Is using streaming services worthy of an audiophile?
Tidal is one of the very best but a cheap Deezer or Spotify account give you great ambient music. It exposes you to so much great stuff and helps you select what you want to hear more of and pick up (or make) the Hi-REs files that will only sound inferior to the best vinyl has to offer. In other words, streaming services are very pleasing to the ear and help you know what you want to hear more of!!! jhv |
Geoffkait, You obviously took my words and twisted them completely. I have come across people who say they cannot listen to digital, at all. Analog is the only thing they listen to. What a shame. Lots of music they are denying themselves of. No, I am not "hot dogging" you, I am trolling you because I have nothing better to do....Hel-loo! |
This is why I don't listen to CD's. I listen to .wav rips of CD's. The operative word is "almost". There are very good digital systems now that beat even the best vinyl and sound very much analog. I'm lucky enough to enjoy one of these. It's much more difficult to make digital sound like analog than making analog sound like analog. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
I’m not sure how many died and true audiophiles are interested in reducing their listening experience to merely another application on a computer. Having said that, that's mostly what I end up doing these days. Even when I play a record, the ADC is running to get the music ready for loading to my music server. I guess I am a traitor. But I do spend more time than ever actually listening to and enjoying the music so at least I am a happy traitor. |
+2 randyhat. I am not sure I understand the analog vs. digital debate. I guess I could if I had to pick one or the other... but I don’t. I mean I can purchase a turntable, tonearm, cartridge, needle and phono preamp AND I can aquire a DAC, streamer or computer to play digital music. I can listen to either format. I think the debate is silly because if I were thinking one is better than the other I would be listening to that format and if I changed my mind switch back. What is the problem???? BTW I have two audio systems, in one I have a tube amp, the other a solid state amp.... again not a problem only more options. |
One format always outperforms the other? Are you hot dogging me? 🌭 Nobody said that. Obviously a good example of either format - and one that is tweaked to perfection - can outperform a bad example or a stock out of the box example of the other format. Hel-loo! Each format has it’s advantages. Well, potential advantages. You don't hear too many CDs that actually have a dynamic range of 90 dB, do you? Let’s bring the argument back down to Earth. |
"... almost ALWAYS sound thin, wiry, bass shy, rolled off, tinny, electronic, lumpy, two dimensional, boring, synthetic, fake, congealed, and a lot like paper cache." I have both a decent vinyl rig and digital. Broad generalizations like the above has just not been my experience. For me it "almost ALWAYS" comes down to the individual recordings. Sometimes vinyl sound better...sometimes digital. I'm just happy to have the choices and do not feel the need to draw a line in the sand and take a stand for one or the other. Same is true of streaming... just another choice. |
It’s pretty obvious digital has more detail than analog. But analog is more musical. Untreated CDs in untweaked systems are kind of the worst case scenario, inasmuch as they almost ALWAYS sound thin, wiry, bass shy, rolled off, tinny, electronic, lumpy, two dimensional, boring, synthetic, fake, congealed, and a lot like paper mache. |
| Post removed |
willemjsThe reason the vinyl rig seems to produce more detail is that the dynamic range of vinyl is more limited. Therefore, both in the mastering and in the cutting the peaks have to be limited to avoid distortion and even the stylus jumping out of the groove ...This is a common misconception and completely mistaken. It's easy to see why people believe this, though, because digital certainly has a wider potential dynamic range than LP. However - in practice - that potential is often not realized. In part because of the Loudness Wars, the dynamic range of digital files is often compressed, which can make them more listenable in a noisy environment. Producers of LPs rightly assume that an LP is more likely to be heard in a quiet, domestic environment, so it can accommodate a wider dynamic range. You can prove this for yourself by purchasing a few LPs of new releases, and comparing them to the same music on other formats. The claim that on an LP "low level signals have to be lifted above all that surface noise" is just nonsense. You can prove this to yourself by listening to the quiet bands between LP tracks at your normal listening level. Nor is it true that LF must be summed into mono, although it is a very common practice. |
The reason the vinyl rig seems to produce more detail is that the dynamic range of vinyl is more limited. Therefore, both in the mastering and in the cutting the peaks have to be limited to avoid distortion and even the stylus jumping out of the groove, and the low level signals have to be lifted above all that surface noise (also, low frequencies have to be in mono for the same reason that peaks have to be limited). The end result is a dynamically compressed signal that suggests there is more detail. If you want to, you can achieve the same with digital compression. There are quite a few plug ins for mastering consoles to mimic this vinyl sound. Sorry if I have destroyed an illusion. |
I've been Tidaling for about a week now, both in my Hegel/Oppo/Acoustic Zen reference system and in my family room Sony/Elac system. It sounds much better than spotify in both and though it doesn't quite match my vinyl rig for sheer detail, I'm perfectly happy with it in lieu of spinning discs, especially when I'm too lazy to actually get up to change discs. |
Another great, and completely free streaming option is the HiDef Radio app for iPhone. Probably available on android. And i think you can just use their website now. Download it and search for the jazzgroove.org channel (if you like that kind of music). 128kbps stream. Extremely nice for casual listening. Run it thru USB into your dac and it is very nice. I do use a usb decrapper, but not much more. Cables are pretty low level. Nice sound. |
The question posed by the OP doesn't sit well with me. I understand having a discussion about Tidal and the quality of the service vs. other sources but it's that "worthy of an audiophile" part that gets me. Are there standards one must meet to qualify as an "audiophile"? What if a component that I use does not qualify as being "worthy of an audiophile", does that exclude me from the club? What are the standards? Who establishes them? If you have more money does that make it easier to qualify as an audiophile because you can afford the "proper" products? The point I am making is that I don't like labels. To me if we must use the term "audiophile" it is simply someone who cares about music and strives to get the best sound out of whatever system they have regardless of price. Just my two cents. |
Sounds like I am not the only one who has added a Tidal feed to other parts of the house bar the "audio room". However my findings are that Tidal streamed through my Bluesound Vault 2 and fed via digital coax to my exogal comet plus out to BAT power amp and into Wilson witt speakers sounds noticeably better than CD Redbook playback or even ripped wav files. That is to my ears in my system. Especially the Tidal masters at 96 and up depending on the release. |
It depends. For me Tidal is about convenience when I don't have time, or don't want to play an album or dig out a CD. I also use Audrivana for my DSD's, but I love the selection of Tidal, and I'll tell you sounds pretty good coming out of my Legacy Classic HD's. Sure, there is a bit of SQ drop off as compared to my other media but it's about finding new music and ease. I also run Tidal on my built in speakers around the house when entertaining as I've built some great playlists. I may get roasted for this, but you don't have to be an "audiophile" 100% of the time. Sometimes more than not it's about the music you enjoy listening too, versus listening to the perfect recordings to get the most out of your system. |
It's true that there are a lot of equipment junkies on all the forums. I like to get people off that train and into the psychological benefits of music. Once you achieve sound quality that exceeds vinyl, you forget about the equipment. It is possible. I've had several customers sell their vinyl systems, not because they were inconvenient, but because their digital sounded better. Defiant - If you are after the highest sound quality, the format of your rips should be .wav. Even uncompressed FLAC has SQ issues. Tags are an issue, but I put up with that for the better SQ. The important thing to remember with all digital is that jitter is the #1 thing that will reduce the SQ. The interface between the computer and the D/A is the critical part, whether its USB, Ethernet or S/PDIF, as well as the master clock in that interface. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
defiantboomerang As and old music lover/audiophile ( is there such a thing? ) I will relay my steps towards streaming. I purchased a really nice dac you may be able to use your CD player. At first I started burning my CDs onto my laptop using JRiver software. For me I really didn't like looking at my computer while listening and trying to enjoy music. I purchased a Melco N1 at 2k. Then a comparable Buffalo burner. Now I burn my CDs to the Melco at the same time I use it to play music. So the Melco is a library and player with 2 terabytes plus unlimited external storage. I loaded up a " remote " app on my IPad and use that to control the Melco, which has its own software. Now I have almost all my CDs recored and playable. I like the sound quality better then any player I have owned, and I have easier access. Haven't gotten into streaming yet, a friend of mine had stored a huge collection of CDs, put them on a hard drive which I downloaded to the Melco, now I have so much music don't know how long it will take to listen to all of it. When I get board I may go to streaming. Just a thought. |
danvignau - Tidal is essentially CD quality, so it has the typical digital challenges to beating vinyl. Even redbook can beat vinyl, but it requires the right low-jitter interface and a really good DAC. A CD transport will usually not cut-it, unless its uber-expensive. The best digital IME now is over Ethernet/WIFI and coming from a Roon interface or DLNA interface and driven by a computer. This will deliver the lowest jitter and have the least effects from the playback software and computer used. The thing to understand about all digital playback is that Jitter is the #1 obstacle, followed by the digital filter in the DAC, and then the analog stages, I/V conversion and power delivery system in the DAC. And this is assuming that you use .wav files, not compressed. Unfortunately, Tidal uses FLAC and ALAC rather then uncompressed .wav files. I predict that for most DAC's, the playback sound quality will be slightly lower than for a .wav file played directly from a computer. They are close however, and in most systems you will not hear the difference. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
If anyone has really good, neutral sounding components and likes Tidal, etc. please tell me what you use to receice their signal. I find it to be worse than a bent and worn Shure M91ED cartridge. Seriously, I dug an old one up (to play with my unipivot arm by biasing it crookedly counter to the bend, before trying this with my bent Supex Mark IV) and compared them. |
@david_ten The origin of the handle is much simpler. It was generated randomly, by a computer. https://www.bandnamemaker.com/ |
| Post removed |
