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 3 responses by rixthetrick

rixthetrick's avatar
rixthetrick
1,060 posts
 
@georgehifi - has your friend at Sound Stage Au done a review on either Australian made, The Gieseler Company DAC or Lenehan Audio loudspeakers?

Yeah I haven't been bothering streaming, I have 500 cds loaded on a dedicated SSD, on a fanless PC.

Eventually I will move over to something like the Auralic which is apparently pretty much state of the art now. I have listened to hi res, and the difference hasn't proven to be night and day for me, as some people have experienced themselves.

I am strictly digital at the moment, I have not had a streamer and I have heard music through a Cambridge Audio Azur 851N, and dedicated music server PC, the sound was ok.
Thank you for sharing this info, interesting to know. I remember we used to sit around listening when I was on the Goldie in QLD, comparing MQA and standard quality, and sometimes it was a little better, sometimes not. Often the MQA was remastered and it wasn't apples for apples at that point, it wasn't about a format being better or not, it was the guy remastering.

rixthetrick's avatar
rixthetrick
1,060 posts
 
Seems like reasonable subject matter to be aware of as a consumer of music, considering the cost of the playback systems people here are using.

Consumers are paying for access to music, where streaming of files like MQA are supposedly offering superior playback, when in fact it may not be the case.

If someone prefers not to be informed; perhaps this forum, or at least this thread is not for you??
do you feel a need to “re-educate” people that they shouldn’t be enjoying playback that you subjectively view as inferior?
It seems that the growing collective experience is it's not just his subjective view, it's something that I and others also claim from listening.

rixthetrick's avatar
rixthetrick
1,060 posts
 
@daleberlin - yeah FLAC sounds no different than a WAV ripped from a CD. At least on my system, I find your claim to be the case for me too.

@relaks - I don’t stream my FLAC files, they are local on a purpose built fanless PC music server. The SSD the file is on had it’s own linear power supply.
And as I said to daleberlin, for whatever reason, my system resolves the information in such a way that I cannot distinguish a difference in quality between FLAC and WAV.
My DAC is not one you will know of, it sits somewhere between a PS Audio DirectStream and Denefrips Terminator in SQ, well at least in the system the meeting where it was reviewed.
This is just my experience, of which I can only account.

@sns - "I’m also agnostic about superiority of high res vs 16/44, quality of studio mastering is the biggie!" - I agree on that for certain.
More to discover