CD Quality Versus Streaming Quality

This is a very interesting topic and many of the points discussed thus far are valid. Its hard to deny that streaming won’t be going away and will (is) be the standard delivery model going forward.

Being this hobby comprises the smallest fraction of the overall streaming user base / listing base, influencing this model would appear to be difficult.

I think in its current form with the likes of Qobuz and other high-quality services (audiophile centric) it’s hard if not impossible to state streaming is worse than one’s local version. Meaning, it’s always about provenance / mastering version.

Of my 4k local albums that I have curated (1k are SACD’s) some of them are not the best version and Qobuz may have a better version, which I have on numerous redbook’s discovered. So how does one digest that? I’m certainly not going back through my entire library and comparing each one of them to the Qobuz version for example.  However, on my favorites / must have’s, I will hunt down the best version.

I have not been a streaming fan and sort of refused to use it in my big rig. One of the reasons is to purchase and support the musicians since they get squat on the streaming model. However, after much optimizing of my network (vlans, dedicated audio network and devices etc..) I have slowly begun to use it (Qobuz) off and on. My chain is dedicated Linux roon core (that is all it does), dedicated HQP wkst to upsample to DSD which then outputs via fiber Ethernet to optical rendu > DAC.

It’s getting harder to tell the difference on some tunes, I still prefer my local library most of the time, but I can’t in any sane way, listen to only my older music? Much of the new music/genre I listen to is mixed/mastered in high quality and many times I purchase their (artists) digital download

I will point out though my context is digital (e.g. ripped redbook/SACD’s/high quality purchased downloads) and I don’t have a high end CDP for reference. Maybe I am missing out in that respect? I am curious how that would sound, but much of this comes down to priorities. Spending 2-4k on a CDP isn’t gonna happen.

Getting the most out of ones rig is so massively dependent on room and spkr setup. Once you get that sorta dialed in, you’re in a much better place then not having put the time into that.

@georgehifi

The streaming companies need to give the album Cat No. with all their streams/downloads, so you can find for yourself on the DRDB if
your paying for and listening to compressed rubbish.

That would be great and should be available without question for the very reason you state. I can only speak to Qobuz, but some of the dig downloads I have purchased (new releases) have included cat numbers in the metadata. 

I don't understand for the life of me, why the f*&% complete meta data isn't part of these dig purchases.  It's not the services fault, but the labels that provide the files.

@riaa

Red,
Your ASSUMING that the labels arent giving the services the data. Perhaps the info IS given and the services are choosing not to give you that info. Could be they dont WANT you to see the data so you cant do your due diligence and compare different master/remaster versions. Certainly not saying this is true but it is in the realm of possibility.

Maybe (sounds a little extreme, but anything is possible I suppose), but given the fact that downloads from the labels / artist directly as well as the digital stores (pro studio masters, acoustic sounds any of them really), metadata in those are no better, in my experience.  Just artist, track, album etc.. minimal crap.  It should contain everything pertinent (what one would find on CD sleeve).

I've emailed Qobuz the exact question (looking to clarify cat number) and they were helpful, but I recall the response was something like that's what the label provided and they are not touching the metadata