You really can't improve on the original source.
More Detail From a CD?
So I think by most accounts here I'm a pretty entry-level audiophile. I've only gotten serious about my equipment over the last 4 years as budget allowed. But I've finally got a simple system I'll be happy with for a while. I have a Pass Labs XA30.5, a PS Audio Directstream DAC w/bridge, and Tekton Pendragon speakers. I've ripped (AIFF) my entire CD collection to a Drobo NAS and I stream through Tidal. Both of those go through Roon for convenience. But along the way I also picked up an NAD 516BEE CD player that I only used a couple of times before getting the Directstream DAC. I pulled it out the other day and played a few CDs and thought I was hearing more than from ripped or streaming. So I did A/B comparisons and to my ears there was definitely more detail. I really did not expect any difference as "digital is digital" but it was there. Would that be the consensus? I'd say I spent countless hours ripping for nothing but playlists are very convenient.
13 responses Add your response
BTW way, your system is far far better than entry level. There’s usually better dynamic range from original first release CD’s because of less compression, which gives your brain/ear more space to hear around individual notes (hence better detail), because the loud and quiet notes are not the compressed to a similar level "wall of sound" as I call it. I’m sure compression was developed for the "ipod/earbud brigade" so they don’t blow their eardrums or earbuds out with the louder dynamic passages if is NOT compressed, because they would have to turn the volume up louder during quiet passages if not compress to hear it, THEN BANG goes their eardrums on the loud notes. The streamed/downloaded ones are more likely to be later releases which are more compressed, especially the remastered ones. EG: The The "Infected" (green squares good dynamic range) http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=The+The&album=%09Infected Cheers George |
I don’t think there is a consensus about whether CDs sound better than streaming (more detail). It will vary depending on the individual system. There’s nothing wrong with your CDs sounding better, though. If you get the itch to get your streaming sounding as good as you can, there are threads on that. |
I agree totally, we have had A/B’s with pro streamers in attendance at our meetings, and the outcome was unanimous for CD replay sounding better. This "could" be put down to this. Streaming/download usually has later versions of the same album. (which are more compressed) EG: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=The+Traveling+Wilburys&album (scroll down) Or the streaming/download process is compressed itself. Cheers George |
So the 'ripped' CD sounds more detailed than the same CD played through the NAD player. I would think that a file played from a hard drive or flash drive would sound as good or better. Could it be a difference in DAC's or interconnects? I have an Arcam DV135 and I thought that CD's played through it sounded better than the same ripped CD played from a flash drive connected to a Bluesound Node 2. I later got a Wadia 121 dac for the Bluesound and it and the Arcam are close in sound quality but different. As far as streaming I agree with antigrunge2. I have tried Deezer, Tidal, and Qobuz (all at cd-quality) and I like Qobuz the best. Just wish they had playlists/channels as nice as Slacker (now LiveXLive). I am window-shopping speakers and am thinking about the Tekton Pendragon; that is how I came across this thread. |