The difference between Qoboz stream vs purchased songs

@blisshifi 

show ANY proof for the below….

With local file playback, you typically bypass any network processing, and even a lower resolution file can sound better due to less digital errors and lower noise.

@gkelly sound quality wise, there is no difference. In fact, Qobuz download entire songs before playback starts during the streaming, and even stores them in a cache. 

@blisshifi  and there you have, physics, protocols, and so on be damned, there is nothing more to prove! 

There are plenty of discussion, and no one has ever put up any proof for outlandish claims like you made. No one. Nothing that can be verified, nothing that can explain how it works. No one. 

To just say something about noise and digital errors, that does not work. There is no noise coming from the ethernet cable or down the chain, that is the anti-thesis of how Ethernet works. And digital errors are mitigated by the TCP/IP stack, and if it wasn't things like DRM and encryption would fail and there would be nothing to play. That is how the reality is. 

@vonhelmholtz  It's not. 

@cleeds It's not an attack on your person, it's 100% a statement of facts. You don't know anything about Ethernet or TCP/IP. The link you provide here goes to speedtest.net, so that proves that you still don't understand it. 

If you are talking about disconnecting the cable, like I said previously, you would fail the DRM check, so no cache playback without internet access. However, Bryston is known for its bad streaming capabilities, including it's small cache and how that is causing issues. So, what you have is a uniquely poor implementation.

Further more:

"

The Nitty Gritty
Playback quality is governed by the maximum you choose (see Figure 4). On mobile, you have the ability to set separate quality caps for streaming on Wi-Fi and mobile networks. In the desktop app settings, you have the option to take exclusive control of the selected audio device. Using exclusive control, I watched my DAC display its automatic switch to different sample rates as I played different tracks, barring Windows Core Audio from resampling my Qobuz stream. The mobile app does not cache audio more than a handful of seconds in advance, but the desktop app caches the entire track at once. 

The caching is a nice feature because it visibly builds your offline library if you check an option in the app’s settings, adding all cached tracks to the offline library. You’d be right to be concerned about Qobuz monopolizing your storage space as it automatically caches all music played. Under music playback settings, you can set the maximum cache size from 500 MB to 100 GB. As a bonus to those with multiple hard drives, Qobuz allows you to set a new location for cached music to reside. The music download location can also be changed in the settings, and you can monitor how much space it is using. 
"

https://audioxpress.com/article/exploring-qobuz-high-resolution-streaming

@cleeds I really don't know how much more you need to show you are wrong, but wrong you are.

@cleeds this is getting ridiculous, you clearly didn’t read, but here it is again, from David Solomon, the Chief Hi-Res Music Evangelist of Qobuz: “caches the entire track at once.”

https://audioxpress.com/article/exploring-qobuz-high-resolution-streaming

you are 100% wrong. 

@cleeds  it just proves my point. You can do 30 experiments, or 300, and it will still only prove the point that you don't know what you are doing, nor do you know anything about the technology. 

So that's the end of the road. 

@tomrk  Here's a nugget for you:

” See an example of that in the attached graph from my Roon core playing 96/24 from Qobuz as a track ends and the next starts: a steady send rate to the playing endpoint, and a big burst receiving the next track. It’s all on 1Gb wired local network to the router, so that 140 Mbps burst is no problem.”

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/qobuz-192-not-working-despite-over-100-mbps/165568/8

Also from the article "I compared latency streaming 320 kbps as an even benchmark across services. Loading a new track in Qobuz takes on average 1,25 to 1,5 seconds. " Which is more than enough to download a 320 kbps MP3.

@cleeds  No, what was proven is that you don't understand how Ethernet and streaming services work. We went over that. That thread didn't debunk it at all, in fact, I showed how Qobuz works in detail, with packet captures. And it is one quick download per max speed when you "stream", then the next download for the next track. Why? Simply because that is the best user experience. 

@carlsbad2 You are again wrong. That is not how streaming works, and it is the opposite of how Ethernet and TCP/IP is designed to work. A TCP session cannot move on when there are missing packets. It will pause and request resends. That's how it works.

Like the other thread showed, there is not a continuous stream when you stream songs from Qobuz. That is simply false and just shows how little people understand.

@cleeds So when Qobuz tells you that it's cached first, literally, what do you think is more likely, 1) Your experiment is flawed 2) Qobuz is lying. The answer is obvious.  

They are not the same to me, I know the difference in the technologies, and that is why this matters. You don't. You have demonstrated this beyond any doubt. 

And, even with Qobuz telling you that they cache first, you still refuse to admit that you were wrong. That is ridiculous.