2. digital
  3. 168295-163583

CD Quality Versus Streaming Quality

I realize this will be a contentious subject, and far be it from me to challenge any of the many expert opinions on this forum, but if I may offer my feedback vis-a-vis what I am hearing, and gain some knowledge in the process.

i will begin saying that my digital front end setup is not state of the art, but i have had the good fortune to listen to a number of really high-end systems. I guess the number one deficit in my digital front end is a streamer server, and no question about it that will improve the sound.

My CD player is a universal player; Pioneer BDP-09fd. It uses Wolfson DACs. It has been modified to a degree. I have bought and sold other players, but kept this one, because it has a beautiful sound that serves the music well.

Recently, i ventured over to my son’s place and we hooked up my player (he doesn’t have one and rely’s on streaming only) We compared tracks / albums of CD quality and master quality streamed on Tidal with ‘redbook’ CDs I have. For example, some Lee Ritenaur CDs and some Indian classical and the wonderful Mozart and Chopin.
His system is highly resolving.

we were both very surprised to find the CDs played on the player to be the better sound. And not just by a little. The sound was clearly superior, with higher resolution and definition, spatial ques, much better and clearer imaging. Very surprising indeed. Shouldn’t there be no difference? This would suggest the streaming service is throttling the bandwidth or compressing the signal?

i am most interested to hear others’ observations, and suggestions as to why this might be? I do love the convenience aspect of streaming, but it IS expensive for a chap like me of fairly modest means. The Tidal HiFi topline service is $30 per month I believe, something the good lady is not too thrilled about. God forbid I should suggest Roon on top of that I may likely get my walking papers. I jest, but only partially LoL. My point is, if I pay this sort of money, isn’t it fair to expect sound to equal the digital stream from the CD player and silver disc?
Thoughts?

AK





4afsanakhan

Showing 8 responses by sd40

sd40
40 posts
 
I have stopped talking to my brothers and sister about compression, dynamic range, etc. because if I keep it up they will tune it out.  Three of the five of us play an instrument, and four listen to a lot of music.  Yet when I try to explain how remastering has degraded so much music over the years, and how the dynamic range of new releases by many much-loved pop artists has fallen over their careers, they look at me like I'm from Mars.  One brother understands enough to choose FLAC over MP3, but that's it.

The public has chosen convenience over quality without understanding that they were sacrificing anything to do so.  And when they find out, they don't care.  They have moved on.  Mainly to trading gossip on their smartphones, judging from the number of people I see driving while looking down.
It's odd that no one has mentioned SACD's above.  The true test of streaming would be to compare it to SACD on a good SACD player.  I have been through four of them in the last five years--each one a significant improvement.  The current one is a Denon DCD-A110.  For at least ten years Denon has been tweaking its "AL32 Processing" technology to make redbook CDs sound more like analog.  With the DCD-A110, they have practically closed the gap vs. SACD, in my opinion.  But SACD remains the standard of excellence.
The crowd-sourced database at https://dr.loudness-war.info, mentioned above, is a tremendous resource.  It shows, title by title, what has happened to dynamic range over the last 35 years.  I consult it before buying any used CD.

sd40
40 posts
 
My layman's understanding is that compression clips the peak volumes so the overall volume can be brought up, resulting in a flatter ("compressed") sound.  It's necessary for music to be heard on earbuds and in noisy environments.  When I look at the way some high-quality artists have lowered their dynamic range over time, I imagine there must have been some interesting discussions between them and the mastering engineers, wherein the latter argued that if you want this to sell, you have to let it be mastered for the devices the customers increasingly use.  Either that, or the artists did not understand the issue.
The recording industry has not made it easy for the customer to figure it out either.  It's a lot of trouble to find out which version of a title is the best-mastered--or a lot of fun if you enjoy the chase.  I overhauled my collection a couple of years ago and ended up with a much-improved group of about 800 CDs and SACDs.  The loudness-wars database is just the starting point.  They don't always have the data you're looking for, and dynamic range is only one consideration.  A search on the Steve Hoffman Music Forums was often required, and often led to hours of reading multiple threads to try and discern some consensus.  Then there's the whole business about trying to identify used CDs, down to reading the letters and numbers faintly stamped on the inner part of the disc.
sd40
40 posts
 
Look at what happens to the great dynamic range in the 1st page then deteriorates the more pages you go and the younger the albums get (in re-issues).
What I have been saying!  Try it with Mark Knopfler, Enya, Bruce Hornsby, Sarah McLachlan, Joni Mitchell, Donald Fagen, Sting, Tears for Fears, U2, and Yes.  This short list is drawn from a list of discs that I own and could easily be expanded.  Norah Jones is not included, for instance, because a boxed set of SACD's released in 2012 came with dynamic range between 11 and 14 and allowed me to dispose of some CD's of the same titles that had much poorer DR.

SHM-CD??? Had to look it up. Some are saying it adds a sheen to the sound??? "false dynamic reading" maybe???

SHM-CD is simply a high quality CD, most often made and sold in Japan.  While these releases tend to be mastered a bit bright, that seems to be common with Japanese remasters generally and is unrelated to the technology so far as I know.  I gather that you encountered SHM-CD in connection with Elton John.  The SHM-CD remasters released in 2019 are very highly regarded.  The seven that I own have DR ranging from 12 to 14.
sd40
40 posts
 
The concern is more than whether there will still be buyers for expensive audio systems.  It is whether the advocates of quality audio (note that I did not say "high-end") will find themselves shouting into the wind.  And whether an appreciation for it will simply die out, and with it the equipment designed for that end.
sd40
40 posts
 
I already had mass quantities of each and wasn't going to obsess over replacing or analyzing each. good enough would have to be good enough. same with systems...

I either have to replace CDs as you suggest, search databases, or forgot i ever joined this thread, and chalk up to an anxiety dream.

I became motivated to tackle the project of overhauling my CD collection when I realized that I wasn't listening to a lot of it anymore.  As I dived into it, I realized that this was due to fatigue caused by overly-compressed releases. 

A good example: I bought all the 1994 Genesis remasters but never warmed to them because they had been dumbed-down with too much compression.  I eventually replaced them all with mid-1980s releases.  Genesis has shown bad judgment with their remasters--chasing modern consumer expectations, perhaps, but sucking the dynamic range out of their music.
sd40
40 posts
 
I have a correction to a make (the hazards of writing stuff without checking my notes): The problem with the 1994 Genesis "Definitive Edition" remasters was excessive use of noise reduction.  Their dynamic range was actually pretty respectable.  The heavy-handedness of the noise reduction varied from album to album, with Wind and Wuthering being one of the least affected.
It was the 2007-2008 remasters found on CD and SACD that are generally reviled for their excessive compression and loudness, plus the fact that they are remixed as well.  Circa 2017 releases by Rhino apparently use the 2007-08 mastering.
I replaced the 1994 remasters with mid-1980s releases by Atlantic/Atco and Virgin/Charisma.  An exception is the DCC gold CD of "From Genesis to Revelation."
Phil Collins' "Testify" CD (Atlantic, 2002) has the dubious distinction of the worst dynamic range in my collection--average DR5, ranging from DR4 to DR6.  Five of twelve tracks clip.  Here is an artist who clearly is gunning for the earbud market.



sd40
40 posts
 
Actually compression is good for that, it’s also done purposely with the higher end earing aids.

Somewhere along the way I read that the FCC, wise to what's being done, actually regulates the amount of compression radio stations can use.
sd40
40 posts
 
Regarding reviews: Just look at the way the new remix/remaster of George Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" has been praised to the heavens.  The dynamic range of most Beatles releases was never that great to begin with, but DR7?  What a sellout.  I bought the 3-CD set on the first day of its release recently, and I thought it would be better than that.  Enthusiasm got the better of me; I should have checked the online database first.
More to discover