2. digital
  3. 166623-94555

CD v Streamed



Uncompressed CD audio will take about 10.6mb per minute to play, to stream that takes big space and dollars to stream an album, see what your streaming company’s takes mb per minute to stream, find out and post up here.

I hear CD’s are better, I get better dynamic range from CD every time it’s A/B to me, now that could be that the streaming companies are using the "later compressed re-issues" of the same albums, you can find that out here https://dr.loudness-war.info/
Or that the streaming process itself compresses the music to save "streaming size" to save big dollars even if in small amounts.

Here’s a video from the CEO of Disc Makers Pty Ltd, yes he probably also biased because he manufacturers CD’s and vinyl, and is a very bad dancer.
https://youtu.be/YHMCTUl2FQo?t=1

Cheers George
128x128georgehifi

Showing 2 responses by mahler123

mahler123
3,064 posts
 
I am not sure why the need to choose.  I prefer CDs, or CDs burned to a HD, to streaming content from the likes of Qobuz.  The only measurements I have are my ears.  It doesn’t require much imagination to see why the content provider or the ISP have incentives to compress sources and throttle bandwidth.  I think that Qobuz sounds inferior, but it isn’t a night and day, it’s a subtle difference.
   However, do we need to argue it?  We can have it all.  Play CDs, burn them to a HD, or stream them.  A streaming subscription costs the price of a decent download.  Don’t want a dedicated streamer?  Use a PC.    We live in a time of fantastic sonic replay.  Live and let live
mahler123
3,064 posts
 
Psyop

 so, do you feel a need to “re-educate” people that they shouldn’t be enjoying playback that you subjectively view as inferior?  Let’s keep in mind that we are not talking about something like the difference between mp3 and lossless here. We are essentially comparing relatively small variances in lossless playback
More to discover