CD v Streamed

I've found maximizing a streaming setup is a complex undertaking.  Audiophilestyle forum was my go to for understanding the process. At this point I'm rather agnostic as to preference for my well over 2500 cd rips on Synology NAS vs. streaming Roon interfaced with Qobuz and Tidal. I'm also agnostic about superiority of high res vs 16/44, quality of studio mastering is the biggie!

In opinion both CD and streaming are digital format what it mean they don't produce excellent sound quality in my ears compared to analog vinyl.  I learned the expensive hard way by doing lots of buying and testing equipment from high to low end gears specially with DAC's one to get the right matching sound with tubes amps.  Once I got the right DAC, I was able to appreciate both devices but I would prefer streaming since I can choose right genre of music in my right mood of listening.

I am relatively new to the streaming game. I just recently built out the digital side of my system. I have found that streaming an MQA file off of Tidal, or most of my high-res files on my NAS sound far better than CD’s through the same DAC. (Berkeley Alpha Series 3). However, CD’s sound better than 44.1 bit rate streaming on Tidal or Spotify. I’ve been truly blown away with how close streaming higher resolution files can be to vinyl. My two cents...

The bias towards the physical medium of the cd is the nostalgia for physical medium, much like lp vs over the air fm.  The cd came out when a computer with 1k of ram was 999 dollars.  The reading of the cd even with the most high end transport had 5% error rates and dacs were programmed to guess what information was missing.  Even my car audio can stream with data already in a memory cache that is error free.
use your cd’s like a rom storage device and an asynchronous dac and you will lose the all the negative attributes of digital music

Great topic georgehifi, im interested to see what comes out. Im not sure where you get your 10.6 megabits/min figure, but with Internet Providers offering 100mbps speeds, 10.6 mbpm is no problem. Please correct me if I am wrong, but here is my 2 cents worth.

I think duckworp hit the nail on the head. My RME ADI-2 FS DAC displays the bit rate of the stream it is processing from Qobuz. As duckworp pointed out, the bit rate tells us how much data is being streamed per second. When my DAC tells me it is processing 24bit at 192 kHz, I believe it. So 2 x 24 x 192000 = 9,216,000 bits/sec. My internet service provides 100Mbps, so streaming 24bit 192kHz is a piece of cake.

So the question becomes, why would Qobuz transmit to me 9 megabits/sec (24bit 192kHz) from a crappy highly compressed audio source file when it could send me 24bit 192kHz from the finest source available? Sounds like bad business to me. Remember, a CD is only 16bit 44.1kHz, which is 2 x 16 x 44,100 = 1,411,200 bits/sec.

From what I have read, Qobuz transmits FLAC files to me. I really don’t care what other people say, it is a FACT FACT FACT, that when a FLAC file is uncompressed, it is identical to the original WAV file it was created from (except for a few bytes of metadata ID). So unless the act of uncompressing the FLAC file is causing interference, the FLAC should sound identical to the original WAV file.

Looking forward to reading more reply, thank you.

Dale

I am using Innuos ZEN to stream Qobuz music and also as a file transport/server. The stream quality is great, but when I really like something, I still buy a CD to rip it to the ZEN hard drive. Why? Because a ripped CD sounds better than a streamed FLAC file. 
And I don't think it is about the quality of the file, it is about what happens to it on the way to my DAC. I don't subscribe to the simplistic theory that a digital signal is just 0 and 1. If a USB cable makes such a difference, surely a router and the whole ethernet structure with its ground voltage etc. should affect the SQ. 

I both stream and play CDs. CDs are played through a Sony XA 5400 ES which was a Stereophile A+ Component for four years and is excellent on Red Book. I stream through a Cambridge CXNv2 to a Benchmark DAC 3b. I can also play CVDs using the digital out of the Sony to the Benchmark.
By far most of the time using the Sony through the Benchmark is noticeably better than the Sony alone. I like the sound of Tidal streamed through the gear listed better than the CD and I find Qobuzz also better, although sometimes Qobuzz sounds too digital vs. a more liquid sounding Tidal. Tube Audio Research pre-amp and everything is on Audioquest Niagara power conditioning and cords.
Just sayin......  & BTW, with digital everything starts at the wall and/or router.  Hospital Grade at the wall and clean noise reduced power to all gear. Router to streamer via Ethernet, not below Grade 6 and 7 or 8 preferred.  Isolate digital gear from analogue with sheet copper.  Streaming is a serious medium, treat it that way just as you would every other piece of gear you would try an achieve optimum performance from.

I decided a while ago that ripping a CD to a music server sounded better than the CD.  I do not have an uber CD player- maybe that's the issue.  There is no question in my system that music played from the server is much better than Tidal or Qobuz ( and I agree Qobuz is easily better than Tidal).  The Hi-Rez streaming is better than 16/44 and I am undecided on MQA as my DAC doesn't unfold it and I am not convinced Roon is helping with what it does.
I have 3 switches Etherregen, SOtM with clock, English Electric 8Switch and a Mutec clock on the ER and SOtM and that has greatly improved the streaming but it doesn't bring it to the level of the server files.  I have an Antipodes Core server and Innuos Statement.  I use Roon in Experimental (squeezelite) mode.
There was a time I thought Roon was better with the Core on the Antipodes and Endpoint on the Innuos but after adding the Mutec I went back to Experimental mode.  I still don't understand why, it doesn't make sense to me.  Maybe it unmasked some nasties from the network traffic or the Antipodes.

@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.

CD is better. All the time. No contest in my system. 

Compression? How about cd vs vinyl. 

Compression? How about cd vs vinyl.

If you look at the dynamic range data base https://dr.loudness-war.info/, vinyl has the better DR figures also, just like the early versions of older cd issues before they get compressed.

Where cd kills vinyl is in the channel separation, with vinyl you’ve got at best 30db of channel separation and that’s at 1khz at 16khz and at 50hz it’s much worse, almost mono. Where with cd you have 120db channel separation right across the audio band 20hz to 20khz

Cheers George

Why don't you just set up a blind listening test and find out if you can pick out the best sounding one. 

I've only been streaming for a few weeks but noticed that Qobuz - hi-rez included, has fairly substantial compression applied.  I witnessed this on pretty much everything I have listened to.  It sounds fine at lower volume levels.  But turn it up and... ack.  For fun, I ripped a song off of Rumours (24/192) and it proved exactly what I was hearing.  It's like an average level was established and nothing escapes it.  Not rim shots, cymbal accents, screams, explosions, nothing.  After ripping hundreds upon hundreds of LPs, I have never seen a cymbal get struck and fail to move the level meter at all.  It's....very odd.

I’ve only been streaming for a few weeks but noticed that Qobuz - hi-rez included, has fairly substantial compression applied. I witnessed this on pretty much everything I have listened to. It sounds fine at lower volume levels. But turn it up and... ack.

Now you know why I’m so anti compression, and started this thread and even more this one
" Stop compressing our bloody music!!!!!!!!!!! " https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/stop-compressing-our-bloody-music?highlight=stop%2Bcompressin...
No sounds in life are compressed, why do it to our music, and force us to listen to it
Cheers George

@georgehifi it's disappointing because the potential was there. Kind of like Sat Radio. Such a great concept but a complete failure in execution. I was all set to pay for a year of Qobuz after my 30 day trial but now I really need to weigh all options. Or maybe just pay for ROON and rip the rest of my CDs and LPS to a NAS.

Another +vote for CD is Better.

Happy Listening!

Good topic George,  I’m with ya ,..

I can‘t get either my audioaero capitole mk2 nor CDs ripped to my Innuos Zenith Mk3 to be anywhere near as good as the Qobus stream via Innuos. Not sure what you are all on about. I will though admit to having had to spend an inordinate amount of time on getting my router/ethernet/USB sorted, so therein may well lie the answer.

@antigrunge2 I tried everything with Qobuz. I run a full Sonore opticalRendu setup with upgraded Sonore LPSs (using Roon) to a PS Audio DS DAC and then out to my Ayre KX/VX-5 Twenty combo (to Focus SE speakers). I found almost everything on Qobuz moderately to severely compressed. I know it's not my gear because my local wav and dsf files sound stunning using the exact same pathway.

I signed up for Tidal yesterday and even though most songs that I tested were 16/44.1, there was significantly less compression. Most songs had none but then some definitely had compression applied.. I mention this because almost everyone who's tried both services seems to prefer Qobuz. I don't get it. But it's easy to test. Play a few songs on Qobuz then switch over to Tidal. You'll have to turn up the volume quite a bit to match levels. I'm not claiming Qobuz is applying the compression but they're using some horrid remasters if not. Then again, I say this on faith as I have no way to know what the heck is going on. But if both streaming companies aren't molesting their streams, why and how can they sound differently? Qobuz has much more bass, more body with less treble extension. Tidal sounds more neutral in my setup. Meaning, less bass and mids and sweeter,  more extended highs. Some may think this is somewhat clinical and maybe that's why they prefer Qobuz. I don't know. But Tidal is worlds better in my setup. It sounds much closer to my ripped files than Qobuz. Seems unlikely that they're using different masters but you never know..  More listening/testing needed this weekend to confirm what I've heard thus far from Tidal.

@audiom3,

I am London based, maybe a UK vs US issue?

@antigrunge2 could be.  Either way though, it is puzzling.

George, thanks from me too. You are and have helped me and the community.

It's important. Steamers cost a lot, and if the music is getting mangled like FM radio does, makes it seem silly to spend thousands on a streamer. Plus, we just need to know. 

There will always be trolls and dummies. Don't let them demand your time.

@river251,
Agree that the issue of compressed recordings via streaming services is worth exploring and exposing. If this practice is the norm then if does cause one to contemplate the value/need of higher price streamers. If this focused attention results in an increased use (Default choice) of uncompressed streamed files that would be commendable.
Charles

+1 George and Rix
So I spend 200K+ on gear and then subscribe to a service that gives me inferior quality than is actually out there for the taking??  Sure it requires more of an effort to find the best recordings...my ears, my time and the money I worked for to get my gear are worth going the extra mile.  If you cant hear the difference then I would question your gear/cables etc to begin with.  Its like having a regular LP Record back in the 70s/80's and then playing the HALF-SPEED Mastered version against it.  You'll hear instruments and other aspects that you didnt hear on the regular record. You know why??? The Regular records were pressed at INCREDIBLY High Speeds which made the records lose their fidelity.  When the pressing speed was slowed down considerably you get MUCH more information and clarity.

I also lean toward CD sounding better than streaming. 

Haven’t read the whole thread so don’t know if this has been asked. What is the take on cd vs music ripped to wmv on HD them played through dac? 

mofojo

There’s another thread on this, just look for the "CD vs.same CD ripped to HD" title thread posted yesterday.

Cheers George

Here is Stereophile's music writer/reviewer (Tom Fine) that also believes what I been saying about the best CD's being the first release issues being uncompressed and sounding the best, and the later issues being "crunched dynamically" and says it here with the Crosby Stills Nash and Young  Déjà Vu  album 

"The first CD is the original album, sourced from the original tapes. Chris Bellman at Bernie Grundman Mastering used a light hand at the mastering console and kept the original dynamics and tonal qualities. It's superior to the two prior issues on 5" shiny plastic: It's not so much that they were stereotypically bad CDs (although the 1994 reissue, made at the dawn of the awful Loudness Wars, is somewhat dynamics-crunched); it's that this version is a really good demonstration of how good a CD can sound. Spin it on a top-grade player or through a good DAC and behold the state of the studio-recording art in late 1969." 

 https://www.stereophile.com/

 https://www.stereophile.com/content/revinylization-18-d%C3%A9j%C3%A0-vu-all-over-again

Cheers George

George,   That doesnt apply if your a dealer in Jersey City. They have magic electricity over there that turns compression and brickwalling into stunning detail and clarity unavailable elsewhere. Id move there but the Carcinogens from the nearby gas refineries and NYC would take years off my life.

They have magic electricity over there that turns compression and brickwalling into stunning detail and clarity unavailable elsewhere

Jersey City, I heard that also, maybe the "Dynamic Range Data Base" site should only accept comparisons of the same CD/Albums regardless of version vintage be listed/downloaded from there only.😉

Cheers George

I’d say the answer to "which sounds better" is "depends".

Let’s assume that the "chains" in your system sound equally good:

CD player/DAC = Streaming source/DAC

I find that often the hi-res master that’s available for streaming from Qobuz is oftentimes more-recently mastered and oftentimes does sound a bit better than the mastered version on my CD.

I also find that some of my SACDs do sound a bit better then the FLAC files from Qobuz, but that’s atypical.

More times than not, I will select the Qobuz version over my CD/SACD version.

More recently mastered = Brickwalled/Compressed in most cases. CD’s of older titles from the 60’s thru 80’s sound best in their 1st generation masterings most of the time. Newer doesnt = better unless its been remixed by the likes of Steve Wilson/Keven Gray for a new special product launch. Just compare the DR’s. Again...you have to compare the ORIGINAL (Not Remastered) Discs to make a fair comparison. Go to DISCOGS to find what MATRIX # for each title is the 1st pressing...if its worth your bother that is.
Of course if your Spinner/Dac Combo is subpar that will also influence the quality of what you hear and might not be worth the bother of A/B-ing. Pugsley in Jersey City said his comparison of streaming vs CD was based on a 10 Year Old CD/Dac Player (K01).   Talk about a "fixed" fight!! LOL 

I tried out an Optical Media Converter today. After reading threads about this being an effective improvement I thought I would try it. Some months ago I put a network switch between my ROON server and the router which improved the sound. Still, 44.1kHz/16bit streaming was not quite as good as CD or the Ripped CD FLAC files on my server. The Optical Media Converter consists of two boxes with an Ethernet cable going in box A and fiber cable going out to Box B and then an ethernet cable going out of box B and into my server. The sound was noticeably better right away. Wow! This is an effective tweak. I did an A/B comparison with a couple of CDs to streaming 44.1/16 and I could no longer discern a difference. I was rocking for a few hours until the music stopped suddenly. Box B appears to be defective. The TX indicator light went out on both boxes indicating fiber failure. I did some troubleshooting and using my cellphone camera I can see a red light in the port of box A but no red light in box B. My fiber cable appears to be fine. I noticed after repacking these items that the seals were already broken on the ESD bags. I didn’t catch that when I took them out of the box. What’s up with Amazon these days?

an effective tweak. I did an A/B comparison with a couple of CDs to streaming 44.1/16 and I could no longer discern a difference.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for this update,
I had a tech geek here in new orleans that **swore** I should dump cdp's and go Stream,
**Its soooo much better resolution**, I  just shuged it off.
Yesterday arrived the chinese 
~LKS Class A/JFET descrete opamps,~~
WOW, 
a  pair of duals @ $50/each , just to try them out,
WOW
I  immediaely order a  2nd pair, as the Jadis JS2/Mark2 takes 4 duals. 
I had a  pair of USA made duals and a  pair of chinese high tech descrete duals. 
These new JFET( not sure what this means, but they are really cool looking, even Richard Gray  was impressed = which is a surprise, as his stance is TI makes the best, due to huge lab team/superior engineers), 
WEll let me say just pop in a  single SA100  Descrete or these Dual JFET's, and your player will out shoot any newest DAC or Stream. 
Douk Audio sells duals and  singles  SA200/duals, and SA100/singles.
I passed up Douk and bought another model, the LKS Class A JFET.
Not sure which is superir, my guess is  both are close in performance,  but I think these LKS JFET's are the best bang for opamps. 
Item # 274403974731

I received my replacement optical converters today.  It appears the problem may have been in the fiber optic cable.  The old cable does not work at all.  The replacement cable works but one connector is a bit flaky. I had to manipulate the connector going into one converter box to make the connection.  An hour or so later the connection dropped and I had to reinsert the fiber cable.  I need a better solution for the fiber- perhaps I'll try multimode.  Perhaps those connectors are more robust.  Sound is excellent.  I have a CD transport that upsamples to DSD and sends the signal to the DAC via 3 BNC cables.  This Transport/DAC combo works very well with more resolution and a larger 3D soundstage than I ever thought possible with CDs.  So now, I played a CD back to back with streaming 44/1/16k again.  They are very very close.  Next I plan to fire up my analog rig and compare it to streaming.  I almost don't want to know.  Right now, my analog rig has a slight edge over CD with some records.  I guess I will not be able to post my comparison of streaming to vinyl here since this post is titled CD vs Streaming.  What an exciting time for audio.

Right now, my analog rig has a slight edge over CD with some records. I guess I will not be able to post my comparison of streaming to vinyl here since this post is titled CD vs Streaming. What an exciting time for audio.

Of course you can post it up, I’ve done the comparison, and yes while analog is good, it’s maximum of 30db channel separation at 1khz and falls off to almost 10db (mono) in the bass, and around 15db in the highs, it can’t match the 120db channel separation of CD top to bottom.
The sound stage imagining and depth perspective with CD because of that channel separation, is sooo much more precise, wider, and has far better imaging on the outside the speakers too when it’s called for when "anti phase" notes have been deliberately recorded to put them there.

Cheers George

I know all the technical data and comparison between vinyl and analog.  Similar to the SS and Tube amp discussions in the 1980s, SS amps looked great on paper with their great S/N and low distortion but tubes still had the advantage in listening.  With my previous CD player, which was quite good, vinyl still had a clear lead in sound.  With this new DAC/Transport combo and music server I see quite a bit of overlap between Digital songs and records.  Hi res files have the holographic imaging of vinyl w/o the noise so hi res is tops to me now but some records still beat out CD to me with a larger stage and more body to the voices and instruments.  A lot of CDs, and this is not the player's fault since this is not always the case now, make the voices and instruments seem like cardboard cutouts.  I grew up on records, so I can tolerate some background noise in the music.  In fact, for a long time CD was too clean sounding if you get what I mean.  Better turntables and cartridges eliminate a lot of groove noise too.  Speed control of turntable platters is also critical to compete with digital, I think.  Overall, it takes more dollars, more effort and perseverance to get vinyl to a level to compete with good digital.

Part of the fun of vinyl is that it shouldn't work so well.  It's just not possible, it would seem, for vinyl to sound so good.  The stereo 33 1/3 LP concept was sketched out by two engineers on a cocktail napkin.  With those auspicious beginnings, I think it is a testament to the ingenuity of not just manufacturers but also the contributions of hobbyists alike that made the LP what it is.  The same goes for CDs too.  

I see hi end or hifi streaming as still a cottage industry.  I imagine a lot of people have and will continue to make contributions to this technology.  For now, this technology at least for hi end hifi is still very much in development without a lot of clear paths to all of the hardware needed.  I hung onto my previous CD player for 15 years because hi res digital and streaming- at least something beyond iTunes was bewildering.  I spent about 4 months last winter studying and trying to learn and understand hi end streaming technology.  I visited some shops and listened to various digital rigs.  I finally settled on a DAC and Transport that just blew me away with the sound upgrade from my old CD player.  But I had a few setbacks with my attempts at streaming.  Where I am today I have learned a lot and I can look back and think, "Gee, I could almost live without a record player and CD transport with how good my music server and streamer sound today."  (Not that I'm ready to give up my analog rig).

Hi George, this review is for you.  I found an album that rocks on Qobuz. KD Lang's Makeover track 3, Keep on Moving.  It is in 44.1/16 format on Qobuz.  I bought the record.  It came as a 33 1/3 two record set (14 tracks) in an unusual turquoise vinyl.  Keep in mind that my stereo system consists of a digital side with two sources and an analog side- CD transport, RS9 Music Server with ROCK running Roon and a Sota Star/SME/Soundsmith.  For reference only, the investment into the analog side is a few thousand more than the digital side.  So close to even.  I have listened to other records and their digital counterparts but I will focus on this album, Makeover because it has accentuated bass and highs with vocals and also, Keep on Moving really jams.  
In summary, vinyl is king.  The sound is close between both formats but when I played the vinyl I got goosebumps.  That seals the deal right there.
The digital:  Bass is just ever so slightly crisper.  The vinyl:  The highs are sweeter.  Soundstage- I could tell no difference.  Dynamic Range- Seemed the same.
Cool factor:  Goes to the vinyl because watching the grooves spin on that semitransparent vinyl is mind blowing.  Playing music with an iPad is cool too.
Please feel free to come audition my stereo when you are in the mood to come to sunny, hot, sticky, plenty of gnats middle Georgia.  Don't worry the listening room is air conditioned although when the whole system is powered up with 1400 Watts of heat dissipation and 95 degrees outside the A/C is a bit taxed.

If you get sweeter highs from vinyl, more likely than not your digital replay is affected by RFI/EMI or imperfect clocking. Absent those two, distortion levels on vinyl will always be higher and dynamic range lower. Fixes include ethernet filters, USB isolators, better cables or better clocks.

If ones wants to almost mimic vinyl using cd, just put a 1kohm resistor across left and right channels of the cd/dac output.
This ruins the channel separation from 120db, down to about 30db right across the board (should be worse in the highs and especially the bass) but it’s a one resistor exercise.

What you’ll find is now playing a CD especially the old nasty left/right ping pong ones (early Beatles etc) suddenly they sound more fleshed out because you are "monoizing" them for want of a better word The voice instead of just in one channel are now in both which gives it extra body. 

It would be even closer to vinyl if you were to really develop a proper passive network on the output of the cd, to follow a vinyl cartridge’s channel separation from 20hz to 20khz .

Cheers George

Wow tough crowd.  Suum cuique.  

Suum cuique.

No not really, it’s a measured fact.


Cheers George