[VinceT]

I have been streaming Qobuz for some time and find that the SQ is pretty decent. I have looking at music servers, streamers, dacs, and related software to determine when I upgrade which is the best way to go.

In researching the digital music relm, there are many who are satisfied with streaming. Others seem to like downloaded files or even CDs because there is no compression. Some will say they cannot tell a difference between streamed or downloaded music files. Others appear to seek out uncompressed file sources. Then there are other difference with Tidal vs Qobuz bit rates, PCM vs DSD...that could be a whole other discussion; but I do think it somewhat can pertain to this if your downloading files from Qobuz or comparing streaming to downloaded and stored media. Then there are the related hardware and software that plays a role in SQ.

This is one area that is somewhat vague to me, what provides the best SQ? I am sure the answer will be "it depends", but IYE what are you guys doing and I am sure many of you both stream and download files with many different hardware and software configurations, services, and sources.  Thank you

[Scott Joplin]

Hi Vince,

I'm trialling Tidal at the moment, mainly to see if they have a good enough selection for me. I think lossless CD quality is good enough. It's also probably good that the industry is pushing higher resolution since that will mean it's there that they will try to get the most money out of people.

[Tyson]

Treat your digital server and any streamers you have as real audiophile devices and that will get you the best sound quality. 

[rbbert]

I'm not sure what you mean by "compressed" vs. "uncompressed"?  QoBuz and all the download services use FLAC (lossless compression) as the default file type; some hi-rez downloaders offer the option of AIFF also (they may say they offer WAV but it is really FLAC converted to WAV in your own computer).  Tidal uses MQA, which is both compressed and lossy but does have some proprietary filtering which some listeners like.

Ideally your playback software should be buffering at least one track ahead of what you are listening to; if you listen to a track that is buffered into RAM before playback it will almost certainly sound better than "real-time" streaming

[Scott Joplin]

  Tidal uses MQA, which is both compressed and lossy but does have some proprietary filtering which some listeners like.

Hi, isn't that just what they call "Master"?

[Tyson]

Compared to video files, audio files are tiny.  Even full hirez is tiny.  So streaming video is compressed because it has to be.  But streaming audio doesn't have to be.  You just have to find a streaming service that doesn't use compression (like Qobuz).

rbbert is right, MQA is a compression scheme.  I have no idea why a service would use it.

[VinceT]

I'm not sure what you mean by "compressed" vs. "uncompressed"? 

Sorry to be vague, honestly it is something I am still learning about. Some people still prefer CD's to lossless formats and say it still sounds better.

[Scott Joplin]

I have no idea why a service would use it.

To be trendy and charge twice as much for it as lossless uncompressed CD quality?

[VinceT]

Compared to video files, audio files are tiny.  Even full hirez is tiny.  So streaming video is compressed because it has to be.  But streaming audio doesn't have to be.  You just have to find a streaming service that doesn't use compression (like Qobuz).

rbbert is right, MQA is a compression scheme.  I have no idea why a service would use it.

Thanks Tyson for chiming in

You pretty much just stream Qobuz for the most part? I know you also have some downloaded material as well. Is streaming comparable or do you still favor your high res downloaded music?

[Tyson]

Thanks Tyson for chiming in

You pretty much just stream Qobuz for the most part? I know you also have some downloaded material as well. Is streaming comparable or do you still favor your high res downloaded music?

I have both - streaming and local downloaded files.  For me, there's no difference in sound between streaming or local files.  I attribute that to 2 factors:

1. Use a lossless streaming service
2. Build or buy a really good streamer

[Rusty Jefferson]

As you indicated, it does depend on how good/resolving your system is. As Tyson indicated, think of the digital chain as audiophile components and spend accordingly. A friend recently loaned me an audiophile switch and said "this will make a $500 dac sound better than a $5k dac in your system." Naturally, I didn't believe him but he was right.  Now when I put the $5k dac back in with the switch, it was amazing how good it sounded. Then he told me to add a second one for the network stuff (NAS, Roon Core) and use one only for the bridge. Even better.....if you can afford several thousand for network switches. And so it goes.

There is a consensus that downloaded and ripped music sounds better (again, high quality system) than streaming from the internet. Interestingly, storing it on a dedicated NAS sounds better than locally, until you get into the highest end bridges with internal storage. It's important to uncompress downloaded music (not just unzip it) with a program like dbPoweramp. You'll find PCM files have a high FLAC compression (40% or more) after unzipping. You can use that same program to rip. If you want to keep the Metadata and full size files, rip in "uncompressed FLAC". It's the full size file, same as .WAV.  It's good practice to use the full size files for best sound quality, as doing so will unburden the bridge from 'unpacking' a FLAC file on the fly. The downside of course is the need for more storage space, hence the NAS if you have a large collection.

My personal feeling about hi-rez internet streaming offerings is they don't sound as good as the 16/44 original if they've just been upsampled, especially if the dac has an upscaling algorithm (Chord, Berkeley). Of course, hi-rez original digital recordings can sound amazing. It would be nice if Qobuz would tell us which it is.

[Mag]

My opinion is that a higher connection speed has better resolution, like I have fiber optics cable connection. And 24 bit playback sounds slightly better than 16 bit. Then to my ears Amazon HD sounds like Master quality, not all recordings, but when comparing to a cd release Amazon HD is better. How do other Streaming services compare, I don't know.

Good luck in finding uncompressed recordings. As far as I know the only uncompressed music in my collection are blu-ray and maybe a few dvd's. That's only a tiny fraction of the music on the market.

[whell]

Some people still prefer CD's to lossless formats and say it still sounds better.

I'd probably fall into that camp.  I've tried Tidal, Quboz, and Amazon HD.   It's not hard for me to tell the difference, from a sound quality perspective, between music streamed from one of these services, and the playback of music files from my hard drive.  I've kept Amazon, primarily for new music discovery and to check out new releases prior to making a purchase decision.

My system is a computer with Daphile output to a Benchmark DAC 2, supplemented by a Wiim Mini.  I've used Daphile to access Tidal and Quboz and now use the Wiim for Amazon HD access. 

To be clear, these services don't sound "bad".  Far from it.  However, there's a presence/immediacy that's missing, at least in my experience, with the streaming services.

[Scott Joplin]

It's a nightmare    https://www.whathifi.com/qobuz/review Best listen for yourself and make up your own mind.

[jseymour]

That's the first time that I have read that Tidal sounds better than Qobuz.  I found Qobuz even better integrated with Audirvana Studio. Everything, local and streamed, is buffered before playing.  You set the buffer size. I'm with Tyson in that I find no difference between local and streamed.  But you do need a good source hardware and software wise.

[Mike-48]

For me, there's no difference in sound between streaming or local files.  I attribute that to 2 factors:

1. Use a lossless streaming service
2. Build or buy a really good streamer

That has been my experience, precisely. No difference in quality -- both are excellent. Additionally, the best CD playback I've had (Meridian G98 to same DAC) also offered equivalent sound, though it was limited to Redbook resolution, and I prefer high-resolution files if available. Not because they necessarily sound better, but because they may sound better for various reasons.

[VinceT]

I am self admittedly very late to digital audio. Been mostly vinyl up until recently, and still have been streaming Qobuz with my modest Denon AVR. I have to say I am getting great results. I am not giving up my vinyl playback, but I have been heavily researching which way to go with digital in regards to NOS vs Delta DACS and that has led me into the rabbit hole, or better yet the worm hole of digital playback.

HQ player has been around for a while, and I found out about other players like Bughead Emperor in my research. The whole upsampling thing has really taken off past few years, and now you have DACs that upsample by default everything streamed or played from your library.

In my research it seems there are a few distinct camps with digital and maybe a few in between these generalizations. Some prefer to upsample everything, to the point of some audiophiles converting their libraries back to redbook so they can save storage space on the server, and just the player to upsample to the dac.

Then you have the group of audiophiles that either say upsampling doesn't matter because bits are bits, they cannot hear a difference between sample rates or PCM and DSD, or they don't like how DSD sounds, they are NOS or R2R purists, or they have come full circle with the upsampling and hi-rez playback and are getting good as or better results with quality well mastered recordings in any sample rate and format and scrapping the expensive servers and software. Whatever their motivations, they are just not doing it or moving away from DSD and upsampling; or like me still discovering more about it.

HQ player is interesting, not for just the upsampling but for also the DSP and all the power and control you get with the playback. The issue is with any of this stuff is gear. You are looking at another hardware and software expense to get into upsampling and also an expensive DAC. I really have now way to hear all this stuff and wonder if it is all worth it, or should I just optimise my streaming playback and focus on that? So I am kind of in the paralysis by analysis stage right now.  I am thinking I need a dac that can do DSD, because if I don't try upsampling I will always wonder

[Jeff_From_Michigan]

Some great advice here so far.  I agree that you should think of your streaming in audiophile terms; meaning that a whole lot of factors affect sound quality - hardware, software, switches, cables, isolation, etc...

My brother is perfectly happy streaming mp3's over Spotify.  Most of my nieces and nephews are happy with their Earbuds streaming from the phone.  A good friend with nearly unlimited funds is happy as a clam streaming Apple Music via USB to his Peachtree Nova150. A few friends love the Sonos ecosystem. From personal experience, sound quality is pretty similar between choices up to a certain point. I have found that streaming Qobuz to my LUMIN T2 meets my sound quality requirements and I think I will stay with it for a while.

Regarding upsampling - LUMIN players allow you to upsample or downsample files to your liking, and there are distinct differences in the resulting sound.  I was upsampling everything to DSD for a while, then I began playing a bit and discovered that I prefer 96 and 192 files with no upsampling.

Nobody can give you an absolute answer - only what their experience has been. The only way you'll know if something sounds good to you is to hear it in your system.

Depending on your budget, some names you might consider auditioning: LUMIN, Bluesound, Auralic, Aurender, the list goes on and on.

Finally, if you can get to the point (maybe you're already there) where your hardware and software combine to let you really enjoy listening to music, please try to be happy - at least for a while - before the upgrade bug drives you crazy!

[WGH]

My digital journey started with the source and worked forward, and then backward. I started with Exact Audio Copy and ripped all my CDs. Hardware was an Toshiba laptop running Windows Vista into a Scott Nixon NOS tube DAC. The sound was pleasant and better than the cheap CD players I could afford.

Moving forward, I tried Tidal HiFi Plus ($20/month) for a couple of years but there was always a vague dissatisfaction with the sound. The service was great to sample new music but KXCI, our local independent community radio station, plays all the best new (and old) music so paying for Tidal was redundant. KXCI just celebrated their 39th birthday this week too. I always wondered why I never sat and listened to music on Tidal like I did with a ripped or hi-res download, or even KXCI.

GoldenSound published an article that Tidal Master is NOT lossless:
The ‘HiFi’ version is seemingly just the MQA version, but limited to 16 bit and with some (but seemingly not all) MQA flagging/metadata removed.
https://goldensound.audio/2021/11/29/tidal-hifi-is-not-lossless/
I thought something weird was going on, actually I cancelled Tidal before I read the GoldenSound article.


A custom music server, three DACs, and HQPlayer has greatly enhanced my listening experience. Moving backward from streaming, I now download all my music to a music library, actual hard copies (even though they are just bits) like we all did in the olden days. A DAC that plays native DSD is, simply put, a necessary tool to have for an audiophile. Every day more music is released in DSD, much of it from small labels. Straight from DXD masters with minimal processing, DSD is getting as close to the original performance as possible.

There are so many DACs available that I don't know how anyone makes a choice. I looked in the Stereophile Recommended Components and picked a Class A DAC that I could afford, which ended up being the Holo Audio May KTE. I was a woodworker for 50 years and like nice tools, the May (along with the more affordable Spring KTE) is a nice tool and does everything I want a DAC to do. It's sound can be adjusted using HQPlayer. When I get bored I change the algorithms. Yesterday I went from upsampling PCM from 384K to DSD64, now that winter is here I can try DSD128. I have a fanless music server with an Intel i7-9700 processor, which is not powerful enough to do the highest DSD conversions, that job falls to the fastest processors and $1000 NVIDIA GeForce graphics cards used as a number cruncher (as in bitcoin mining).


I recently read a glowing review of the Allnic D10000 DAC on AC, I was intrigued because it was compared to the Holo Audio May KTE, the Allnic costs a lot more too at $19,000.
https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=184026.msg1931556#msg1931556

I was curious if the Allnic is a NOS or FPGA or 1-bit delta sigma upsampling DAC. So far the only review with measurements is from a 2014 Stereophile review of the Allnic D-5000. The D10000 uses the same dual-mono pair of ESS ES9018K2M Sabre DAC chips with a proprietary code which resides in FPGAs and 8 tubes.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/allnic-d-5000-dht-da-processor

The late Art Dudley, who everyone agreed had excellent hearing and reviewing skills wrote:
The Allnic D-5000 DHT is easily among the three or four finest digital processors I've tried: at least the equal of the superb Luxman DA-06, and perhaps even more consistently compelling.

John Atkinson measured the Allnic and wrote:
The Allnic D-5000 DHT has the dubious honor of being the worst-measuring digital component I have encountered, exceeding even the Lector Strumenti Digitube S-192 D/A processor that Art Dudley reviewed last June.
I doubt Stereophile will ever get another Allnic DAC to review.

Allnic found that found that three of its four new old stock 3A5 DHT tubes were bad. The tubes could have been damaged in transit to JA's, but 3 out of 8 going out at once is a freakish accident.


It goes to show that none of us know what we are listening to when it comes to digital. A lot can go wrong and we still like what we hear. Hard to make a bad decision these days.

Have you explored the GoldenSound YouTube and Discord channels?

As I research digital sound I put together primers, that way other audiophiles can benefit plus I forget where all this stuff is found and need a place to stick this info so I can re-read as I understand more.

Building an Affordable High-End Silent Music Server

HoloAudio May KTE DAC with HQPlayer Review

An Upsampling Primer or Why Make More Bits?

Wayne