compare to the sound I get importing my own music using dbpoweramp. Your music collection is beautiful. Mine are plentiful, but they are all stored in a chaotic manner in cases and crates. But thankfully, dbpoweramp alphabetized them so it dosn't matter if you have them order. Again, I am impressed with your room. 8)
-
I prefer Qobuz to my ripped CDs.
-
I imported some CDs using dbpoweramp, and not only did I get covert art, the sound compared to iTunes exhibited better stereo imaging, weight and and body. I spent every day while at home re-importing my entire library using dbpoweramp due to the improve sonics and the cover art. I put the music on a two terabyte Toshiba hard drive.
I agree. Many CD rips sound better than the discs. Attached drives seem better too, for me. But the CDP still gets some "air" time around here.
cheers
-
:lol: :rotflmao:
(https://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=205424)
I think your cd's get more space then my stereo system :lol:
-
I think "his" collection gets more space than most stores that used to sell CDs do today.
-
I prefer Qobuz to my ripped CDs.
You are definitely in the minority.
-
With my BCD -3 feeding a BP-17 cubed, I prefer just to spin the CDs. SQ!!
-
With my BCD -3 feeding a BP-17 cubed, I prefer just to spin the CDs. SQ!!
I understand. I did not know you had the BCD-3. 8)
-
And, the BP17 cubed feeds a 4B cubed amp, driving a pair of Thiel 2.7 speakers with a sub.
-
Streaming is decent for exploring efficiently new musik that's unfamiliar to me.
Discs collection, download library, that's for stuff I know I like, keepers.
In the end, I go back to my owned libraries for listening at top SQ on my system. No Streaming.
I agree. Streaming is good for exploring new music. But, at the end of the day, if you like a composition you heard while streaming, its best to buy the CD and listen to it for the best sound. :wink: 8)
-
I agree. Streaming is good for exploring new music. But, at the end of the day, if you like a composition you heard while streaming, its best to buy the CD and listen to it for the best sound. :wink: 8)
I discovered a while back that the MP3-320 files that I often buy from Presto Classical and 7Digital are in fact, 44100Hz/24 bits. Using the Bryston app on my iPad, that's what it shows: 24 bits. And many of those -320 kbps files sound just as fine as my Flac CD rips, which show as 44/16 bits on the same app.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Further reading:
https://lifehacker.com/does-bitrate-really-make-a-difference-in-my-music-5810575
https://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/
-
Sometimes I wonder how many potential hours of musical enjoyment I have wasted making comparisons of one type or another. Cables, source components, digital file types, streaming vs CD, vinyl vs CD....etc. Yes I know the quest for the best is part of this hobby and we all delight whenever we hear a difference. As I have gotten older, the tedium of these comparisons are just not worth the effort. Maybe my hearing is not what it once was and I cannot detect the subtle differences in sound quality....or maybe these differences are just not that important anymore. As the quality of the hardware and software has improved there just seem to be fewer "night and day" differences. Even when I can detect a difference it is even more difficult to determine whether that difference is an improvement....or just a difference. Interestingly the less I worry about finding the absolute best nuanced sound improvement, the more I a enjoying the music. Sure, I am curious about new and potentially "better" sounding components but I am less driven to go down that rabbit hole.
For me, I'm very particular about my music. I listen so much that despite having over 10K songs - that's about 40 days of listening 8 hours/day without hearing the same song twice - I've heard every song probably about 100 times each. Some less, some many more times than that.
So, the sound quality IS important to me and a little improvement is noticed and much appreciated. Unfortunately, my budget will never meet my satisfaction in sound quality. :(
-
I discovered a while back that the MP3-320 files that I often buy from Presto Classical and 7Digital are in fact, 44100Hz/24 bits. Using the Bryston app on my iPad, that's what it shows: 24 bits. And many of those -320 kbps files sound just as fine as my Flac CD rips, which show as 44/16 bits on the same app.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Further reading:
https://lifehacker.com/does-bitrate-really-make-a-difference-in-my-music-5810575
https://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/
Great articles. As the first one stated, you may as well go for uncompressed files live wav of air as you can always compress. And, for the second article, I think having resolving equipment like the SP3 enables you and me to discern a difference in MP3 vs. compressed files. 8) I'm buying more CDs than ever even though I am a member of Amazon Prime. The sound is just not good enough for me. :oops:
-
For me, I'm very particular about my music. I listen so much that despite having over 10K songs - that's about 40 days of listening 8 hours/day without hearing the same song twice - I've heard every song probably about 100 times each. Some less, some many more times than that.
So, the sound quality IS important to me and a little improvement is noticed and much appreciated. Unfortunately, my budget will never meet my satisfaction in sound quality. :(
I agree with you. 8)
-
Great articles. I'm buying more CDs than ever even though I am a member of Amazon Prime. The sound is just not good enough for me. :oops:
Fortunately, I have less than Golden Ears. :green:
-
....some people, it seems, forego any streaming, and go to some extremes to get that "right" sound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJJy6VJvSCk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJJy6VJvSCk)
-
maestro,
And here is a senior editor for Stereophile. Migawd! The $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H07NpWk_Xf8
-
maestro,
additional info on the stereo-hole contributing editor
Michael Fremer, Editor of AnalogPlanet.com, and Contributing Editor to Stereophile, gives us a tour of his listening room and shares a few thoughts on the industry. Filmed September 2017 in Wyckoff, New Jersey.
-
george,
fremer's brain is made of vinyl. :lol:
(so if Editors of review mags make that much $$, it proves that mfrs pay for good revs, no? :roll:)
-
maestro,
Yeah, and it would take five or six lifetimes to play all those records.
IMO, he's the "Midas" of vinyl.
George
-
maestro,
IMO, he's the "Midas" of vinyl.
George
Midas.....is that a compliment, George? :lol:
-
george,
fremer's brain is made of vinyl. :lol:
(so if Editors of review mags make that much $$, it proves that mfrs pay for good revs, no? :roll:)
No - in all my years in this business I have never seen or heard of a reviewer being paid for a positive review. The best you can hope for is respect from the reviewer about your product and an honest opinion. The only crack in the mirror is sometimes relationships that developed over time can cloud judgement.
james
-
No - in all my years in this business I have never seen or heard of a reviewer being paid for a positive review. The best you can hope for is respect from the reviewer about your product and an honest opinion. The only crack in the mirror is sometimes relationships that developed over time can cloud judgement.
james
So he inherited his $$$ :lol:
Love that he organizes his LPs by RACE. 26:19 of video.
Michael G. Fremer. Goebbels? :lol:
been that kind of Sunday.....
-
maestro,
I've been in this Audio hobby since shortly after WWII. I 've never seen such a collection outside of the Library of Congress holdings. (I've been through their stacks.)
-
all good, george. I admire large collections..... :green:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJJy6VJvSCk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJJy6VJvSCk)
What a small place. I would not spend that kind of money and live in such a small space with no cloths and speakers costing 100k. :o You will never get accurate sound, but just some semblance of it and thats subjective. No live concert sounds like a studio recording. :o
-
What a small place. I would not spend that kind of money and live in such a small space with no cloths and speakers costing 100k. :o You will never get accurate sound, but just some semblance of it and thats subjective. No live concert sounds like a studio recording. :o
Yeah, I agree. I'm not surprised that he has a colossal LP collection, and I pretty much expected that he'd have a system that costs more than my entire net worth. But that he has that system crammed into what looks like a tiny room in his basement is astonishing.
-
What a small place. No live concert sounds like a studio recording. :o
That's a very true statement in this case. Usually, it's the other way around -- no studio recording sounds like a live concert.
cheers
-
That's a very true statement in this case. Usually, it's the other way around -- no studio recording sounds like a live concert.
cheers
Agreed. I've seen many, many concerts where the songs performed live sounded better than the studio versions. Often bands are much more dynamic and improvisational on stage too, that's why I probably listen to more live recordings than studio work. Live music is best!
Now back to the subject of Qobuz vs. ripped cds
-
Agreed. I've seen many, many concerts where the songs performed live sounded better than the studio versions. Often bands are much more dynamic and improvisational on stage too, that's why I probably listen to more live recordings than studio work. Live music is best!
Now back to the subject of Qobuz vs. ripped cds
Actually, I like well recorded studio recordings over live music because the engineer in the studio can affect things like stereo imaging that is virtually non existent in live recordings. The engineers also do tricks to make us appreciate our hi fidelity systems too. 8)
-
^, well, imho, streaming services vs ripped CDs is like studio vs live, respectively.
No contest, really. CDs, ripped or in situ, sounds more realistic, 3D, like the live event.
Not sure why. Probably because the source material from stream services is compromised?
But again, many stud recs sound great as well.
-
^, well, imho, streaming services vs ripped CDs is like studio vs live, respectively.
No contest, really. CDs, ripped or in situ, sounds more realistic, 3D, like the live event.
Not sure why. Probably because the source material from stream services is compromised?
But again, many stud recs sound great as well.
Agreed. 8)
-
Agreed. 8)
:thumb:
For example, I wouldn't want to give up my studio rec of Beethoven's op 111 sonata by Kempff for the noisy one made live by Richter, with coughs and wheezing by his Soviet audience members (must have been winter!). Ouch. Both great pianists, but will take the quiet studio any day in that case.
-
Yes , give me the studio version anytime :thumb:
-
Also, Major streaming services don't have all the Classical performances by given composer, conductor, orchestra and chorus. They do haveehe major ones, but not necessarily the obscure.
Example, there are well over forty differing performances of the Verdi Requiem, just on CDs. Who has them all?
If I'm wrong, I'll happily stand to be corrected.
-
Also, Major streaming services don't have all the Classical performances by given composer, conductor, orchestra and chorus. They do haveehe major ones, but not necessarily the obscure.
Example, there are well over forty differing performances of the Verdi Requiem, just on CDs. Who has them all?
If I'm wrong, I'll happily stand to be corrected.
Very true. Their catalogs of classical are really anemic. So CDs are the only way (also vinyl used) to "get the fix", most of the time. I think most streaming services underestimate the size of the classical musik crowd. Compared to pop and non-classical, it is smaller, but still, it's not small enough to bankrupt labels like Decca, DG, HM, and Hyperion, to name a few. Fast $$ from streaming rentals rules once again.
-
I shunned streaming services (I tried tidal, spotify, Quboz) for any serious listening because they just didn't sound as good as when I bought the CD and carefully ripped it, or bought HD tracks and served them from my system. Up until last night that is when I noticed a turn around. I googled a few things because my experience surprised me and I wanted to see if this was a shared experience...in the main it clearly isn't. Thought I'd post what I heard here and see if anyone's noticed a sudden (inexplicable) change or perhaps it's entirely explicable...
Anyway, I was having a 90s indie night at my place last night...just me and a bunch of great old tunes (this is the level of socialising that's possible in the UK at the moment). Given the source material, we're obviously not talking about the height of production quality but some of the albums had been remastered and I found a few albums that I'd ripped from CD (generally wav files as I'm a recovering purist) that were also available on Quboz so I decided to go down the rabbit hole of some comparisons. 2009 remastered version of Nirvana's Bleach was the first up. Every track sounded punchier when streamed from online. I tried turning up the volume of locally played tracks...still some depth missing though. Clearly this could be Quboz playing things louder (I don't have the sound leveller on in Roon as I find it negatively affects the sound) and I didn't get my sound meter out. I need to investigate further. I went further...I tried back in black AC/DC after that, a Rush album and then a Talk Talk album...every time I'd much rather listen to the Quboz version than my local version...very odd. I even had a high res version locally and a 44.1k version from Quboz...again, Quboz was 'better'.
My set up is as follows:
NAS > NUC (roon server) > HQ Player box > Pimped up pi > DIY dual mono DAC.
Everything was being upsampled to the same 192k/24bit stream regardless of the source of the stream.
Any thoughts?...too much wine?
-
Hi Crom
I have run blind listening tests here with my system using ripped CD's and Qobuz as well and so far it is about 50/50 in terms of which one people prefer.
One aspect of the streaming quality I wonder about is as more and more people come to see it as the preferred way to listen to music the differing digital formats (DSD vs MQA vs PCM etc.) will disappear as high resolution PCM will become the default format.
james
-
Hi Crom
I have run blind listening tests here with my system using ripped CD's and Qobuz as well and so far it is about 50/50 in terms of which one people prefer.
One aspect of the streaming quality I wonder about is as more and more people come to see it as the preferred way to listen to music the differing digital formats (DSD vs MQA vs PCM etc.) will disappear as high resolution PCM will become the default format.
james
Are you sure about the last sentence?? MQA and it's lossy 15 bit encoding sure wants you to believe otherwise.
-
Are you sure about the last sentence?? MQA and it's lossy 15 bit encoding sure wants you to believe otherwise.
Hi racer
Well my opinion of MQA is very well known and I have taken some hits for it.
james
-
It all comes down to what version of the LP or CD Qobuz or even Tidal used to support their HI-rez or MQA. And we don't know ( most of the time) if the albums used Tapes or CD's or even a needle drop and then it depends on the equipment used to copy the material. MY CD's and LP's to me depending on my copies sound better than Qobuz or Tidal about 80 % of the time.
-
Hi racer
Well my opinion of MQA is very well know and I have taken some hits for it.
james
Honesty and integrity will carry one further than lies and deceit. We are on the same side.
MAK
-
Either ripped CD's to a hard drive played via computer or CD's played directly through a transport to DAC sound noticeably better to me as well. Streaming services regardless of their resolution are the 21st century equivalent of FM radio in its heyday. Great for casual listening as well as discovering new music, but not preferred for serious listening. Direct digital files are just so much more engaging the vast majority of times.
-
Either ripped CD's to a hard drive played via computer or CD's played directly through a transport to DAC sound noticeably better to me as well. Streaming services regardless of their resolution are the 21st century equivalent of FM radio in its heyday. Great for casual listening as well as discovering new music, but not preferred for serious listening. Direct digital files are just so much more engaging the vast majority of times.
...and that's exactly what I've spent the last 10+ years believing since moving from physical media to digital files. I was very surprised (and annoyed) by what I found. It's impossible to check 100% that I'm comparing like for like obviously but the result became so consistent that it only got more annoying ;-)
-
Agree Crom. Cannot tell any differences so I gave up "testing" and focused on enjoying great sound and amazing library. My system is a Lumin T1 DAC/STREAMER, Roon Nucleus, Audio Research Preamp, Bryston 4bsst2, Vandersteen Quatro CT speakers.
-
Since my BOT-1 keeps loosing communication with my Pi :scratch: I am thinking picking up a cd drive for mac and start burning there.
Dont really want to burn AIFF. Is there a 3rd party program for mac that will ripitate to FLAC?
I have a SGC ST Roon -->Pi-->Wadia 321--Rogue-RP1 and it sounds really close to a CD but must admit CD/vinyl is a little more engaging.
My internet service providers fiber trunc about 1 block away then DSL to the house.
So I primarily listen to Qobuz and Then pick up vinyl and CD when I find something I want to own.
-
Comparing physical media to streaming: With CDs and SACDs I "sometimes" "think" I can hear a difference. I have a Bryston CD3 and a Sony SACD player. Though I am not sure why, when I think I do hear a difference it is usually in favor of the CD. I almost always hear a difference when I compare vinyl to any form of digital. My VPI Aries turntable and Dynavector XX2 are revealing of details and can reveal a liveliness to the music that is often missing in digital. But vinyl is hit or miss. There are so many variables...but when it is good, it is the best.
-
Against my better judgement but inspired by this discussion I took the opportunity to compare an album I have available in 3 different digital formats. The album is Diana Krall "The Girl in the Other Room. I have an SACD, a CD copied to my hard drive and the Qobuz version. To my surprise the Qobuz version was the best. The Qobuz version is 96kz 24bit. Not conclusive or a definitive mic drop moment but on my system, today, that is my verdict.
-
I'm a noob audiophile and I only recently started with this hobby. However, I have gone through Tidal, Qobuz, Apple Music, Youtube, Amazon, and the other streaming services. What I have discovered is that the recording format doesn't really matter. It could be FLAC 44.1 or MQA and if the master quality sucks, then so will the sound, no matter how you rip or download it. So that means the reason why CDs typically sound better, is because most of them were mastered properly! The stuff they are throwing up on these streaming sites like Tidal are typically remastered versions, and these remasters are done my monkeys in a sweatshop in Mongolia somewhere! They suck! And that's why streaming sounds worse than CDs, not because it happens to be in MQA or FLAC or AAC or whatever. The master quality is the biggest issue here. That's my 2 cents on this topic. Feel free to disagree.
-
And that's why streaming sounds worse than CDs, not because it happens to be in MQA or FLAC or AAC or whatever. The master quality is the biggest issue here. That's my 2 cents on this topic. Feel free to disagree.
+ 1 on that!
I get the sense the streaming industry along with music labels are purposely "re-mastering" the quality towards iPods and bluetooth.....audiophiles are a small group and will pay for a new genre in the future...."original recordings"...at a premium price and with who knows what encodings! My sense is driven by the fact hedge funds are buying up music catalogs from Stevie Nicks, Bob Dylan etc. and hedge funds will use an asset to make money. I hope I'm wrong!
-
every time I'd much rather listen to the Quboz version than my local version...very odd. I even had a high res version locally and a 44.1k version from Quboz...again, Quboz was 'better'.
I thought the value of Amazon Music HD would be new, modern high-resolution albums.
However, the largest blessing has been finding old albums that have been remastered with great SQ, including 24 bit/96kHz remasters.
For example, my teen years' favorite Metalllica Album "Kill 'Em All" (1983, their first album) is available in 24/96 and sounds unbelievable good!
-
Lots of debate regarding this over on the audiogon digital forum. :popcorn: :duel:
I stream qobuz a fair amount and I am always amazed how good it & radioparadise sounds at 16/48 stream. But I will have to concur that CD/Vinyl sound a bit better in my system, but not much.
SGC ST Roon Core
BDP pi (MPD little bit better sq than roon)
Wadia 321
Lynksys Mesh network, SGC hardwired to node
Cat 6 cabling