My son is talking about the "lossless" audio one can stream. I have a good collection of CD's as well as a couple of TT and LP's with more than than I should invested in both. (some may say too much, some may say not enough) Anyway, thought I would come to a relative neutral forum to ask for reviews on the streaming audio. It kinda reminds me of the Bluray and Betamax wars of years past-no standard version/format yet. I guess it's relatively in it's infancy with lots of software and format devices on the market. I love the convenience of CD's and the warmth and ambience of analog. So-what's up with the streamers?
Mark Walberg recording engineer and founder of AIX Records regularly comments on this very subject on his site RealHD-.com And for anyone interested listening to a seminar during a past T.H.E. Audio show I believe you can find it on YouTube titled high resolution audio demystified by Mark Walberg , agree or not I think every bit of what he says is true .
With a recent purchase of PS Audios Direct Stream Memory Player and Dac we have never enjoyed our large collection of CDs and SACDs more then we do now , I can't believe how good well recorded run of the mill CDs sound through the PS Audio however as much as we also enjoy super convenience of music on HI- Res downloads overall we decided to save our money and not support downloads .
Neal here from Sound Science, I retail audio and design and build the Music Vault music servers. There are a number of comments about how the Sonos connect and Squeeze box sound identical to the CD in comparison. I tend to agree that the sound is very close.
A Music Server is the next level or two up from a streamer at least in the case of the Music Vaults. When you rip your CD collection to the Music Vault and play it back through a good external DAC it will sound better most of the time than playing that CD from a CD Player even a really great player or transport. The Music Vaults do cost much more than the streamers mentioned so it may not be a fair comparison. For some one who wants the best sound available though the Music Vaults offer world class performance. They also playback from any internet radio source like Tidal or Spotify.
Up-sampling was mentioned as a positive and I would like to take exception to that statement as well as clarify. When up-sampling from a server like the Music Vaults it will cause poor recordings to sound more listenable and good recordings to loose some of their musical texture. Up-sampling at the server end just involves averaging the additional samples together which are the same samples in the 44.1K material. As an example if you up-sample 44,1 k to 88.2 k then you get 2 of the same sample with in the same time period so instead of 1 sample per 1/44.1K seconds you get two of the same every 1/88.2K seconds. No new information is presented but it does seem to help lousy recordings sound a bit smoother and a good recording gets smoother too but it doesn't help the sound in fact it looses something I like to refer to as musical texture. There are lots of discussions about this out there you can look up. Some Dacs do have a better way of up-sampling so I am not poo-pooing this for the Dac end necessarily but I am for the server end. My personal experience though is up-sampling Dacs have not sounded as good to me as non up-sampling.
One of the reasons the Music Vaults sound better than a CD Player is when they rip your CD the program that does this doesn't have to do things in real time and reads the data until it is certain what the correct bits are. For a CD in perfect shape it takes very little time usually 2.5 to 3.5 minutes but for CDs that are not perfect it can take much much longer. Reading the bits correctly is a big advantage and the Music Vaults all play from Ram which is virtually jitter free.
I have also found that playback from an internal drive sounds better than streaming from a remote location. I am not saying streaming from the internet or a Network attached drive doesn't sound good, it does but in AB comparisons where the music is stored locally on the Music Vault it sounds better than music stored remotely.
This has been my experience since I started building Music Vaults. if anyone wishes to speak with me directly I can be reached at neal@soundsciencecat.com .
Deezer offers 36 million songs available to stream via Sonos in 16/44 FLAC.
I’ve been using Sonos Connects, connected to separate DACs to stream Deezer for a few years. I’m very happy with the sound quality. Big improvement when I changed from RCA’s to digital out on the Connect to a separate dac with good jitter control.
I was considering having my Connect modded by Wyred for Sound, but I think it’s limited returns if you have a good external DAC.
Anyways, wanted to mention Deezer and Sonos combo. Been very happy with the quality and selection.
Also, I just started streaming tidal on my oppo 105 and it sounds incredible. I really was doubtful, but man, their high res is high res! I think it might even sound better than the CD version of an album. They must use some kind of special mastering/processing or something..
@willemj and all other MQA non-believers. I suggest you get a high quality streamer/server/DAC like the Lumin S1 and tell me you don't think MQA songs don't sound better than their Redbook versions. Please don't use a Bluesound 2 as your basis of comparison as the Bluesound is the weak link in the your comparison chain. It's like saying MQA and non-MQA songs sound exactly the same via my $200 Meridian Explorer 2 MQA DAC, so therefore MQA doesn't sound better than Redbook.
IMO, Tidal MQA tracks sound comparable to the HDTracks hi-rez version, which is why I haven't purchased anything from HDTracks since MQA became available on TIDAL. BTW, the MQA album selection on TIDAL is growing rapidly, which will likely spell the end of HDTracks.
Why is there all of this theory talk about mqa vs hi-res vs red book? It sounds like a theory cable discussion where a guy with some electrical engineering background says that in no way in hell a cable should sound different than another.
MQA has been out for a while and growing in # releases. I have the luxury to compare MQA/DSD/redbook/vinyl for a few albums and it is very interesting to hear the differences between each version and there are clearly better mediums. I have seen some MQA albums with up to 192khz, which is higher than the stated 96khz above. Roon shows you exactly what the file type is and my dac is capable to stream dsd/redbook/hi-res from my local server as well as tidal/internet without using the inferior USB technology.
I could care less if a study on the web or that a reviewer indicates that ‘x’ is better than ‘y’. Go out and listen for yourself, you can’t get better than hearing for yourself in your own room using your own equipment.
"
To the best of my knowledge Meridian have never published any of their work in a scientific journal."
Correct, which makes their data equivalent to the study you referenced, not worth much.
willemj, no one is making anyone listen to MQA. The streaming services will eventually charge a premium for MQA and we will be able to decide for ourselves whether we want to pay extra for MQA or not. If anyone wants to listen at cd quality or mp3 quality they will be free to do so. I am all for choice in listening options. So what is the problem?
Just my humble 2cts. We all choose our music and our playback systems. I have had songs come on the car radio ( never put a good system in any of my vehicles) but at times; I have been blown away by the song on the radio. Bought the CD, thought it would do the same on my current system. NOT !!
I am fairly certain that all of us on this forum and others are searching to get the best sound we can. Whatever way is to our liking.
May I suggest / remind that we All take a break; An evening out for some Live Music is Best.
Firstly, peer review is terrible these days as is the awfully poor quality of scientific "research".
Secondly, If you believe lower resolution audio files will help save our planet against catastrophic global warming then you have really been heavily caught up in the current du jour end of the world quasi-religious fervour.
FWIW I have deep knowledge of atmospheric physics and I can assure you that our atmosphere is as healthy as it has ever been. Additions of atmospheric C02 are simply returning sequestered CO2 back to the atmosphere and it is an exceptionally good thing - it really helps nature and plant life that all thrive on CO2 and die of starvation when levels fall below 150ppm. Fortunately, the atmosphere is a complex system dominated by water vapour and convection and NOT measurably influenced by CO2 - albedo effect or cloud cover being the biggest variable factor which is water vapour related and another big factor being planetary motion.
Since this thread has drifted over to MQA, see my post here of many of the hi-fi brands incorporating MQA into their models. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/dac-streamer-mqa-wireless-besides-bluesound. I don’t know if it will last, but I thought I read two large record companies are making MQA versions of their entire collections, Universal Music Group (UMG), and Warner Music Group (with Sony Music Entertainment on the fence right now).
willemj, Since you are a scientific guy, I’m sure you know that double blind tests that have not been published in a peer reviewed journal have zero scientific credibility. I am not a scientist, but I can assure you that that study would not survive peer review and would never be published in a peer reviewed journal.
I’m not opposed to blind testing in audio, in fact, I’m for it. It’s just not scientific evidence. It could be used to see who has the best ears or the most revealing system or who is being a little too hyperbolic in their reviews at a given point in time and in specific circumstances, but that’s about it. It can’t tell you which gear or music or format you will like in the long run.
I’m sure that Meridian has double blind tests that show that MQA sounds superior to cds. So who’s right?
I don’t know if MQA sounds better than cds. I have read comments from many people who have heard it and believe it does. I think that streaming is a great thing and right now you can get MQA thrown in for free, so anyone who is interested should check it out and decide for themselves. If you’re not sure, just wait a couple years and see whether they can convince enough people that it’s worthwhile that it survives in the marketplace. We don’t have to wave double blind studies at each other, time will tell.
As I said, I am not sure higher rsolutions, either lossless or lossy compacted as in MQA are audibly better than red book. I think the jury is still out, but we shall see if someone can come up with decisive test data. I don't do downloads for the reasons mentioned. I buy disks or I stream. The latter is a wonderful opportunity to get access to an amazing proportion of the world's music. I would like these streams to be of high quality, but at the same time better than perfect is obviously not necessary, and wastes scarce energy resources / pollutes the environment / adds to climate change. The scientists in the famous Phlips physics lab (Natlab) decided that 16/44 was the perfect sweet spot, with a resolution that was neither too low, nor unnecessarily high. Never again was such an outstanding team brought together in audio engineering. But if they were right, it was admittedly at the very edge of perfection, that is clear. These days, we would probably prefer to err a bit more on the safer side, i.e. 24/48.
I am not saying MQA is better than a high resolution downloaded file. Let’s assume for our discussion that MQA and a high resolution downloaded audio files sounds the same. What about the end user cost of high resolution audio? Would you rather pay $15-35 for each high resolution album, $2 per track (if available, most sites require you to purchase entire album) or pay $20-$25 per month for unlimited high resolution streaming?
As I said, MQA is affording us the opportunity for high resolution audio (currently available as downloads only) streaming at a static monthly fee. Well in case of Tidal, it’s available at no additional cost!!!
CD is good enough - especially if upsampled and gentle filters are used. However 24 96KHz is usually a bit better quality and the modern DACs are approaching 21 bit resolution on the analog out which suggests you can benefit from 24 bits.
The biggest benefit from higher sample rates is that DAC non-linearities are randomized. Most DACs are rather non-linear between the different levels on an R2R or between the multitude of sigma delta converters on modern chips. This non-linearity is due to slight differences (order of 0.005 %)in the steps in the DAC. If you pass high sample rate music through these DACs then the inaudible high frequencies will help randomize distortion from non-linearity.
Of course, a well designed DAC will not care about sample rate as it will sound the same at all rates with the same source file (at least over the audible range)
Well, the comparison was between high resolution (i.e. 24/96) files and MQA, and (rightly or wrongly - there may be a discussion about the test design) the result was that there were no sonic differences. If true, this allows us to conclude that MQA is not better than Hi Res. However, this may be a correct conclusion simply because anything above cd red book is without additional sonic benefit, or because MQA is no better than Hi Res but both are better than CD. That is not clear from this test. I am not decided on the benefits of resolutions above cd red book. There have been blind tests and these do not seem to suggest a difference once the same source file is used (but downsampled). On the other hand, I have a number of BluRay opera discs and these are quite stunning. Is it because the format is superior, or because these recordings were simply done to high audiophile standards of dynamic range etc? Listening is not quite the simple thing it seems.
"The blind test that I linked to suggests that there is little or on sonic difference between high resolution pcm and MQA"
@willemj ~ The above assessment would be true if you’re comparing a audio file that has a higher sampling frequency and bit depth rate than CD - 16bit/44.1kHz.
Before we dismiss MQA, we need to understand why MQA success is important to many of us who cares for high resolution audio.
For many, including you, the CD quality streaming (Tidal, Quboz) is fine. MQA makes no such claims that each and every file is going to sound better than its CD counterparts. Technically they are supposed to sound better, but as we learned that’s not the case and there are many variables as to why (I won’t get into those here).
MQA is simply affording us an opportunity to stream high resolution files with a sampling frequency of 88.2kHz, 96kHz, 176.kHz or 192kHz at 24 bit depth rate. Whether they sound better than 16bit/44.1kHz that has been left up to the user to decide.
There is also debate going on the available MQA content but selection is growing steadily albeit not as fast as some of us had hoped for or like to see.
Personally, I don’t want to pay $15-$35 for each high resolution album downloads. With MQA success, it will force other giants like HDTracks to stream high resolution files which are currently available as pricey downloads only.
Of course, there are those with deep pockets that prefers to own their music than stream. For them, there are still plenty of choices to buy music.
In near future, I would like to see more choices with high resolution streaming so we can cherry pick our high resolution music provider and let them compete for our hard money.
High resolution streaming is here whether you like it or not.
Of course I listen as well. However, sighted listening tests are methodologically deeply problematic because there is potentially so much expectation bias. The blind test that I linked to suggests that there is little or on sonic difference between high resolution pcm and mqa. Even those who thought they could identify the differences could not. In fact, the same has also been argued for differences between red book and higher resolutions. This sighted test bias problem is not uncommon, and is well documented in the methodological literature. As a personal anecdote, I once participated in a blind amplifier test by Peter Walker. I thought I could identify differences, but I was completely wrong: like everybody else, I was no better than random. It was a good lesson that I have not forgotten. For a recent demo video on comparing amplifiers: https://vimeo.com/137001237 So the good take home news of all such blind tests is that there are few if any sonic differences between properly designed electronics (that may exclude sonically tweaked audiophile stuff). These days even quite cheap gear can be sonically perfect. Those who claim otherwise are often commercially interested (cables make people millionaires), or as consumers suffer from expectation bias delusion. The real differences in audio are with speakers and room interaction. And here, of course, the differences are easily audible, even if measurements help identify issues. Professionals have known this for ages. As for my music choices. Well, I choose music, not demo discs.
willemj is one of the doubters and there are many of them, but there are also many who have heard MQA and say it is an improvement. Some who have heard it are very excited about it. High-end audio is a subjective pursuit and hard scientific proof of better sound quality is not very common. Something is making high-end manufacturers like bel canto, Burmeister, Cary, Harman Kardon, Esoteric, Kef, Linn, Martin Logan and many more make their products MQA compatible and pay to do it. You can see the full list on the Tidal website. The Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group are remastering some of their catalogs for MQA. I just don’t think that they would do that if they couldn’t hear a difference between cds and MQA.
There’s nothing wrong with cd quality in my opinion, though, and streaming gives you access to a lot of cd quality music.
So it’s your call. You can try MQA now (Tidal will give you a free 30 or 60 day trial to try their HIFi service, which includes MQA) or wait and see if enough people buy into it to make it successful. I expect that MQA will improve over time just as other digital audio is steadily doing.
Spotify is apparently planning to follow Qobuz and move up to 16/44, the cd red book standard. That is not high resolution by most people's standard, but it is enough for me. I am not convinced that anything more is actually audible (there are claims, but no conclusive evidence).
The Bluesound Node 2 is a good way to dip your toe into the streaming waters ($500), There’s an Auralic mini at the same price. My experience with the Node 2 is that I love streaming but would like better sound quality.
Right now, Tidal streaming MQA is the only big (3,000+ albums and adding) hi-rez streaming operation going. There is a lot of opinion that MQA will just be another failed format, but it has 2 of the 3 major record labels on board and many hardware and software manufacturers.
Tidal also has millions of cd quality albums to stream and, as you probably know, a well done cd can sound better than a poorly done hi-rez recording.
There are probably a lot of albums out there that you would like to listen to once or twice but don’t really want to own, or would like to hear before you buy, and streaming gives you that option. We all buy albums based on reviews or word of mouth and wonder what those people who recommended them were thinking.
I think I read that HDtracks is planning an MQA streaming service also.
So you can give MQA a try now, wait a couple years to see how it pans out, or wait 5 or 10 years for the next hi-rez streaming format to try its luck.
If you can do it, find someone with a streamer/dac that can unfold MQA files from Tidal. If you are really exploring, just buy the Bluesound Node 2 or Vault 2 and play MQA files and rip CDs for your own library of networked music. I was amazed how much I like the music I was hearing via the Bluesound system of playback.
Thanks for the input. I'm referring to hi-resolution streaming. I believe I read that Spotify is starting to stream in hi-res. As far as convenience goes, I don't mind getting up to change a CD, as opposed to uploading my collection on a hard drive. I'm mainly interested in the highest quality reproduction I can get. Sometimes I get lazy, or if wanting to play at a really high db level, I give in to CD's I get some acoustical feedback on my vinyl playback, if playing at very high volume levels. Always looking for the best reproduction I can afford. As Festus used to say "much obliged."
Despite denials, there are many multichannel hi-rez downloads but it depends on genre. There are more real (from hi-res original recordings and not up-mixed) multichannel hi-res files in classical.
I think it is useful to distinguish between two kinds. The first is streaming from your own hardisk. This was the common way to do this: you rip (i.e. copy) your cds to you rown harddisk, or you buy downloads, and then access those from a device. The other is streaming from the internet, from services like Spotify, Tidal or Qobuz. If the latter are also full cd red book (losslessly compressed in e.g. FLAC) they will sound identical to cd's. For now, Spotify only does 320 kbs (lightly) compressed, but Qobuz and Tidal also offer full red book cd quality. Whether you can hear the difference is a matter for debate (BBC research believe you cannot, and I am inclined to believe them). Anyhow, more bandwidth uses a lot more energy, and hence produces more pollution. However, in the footsteps of Qobuz and Tidal even Spotify is about to introduce full red book cd streams. My own preference is for streaming with a Chromecast Audio.
Like others I can hear no difference between identical files either from a CD or server or streaming. Provided you have good gear it should reliably play an identical file with the same quality whether it was from a CD, a sever or over the Internet.
I highly recommend Tidal for its excellent catalog and CD and greater quality of resolution.
I recommend Roon as the best interface for access and bit perfect playback of your music collection - it works seamlessly with Tidal
it is very difficult to get high resolution music files. You are stuck with Redbook. Truth be told though, modern (< 5 years) DAC's sound phenomenal with Redbook now.
I could not live without streaming. From being able to listen to great radio stations like Jazz.FM from all over the world to having all of my music at the touch of a button or browser.
I buy CD's, but I cannot remember the last time I spun one. I don't even have a disk player attached to my DAC.
Tidal is available now on most streamers and has an AMAZING old school catalog. From Chet Baker to Prince, Led Zeppelin, completely worthwhile.
The newest streamers and DAC's have much better clocks than they did 15 years ago. The biggest gripe I have is software and Android compatibility. For these reasons I am loathe to give up my Logitech Squeezebox Touch as the streaming infrastructure here.
I ripped my entire (4,000+) CD collection in FLAC and store it on a network server so that it is accessible via software to stream to any system in the house. I use a separate DA converter (which sounds significantly better than any I've heard in any streaming system - I use Sonos).
I did some A/B testing between live CD play and ripped flac files run through the same DA conversion and system and we were unable to detect any significant difference.
Streaming amounts to a huge convenience - to be able to access all your music from a laptop or iPad without having to search for a disc.
If your music collection is sizeable, I recommend it.
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.
