I’ve found that the SQ of my red book CDs exceeds that of streaming using the identical recordings for comparison. (I’m not including hi res technology here.) I would like to stop buying CDs, save money, and just stream, but I really find I enjoy the CDs more because of the better overall sonic performance. I stream with Chromecast Audio using the same DAC (Schiit Gumby) as I play CDs through. I’m wondering if others have had the same experience
Streaming services such as Spotify and Apple have huge catalogs. I listen to Classical exclusively and generally am able between the 2 to find any recording, provided it is in print. Several caveats apply. Both services have search engines optimized for non classical. There are many times that the Verdi scenario you described happens, even if you type in the names of the Conductor, performers, etc. with repeated search attempts you will hit paydirt, but it can be frustrating. And don’t even think of having Siri find the correct recording; Apple voice recognition is god awful. Amazon might be better with Alexa, but somehow I doubt that it will be attuned to the subtleties of navigating a Classical catalog, and I have found Amazon Music to have less depth of catalog for Classical compared to Spotify or Apple Music. The next caveat is sound quality, as all the services mentioned are essentially MP3 quality. They can still sound pretty darn good, but pale in comparison to High Rez Streaming. If you live in the U. s., High Rez Streaming means eithe Primephonic, which has a very limited catalog, or Tidal, which is poorly organized for Classical and doesn’t begin to approach the breadth of catalog of Apple or Spotify
I’d genuinely like to know why. ASR measured the jitter reduction inherent with his AP by doing a J-test with a Toslink loop, then measured the Toslink output of the CCA (using the same cable I would assume), so if the jitter reduction was any worse, it would should up, and the differences were near non-existent.
Very well. The bandwidth of the AP system measuring jitter is not high enough to capture the jitter completely. You need at least 5GHz bandwidth to get real-time direct jitter. Even higher would be better.
This is exactly like trying to measure a fast 10MHz digital signal with a 100MHz B/W scope. You will miss everything going on in the waveform.
You are talking about measuring the picoseconds worth of jitter (which does need to be in the MHz region). I am talking about doing a J-Test and finding out how the jitter will affect the passband after being reduced with a DAC, which would show up as any added noise to the waveform. It’s the same test Stereophile uses. I do not know the psec equivalent, but it is stated as worst case scenario, and when paired with even a cheap-ish DAC like the Topping D50, any jitter with using the CCA via optical was reduced to below -130dBFS, much lower than any residential noise floor.
I just signed up for IDAGIO. I can't put it down! This thing is going to ruin me. For three nights in a row I have been up past my bedtime listening to music. I think that anybody who is into classical music should give it a try!
I tried every possible way With different types of equipment 105D / REGA DAC NIAM DAC ....... All PLAC file DSD WAV
No one sounds better than CD 16./44.1 The closest to WAV is also in the form of a file and also in the form of CD burning Closer but does not have the sound of a CD
In two complete player shapes such as SA-11 S1 Or NAIM DAC + Transport COX connection is better than optical audio DENON DCD-3560 An amazing transport Only {also as an amazing solo player but a different story} Sounds better than any file Attack ... Depth / Height / Stage Width ... Timber And more rhythm and playing are not all together But one next to the other and as if each one is playing solo.
Nice experience to get the sound of my basic equipment ... needs thousands of dollars So I already have thousands of CDs Which I think sounds better than Strimermer .... Maybe I was annoyed a few but that's the truth
+1 The J-Test is a pretty conclusive stress test. No jitter artifacts is a pretty strong indication that jitter is not going to be a problem. I have pointed this out to Steve before but he ignores this fact (for obvious reasons).
I have listened to components that measure well on the J-test and I can still hear the jitter. When I drive these with lower jitter sources, they sound better. This is why I don't take much stock in the J-test. The correlation to audibility is not there. There needs to be much better tests, and direct jitter measurement for sources.
I used the High quality downloads Companies like DGG 24-96...... And other companies And I had software that I do not remember right now EKSAKT COPY is the same if I remember correctly And friends' quality files. In all shapes DSD PLAC 24/192 OR AUDIO ON CD BY "LSO" RECORDING All my comparisons are good and good hours and hours Listen through OPPO 105D DAC and other high-quality devices All from HHD Hard disk The files were transferred to the DAC via a 105D stream
The comparison was directly opposite the same recording .
Always the best result is most originally on top of the same CD / SACD It is currently using the DAC R2R of the devices Sounds best to me and does not mess with it anymore I have more than 500 GB and no one gives me sound even from tuner of the Sony 707ES
TECHNICS SLP-990 1987 has more life and detail and 3D sound than the best files
files
It simply does not equal SA-11 S1 or nDAC With a transport of Danon DCD-3560 16 / 44.1 Including file transfer via Strummer to the NIAC DAC To the SPL PHONITOR 2headphone amplifier TO SONY Z1R HE EDION V2 and more All I heard from friends with DSC Debussy and Source Top Class File 24/192 Klemperer / Symphony No. 2 of Mahler. With LUXMAN P-1U HD800 + SUPERB CABL
We put the disc out of 1989's EMI before today's remestring
Still the disc sounds better with the 16/44.1 CD WAY
You know better You may have top class equipment in it The files sound better But very few files I heard Who says I can sleep with them really do not
So I'm from old generation quality transport + good DAC Or a quality CD of the 80-90 years sounds like DENON DCD-3560 MARANTZ SA-11 S1 NAIM DAC SONY XA-50ES SLP-990 IT SOUND SUPERB 1987 AND TODAY 2018 AS WALL Even better than the up-to-date sound of OPPO 105D Or appliances at a reasonable level up to $ 3,500
There was an article in Sound On Sound about 10 years ago on jitter and how it was not really a problem for good modern dacs and like I said this was 10 years ago. The article did say if you are chaining multiple dacs then you would want an external clock but how many do that in a home situation.
Remwmbwr you are listening to compress audio with streaming. Wont sound better than CD. I only play flac from a usb stick on my system. It sounds better than streaming.
Listen through OPPO 105D DAC and other high-quality devices All from HHD Hard disk The files were transferred to the DAC via a 105D stream
This was a mess of unintelligible stuff, but I can see that you don't have the equipment that is up to the task, just as I suspected. If you are using USB and many different software playback apps, the results will be poor.
The devil is in the details. This is a system and every part of the system must be optimized to get stellar results, including the playback app, the interfaces, the computer, the cables, the ripping, and the DAC.
There was an article in Sound On Sound about 10 years ago on jitter and how it was not really a problem for good modern dacs and like I said this was 10 years ago. The article did say if you are chaining multiple dacs then you would want an external clock but how many do that in a home situation.
And your point is? There are a lot of BS articles out there from people that don't know Shiit from Shinola.
I don't take stock in sources with no credibility. I know what I measure and I know what I hear. My customers agree with what I hear.
Remember you are listening to compress audio with streaming. Wont sound better than CD. I only play flac from a usb stick on my system. It sounds better than streaming.
Finally, something true, although FLAC from Tidal is not compressed on playback, so it could possibly match CD playback given the right playback equipment.
I can play MP3 from Amazon Prime music with my newest XMOS USB converter, Wireworld Platinum USB cable and one of these:
The SQ from this beats the CD digital output from my Oppo by a country mile, even though it's compressed. This is because reducing jitter is more important than MP3 compression.
I have found that redbook sounds better than those same CDs ripped to FLAC files and streamed through the exact same system the CD player goes through. Both the streaming (ROON) and CD player use the same DAC (TEAC NT-505). Streaming when I am not critically listening is fun though due to the ease and how one can free associate with your music and mood switching to different bands and songs with just a few clicks and not having to get up. Now I do not have true hi rez files to compare the CDs with, so I cannot speak to that comparison.
I’ve just started taking digital seriously as a playback medium (as opposed to using it for background music or work related stuff) and have been pleasantly surprised by how good it can be, even with a relatively modest set up, compared to my vinyl front end, which is far more ambitious. One thing I’ve found is that there is a dramatic difference in presentation based on the sources and mastering. (Something I’ve been acutely attuned to in vinyl and and am now chasing down in CDs). The sonic differences are often quite dramatic. I have not yet gotten into a streaming service though I understand the value of having access to a vast catalog of music. I suppose the point of my comment also leads to a question: apart from formats, gear, and approach, isn’t a huge sonic differentiator the source and mastering? In using a streaming service (and this is a question, not intended to be loaded), what choices do you have among different sources/masterings for a given recording? (I know that from my days of listening to classical music, which I do far less of today, the particular performance, by conductor and orchestra, as well as label, were factors so if streaming services offer a number of different recorded performances of a piece, perhaps you have alternatives). What about different masterings of rock and jazz?
I have not yet gotten into a streaming service though I understand the value of having access to a vast catalog of music.
Trouble with streaming you don’t know what version of the album your getting, some have had the daylights compressed out of them.
This is what I use to find the most dynamic version type in your artist and album. "more green/highest right side number". click on it and find the cat no. then search for a used cd on ebay. Latest are usually more compressed I noticed. http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Pink+Floyd&album=The+Wall For this The Wall the top one 1991 I’d go for trouble is there’s no cat no for it, just that’s it’s a South African one.
Hi, George. I am familiar with DR measurements and the effects of dynamic compression. I guess my question should have been more pointed: how do you know what mastering you are getting on a streaming service? Are mastering credits provided by the streaming service or are there other indications that match up with hard media versions of a given recording?
In streaming services you can’t determine what mastering is used. What’s worse, most times, there’s no indication of what year a particular CD was released. In classical music there may be multiple performances of the same work by a performer from different years and there’s no way of determining which versions are earlier or later.
I guess my question should have been more pointed: how do you know what mastering you are getting on a streaming service?
You don’t, they usually go with the latest, which unfortunately most are more compressed than the originals 10-20 years ago. That’s why I don’t stream or download, I stick with the silver disc.
Just for interest have a look at Adel 21 on the DR website, I really liked it in the car on the radio.
I bought the cd played it once when I got it on my home rig, and was shocked how compressed it was, and couldn’t send it back quick enough. http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Adel&album=21
@whart + 1 million the original mastering quality trumps everything, It is order of magnitude larger differentiator than anything else in the playback chain.
The sound quality of IDAGIO is exactly what I would expect: excellent.
I am so fortunate that I am not cursed with ears good enough to reliably discern between 16/44.1 and any higher resolution. Or perhaps my el-cheapo $10k system just doesn't have the resolving power. Either way, I am perfectly satisfied with 16/44.1 material.
The good thing about "greater than 16/44.1audio files" is that many of these recordings have been re-mastered. In most cases, that same master is used for 16/44.1 playback, so I have the benefit of enjoying the new mastering without having to listen to it at higher resolutions. I have the gear to do so; it's just not worth the trouble.
Compression. Absolutely vital for recorded music intended for mass consumption. Listening to Beyonce's latest release through earbuds or while driving would be tedious without it. Listening to background music at a party or while doing housework is actually enhanced by compression.
When I sit down to listen to music, it is generally not going to be pop music. I mostly listen to jazz and classical, which usually doesn't seem to suffer from heavy compression. Most of the rock and alternative music I listen to is delightfully free of excessive compression. This is not the material that is going to be consumed by the average casual listener, so the material is mastered for a more critical audience. I do seek out better recordings when possible. For example, I have some recent Grateful Dead releases that are substantially less compressed than my old CDs, and listening to them is a revelation. But for the most part, especially considering what I listen to and how I listen to it, compression is not that big of a problem for me.
brayeagle: you will be stuck with what they have. But they have more material than I could find space to store on CDs. Tidal has a fairly decent assortment, but individual recordings can be tough to track down. I look them up on google, then search for whatever performers name the album is listed under (usually the soloist, sometimes the conductor, rarely the composer). A little rough. So far, Idagio has been a more pleasant searching experience.
I signed up for the free trial on Tidal. Ive been trying for an hour to get hooked up to Aurender Conductor to no avail. I downloaded the Aurender app but can’t get it to work.
Just had a listen to the samples, and you can hear on the samples the DR site is right, it wasn’t compressed too much at all also done by "Blue Note" they don’t compress. Sounded good I might get it S/H on CD https://www.allmusic.com/album/doin-allright-mw0000200382
kahlenz You must be kidding I hope. Classical and jazz sound are acceptable to hear with compressed sound? That’s utter nonsense. Classical and jazz are especially critical to hear (and enjoy) with a full panoply of dynamics, both micro and macro. Post 1995 pop recordings are typically highly compressed- no need to expend that music. Listening to heavy metal and hard rock from the 60's to the 80's have generally compressed dynamic ranges anyway.
Also very compressed modern music can sound just fine at higher spl's if your system and room is good (neutral) enough in the bass region. For some "audiophile" systems this may not be the fact.
The topic of dynamic compression grew out of my broader question whether streaming services gave access to, and information about, various masterings, I acknowledge the affects of the loudness wars,* but the issue is broader than that and affects more than just pop confections. I come from vinyl land, but in exploring CDs, the issues include what source the particular master was taken from as well as the mastering choices, EQ (in vinyl that also extends to what pressing plant made the record and the quality of the vinyl compound used, factors that aren’t relevant to digital files and may be of only limited relevance in digital hard media). The mastering issues are not limited to compression, though. I’ve been buying multiple CDs of old, and sometimes obscure, records and you can hear demonstrable differences in sound quality. Thus, my question about what masterings were used by streaming services and whether they were identified in the meta data. Apparently Aurender does make the information available. I didn’t mean to sidetrack the discussion about comparing Redbook to streaming services, but it struck me that the differences in source and mastering could be a big part of the sonic outcomes, especially if you are not comparing identical recordings. _________________________________________ *I’ve certainly heard its effect when it is heavy handed. Judicious use of compression in the final mixdown (and sometimes in the mastering) doesn’t bother me, and can make for a punchier, more dramatic sound.
In a head to head comparison between Tidal, Qobuz, IDAGIO and Spotify, Tidal does have the best SQ. Which creates a dilemma for the classical music lover. The search engine stinks vs. IDAGIO. Very hard to find a specific performance. Very easy on IDAGIO.
Ever have the "stream" go down due to internet provider issues? Also, it may be some strain of Luddite in my head, but I also am not into yelling commands at a little gizmo sending my privacy out into the clouds...my streamer is deaf, and my CDs are permanent items, not cloud based intruders.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
