View Full Version : so what is your streaming preference and why?
AJSki2fly
03-11-2018, 17:00
So I thought it would be interesting to discover which is the most popular of the main ones, and why. Also if any of us are using some others.
Tidal, because of MQA and Roon integration.
Have Spotify 320K to fill in the blanks Tidal's missing.
Tidal. Mqa access from audirvana is great... out to several things
Spotify, never even tried anything else TBH as it does what I need - if it ain't broke I don't need to fix it ;)
Been using it since the days it was 'introduction only', been a Premium subscriber for about 5 years now.
AJSki2fly
05-11-2018, 10:26
Spotify, never even tried anything else TBH as it does what I need - if it ain't broke I don't need to fix it ;)
Been using it since the days it was 'introduction only', been a Premium subscriber for about 5 years now.
Yo might find Tidal quite interesting, worth giving it a trial run just to see what you think of the higher res music.
TIDAL because it's lossless. Spotify because it's more extensive, and works great for offline playlists on the phone.
Streaming Services
Which one.....?
Most forum discussions center on the GUI and not on the sound.
Being digital, shouldn't they all sound the same right.....?
My experience, for what ever reason, is that the sound they produce varies considerably.
I've tried a few and found that in every case, their desktop Apps for my laptop (Windows 10), sounded better than their web based players.
I tested the most basic service from each company, not HD, but it was still very listenable and almost CD quality to the ear if not by specification. Streaming MP3 at 320 kbps:
Deezer – Best sound quality, but interface only caries the most basic info about what's playing. No info on who wrote the track if it was a cover, who played on it, or even which version of the album your listening to, eg original 1969 album/2017 remastered version? I contacted them and they said they had no plans to add any of that as you could find all the info on the web.
Spotify – Very easily “spotted” as the worst sounding by a fair margin, so no need to say more. Their HD services might be more competitive.
Qobuz – Almost as good as Deezer in sound quality, but tells you stuff about the Composer/discography/band history etc, without having to leave the App. Also doesn't just concentrate on Pop/Rock, has a good selection of Jazz/Classical/World music.
Qobuz seems to do it for me, there are others, but you will have to try these and make your own mind up.
Integrating your streaming service into your audio player App can have mixed results as well.
I tried Qobuz from within Kodi as an add on, but this did not sound as good as the Qobuz desk top App, which makes me think they are using the inferior web player. Used from within the Audirvana A+ Player it integrates seamlessly and sounds awesome, best digital experience I have had on my set up.
Spotify - Using it for years
Happy with the GUI, then sound, the choice and the cost.
AJSki2fly
05-11-2018, 21:57
Streaming Services
Which one.....?
Most forum discussions center on the GUI and not on the sound.
Being digital, shouldn't they all sound the same right.....?
My experience, for what ever reason, is that the sound they produce varies considerably.
I've tried a few and found that in every case, their desktop Apps for my laptop (Windows 10), sounded better than their web based players.
I tested the most basic service from each company, not HD, but it was still very listenable and almost CD quality to the ear if not by specification. Streaming MP3 at 320 kbps:
Deezer – Best sound quality, but interface only caries the most basic info about what's playing. No info on who wrote the track if it was a cover, who played on it, or even which version of the album your listening to, eg original 1969 album/2017 remastered version? I contacted them and they said they had no plans to add any of that as you could find all the info on the web.
Spotify – Very easily “spotted” as the worst sounding by a fair margin, so no need to say more. Their HD services might be more competitive.
Qobuz – Almost as good as Deezer in sound quality, but tells you stuff about the Composer/discography/band history etc, without having to leave the App. Also doesn't just concentrate on Pop/Rock, has a good selection of Jazz/Classical/World music.
Qobuz seems to do it for me, there are others, but you will have to try these and make your own mind up.
Integrating your streaming service into your audio player App can have mixed results as well.
I tried Qobuz from within Kodi as an add on, but this did not sound as good as the Qobuz desk top App, which makes me think they are using the inferior web player. Used from within the Audirvana A+ Player it integrates seamlessly and sounds awesome, best digital experience I have had on my set up.
Interesting, for me it’s mainly about sound quality, so it has to be at least CD SQ when listening at home. But can accept less when out. IMO Audvirana seems to get the best from what’s streamed, although I haven’t trialed ROON yet which is pricey.
willbewill
05-11-2018, 22:01
Spotify because it works on everything I have...TV, Vortexbox, Phone, RPis and I get it free with my phone deal.
Clive197
06-11-2018, 11:26
Qobuz for me. I also have access to Tidal with MQA. Having just attended a talk by Rob Watts who explained among a lot of other things how poor MQA actually was and why. Chord among many other manufacturers are never going to implement MQA. I like the SQ from Qobuz and am planning on sticking to it for my main stream source.
AJSki2fly
06-11-2018, 11:33
Qobuz for me. I also have access to Tidal with MQA. Having just attended a talk by Rob Watts who explained among a lot of other things how poor MQA actually was and why. Chord among many other manufacturers are never going to implement MQA. I like the SQ from Qobuz and am planning on sticking to it for my main stream source.
So what’s the issue with Mqa then?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
montesquieu
06-11-2018, 12:28
Tried Tidal, Qobuz and Spotify in parallel trials. Chose Spotify mainly because the others have flawed interfaces in various ways, especially for classical, and also gaps. Spotify seems to have the most complete classical catalogue and that's the only subscription I followed through on. Thought to be honest all of them fail in one way or other in the interface department. Roon might be the answer here but since I mainly use Spotify to check our whether I want to buy the LP or CD it's kind of academic - maybe sometime.
LPs sound better though, by quite a margin.
Tried Tidal, Qobuz and Spotify in parallel trials. Chose Spotify mainly because the others have flawed interfaces in various ways, especially for classical, and also gaps. Spotify seems to have the most complete classical catalogue and that's the only subscription I followed through on. Thought to be honest all of them fail in one way or other in the interface department. Roon might be the answer here but since I mainly use Spotify to check our whether I want to buy the LP or CD it's kind of academic - maybe sometime.
LPs sound better though, by quite a margin.If only Roon offered more than just being linked to Tidal.
So what’s the issue with Mqa then?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s compressed, and has DRM layers in it.
However, MQA-ready files tend to have remastering applied, so it does indeed sound different.
You can play these on TIDAL for example from their masters collection. If you don’t have an MQA DAC, in this case, you will get 24/96 files. I have no complaints with these masterings sounding better, but it isn’t intrinsically to do with MQA.
AJSki2fly
06-11-2018, 18:14
It’s compressed, and has DRM layers in it.
However, MQA-ready files tend to have remastering applied, so it does indeed sound different.
You can play these on TIDAL for example from their masters collection. If you don’t have an MQA DAC, in this case, you will get 24/96 files. I have no complaints with these masterings sounding better, but it isn’t intrinsically to do with MQA.
Yes this is quite interesting and concerning, I have just had a read up on Wiki and it seems that there has been quite a bit of criticism about MQA as it does some digital trickery "MQA encoding is lossy;[10] it hierarchically compresses the relatively little energy in the higher frequency bands into data streams that are embedded in the lower frequency bands using proprietary dithering techniques." from Wiki
What is a bit concerning is it "MQA-encoded content can be carried via any lossless file format such as FLAC or ALAC; hence, it can be played back on systems either with or without an MQA decoder. In the latter case, the resulting audio has easily identifiable high-frequency noise occupying 3 LSB bits, thus limiting playback on non-MQA devices effectively to 13bit. MQA claims that nevertheless the quality is higher than "normal" 48/16, because of the novel sampling and convolution processes." from Wiki
Does this mean we could be listening to something that is not pure FLAC and not know it, digital duping? I see it also on Deezer.
MMM, maybe I will stick with FLAC, perhaps Qobuz beckons. Having said that I did a back to back listen of some music FLAC and MQA and there is defintely something going on with MQA, aspect seem to be enhanced, I'm not saying it does not sound good but is it right?
Sherwood
06-11-2018, 18:30
I prefer to make my own subjective judgement based upon listening. I think that the Tidal MQA files sound terrific and compare well with my own ripped FLAC files. Most sound better.
Is MQA performing "trickery"? Perhaps? Most probably! Do I care .....
All digital playback involves different types of processing and anyone listening to vinyl must realise that severe equalisation "trickery" is being performed at both frequency extremes. Does that negate the integrity of analogue playback?
Geoff
All digital playback involves different types of processing and anyone listening to vinyl must realise that severe equalisation "trickery" is being performed at both frequency extremes. Does that negate the integrity of analogue playback?
Geoff
RCA equalization isn't an appropriate analogy though. Leaving aside that analogue playback loses integrity just by being analogue. MQA interpolates to reconstruct the frequencies above 22Khz whereas 96KHz Flac doesn't. Not that you can hear them anyway but why would you want that instead of the full fat file? And have to buy an MQA DAC for the privilege?
Answer: You wouldn't, so to get you on the hook they 'remaster' the recordings by adding a bit of eq via an algorithm. No-one knows exactly what they do as they won't say.
However if this is what they do then you'd expect some MQA albums to sound worse and some to sound better. Which funnily enough is what people tend to subjectively report.
I find mqa is mostly very successful, and at the price, very good as qobuz charges an extra £10 for their hi rez files
Yes this is quite interesting and concerning, I have just had a read up on Wiki and it seems that there has been quite a bit of criticism about MQA as it does some digital trickery "MQA encoding is lossy;[10] it hierarchically compresses the relatively little energy in the higher frequency bands into data streams that are embedded in the lower frequency bands using proprietary dithering techniques." from Wiki
What is a bit concerning is it "MQA-encoded content can be carried via any lossless file format such as FLAC or ALAC; hence, it can be played back on systems either with or without an MQA decoder. In the latter case, the resulting audio has easily identifiable high-frequency noise occupying 3 LSB bits, thus limiting playback on non-MQA devices effectively to 13bit. MQA claims that nevertheless the quality is higher than "normal" 48/16, because of the novel sampling and convolution processes." from Wiki
Does this mean we could be listening to something that is not pure FLAC and not know it, digital duping? I see it also on Deezer.
MMM, maybe I will stick with FLAC, perhaps Qobuz beckons. Having said that I did a back to back listen of some music FLAC and MQA and there is defintely something going on with MQA, aspect seem to be enhanced, I'm not saying it does not sound good but is it right?
that would only be the case if you selected the mqa version(there is always a normal flac one too)
AJSki2fly
06-11-2018, 19:22
that would only be the case if you selected the mqa version(there is always a normal flac one too)
I quite agree, but to be honest I quite like the results of those I have listened to so far as MQA. As previously pointed out there has always been some form of compression trickery, even analogue does. The main thing is does it sound good/right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I quite agree, but to be honest I quite like the results of those I have listened to so far as MQA. As previously pointed out there has always been some form of compression trickery, even analogue does. The main thing is does it sound good/right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
if you are using Audirvana it will be getting unfolded
Sherwood
06-11-2018, 20:06
if you are using Audirvana it will be getting unfolded
When I read these posts about MQA I cannot help but think of the Apple vs Samsung conflict. It seems to me that many of the MQA criticisms are coming from those with a commercial interest in MQA failing!
Chord don't think much of it. They prefer their own trickery
As far as I am (currently) concerned, streaming is the work of the devil - barely adequate mediocrity dressed up in flashy clothes - I’ve literally never heard it sound anything better than - OK (ish), and I’m talking about lots of mega expensive, ultimate, solutions.
I'm not into conversions. [emoji3] you Like what you like. But I disagree with you totally [emoji23]
Sherwood
06-11-2018, 20:43
As far as I am (currently) concerned, streaming is the work of the devil - barely adequate mediocrity dressed up in flashy clothes - I’ve literally never heard it sound anything better than - OK (ish), and I’m talking about lots of mega expensive, ultimate, solutions.
I shared your view when CD was first launched and for many years thereafter. Not sure what you are listening to now, but I find digital to be excellent now, if you have the right setup. Furthermore, it is much more convenient and less expensive than the analogue alternative.
SantanaCorreia
06-11-2018, 20:46
Spotify.
Great algorithm.
Great interface.
Cheap.
Works everywere from tv to xbox ending on volumio.
Also, cannot tell the diference between CD/Flac and mp3 320. I would say the vast majority cant but I would be to bold.
I just enjoy a lot Spotify. As a music lover it allows me to discover and enjoy every second of the music I listen to.
Enviado do meu HTC_M10h através do Tapatalk
Spotty is the best non flac setup by far. I like it but it's not as good as I've got now
Sherwood
06-11-2018, 21:07
Spotify.
Great algorithm.
Great interface.
Cheap.
Works everywere from tv to xbox ending on volumio.
Also, cannot tell the diference between CD/Flac and mp3 320. I would say the vast majority cant but I would be to bold.
I just enjoy a lot Spotify. As a music lover it allows me to discover and enjoy every second of the music I listen to.
Enviado do meu HTC_M10h através do Tapatalk
Spotify is fine with a great catalogue. However, I disagree strongly about 320k quality. Also, Tidal beats Spotify hands down for audio quality. Yes it is a little more expensive but works out at about 65 pence a day.
AJSki2fly
06-11-2018, 21:48
Spotify is fine with a great catalogue. However, I disagree strongly about 320k quality. Also, Tidal beats Spotify hands down for audio quality. Yes it is a little more expensive but works out at about 65 pence a day.
Ok let’s try and put this into some context. I work with a lot of younger people who think and actually believe that a modern systems such as Google Home, Amazon Echo, Apple HomePod etc actually produce wonderful sound quality, and all they want is 2 so it’s stereo. The answer IMO is for what they do they produce a reasonably good sound but not a true or necessarily an accurate rendition of the original, they do some sudo digital processing to supplement and do what’s been programmed to give the sonic impression of something good. I doubt most of us would consider them an acceptable system to listen to music properly.
So what’s my point you ask? Well firstly I suspect most of us on here grew up striving for a true and accurate musical rendition from our systems, and actually believe this what most people would want. Secondly I think we probably believe(d) that the music industry (I include hifi manufactures, music producers, and music companies) want the same. Well I suspect that in both cases the answer is no, the reason I say this is that probably for the majority of listeners it is just casual listening and how accurate does not really matter, and to answer the second most manufacturers are about volume sales and quantity, not necessarily quality, whether perceive or real, and what gives most profit.
So what do we have here in MQA, something real that is actually reproducing what was originally recorded, or a method/system that reproduces and enhances what the original was to give a perceived better experience? It’s a very tricky question to answer I think. [emoji41]
Obviously the same arguments can be applied to other recording methods and reproduction.
SantanaCorreia
06-11-2018, 21:49
Spotify is fine with a great catalogue. However, I disagree strongly about 320k quality. Also, Tidal beats Spotify hands down for audio quality. Yes it is a little more expensive but works out at about 65 pence a day.I made a lot of blind testing and, to my ears, i cannot tell them apart. Both tested with headphones, iems and the big stereo. The results I got are not conclusive. So, to me, it is not worth it, but I see your point.
Enviado do meu HTC_M10h através do Tapatalk
When I read these posts about MQA I cannot help but think of the Apple vs Samsung conflict. It seems to me that many of the MQA criticisms are coming from those with a commercial interest in MQA failing!
I have no commercial interest but I'd like to see it fail. It's a step back technically and commercially it's an attempt to lock down the market.
I was against abandoning supersonic passenger flight too even though I'd never be able to afford a ticket and I'm not keen on flying anyway. I don't need a financial interest to be against a bad thing.
SantanaCorreia
06-11-2018, 22:10
I have no commercial interest but I'd like to see it fail. It's a step back technically and commercially it's an attempt to lock down the market.
I was against abandoning supersonic passenger flight too even though I'd never be able to afford a ticket and I'm not keen on flying anyway. I don't need a financial interest to be against a bad thing.Can you explain a bit bettet your point? Why do you find it a step back?
Anyway with Spotify I belive its biggest asset is the algorithm that is simply unbeatable. Google and Apple also do it but the first one is far better. The right song at the right time is, to me, more important than the sound quality.
Enviado do meu HTC_M10h através do Tapatalk
Can you explain a bit bettet your point? Why do you find it a step back?
At the moment you can stream 24/96 or even 24/192 files if you want them, that's unquestionably master quality, you can't get better. MQA is a lossy version of that with some remastering to make it sound different. Now if you want a record remastered just remaster the 24/192. Why do you need MQA? What's in it for the punter?
This is worth a read http://archimago.blogspot.com/2016/10/musings-keeping-it-simple-mqa-is-codec.html
I upscale my flac and tidal masters. There is a difference albeit not a huge one. It's enough tho to make it currently the best and better than Qobuz flac.
AJSki2fly
07-11-2018, 12:58
At the moment you can stream 24/96 or even 24/192 files if you want them, that's unquestionably master quality, you can't get better. MQA is a lossy version of that with some remastering to make it sound different. Now if you want a record remastered just remaster the 24/192. Why do you need MQA? What's in it for the punter?
This is worth a read http://archimago.blogspot.com/2016/10/musings-keeping-it-simple-mqa-is-codec.html
Martin, thanks for the link, the article is very interesting and makes some very valid points. As you say the worrying this is with MQA is whether it will be released in to the public domain and not tied to specific hardware or software/streaming suppliers.
Martin, thanks for the link, the article is very interesting and makes some very valid points. As you say the worrying this is with MQA is whether it will be released in to the public domain and not tied to specific hardware or software/streaming suppliers.
If you use Tidal then you now don't need an MQA enabled DAC. But you do need the software on Tidal to decode MQA. I don't think the record companies were too happy about everyone having access to their unadulterated masters so MQA is obviously a good idea for them. It's really an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle as far as file sharing/copyright goes. Or at least some bits of the genie.
So what’s my point you ask? Well firstly I suspect most of us on here grew up striving for a true and accurate musical rendition from our systems, and actually believe this what most people would want. Secondly I think we probably believe(d) that the music industry (I include hifi manufactures, music producers, and music companies) want the same. Well I suspect that in both cases the answer is no, the reason I say this is that probably for the majority of listeners it is just casual listening and how accurate does not really matter, and to answer the second most manufacturers are about volume sales and quantity, not necessarily quality, whether perceive or real, and what gives most profit.
Bang on 100% correct and most musicians who actually make the music are in the very same boat. They are just listening to the music, not what the music sounds like - there is a difference. We think we're normal, but actually we're not . . . whatever normal is. I do know audiophiles are a very small minority of the people who listen to and enjoy music ;)
I dont see why the details of mqa should become public domain.. Spotify's algorithms are not. i see no-one screaming about that. They developed it and it should be only used by folk who pay for the rights
Bang on 100% correct and most musicians who actually make the music are in the very same boat. They are just listening to the music, not what the music sounds like - there is a difference. We think we're normal, but actually we're not . . . whatever normal is. I do know audiophiles are a very small minority of the people who listen to and enjoy music ;)
We're normal, people who don't care about sound quality are not normal. :D
I mean is it normal to think a McDonald's is a good burger? Or that Carling is a good lager? In my book it isn't normal to be satisfied with a load of old tat.
And whilst I agree that most musicians don't give a monkeys about replay quality when it comes to making music they are obsessive beyond reason. Ask any guitarist about different wood types on the fretboard, or ask about his cabs, or his head amp. And whatever you do don't get the conversation round to microphones or you'll never get away.
Hi-fi is a sane hobby by comparison.
montesquieu
07-11-2018, 13:55
We're normal, people who don't care about sound quality are not normal. :D
I mean is it normal to think a McDonald's is a good burger? Or that Carling is a good lager? In my book it isn't normal to be satisfied with a load of old tat.
And whilst I agree that most musicians don't give a monkeys about replay quality when it comes to making music they are obsessive beyond reason. Ask any guitarist about different wood types on the fretboard, or ask about his cabs, or his head amp. And whatever you do don't get the conversation round to microphones or you'll never get away.
Hi-fi is a sane hobby by comparison.
+1 on that! (Speaking as a musician who definitely doesn't consider himself an audiophile).
I dont see why the details of mqa should become public domain.. Spotify's algorithms are not. i see no-one screaming about that. They developed it and it should be only used by folk who pay for the rights
The reason why MQA gets singled out is because a lot of what they claim is a load of bollocks. Originally that claimed it was lossless until it was pointed out that it wasn't and they backed down. And then you've got the 'temporal de-blurring' which can't work the way they say it does. So the requests for transparency about what MQA does are entirely of their own making.
someone does have a bee:D take it for what it is man... a fine sounding stream.
from their app masters still come out 16/44. but out of av it comes out 24/96; i upscale that to 32/192.
We're normal, people who don't care about sound quality are not normal. :D
:)
AJSki2fly
07-11-2018, 16:55
We're normal, people who don't care about sound quality are not normal. :D
My better half does not give two hoots about sound quality and would not know if the SQ os a system was good if it bit her on the bottom, so you come and tell her she's not normal, good luck. :lol:
willbewill
07-11-2018, 18:00
My better half does not give two hoots about sound quality and would not know if the SQ os a system was good if it bit her on the bottom, so you come and tell her she's not normal, good luck. [emoji38]Hahaha
My better half does not give two hoots about sound quality and would not know if the SQ os a system was good if it bit her on the bottom, so you come and tell her she's not normal, good luck. :lol:
I had a woman like that until we split up. She moved out then about a week or two later came back and said 'I don't have a proper hi-fi!'. So I gave her a Trio amp and she sorted out a TT and some speakers herself. Saw her a few years later and she was complaining about the amp, said it didn't have enough resolution and wanted to upgrade.
I had a woman like that until we split up. She moved out then about a week or two later came back and said 'I don't have a proper hi-fi!'. So I gave her a Trio amp and she sorted out a TT and some speakers herself. Saw her a few years later and she was complaining about the amp, said it didn't have enough resolution and wanted to upgrade.
Should have told her to kiss the baby
Should have told her to kiss the baby
No I don't get it?
Your gone for good gal. Get your own
Your gone for good gal. Get your own
God no not my style at all.
AJSki2fly
07-11-2018, 19:04
I had a woman like that until we split up. She moved out then about a week or two later came back and said 'I don't have a proper hi-fi!'. So I gave her a Trio amp and she sorted out a TT and some speakers herself. Saw her a few years later and she was complaining about the amp, said it didn't have enough resolution and wanted to upgrade.
Cheapskate [emoji3]
Yes this is quite interesting and concerning, I have just had a read up on Wiki and it seems that there has been quite a bit of criticism about MQA as it does some digital trickery "MQA encoding is lossy;[10] it hierarchically compresses the relatively little energy in the higher frequency bands into data streams that are embedded in the lower frequency bands using proprietary dithering techniques." from Wiki
What is a bit concerning is it "MQA-encoded content can be carried via any lossless file format such as FLAC or ALAC; hence, it can be played back on systems either with or without an MQA decoder. In the latter case, the resulting audio has easily identifiable high-frequency noise occupying 3 LSB bits, thus limiting playback on non-MQA devices effectively to 13bit. MQA claims that nevertheless the quality is higher than "normal" 48/16, because of the novel sampling and convolution processes." from Wiki
Does this mean we could be listening to something that is not pure FLAC and not know it, digital duping? I see it also on Deezer.
MMM, maybe I will stick with FLAC, perhaps Qobuz beckons. Having said that I did a back to back listen of some music FLAC and MQA and there is defintely something going on with MQA, aspect seem to be enhanced, I'm not saying it does not sound good but is it right?
Was very close to signing up for Tidal until this. Thank you! :) I'll probably still give it and Qobuz a trial anyway
AJSki2fly
08-11-2018, 06:41
Was very close to signing up for Tidal until this. Thank you! :) I'll probably still give it and Qobuz a trial anyway
Give Tidal a go, as a service it’s good, you don’t have to use the MQA files, everything seems to be in CD or above quality. I haven’t tried QoBuz yet.
Sherwood
08-11-2018, 06:50
Was very close to signing up for Tidal until this. Thank you! :) I'll probably still give it and Qobuz a trial anyway
Make your own judgement about Tidal by giving it a trial rather than being put off by MQA critics. MQA is an option in Tidal. Other formats are available. I always choose the Master Quality option where available.
Make your own judgement about Tidal by giving it a trial rather than being put off by MQA critics. MQA is an option in Tidal. Other formats are available. I always choose the Master Quality option where available.I will, no matter the quality...the trial is free, can't say no to that
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
My main "streaming" app is Youtube, and my main use for it is discovering new music. I use it a lot for discovering all sorts of media, so also finding music using it is natural to me. Once I find things I like, I then like to purchase them - usually as FLAC downloads from the likes of Qobuz, Linn Records, and Presto Classical.
My main "streaming" app is Youtube, and my main use for it is discovering new music. I use it a lot for discovering all sorts of media, so also finding music using it is natural to me. Once I find things I like, I then like to purchase them - usually as FLAC downloads from the likes of Qobuz, Linn Records, and Presto Classical.Have you used 7digital for FLAC downloads?
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Make your own judgement about Tidal by giving it a trial rather than being put off by MQA critics. MQA is an option in Tidal. Other formats are available. I always choose the Master Quality option where available.Well that clears it up a bit, if you don't like MQA you can still listen to all of Tidal without it? But still at CD quality?
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
ive had a few downloads from Bandcamp. John Prine ones that were not available on vinyl or cd. I like him and he gave me a lot of good feeling back in the day and still does, so wanted to make sure he was ok in his old age:eek:
Well that clears it up a bit, if you don't like MQA you can still listen to all of Tidal without it? But still at CD quality?
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
sure.. if there is a mqa title there is the same one without the master logo. integrated into the likes of roon or audirvana along with your own flac files it becomes an awesome library.
sure.. if there is a mqa title there is the same one without the master logo. integrated into the likes of roon or audirvana along with your own flac files it becomes an awesome library.Sounds alright, I guess I'll need to trial it :)
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Have you used 7digital for FLAC downloads?
No. I've used HDTracks and a couple of others. I like Qobuz because:
They have a good wide selection of both classical and popular music
The files are easy to download. I use Linux as my main OS, and some stores that rely on you installing a download app are a pain in the bum, because they are usually Mac/Windows only. Sometimes you can get them working on Wine, or hack around them (read the download file and get the file download endpoints from that). With Qobuz an option allows the files to be download in a single tar file which suits me fine. I also find it annoying when I have to download each file individually. Multi-disc operas being an example of when this can be a particular pain.
All the files are properly tagged and associated with their cover art. Some stores do the tagging OK, but the cover art isn't associated with the files. Some sources* don't even have meta data on the files. I've got software that will do the tagging, but I'd rather just have the files properly tagged in the first place.
The prices are good
Most of the albums are available in both 16 and 24 bit FLAC. I usually buy 16 bit, but like the option to pay a little more for 24 bit when I think the extra resolution will be worth it (Choral pieces for example)
The search facility works reasonably well. It's good for albums and artists, but less good for finding the album a particular track is on - especially if the track has a commonly used name like "Forever". I find the search facility on HDTracks poor. It's annoying either not being able to find the music your searching for, or not being sure if you can't find it because it isn't available, or because you just haven't entered the right search string.
* My main source of untagged FLAC is via Naxos' free subscription (https://www.naxos.com/membership/subscribe.asp), but I can't really complain, as the number of free albums you get by signing up to the free newsletter is astonishing, and in that case I'm happy to put in the extra work of adding metadata and tagging the cover art to files.
No. I've used HDTracks and a couple of others. I like Qobuz because:
They have a good wide selection of both classical and popular music
The files are easy to download. I use Linux as my main OS, and some stores that rely on you installing a download app are a pain in the bum, because they are usually Mac/Windows only. Sometimes you can get them working on Wine, or hack around them (read the download file and get the file download endpoints from that). With Qobuz an option allows the files to be download in a single tar file which suits me fine. I also find it annoying when I have to download each file individually. Multi-disc operas being an example of when this can be a particular pain.
All the files are properly tagged and associated with their cover art. Some stores do the tagging OK, but the cover art isn't associated with the files. Some sources* don't even have meta data on the files. I've got software that will do the tagging, but I'd rather just have the files properly tagged in the first place.
The prices are good
Most of the albums are available in both 16 and 24 bit FLAC. I usually buy 16 bit, but like the option to pay a little more for 24 bit when I think the extra resolution will be worth it (Choral pieces for example)
The search facility works reasonably well. It's good for albums and artists, but less good for finding the album a particular track is on - especially if the track has a commonly used name like "Forever". I find the search facility on HDTracks poor. It's annoying either not being able to find the music your searching for, or not being sure if you can't find it because it isn't available, or because you just haven't entered the right search string.
* My main source of untagged FLAC is via Naxos' free subscription (https://www.naxos.com/membership/subscribe.asp), but I can't really complain, as the number of free albums you get by signing up to the free newsletter is astonishing, and in that case I'm happy to put in the extra work of adding metadata and tagging the cover art to files.I find all of that applies to 7digital too. I use both, if one doesn't have what I'm looking for I'll use the other. 7digital is very comfortable and easy to use. I don't think it has as much 24bit stuff as Qobuz though, I could be wrong.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
I find all of that applies to 7digital too.
Thank you. I'll give them a try.
Thank you. I'll give them a try.As far as I'm aware there is no streaming service on 7digital, I believe it's strictly for buying FLAC & MP3s, just to be clear :)
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
As far as I'm aware there is no streaming service on 7digital, I believe it's strictly for buying FLAC & MP3s, just to be clear :)
I'm grateful for the heads up on another store available to purchase FLAC.
To be honest, I just don't like the subscription model. I'd rather own my music, than pay some else to borrow it for a while.
I'm grateful for the heads up on another store available to purchase FLAC.
To be honest, I just don't like the subscription model. I'd rather own my music, than pay some else to borrow it for a while.I am the same. I have Spotify but it's mainly for use on the go.
I have a funny feeling about the quality of streaming. FLAC files on your hard drive always feel at least slightly better quality than streamed files.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
i used to use the hi fi deezer, and it was pretty good... i moved back to spotty as i wasnt using a lot for a while. then changed to tidal again when i got audirvana. tried qobuz with it but their desktop site wouldnt work with me and the ipad one wasnt much better. shame as it sounded good
Pete The Cat
09-11-2018, 17:18
Each to their own. Apart from the engagement that I get from all aspects of physical media, I have a nagging reservation about not owning a copy of an album. When you're completely in the hands of the streaming service and their licensing agreements with record companies, one of them changing direction or pricing in future would seem to make you a hostage to fortune. Spotify free is fabulous for checking out new music but I buy it if I want to keep playing it.
Pete
Each to their own. Apart from the engagement that I get from all aspects of physical media, I have a nagging reservation about not owning a copy of an album. When you're completely in the hands of the streaming service and their licensing agreements with record companies, one of them changing direction or pricing in future would seem to make you a hostage to fortune. Spotify free is fabulous for checking out new music but I buy it if I want to keep playing it.
PeteOne thing that bugs me about streaming, especially Spotify is when they just remove a song or album without explanation
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Stratmangler
09-11-2018, 19:01
As a content provider I use Spotify, which is great.
I've spent many an hour getting a first listen to a new release by my favourite artists.
If I really like something I'll then buy the CD and rip it onto my server.
My main source for streaming is my own server.
Exactly the same here Chris, I use Spotify just for checking out music first and for downloads to my phone for out and about music.
If I like an album I buy it, scan the art and booklet to .pdf, rip the CD to FLAC and play from my server. That is unlikely to ever change, unless CD as a format disappears. I don't really like downloads on their own and only spend about 10% of my time listening to Spotify, its a discovery tool for me, my own music is what I play and I'm buying less these days as I think I've got enough!
I tend to buy most of my physical music from the artist themselves at gigs now.
Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk
Spotify is fine with a great catalogue. However, I disagree strongly about 320k quality. Also, Tidal beats Spotify hands down for audio quality. Yes it is a little more expensive but works out at about 65 pence a day.Correct re Spotify SQ. I had to buy CDs when using it. With TIDAL I don't bother.
jmudrick
09-11-2018, 23:24
I'm moving from Tidal to Qobuz. High definition streaming offsets the lack of MQA, better catalog, way better search function, and album synch that actually works on Android. The Studio subscription is more expensive but it's worth it . The failure of Tidal to fix album favorite synch, broken for about a year, is s deal killer.
Yo might find Tidal quite interesting, worth giving it a trial run just to see what you think of the higher res music.
I missed this reply Adrian - I will do one day, just to see what the interface is like, but TBH as I don't use streaming as a primary source (just discovery) the lossless playback isn't enough of a draw over Spotify, especially as Spotify has a more extensive catalogue and Tidal lossless is twice the price. But if CDs become prohibitively expensive to buy, then that would change.
If I switched my media player from JRiver to Roon I'd use Tidal though. I rate Roon but it doesn't scrobble well to Last.fm and that functionality is important. That might have changed since last use, but I'm content with what I have right now :)
AJSki2fly
10-11-2018, 06:44
I missed this reply Adrian - I will do one day, just to see what the interface is like, but TBH as I don't use streaming as a primary source (just discovery) the lossless playback isn't enough of a draw over Spotify, especially as Spotify has a more extensive catalogue and Tidal lossless is twice the price. But if CDs become prohibitively expensive to buy, then that would change.
If I switched my media player from JRiver to Roon I'd use Tidal though. I rate Roon but it doesn't scrobble well to Last.fm and that functionality is important. That might have changed since last use, but I'm content with what I have right now :)
Makes sense to me, if your happy with what works for you then why change. Purely streaming to listen and stopping buying music in whatever media format is quite a big mind shift I think, even for me. But when her indoors is becoming more and more cross with the ever growing LP and CD collection it becomes a simpler and easier alternative but only if at a good SQ for me. I suspect I will still end up buying some favourites though.
I use Spotify similarly to many other folk here to research and evaluate new music. I then either buy physical media, usually the vinyl version if available or CD for the car.
If I was into digital music I would certainly buy a CD rather than stream at whatever bit rate. I like to support artists I like and not streaming companies.
Purely streaming to listen and stopping buying music in whatever media format is quite a big mind shift I think, even for me.
Supporting the artist by purchasing their music is still important to me, so when possible I always try to put pound notes in their hand at gigs (I go to a lot) - it's nice getting it signed too.
I don't think I'll ever stop buying music :)
Correct re Spotify SQ. I had to buy CDs when using it. With TIDAL I don't bother.
I don't think Spotify really has a bit rate that can really deliver audiophile sound quality. So I agree Tidal is better in that respect but my extensive listening experience with so called high rez files has been far from conclusive as so much depends on the mastering quality of the material. You can stream or download high rez material and waste a lot of money if it is mastered poorly as they are charging top bucks for this stuff.
In many cases I have found 16 bit material just as good with very marginal gains if any from 24 bit versions of the same stuff.
AJSki2fly
10-11-2018, 19:00
As I understand it 24 bit is not really relevant for the human ear, it’s main benefit is a greater sound floor which useful for mixing purposes in studios allowing instruments to be mixed to higher volumes without introducing background hiss.
AJSki2fly
12-11-2018, 16:20
Only until 17:17 tomorrow to make your vote on this one. Currently TIDAL is the leader closely followed by Spotify and then Qobuz.
In many cases I have found 16 bit material just as good with very marginal gains if any from 24 bit versions of the same stuff.
I agree, I messed around awhile with 24bit versions and came to the conclusion it wasn't worth the bother, so I'm content with 16/44.1
I agree, I messed around awhile with 24bit versions and came to the conclusion it wasn't worth the bother, so I'm content with 16/44.1
I have done a fair bit of 16bit vs 24 bit comparisons and my conclusion is forget about hi rez or bits, Its all about the mastering!
Similar to vinyl which makes one record stand out as an audiophile recording rather than another. Its all in the mastering.
The problem with digital recordings and mastering is that they can so easily get buggered up in the mastering process, unlike analogue recording and mastering which is less prone to issues .
Spotify premium is 320kbps, by comparison a CD is 1411 kbps. But the difference is marginal as far as being able to hear it goes. Especially if you are no longer young.
Spotify premium is 320kbps, by comparison a CD is 1411 kbps. But the difference is marginal as far as being able to hear it goes. Especially if you are no longer young.
So 24 bit 96Khz is 4608 kbps to CD 1411 kbps so if your suggestion is that there is a marginal difference between Spotify at 320 kbps vs CD, the same could ve said of the marginal difference of 24bit at 4608kbps especially as a fair amount of this information is inaudible.
Spotify premium is 320kbps, by comparison a CD is 1411 kbps. But the difference is marginal as far as being able to hear it goes. Especially if you are no longer young.
I’m young at heart!
Spotify 320 sounds great to me, but not as good as 16/44 either from Tidal or the network.
I have done a fair bit of 16bit vs 24 bit comparisons and my conclusion is forget about hi rez or bits, Its all about the mastering!
Similar to vinyl which makes one record stand out as an audiophile recording rather than another. Its all in the mastering.
The problem with digital recordings and mastering is that they can so easily get buggered up in the mastering process, unlike analogue recording and mastering which is less prone to issues .
Agree with this James,
hirez, MQA etc CAN sound better, nit not always neccessarily so.
24/96 native is the sweetspot for me.
So 24 bit 96Khz is 4608 kbps to CD 1411 kbps so if your suggestion is that there is a marginal difference between Spotify at 320 kbps vs CD, the same could ve said of the marginal difference of 24bit at 4608kbps especially as a fair amount of this information is inaudible.
It all depends on what frequency you are able to hear out to. CD is already overkill, unless you are in your teens and have very good hearing. As you go down the scale you lose dynamic range too but for most recordings that won't be an issue either. It's been demonstrated that people find it very hard to distinguish between 1411 and 320 if they don't know which they are listening to. Other aspects of digital replay have a much greater effect on the quality of what we hear but they tend to get ignored in favour of 'bit rates'. Probably because 'bigger numbers are better' is an easy sell to the uninitiated.
I’m young at heart!
Spotify 320 sounds great to me, but not as good as 16/44 either from Tidal or the network.
Does Tidal 16/44 sound as good as CD or ripped CD?
AJSki2fly
12-11-2018, 18:35
Does Tidal 16/44 sound as good as CD or ripped CD?
CD is 2-channel signed 16-bit Linear PCM sampled at 44,100 Hz, TIDAL at 16/44 is the same so it will sound as good, all you need is a RaspberryPI with a suitable DAC/HAT have a look at allo.com, HiFiBerry.com, and iqaudio.co.uk. You can buy a cheap and simple solution to try streaming out, its quite surprising just how good it is even for less than £100, you don't need to spend a fortune. If you want a really good sound from start go for a SPDIF card and then go for a DAC such as the excellent Beresford Caiman SEG to process the streaming and send to your amp.
Sherwood
12-11-2018, 19:14
Does Tidal 16/44 sound as good as CD or ripped CD?
Combined with Audivarna upsampling I would say considerably better!
Audivarna seems to remove a lot of hash and sounds more analogue to me. Don't ask me how?
Geoff
Combined with Audivarna upsampling I would say considerably better!
Audivarna seems to remove a lot of hash and sounds more analogue to me. Don't ask me how?
Geoff
Audirvana;)
I quite agree, but to be honest I quite like the results of those I have listened to so far as MQA. As previously pointed out there has always been some form of compression trickery, even analogue does. The main thing is does it sound good/right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From my understanding there is more to MQA than meets the eye.
Apart from it being lossy, you can not use ANY form of dsp on it, which buggers up anyone using digital active cross over filters eg minidsp or room correction. The music is locked and it is a format more about licensing/pirating than sound quality. This is why the music publishers love and promote it, but also why some of the equipment manufacturers won't touch it with a barge pole.
CD is 2-channel signed 16-bit Linear PCM sampled at 44,100 Hz, TIDAL at 16/44 is the same so it will sound as good, all you need is a RaspberryPI with a suitable DAC/HAT have a look at allo.com, HiFiBerry.com, and iqaudio.co.uk. You can buy a cheap and simple solution to try streaming out, its quite surprising just how good it is even for less than £100, you don't need to spend a fortune. If you want a really good sound from start go for a SPDIF card and then go for a DAC such as the excellent Beresford Caiman SEG to process the streaming and send to your amp.
The only reason to use a SBC for audio, is to take advantage of the available i2s audio bus, which is accessible through either a HAT DAC or by exporting the i2s output to a high quality external DAC. Purely as computers, SBC's are pants, hell, a decent smart phone has as much processing power and memory as a RPi. It's the easy access to i2s which makes them special and different to most other computers, for audio use. Keep USB and SPDIF out of the chain.
You can now buy a Pink Faun i2s PCIe card for a Windows machine, but that will knock you back 369 euro just for the card. I think it cleans up the power, re-clocks the i2s and uses balanced line drivers to allow the i2s to be sent over longer distances than a SBC, but the price is a bit steep in my opinion.
montesquieu
12-11-2018, 21:29
From my understanding there is more to MQA than meets the eye.
Apart from it being lossy, you can not use ANY form of dsp on it, which buggers up anyone using digital active cross over filters eg minidsp or room correction. The music is locked and it is a format more about licensing/pirating than sound quality. This is why the music publishers love and promote it, but also why some of the equipment manufacturers won't touch it with a barge pole.
From a post of mine in the 'in defence of CD' thread
It's not a reluctance to embrace technology, rather it's a deep-seated skepticism (based from experience) about the use cases for technology, where the latest/greatest/shiniest are often about convenience for the industry (retaining or indeed re-training consumers to consume differently) rather than true convenience for people, even though they are sold as improvements for the masses.
CD for example allowed the audio industry to treble what they charged for product even as the manufacturing costs plummeted. Streaming allows yet another re-packaging of the same old same old so that people buy it again (in this case, by subscription), or buy new hardware (again).
This alleged 'convenience' of a format seems to be entirely conjured up for the industry's benefit.
Sherwood
12-11-2018, 22:09
From my understanding there is more to MQA than meets the eye.
Apart from it being lossy, you can not use ANY form of dsp on it, which buggers up anyone using digital active cross over filters eg minidsp or room correction. The music is locked and it is a format more about licensing/pirating than sound quality. This is why the music publishers love and promote it, but also why some of the equipment manufacturers won't touch it with a barge pole.
I have set Audivarna to upsample to DSD128 on an i5 processor with 16gb DDR4 ram. It performs this on standard FLAC files, including my own local FLAC files, but also on Tidal streams INCLUDING Tidal MQ files. The difference is audible and significant. having set up my Rpi and Digione and configured it to link to Tidal and my NAS drive, all I need to do is select my music from the neat Audivarna interface. Everything is integrated and available with a few keystrokes.
I have set Audivarna to upsample to DSD128 on an i5 processor with 16gb DDR4 ram. It performs this on standard FLAC files, including my own local FLAC files, but also on Tidal streams INCLUDING Tidal MQ files. The difference is audible and significant. having set up my Rpi and Digione and configured it to link to Tidal and my NAS drive, all I need to do is select my music from the neat Audivarna interface. Everything is integrated and available with a few keystrokes.
Yes, I'm using Audirvana myself on a trial basis, but what has any of this to do with what I said about MQA?
MQA is lossy, so it can not sound any better than a non lossy similar file, but it might be doctored to sound different, which is not the same thing. Audirvana is an audio player that switches off certain processes on a Windows machine, which is part of how they claim an improved sound quality. Are you saying you are running Audirvana on an RPi, because as I understand things, from their website, it wont run on an ARM processor, or I would be attempting it myself? I'm sure you like what you are hearing, but unless you have tried running MQA/Lossless files through exactly the same set up, you wont know if one is better than the other.
The fact that MQA will render all the plate amps out there, with on board DSP filters as inoperable, will be worrying to many many people.
This is if I have understood things correctly, that no digital manipulation of MQA files is possible.
Sherwood
13-11-2018, 00:29
Yes, I'm using Audirvana myself on a trial basis, but what has any of this to do with what I said about MQA?
MQA is lossy, so it can not sound any better than a non lossy similar file, but it might be doctored to sound different, which is not the same thing. Audirvana is an audio player that switches off certain processes on a Windows machine, which is part of how they claim an improved sound quality. Are you saying you are running Audirvana on an RPi, because as I understand things, from their website, it wont run on an ARM processor, or I would be attempting it myself? I'm sure you like what you are hearing, but unless you have tried running MQA/Lossless files through exactly the same set up, you wont know if one is better than the other.
The fact that MQA will render all the plate amps out there, with on board DSP filters as inoperable, will be worrying to many many people.
This is if I have understood things correctly, that no digital manipulation of MQA files is possible.
I don't understand what you mean when you say MQA is lossy. As I understand it, MQA is akin to FLAC in compacting data that can be restored by an MQA device.
Audivarna is a software means of unfolding MQA files. It is a processor intensive process but different levels of unfolding are possible depending upon the power of your PC (or MAC).
I don't pretend to understand the technology fully. What I do know is that the upsampling of Tidal files performed by Audivarna sounds fantastic.
Think it's the mqa portion that is lossy. Not the music. Not sure what the issue is with it. Ive not heard any. But a master file played from tidal desktop to my non mqa dac stays in flac bitrate of 16/44. Or 48. Can't remember which and doesn't show as 24/96. In audirvana it does.
AJSki2fly
13-11-2018, 06:47
The only reason to use a SBC for audio, is to take advantage of the available i2s audio bus, which is accessible through either a HAT DAC or by exporting the i2s output to a high quality external DAC. Purely as computers, SBC's are pants, hell, a decent smart phone has as much processing power and memory as a RPi. It's the easy access to i2s which makes them special and different to most other computers, for audio use. Keep USB and SPDIF out of the chain.
You can now buy a Pink Faun i2s PCIe card for a Windows machine, but that will knock you back 369 euro just for the card. I think it cleans up the power, re-clocks the i2s and uses balanced line drivers to allow the i2s to be sent over longer distances than a SBC, but the price is a bit steep in my opinion.
I’m not certain of your point here Quinn. Is it that you don’t advocate using a SBC(small board computer), for clarity, to process digital music, or is it primarily keeping away from spdif(Toslink and coax) and usb for digital transfer?
If it is the later then I presume this is because of the clock issues in spdif protocol which can result in jitter and this noise in the resolved analog signal if the final DAC used cannot cope with it correctly?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't understand what you mean when you say MQA is lossy. As I understand it, MQA is akin to FLAC in compacting data that can be restored by an MQA device.
Audivarna is a software means of unfolding MQA files. It is a processor intensive process but different levels of unfolding are possible depending upon the power of your PC (or MAC).
I don't pretend to understand the technology fully. What I do know is that the upsampling of Tidal files performed by Audivarna sounds fantastic.
A 24/96 or 192 FLAC file contains all the high frequency data (above 22Khz) that is on the recording. The MQA process does not. It discards that data to reduce file size and save bandwidth. When it unfolds it interpolates the high frequencies from what cues it has stored.
You may ask what is the difference in reality and you'd be right since most recordings have nothing but noise above that level and even if it isn't just noise you can't hear it anyway and many loudspeakers including all vintage loudspeakers (anything pre year 2000) can't reproduce it in any case. But technically speaking it is lossy compared to a full fat hi-rez flac file. This is not the main reason why people object to MQA however.
I don't understand what you mean when you say MQA is lossy. As I understand it, MQA is akin to FLAC in compacting data that can be restored by an MQA device.
Audivarna is a software means of unfolding MQA files. It is a processor intensive process but different levels of unfolding are possible depending upon the power of your PC (or MAC).
I don't pretend to understand the technology fully. What I do know is that the upsampling of Tidal files performed by Audivarna sounds fantastic.
Re; MQA/Flac Macca beat me to responding, his explanation is how I understand it.
Edit: It is the inability to do any DSP on MQA files that is my major dislike.
I don't think I've ever heard an MQA music file, if I have I wasn't aware of it.
I might have been looking in the wrong places, but nearly everything I've read about it has been negative. My impression (possibly wrongly) was that it was just another hyped method of trying to sell the same music again and control copyright, so I've not gone any further. I certainly haven't read or heard anything to make me believe it's a good thing or that we actually need it? It's unlikely to improve anything for the artist who originally made the music, or help lesser known artists self release music on their own.
I'm pretty content with FLAC 16/44 to be honest and certainly have no intention of buying new hardware/software so I can listen to it.
I’m not certain of your point here Quinn. Is it that you don’t advocate using a SBC(small board computer), for clarity, to process digital music, or is it primarily keeping away from spdif(Toslink and coax) and usb for digital transfer?
If it is the later then I presume this is because of the clock issues in spdif protocol which can result in jitter and this noise in the resolved analog signal if the final DAC used cannot cope with it correctly?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's to keep away from SPDIF and USB, if your not using the benefits of i2s on a SBC you might as well use a different, more powerful computer, because they are not great as computers. Digital Audio is handled, on all computers by the i2s bus, if you use USB or SPDIF the data is repacked for that protocol. When it is sent to your DAC the data is unpacked back to i2s, because your DAC processes i2s data. It is logical that sending un-processed i2s from box to box is the simplest and cleanest method. This is why on a SBC, the HAT DAC's that plug straight into the i2s bus, via the GPIO socket, sound as good as they do. (It has to be a good DAC in the first place of course).
So i2s is at the top of the tree, SPIDIF and USB are additional processes added to this, but aren't necessary in the chain and can/should be avoided.
More and more manufacturers are adding i2s sockets on their equipment, my CD Transport and DAC, from different companies, both do and I am working on a SBC set up that will export i2s over HDMI cables.
The problem with i2s is that there is no standard, so companies use different sockets/cables and pin outs. Which means they don't all work together. They need to standardize it, but I think it is the way forward.
I think if you use Tidal you no longer need to buy an MQA DAC to get the full 'benefit' but I'm not 100% about that.
Obviously the purpose of MQA is to make money but that's true of all audio formats. The question is whether or not there is any benefit to the punter. CD was obviously a step up from compact cassette and some would argue from vinyl too. (Although it's a bit more complex with vinyl). Nevertheless it soon became the dominant audio format because the benefit was real and obvious.
DVD-A and SACD offered nothing to the punter except arguably better - or at least different - masterings. DVD-A died and SACD became a *very* niche market mainly in classical recordings. Effectively both failed because they did not offer an appreciable benefit to the end user.
MQA seems to be an attempt to succeed where DVD-A and SACD failed, although it is intending to replace what format we stream rather than what disc we buy, the world having moved on from physical media in the last decade.
They use the old trick of DVD-A and SACD which is to painstakingly re-master old favourites and use them as examples of the 'improvement in sound' MQA offers - although they claim it is due to their proprietary (and secret) process of 'temporal de-blurring'. This clams to compensate for the flaws in the digital studio equipment used to make the recording.
The science is all a bit above my pay grade but with the exception of tragic fanboys and those with a vested interest pretty much everyone who understands this stuff says it is bollocks. One flaw in the sales pitch I can understand is that most recordings were made with a variety of equipment, sometimes in different studios, and no records have been kept as to exactly what was used. So how can it now be compensated for?
The reality would seem to be that for all but a few flagship recordings they run the signal through an equalisation algorithm which is one size fits all. This will make the MQA version sound subtly different from other versions of the same music but it isn't a technical advancement and it does not offer 'better' sound quality, just different.
In short, it's just another marketing exercise to sell you the same music all over again.
I think if you use Tidal you no longer need to buy an MQA DAC to get the full 'benefit' but I'm not 100% about that.
Obviously the purpose of MQA is to make money but that's true of all audio formats. The question is whether or not there is any benefit to the punter. CD was obviously a step up from compact cassette and some would argue from vinyl too. (Although it's a bit more complex with vinyl). Nevertheless it soon became the dominant audio format because the benefit was real and obvious.
DVD-A and SACD offered nothing to the punter except arguably better - or at least different - masterings. DVD-A died and SACD became a *very* niche market mainly in classical recordings. Effectively both failed because they did not offer an appreciable benefit to the end user.
MQA seems to be an attempt to succeed where DVD-A and SACD failed, although it is intending to replace what format we stream rather than what disc we buy, the world having moved on from physical media in the last decade.
They use the old trick of DVD-A and SACD which is to painstakingly re-master old favourites and use them as examples of the 'improvement in sound' MQA offers - although they claim it is due to their proprietary (and secret) process of 'temporal de-blurring'. This clams to compensate for the flaws in the digital studio equipment used to make the recording.
The science is all a bit above my pay grade but with the exception of tragic fanboys and those with a vested interest pretty much everyone who understands this stuff says it is bollocks. One flaw in the sales pitch I can understand is that most recordings were made with a variety of equipment, sometimes in different studios, and no records have been kept as to exactly what was used. So how can it now be compensated for?
The reality would seem to be that for all but a few flagship recordings they run the signal through an equalisation algorithm which is one size fits all. This will make the MQA version sound subtly different from other versions of the same music but it isn't a technical advancement and it does not offer 'better' sound quality, just different.
In short, it's just another marketing exercise to sell you the same music all over again.
Pretty much agree with all of that Martin, especially your last sentence.
i will disagree :eek:
Go on then....
I just did. It sounds better; simples. if your not in to improvements in sound irrelevant of how its achieved then fine, but i am. of course im not a traditionalist... im just into the music
AJSki2fly
13-11-2018, 09:23
Much as I thought thanks for clarifying.
There is quite a good explanation at https://volumio.org/raspberry-pi-i2s-dac-sounds-so-good/. Also it points to some DACs using pure i2s interface with a RaspberryPi and the output to RCA to go to an amplifier.
So presumably if the DAC is good then you should get a better result than using an external DAC.
Much as I thought thanks for clarifying.
There is quite a good explanation at https://volumio.org/raspberry-pi-i2s-dac-sounds-so-good/. Also it points to some DACs using pure i2s interface with a RaspberryPi and the output to RCA to go to an amplifier.
So presumably if the DAC is good then you should get a better result than using an external DAC.
Not all DAC's are equal.
If you are exporting the i2s to an external DAC, or using i2s via the GPIO socket on a HAT DAC, it will come down to the quality of the DAC itself. There are some good HAT DAC's but there are better stand alone external ones.
If using a SPIDIF output to an external DAC, compared to an i2s HAT DAC, again the quality of each DAC will effect the results.
A HAT DAC is a cost effective way of getting good sound quality, but it can be bettered with a pricier external i2s fed DAC.
There are no Black and White answers as the DAC quality is always a variable, but all things being equal an i2s fed external DAC will be the ultimate in sound quality and companies like PS Audio do exactly that with their digital sources.
Edit: I've started a project, building a SBC streamer that will export i2s to my external DAC, its early days but you might want to follow it, here:
http://www.jkwynn.co.uk/Streamer/Stream_Thumbs.html
In my opinion MQA, like MP3, is just a compromised solution to expensive internet bandwidth and, in the case of MP3, previously expensive disc storage. Increasingly bandwidth is getting cheaper and faster as happened with disc storage. This will render MQA largely meaningless as streaming at higher rates will become more dominant/cheaper. Occasionally I stream at 24/192 (e.g. JB Radio2) and, imo, beats MQA hands down.
Mind you MQA (with first unfold in my case done via Roon) sounds great. But ultimately SQ will be determined by the recording and mastering techniques done initially. Everything after that will be either faithful or hinder that source.
Correction: JB Radio2 streams at 16/192.
I just did. It sounds better; simples. if your not in to improvements in sound irrelevant of how its achieved then fine, but i am. of course im not a traditionalist... im just into the music
So it sounds different and it's a difference you personally prefer. No argument with that but a subjective preference is not a technical improvement and MQA claim a technical improvement..
So it sounds different and it's a difference you personally prefer. No argument with that but a subjective preference is not a technical improvement and MQA claim a technical improvement..
i suppose it depends on what you class as a technical improvement.
i suppose it depends on what you class as a technical improvement.
Objectively improved as well as subjectively 'improved'.
If they just said 'We've cocked about with the recording and some of you may like the result' that's fine. Like preferring a re-master of an album to the original mastering. Who's to argue with personal preference? But they are claiming more than that and it does not seem to be borne out.
the file size is bigger than flac so there is something in there extra. tbh flac is a bastardization of a wav file, as its been mucked about with a codec, but it is better metadata wise and uses less space, so we have to be careful how we categorize things as better or worse.
I am not making any claims on it personally, but will saay that once ive upscaled the upscaled audirvana unfold it deffo sounds better. why? no idea, nor do i really care. i like end product.
I might add again, that the desktop Tidal app still outputs 16/44 on a master. only something like audirvana opens it to 24/96 etc
the file size is bigger than flac so there is something in there extra. tbh flac is a bastardization of a wav file, as its been mucked about with a codec, but it is better metadata wise and uses less space, so we have to be careful how we categorize things as better or worse.
It's bigger than a 24/96 Flac file? Are you sure?
It's bigger than a 24/96 Flac file? Are you sure?
no, bigger than a 16/44 flac file.
no, bigger than a 16/44 flac file.
Because it has to contain some data relating the frequencies over 22khz otherwise it couldn't reconstruct them on the 'unfold'. But the differences you are hearing are entirely down to mastering. If you did that same re-mastering to the 16/44 it would sound the same as the MQA. You just wouldn't be able to put a 'High Res' sticker on it.
People want better audio and it isn't easy or especially cheap to get better audio so they are always looking for a 'magic bullet' solution in the form of a wonder format or technology even though in reality that doesn't exist. The industry knows this and plays to it. Even if MQA dies a death I guarantee there will be another iteration just around the corner.
Because it has to contain some data relating the frequencies over 22khz otherwise it couldn't reconstruct them on the 'unfold'. But the differences you are hearing are entirely down to mastering. If you did that same re-mastering to the 16/44 it would sound the same as the MQA. You just wouldn't be able to put a 'High Res' sticker on it.
People want better audio and it isn't easy or especially cheap to get better audio so they are always looking for a 'magic bullet' solution in the form of a wonder format or technology even though in reality that doesn't exist. The industry knows this and plays to it. Even if MQA dies a death I guarantee there will be another iteration just around the corner.
entirely? bold statement and probably not provable . your opinion is fine by me.:)
Stratmangler
13-11-2018, 13:56
Just a thought - Bob Stuart has been around a long time, and has been involved with digital audio for eons.
He was involved with the lossless compression and packing for DVD-Audio (if you look at a DVD-Audio disc with a ripper capable of seeing it, such as this http://www.dvdae.com/ it shows as MLP, which stands for Meridian Lossless Packaging).
He's very well versed with the concept and methods of trying to squeeze 24 elephants into a matchbox.
Has anyone commenting about the effectiveness or not of MQA actually heard it with appropriate hardware?
It's actually designed to work with specific chipsets.
If you don't use the right gear you don't get to hear things in their full glory.
The entire thing is designed to have slightly better sound quality than CD with just about every other delivery method you can think of, and to hear it you get the base level unfold.
The remainder of the unfolds can only be seen from compute over USB by a DAC equipped with the appropriate chipsets.
If the answer is no, then your opinion on MQA's effectiveness is worthless.
For the record, I haven't heard it, and I have no burning desire to seek it out.
it depends on the mqa original resolution. software can unfold to 24/96, and many mqa files are only that so you get the whole thing via software. to get the extra fold to Ithink 24 q76, or what ever, you need hardware. Ive not tried one yet, and a few ive talked to have said the software fold is the best..
entirely? bold statement and probably not provable . your opinion is fine by me.:)
On the contrary it has been proven and at a fairly high standard of testing.
AJSki2fly
13-11-2018, 15:23
it depends on the mqa original resolution. software can unfold to 24/96, and many mqa files are only that so you get the whole thing via software. to get the extra fold to Ithink 24 q76, or what ever, you need hardware. Ive not tried one yet, and a few ive talked to have said the software fold is the best..
As was rightly pointed out to me earlier :-
It's to keep away from SPDIF and USB, if your not using the benefits of i2s on a SBC you might as well use a different, more powerful computer, because they are not great as computers. Digital Audio is handled, on all computers by the i2s bus, if you use USB or SPDIF the data is repacked for that protocol. When it is sent to your DAC the data is unpacked back to i2s, because your DAC processes i2s data. It is logical that sending un-processed i2s from box to box is the simplest and cleanest method. This is why on a SBC, the HAT DAC's that plug straight into the i2s bus, via the GPIO socket, sound as good as they do. (It has to be a good DAC in the first place of course).
So i2s is at the top of the tree, SPIDIF and USB are additional processes added to this, but aren't necessary in the chain and can/should be avoided.
More and more manufacturers are adding i2s sockets on their equipment, my CD Transport and DAC, from different companies, both do and I am working on a SBC set up that will export i2s over HDMI cables.
The problem with i2s is that there is no standard, so companies use different sockets/cables and pin outs. Which means they don't all work together. They need to standardize it, but I think it is the way forward.
and
Not all DAC's are equal.
If you are exporting the i2s to an external DAC, or using i2s via the GPIO socket on a HAT DAC, it will come down to the quality of the DAC itself. There are some good HAT DAC's but there are better stand alone external ones.
If using a SPIDIF output to an external DAC, compared to an i2s HAT DAC, again the quality of each DAC will effect the results.
A HAT DAC is a cost effective way of getting good sound quality, but it can be bettered with a pricier external i2s fed DAC.
There are no Black and White answers as the DAC quality is always a variable, but all things being equal an i2s fed external DAC will be the ultimate in sound quality and companies like PS Audio do exactly that with their digital sources.
Edit: I've started a project, building a SBC streamer that will export i2s to my external DAC, its early days but you might want to follow it, here:
http://www.jkwynn.co.uk/Streamer/Stream_Thumbs.html
So taking the above is correct, and personally I think it is, then whether MQA is any good or not is probably a bit esoteric unless we are using gear that is in the form of Raspberry Pi -> I2S -> DAC -> Full-of-common-sense-amplifier (you could replace RaspberryPi with any suitable computer that uses I2S -> DAC or a streaming device that does this using I2S and plugs into the amp).
I say this because if we are not using "Computer -> I2S -> DAC -> Full-of-common-sense-amplifier" or a suitable device then surely this means we are introducing quite a few variables into the chain to unravel the data stream, and if we are using S/PDIF(TOSLINK or Coax) to external DAC then whatever is happening with what is being decoded initially be it MQA, FLAC or whatever we are at risk of degrading the data stream further and presumably SQ.
Having said all that I am personally quite impressed with how my current digital setup sounds and that is using S/PDIF to external DAC. I also have to say that MQA files do sound quite good to my ears.
As was rightly pointed out to me earlier :-
and
So taking the above is correct, and personally I think it is, then whether MQA is any good or not is probably a bit esoteric unless we are using gear that is in the form of Raspberry Pi -> I2S -> DAC -> Full-of-common-sense-amplifier (you could replace RaspberryPi with any suitable computer that uses I2S -> DAC or a streaming device that does this using I2S and plugs into the amp).
I say this because if we are not using "Computer -> I2S -> DAC -> Full-of-common-sense-amplifier" or a suitable device then surely this means we are introducing quite a few variables into the chain to unravel the data stream, and if we are using S/PDIF(TOSLINK or Coax) to external DAC then whatever is happening with what is being decoded initially be it MQA, FLAC or whatever we are at risk of degrading the data stream further and presumably SQ.
Having said all that I am personally quite impressed with how my current digital setup sounds and that is using S/PDIF to external DAC. I also have to say that MQA files do sound quite good to my ears.
surely thats the aim.
AJSki2fly
13-11-2018, 15:40
As was rightly pointed out to me earlier :-
and
So taking the above is correct, and personally I think it is, then whether MQA is any good or not is probably a bit esoteric unless we are using gear that is in the form of Raspberry Pi -> I2S -> DAC -> Full-of-common-sense-amplifier (you could replace RaspberryPi with any suitable computer that uses I2S -> DAC or a streaming device that does this using I2S and plugs into the amp).
I say this because if we are not using "Computer -> I2S -> DAC -> Full-of-common-sense-amplifier" or a suitable device then surely this means we are introducing quite a few variables into the chain to unravel the data stream, and if we are using S/PDIF(TOSLINK or Coax) to external DAC then whatever is happening with what is being decoded initially be it MQA, FLAC or whatever we are at risk of degrading the data stream further and presumably SQ.
Having said all that I am personally quite impressed with how my current digital setup sounds and that is using S/PDIF to external DAC. I also have to say that MQA files do sound quite good to my ears.
surely thats the aim.
I agree with you Grant, its what it sounds like that matters. :) Also in my view once you get beyond 16/44.1 it is a bit questionable whether you will actually hear or get an improvement in SQ, especially if you're in you 60's with the gradual onset of high level hearing loss, which I believe most of the human race suffers from once over about 35 years of age.:doh:
Halfway Tree
19-11-2018, 11:22
I agree with you Grant, its what it sounds like that matters. :) Also in my view once you get beyond 16/44.1 it is a bit questionable whether you will actually hear or get an improvement in SQ, especially if you're in you 60's with the gradual onset of high level hearing loss, which I believe most of the human race suffers from once over about 35 years of age.:doh:
Normally I'd agree, too - unfortunately in the case of MQA it is not just about sound quality, about which there is still much debate.
MQA is a lossy format - at first they claimed it was lossless, but changed their tune.
MQA stands for Master Quality Authenticated - it was sold on the premise that MQA files would be authenticated as being from the master files. This seems to have been quietly dropped. This interview with recording engineer Brian Lucey provides some insight. (http://fairhedon.com/2017/11/05/an-interview-with-mastering-engineer-brian-lucey/)
As @Qwin has already mentioned you cannot perform any DSP on a MQA file. Bob Stuart has confirmed this. So, if you have an active system with x-overs or EQ built using JRiver or Roon's DSP functionality they will not work with MQA. Likewise you are not able to perform any Digital Room Correction using Dirac, Acourate, OpenDRC or Audiolense on an MQA file.
Bob Stuart has stated that DRM has not been implemented in MQA. He chose his words carefully. My understanding is that this is the case currently, but MQA does have the capability to implement DRM in the future. CDs can be produced using MQA.
The music labels have embraced MQA. Why? So they can sell us another format (that needs special hardware to get the full benefit?) There is a school of thought that the labels have been sellingy their crown jewels for too long (ie 24/96 or higher res downloads) Will we in future not be able to buy redbook or 24/96 downloads and end up with only being able to purchase MQA files?
Conspiracy theory? - maybe - but there is much more to MQA than just sound quality IMO.
SantanaCorreia
19-11-2018, 11:25
http://abx.digitalfeed.net
Can you guys try it out?
Enviado do meu HTC_M10h através do Tapatalk
Normally I'd agree, too - unfortunately in the case of MQA it is not just about sound quality, about which there is still much debate.
MQA is a lossy format - at first they claimed it was lossless, but changed their tune.
MQA stands for Master Quality Authenticated - it was sold on the premise that MQA files would be authenticated as being from the master files. This seems to have been quietly dropped. This interview with recording engineer Brian Lucey provides some insight. (http://fairhedon.com/2017/11/05/an-interview-with-mastering-engineer-brian-lucey/)
As @Qwin has already mentioned you cannot perform any DSP on a MQA file. Bob Stuart has confirmed this. So, if you have an active system with x-overs or EQ built using JRiver or Roon's DSP functionality they will not work with MQA. Likewise you are not able to perform any Digital Room Correction using Dirac, Acourate, OpenDRC or Audiolense on an MQA file.
Bob Stuart has stated that DRM has not been implemented in MQA. He chose his words carefully. My understanding is that this is the case currently, but MQA does have the capability to implement DRM in the future. CDs can be produced using MQA.
The music labels have embraced MQA. Why? So they can sell us another format (that needs special hardware to get the full benefit?) There is a school of thought that the labels have been sellingy their crown jewels for too long (ie 24/96 or higher res downloads) Will we in future not be able to buy redbook or 24/96 downloads and end up with only being able to purchase MQA files?
Conspiracy theory? - maybe - but there is much more to MQA than just sound quality IMO.
I get your point, although i dont think mqa will become any sort of standard. there are lots of ways of peeling an orange and most are viable, so you takes your pick. You just have to look at dacs, how many mqa dacs are available? not many, certainly at the lower end.
Sherwood
19-11-2018, 11:35
Normally I'd agree, too - unfortunately in the case of MQA it is not just about sound quality, about which there is still much debate.
MQA is a lossy format - at first they claimed it was lossless, but changed their tune.
MQA stands for Master Quality Authenticated - it was sold on the premise that MQA files would be authenticated as being from the master files. This seems to have been quietly dropped. This interview with recording engineer Brian Lucey provides some insight. (http://fairhedon.com/2017/11/05/an-interview-with-mastering-engineer-brian-lucey/)
As @Qwin has already mentioned you cannot perform any DSP on a MQA file. Bob Stuart has confirmed this. So, if you have an active system with x-overs or EQ built using JRiver or Roon's DSP functionality they will not work with MQA. Likewise you are not able to perform any Digital Room Correction using Dirac, Acourate, OpenDRC or Audiolense on an MQA file.
Bob Stuart has stated that DRM has not been implemented in MQA. He chose his words carefully. My understanding is that this is the case currently, but MQA does have the capability to implement DRM in the future. CDs can be produced using MQA.
The music labels have embraced MQA. Why? So they can sell us another format (that needs special hardware to get the full benefit?) There is a school of thought that the labels have been sellingy their crown jewels for too long (ie 24/96 or higher res downloads) Will we in future not be able to buy redbook or 24/96 downloads and end up with only being able to purchase MQA files?
Conspiracy theory? - maybe - but there is much more to MQA than just sound quality IMO.
To be honest I'm only interested in sound quality. I am not really interested in DSP and my guess is that neither are the vast majority of people. I don't envisage ever buying an MQA album, but I value the opportunity to stream a growing library of Tidal Master Quality releases. On my system the latter sound consistently better than the standard product.
I share your concern about marketing driving technology and having gradually acquired on CD most of the titles I had previously bought on vinyl (and more, much more) do not intend to buy another format.
Geoff
Spectral Morn
19-11-2018, 11:42
You Tube
Not massively interested in streaming music, though I do use the Internet Radio facility on my Sony HAPz1 to listen to dance and electronica from around the world. Can be annoying though when a station vanishes from the service, such as happened with Nordic Lodge recently :(
You Tube I find useful in finding new music to me that I then try and buy on CD.
MQA does not fill me with joy, another attempt at reinventing the wheel and fleecing people once again. I must confess I also though MQAs people at the Rocky Mountain Audio show this year were pretty rude when John Darko attempted to pull MQA on some of its previous, now with drawn false claims regarding what MQA is.
picked up a 3 month run of spotty again, for use in car mostly, as its lower bitrate makes it cheaper to afford. my phone has limited space due to all the audible books on it:lol: I like spotty, and would use it if i didnt have audirvana. I used to be a tester for spotty once upon a time
Sherwood
19-11-2018, 11:56
picked up a 3 month run of spotty again, for use in car mostly, as its lower bitrate makes it cheaper to afford. my phone has limited space due to all the audible books on it:lol: I like spotty, and would use it if i didnt have audirvana. I used to be a tester for spotty once upon a time
Grant,
do you know that the latest A1 SD card format is designed to allow more apps to run from an SD card rather than internal memory. A cheap way of prolonging the life of a phone.
Grant,
do you know that the latest A1 SD card format is designed to allow more apps to run from an SD card rather than internal memory. A cheap way of prolonging the life of a phone.
on an old iphone, but only has 16 gig memory. was my sons. does the job tho.
AJSki2fly
19-11-2018, 12:14
http://abx.digitalfeed.net
Can you guys try it out?
Enviado do meu HTC_M10h através do Tapatalk
Tried it, got 60% right over 10 tests which IMO is not bad with 60 year old ears, what I did notice was that on the tracks I had the ones with more mid to high content were harder for me to determine which matched which. I had to focus on a part of a track keep replaying it and switching between them. Whether this is because when I tested my hearing anything above 13kHz is gone I have now idea. However I do recall reading somewhere that the biggest impact of lossy compression was in the bass to mid which is why recording of modern music are mixed to exaggerate the lower end, but I could be wrong.
Halfway Tree
19-11-2018, 12:27
I get your point, although i dont think mqa will become any sort of standard. there are lots of ways of peeling an orange and most are viable, so you takes your pick. You just have to look at dacs, how many mqa dacs are available? not many, certainly at the lower end.
You could well be right, Grant, and I hope you are. It's just the speed with which the major labels have embraced MQA that is concerning. It could just be that they are interested in the streaming/mobile market - as I understand it the MQA decoding chip can be implemenetd in mobiles and that may be the market segment the labels are interested in. As "audiophiles" we are a very small segment of the music market and probably of less interest to the music controllers (labels) than we think.
You could well be right, Grant, and I hope you are. It's just the speed with which the major labels have embraced MQA that is concerning. It could just be that they are interested in the streaming/mobile market - as I understand it the MQA decoding chip can be implemenetd in mobiles and that may be the market segment the labels are interested in. As "audiophiles" we are a very small segment of the music market and probably of less interest to the music controllers (labels) than we think.
True. In fact it looks like MQA have already given up bothering to argue the toss with the proper enthusiasts.
Halfway Tree
19-11-2018, 12:48
To be honest I'm only interested in sound quality. I am not really interested in DSP and my guess is that neither are the vast majority of people. I don't envisage ever buying an MQA album, but I value the opportunity to stream a growing library of Tidal Master Quality releases. On my system the latter sound consistently better than the standard product.
I share your concern about marketing driving technology and having gradually acquired on CD most of the titles I had previously bought on vinyl (and more, much more) do not intend to buy another format.
Geoff
I do use DSP, as do a few others I know, and would never go back to passive x-overs - but that's for another topic.
Here's what Brian Lucey had to say about Tidal and MQA Masters: " At present, some labels are releasing my work which was not approved or “authenticated” here, as MQA to a gullible public. It’s a factory approach to making money, be warned."
He followed it with " I have authenticated nothing here, and my work is on Tidal as MQA. Nuff said."
You may not be getting what you think you are getting. If you like the sound then fine, no problem, but if I am being sold an album as being from the master then I would like to see the provenance. HD Tracks did something similar a few years ago and were caught flogging upsampled 44.1 as 96 or higher.
. HD Tracks did something similar a few years ago and were caught flogging upsampled 44.1 as 96 or higher.
The big irony being that those paying for 'fake' hi-res didn't notice any difference...
The big irony being that those paying for 'fake' hi-res didn't notice any difference...
;)
Halfway Tree
19-11-2018, 13:19
The big irony being that those paying for 'fake' hi-res didn't notice any difference...
Yep, and I still occasionally buy 24/96 downloads (but not from HD Tracks)....just in case I might one day be able to hear the difference over 16/44 :scratch: :rolleyes:
Yep, and I still occasionally buy 24/96 downloads (but not from HD Tracks)....just in case I might one day be able to hear the difference over 16/44 :scratch: :rolleyes:
At least you've got yourself a copy of the 'crown jewels' just in case MQA does come to dominate all ;)
Which does beg the question how they are going to put that particular genie back in the bottle. Can't get the 24/192 master legally anymore? Copy it off a mate who downloaded it back when you still could.
AJSki2fly
19-11-2018, 13:51
Yep, and I still occasionally buy 24/96 downloads (but not from HD Tracks)....just in case I might one day be able to hear the difference over 16/44 :scratch: :rolleyes:
I think we are back to a key theme that has flowed through this thread, can you actually hear any difference between 16/44 and 24/96, that's if your equipment is up to reproducing it accurately(that's another whole can of worms)? Or perhaps we just like to think we can hear the difference because after all we are audiophiles. :eyebrows:
As Luis(SantanaCorreia) clearly pointed out it is can be pretty difficult to tell apart lossy from lossless.
http://abx.digitalfeed.net
Can you guys try it out?
Enviado do meu HTC_M10h através do Tapatalk
SantanaCorreia
19-11-2018, 13:56
I think we are back to a key theme that has flowed through this thread, can you actually hear any difference between 16/44 and 24/96, that's if your equipment is up to reproducing it accurately(that's another whole can of worms)? Or perhaps we just like to think we can hear the difference because after all we are audiophiles. :eyebrows:
As Luis(SantanaCorreia) clearly pointed out it is can be pretty difficult to tell apart lossy from lossless.The fact is many of us just cant tell them apart. I am clearly included. The rest is up to the recording and mastering.
Enviado do meu HTC_M10h através do Tapatalk
Sherwood
19-11-2018, 15:08
I was very sceptical when I signed up for an Audivarna trial. However, the difference in SQ between standard and MQ files when streaming Tidal is very obvious and using Audivarna to do the unfolding and upsampling. More space and texture and a smoother, more analogue sound. It surprises me that others cannot hear the same improvements, but I accept that if you can't hear a difference you can't.
I do not consider myself an "audiophile" and have no time for fancy cables or other esoterica.
As we've discussed previously MQA uses some form of EQ to make their files audibly different.
No human being in existence can hear frequencies above 22 KHz which is why, when apples are compared to apples, no-one can tell the difference between a 'hi res' file and the 'cd quality' version of the same track.
SantanaCorreia
19-11-2018, 15:21
I was very sceptical when I signed up for an Audivarna trial. However, the difference in SQ between standard and MQ files when streaming Tidal is very obvious and using Audivarna to do the unfolding and upsampling. More space and texture and a smoother, more analogue sound. It surprises me that others cannot hear the same improvements, but I accept that if you can't hear a difference you can't.
I do not consider myself an "audiophile" and have no time for fancy cables or other esoterica.I am just talking about SQ between mp3 and FLAC. I cannot tell them apart not in my stereo, nor with iems nor headphones.
I would try audirvana but I have no HD or MQA files.
Enviado do meu HTC_M10h através do Tapatalk
Sherwood
19-11-2018, 15:29
As we've discussed previously MQA uses some form of EQ to make their files audibly different.
No human being in existence can hear frequencies above 22 KHz which is why, when apples are compared to apples, no-one can tell the difference between a 'hi res' file and the 'cd quality' version of the same track.
Clearly I am not human. Live long and prosper! :idea:
I find this video and his other video on Nyquist very enlightening https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_wxRGiBoJg&t=100s
AJSki2fly
19-11-2018, 16:34
I am just talking about SQ between mp3 and FLAC. I cannot tell them apart not in my stereo, nor with iems nor headphones.
I would try audirvana but I have no HD or MQA files.
Enviado do meu HTC_M10h através do Tapatalk
If you wanted to you could trial Audirvana and then get a free trial of TIDAL which has MQA files, and other Hi Res. If you do not like it just kill it.
Spectral Morn
19-11-2018, 16:50
As we've discussed previously MQA uses some form of EQ to make their files audibly different.
No human being in existence can hear frequencies above 22 KHz which is why, when apples are compared to apples, no-one can tell the difference between a 'hi res' file and the 'cd quality' version of the same track.
I can :sofa:
Clearly I am not human. Live long and prosper! :idea:
I find this video and his other video on Nyquist very enlightening https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_wxRGiBoJg&t=100s
Seen it before, he doesn't understand the basics I'm afraid. Or he has an agenda. Try this:
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
I can :sofa:
I have heard the differences too Neil, you are not alone!
Recently I heard a 24 bit vs 16bit CD vs 16bit rip of Private Investigations on a very revealing system and the differences were obvious. The 24 bit recording had more air around the guitar and tiny transient details were more evident. The CD was not far behind but for me but the CD ripped version was my preferred choice. In many ways it had more gravity and guts than the 24 bit recording. Again this maybe down to the mastering but curiously I found the 24bit recording light weight?
When I got home I played the vinyl version and I would put this way above all three of the others for live realism, emotion and musicality. It is a track you just want to keep playing on vinyl. I love the tired grittiness in knopflers voice on this recording.
When listening to a huge musical catalogue jumping round from track to track, what is most evident is always the production and mastering. In blind listening it was 50:50 if I could call out if a recording was 24bit or 16.
Put me in the "I can" group too.
Going from 44k to 96k isn't as big a jump as going from 16bit to 24bit imo.
24/96 is the sweet-spot for me, anything more is just added zero's and less album space on your hard drive!
AJSki2fly
19-11-2018, 19:49
Seen it before, he doesn't understand the basics I'm afraid. Or he has an agenda. Try this:
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
I think the crux of it is this taken from the article by —Monty (monty@xiph.org) March 1, 2012
"It is also worth mentioning that increasing the bit depth of the audio representation from 16 to 24 bits does not increase the perceptible resolution or 'fineness' of the audio. It only increases the dynamic range, the range between the softest possible and the loudest possible sound, by lowering the noise floor. However, a 16-bit noise floor is already below what we can hear."
and
"This paper presented listeners with a choice between high-rate DVD-A/SACD content, chosen by high-definition audio advocates to show off high-def's superiority, and that same content resampled on the spot down to 16-bit / 44.1kHz Compact Disc rate. The listeners were challenged to identify any difference whatsoever between the two using an ABX methodology. BAS conducted the test using high-end professional equipment in noise-isolated studio listening environments with both amateur and trained professional listeners.
In 554 trials, listeners chose correctly 49.8% of the time. In other words, they were guessing. Not one listener throughout the entire test was able to identify which was 16/44.1 and which was high rate [15], and the 16-bit signal wasn't even dithered!"
and
"Lossless formats
It's true enough that a properly encoded Ogg file (or MP3, or AAC file) will be indistinguishable from the original at a moderate bitrate.
But what of badly encoded files?
Twenty years ago, all mp3 encoders were really bad by today's standards. Plenty of these old, bad encoders are still in use, presumably because the licenses are cheaper and most people can't tell or don't care about the difference anyway. Why would any company spend money to fix what it's completely unaware is broken?
Moving to a newer format like Vorbis or AAC doesn't necessarily help. For example, many companies and individuals used (and still use) FFmpeg's very-low-quality built-in Vorbis encoder because it was the default in FFmpeg and they were unaware how bad it was. AAC has an even longer history of widely-deployed, low-quality encoders; all mainstream lossy formats do.
Lossless formats like FLAC avoid any possibility of damaging audio fidelity [23] with a poor quality lossy encoder, or even by a good lossy encoder used incorrectly.
A second reason to distribute lossless formats is to avoid generational loss. Each reencode or transcode loses more data; even if the first encoding is transparent, it's very possible the second will have audible artifacts. This matters to anyone who might want to remix or sample from downloads. It especially matters to us codec researchers; we need clean audio to work with."
I leave you to come to your own conclusions on the above.
Or perhaps we just like to think we can hear the difference because after all we are audiophiles.
You speak for yourself, I'm not ;)
Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk
"This paper presented listeners with a choice between high-rate DVD-A/SACD content, chosen by high-definition audio advocates to show off high-def's superiority, and that same content resampled on the spot down to 16-bit / 44.1kHz Compact Disc rate. The listeners were challenged to identify any difference whatsoever between the two using an ABX methodology. BAS conducted the test using high-end professional equipment in noise-isolated studio listening environments with both amateur and trained professional listeners.
In 554 trials, listeners chose correctly 49.8% of the time. In other words, they were guessing. Not one listener throughout the entire test was able to identify which was 16/44.1 and which was high rate.
Yup. When put to the test we can't hear a difference and indeed there is no valid reason why we should hear a difference. It sort of makes sense.
SantanaCorreia
19-11-2018, 20:37
I don't consider myself an audiophile. I have spent to little time and money on gear to consider myself that. I do feel I am a music lover (i dont think there is an english word for that) and music is what makes me look for a good way of reproducing it. Keeping this in mind is easy to understand why spotify is, for me by far, the best. I dont care if it is lossless or lossy, mp3 or MQA. It only bothers me when the recording is bad but that is not up to the streaming provider.
Since I am part of the lucky group that can enjoy music on the cheap (cheap stereo, cheap headphones/iems and cheap streaming service) I advise, if possible, all newbies to this hobby to gor for a similar solution.
Enviado do meu HTC_M10h através do Tapatalk
I think the crux of it is this taken from the article by —Monty (monty@xiph.org) March 1, 2012
"It is also worth mentioning that increasing the bit depth of the audio representation from 16 to 24 bits does not increase the perceptible resolution or 'fineness' of the audio. It only increases the dynamic range, the range between the softest possible and the loudest possible sound, by lowering the noise floor. However, a 16-bit noise floor is already below what we can hear."
and
"This paper presented listeners with a choice between high-rate DVD-A/SACD content, chosen by high-definition audio advocates to show off high-def's superiority, and that same content resampled on the spot down to 16-bit / 44.1kHz Compact Disc rate. The listeners were challenged to identify any difference whatsoever between the two using an ABX methodology. BAS conducted the test using high-end professional equipment in noise-isolated studio listening environments with both amateur and trained professional listeners.
In 554 trials, listeners chose correctly 49.8% of the time. In other words, they were guessing. Not one listener throughout the entire test was able to identify which was 16/44.1 and which was high rate [15], and the 16-bit signal wasn't even dithered!"
and
"Lossless formats
It's true enough that a properly encoded Ogg file (or MP3, or AAC file) will be indistinguishable from the original at a moderate bitrate.
But what of badly encoded files?
Twenty years ago, all mp3 encoders were really bad by today's standards. Plenty of these old, bad encoders are still in use, presumably because the licenses are cheaper and most people can't tell or don't care about the difference anyway. Why would any company spend money to fix what it's completely unaware is broken?
Moving to a newer format like Vorbis or AAC doesn't necessarily help. For example, many companies and individuals used (and still use) FFmpeg's very-low-quality built-in Vorbis encoder because it was the default in FFmpeg and they were unaware how bad it was. AAC has an even longer history of widely-deployed, low-quality encoders; all mainstream lossy formats do.
Lossless formats like FLAC avoid any possibility of damaging audio fidelity [23] with a poor quality lossy encoder, or even by a good lossy encoder used incorrectly.
A second reason to distribute lossless formats is to avoid generational loss. Each reencode or transcode loses more data; even if the first encoding is transparent, it's very possible the second will have audible artifacts. This matters to anyone who might want to remix or sample from downloads. It especially matters to us codec researchers; we need clean audio to work with."
I leave you to come to your own conclusions on the above.
The problem with this ABX test with 554 listeners, is we don’t know how good their hearing is. Perhaps 50% of those testing had poor hearing? Well not poor hearing, but average hearing. Those attracted to High Fidelity are generally those of us with above average hearing. Human ears do not have a brick wall filter, high frequencies taper off, and there are those among us that can hear 24Khz. Now, if you gathered a group of listeners that had all been tested to hear, say, 22Khz, and then conducted the test, then I’d say it was truly exposing which of the formats sounded better. Or if there was a difference. But just taking 500 average joes off the street leaves us with unaccounted variables. Or, if all the testers were Navy Gunners, I’m sure they didn’t hear the difference..
Russell
AJSki2fly
19-11-2018, 21:28
I don't consider myself an audiophile. I have spent to little time and money on gear to consider myself that. I do feel I am a music lover (i dont think there is an english word for that) and music is what makes me look for a good way of reproducing it. Keeping this in mind is easy to understand why spotify is, for me by far, the best. I dont care if it is lossless or lossy, mp3 or MQA. It only bothers me when the recording is bad but that is not up to the streaming provider.
Since I am part of the lucky group that can enjoy music on the cheap (cheap stereo, cheap headphones/iems and cheap streaming service) I advise, if possible, all newbies to this hobby to gor for a similar solution.
Enviado do meu HTC_M10h através do Tapatalk
Quite right Luis, it’s the music that matters.
The problem with this ABX test with 554 listeners, is we don’t know how good their hearing is. Perhaps 50% of those testing had poor hearing? Well not poor hearing, but average hearing. Those attracted to High Fidelity are generally those of us with above average hearing. Human ears do not have a brick wall filter, high frequencies taper off, and there are those among us that can hear 24Khz. Now, if you gathered a group of listeners that had all been tested to hear, say, 22Khz, and then conducted the test, then I’d say it was truly exposing which of the formats sounded better. Or if there was a difference. But just taking 500 average joes off the street leaves us with unaccounted variables. Or, if all the testers were Navy Gunners, I’m sure they didn’t hear the difference..
Russell
...with both amateur and trained professional listeners.
SantanaCorreia
19-11-2018, 21:36
The problem with this ABX test with 554 listeners, is we don’t know how good their hearing is. Perhaps 50% of those testing had poor hearing? Well not poor hearing, but average hearing. Those attracted to High Fidelity are generally those of us with above average hearing. Human ears do not have a brick wall filter, high frequencies taper off, and there are those among us that can hear 24Khz. Now, if you gathered a group of listeners that had all been tested to hear, say, 22Khz, and then conducted the test, then I’d say it was truly exposing which of the formats sounded better. Or if there was a difference. But just taking 500 average joes off the street leaves us with unaccounted variables. Or, if all the testers were Navy Gunners, I’m sure they didn’t hear the difference..
RussellI cannot tell for sure but 554 is a pretty good sample. You would get guys listening from 22 up to 24khz.
At least, from were I come from, a test like this made in good conditions with a strong sample is pretty hard to refute.
49% is really telling us that they were just guessing.
If the 554 guys really represent general population than I thibk there is a point.
The only thing I can come across as removing some of the tests value is if one can learn to ear a wider range of khz or find 'defects/artefacts?' in the music due to poor conversion.
Enviado do meu HTC_M10h através do Tapatalk
AJSki2fly
19-11-2018, 21:36
The problem with this ABX test with 554 listeners, is we don’t know how good their hearing is. Perhaps 50% of those testing had poor hearing? Well not poor hearing, but average hearing. Those attracted to High Fidelity are generally those of us with above average hearing. Human ears do not have a brick wall filter, high frequencies taper off, and there are those among us that can hear 24Khz. Now, if you gathered a group of listeners that had all been tested to hear, say, 22Khz, and then conducted the test, then I’d say it was truly exposing which of the formats sounded better. Or if there was a difference. But just taking 500 average joes off the street leaves us with unaccounted variables. Or, if all the testers were Navy Gunners, I’m sure they didn’t hear the difference..
Russell
I believe I am right in saying humans as a norm cannot here above 20 kHz, and certainly when I worked at the Wolfson Unit sound and vibration lab we did not test humans above that. I suspect that quite a few who are into hi-fidelity have probably damaged their ears listening at too high volumes for too long or have had headphones clamped to their eardrums with increased spl’s.
montesquieu
19-11-2018, 22:04
I cannot tell for sure but 554 is a pretty good sample. You would get guys listening from 22 up to 24khz.
At least, from were I come from, a test like this made in good conditions with a strong sample is pretty hard to refute.
49% is really telling us that they were just guessing.
If the 554 guys really represent general population than I thibk there is a point.
The only thing I can come across as removing some of the tests value is if one can learn to ear a wider range of khz or find 'defects/artefacts?' in the music due to poor conversion.
Enviado do meu HTC_M10h através do Tapatalk
Concur. 554 for this sort of purpose is a very decent sample.
I believe I am right in saying humans as a norm cannot here above 20 kHz, and certainly when I worked at the Wolfson Unit sound and vibration lab we did not test humans above that. I suspect that quite a few who are into hi-fidelity have probably damaged their ears listening at too high volumes for too long or have had headphones clamped to their eardrums with increased spl’s.
When I was in school, a doctor came to our school and performed hearing tests on all students, looking for the hard of hearing. When they tested me the nurse got all excited, called the doctor in and he tested me again. My hearing exceeded their equipment, they could not find the upper limits of my hearing. But, that was long ago, and while I may have had excellent hearing when I first was drawn to Hi Fi, I’m sure all of the rock concerts and band practices have lowered my abilities considerably. But I can still hear pretty well.
If the test was designed to tell if the average public could tell the difference, well it was conclusive. But if the test was to find if there is a difference, then they should have used people who could hear it. It is true that MOST people can’t hear above 20k, but there are those who can hear above that. Maybe one in a thousand? Which, is still a lot of people in this world. What is the ratio of Hi Fi enthusiasts to the rest of society? Maybe a similar number?
That being said, there is a lot of things that go into good hearing besides high frequency extension. But those things were not what they were testing for.
Russell
It doesn't matter what anyone else hears, it is what you hear that matters. Reading loads of articles about hirez or digital audio only gets you to a certain point, it is your own experience that qualifies. Technical specifications and much that is written about digital audio needs to be treated with caution as their is often a vested interest in those writing the article.
I decided long ago I would listen too all forms of digital audio including DSD at all levels of sampling rates etc to learn the truth myself and I always come back to one simple conclusion.
It does not matter what bit rate/ sampling rate you are listening too that determines how good the recording sounds. It depends on the mastering, the music and how well you hear.
I believe the whole hirez nonesense is yet another marketing tool, like MQA to get you to part with your money for yet another version of the same recordings you already have. In many cases 16bit is all you need.
Halfway Tree
20-11-2018, 11:41
It doesn't matter what anyone else hears, it is what you hear that matters. Reading loads of articles about hirez or digital audio only gets you to a certain point, it is your own experience that qualifies. Technical specifications and much that is written about digital audio needs to be treated with caution as their is often a vested interest in those writing the article.
I decided long ago I would listen too all forms of digital audio including DSD at all levels of sampling rates etc to learn the truth myself and I always come back to one simple conclusion.
It does not matter what bit rate/ sampling rate you are listening too that determines how good the recording sounds. It depends on the mastering, the music and how well you hear.
I believe the whole hirez nonesense is yet another marketing tool, like MQA to get you to part with your money for yet another version of the same recordings you already have. In many cases 16bit is all you need.
How true that is.
Yes, no doubt the mastering has more impact on the SQ of any particular album (providing the basic recording is done well) than whether it is 16/44 or 24/192 or whatever. The loudness wars have done much damage to music which is ironic given that we now have the ability to record music with the widest dynamic range than we have ever had. And what do we get? - horrendously compressed stuff. I can understand a certain amount of compression on heavy rock - it suits the music - but I find it is even commonplace on jazz and vocals.
I had a few hours to kill in London during the summer and went to Spritland (https://www.kingscross.co.uk/spiritland) as it always worth hearing the big Living Voice speakers in there. They had some really good music (at least to me) playing that afternoon and I ended up buying several albums when I got home including the Bandcamp 16/44 FLAC download of Ill Considered Live at the Crypt (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gzJTngpcfs). I like their music a lot, but most tracks were quite heavily compressed so I contacted the band to ask why they had used so much compression. To enable us to compete with other bands was the response - and so it goes....
I don't think any of the streaming services show dynamic range - I don't know if it possible for them to do this, but at least there is usually enough information (at least on Qobuz there is) so if I want to buy that album I can look up that release on the DR database. Once I have the dynamic range info then I can decide how I will buy:
Unless its a brand new release then my first port of call is to try and find a used CD of the release with the best DR. I'll pay extra for the wide DR version as long as it is not a ridiculous amount.
If it's a new release I'll weigh up the cost of a new CD or a download from Qobuz. I prefer a physical copy, but as I have a Qobuz Sublime subscription a high res download is often substantially cheaper - under £7 is typical for a 24/44 or 24/96 download.
SantanaCorreia
20-11-2018, 14:20
How true that is.
Yes, no doubt the mastering has more impact on the SQ of any particular album (providing the basic recording is done well) than whether it is 16/44 or 24/192 or whatever. The loudness wars have done much damage to music which is ironic given that we now have the ability to record music with the widest dynamic range than we have ever had. And what do we get? - horrendously compressed stuff. I can understand a certain amount of compression on heavy rock - it suits the music - but I find it is even commonplace on jazz and vocals.
I had a few hours to kill in London during the summer and went to Spritland (https://www.kingscross.co.uk/spiritland) as it always worth hearing the big Living Voice speakers in there. They had some really good music (at least to me) playing that afternoon and I ended up buying several albums when I got home including the Bandcamp 16/44 FLAC download of Ill Considered Live at the Crypt (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gzJTngpcfs). I like their music a lot, but most tracks were quite heavily compressed so I contacted the band to ask why they had used so much compression. To enable us to compete with other bands was the response - and so it goes....
I don't think any of the streaming services show dynamic range - I don't know if it possible for them to do this, but at least there is usually enough information (at least on Qobuz there is) so if I want to buy that album I can look up that release on the DR database. Once I have the dynamic range info then I can decide how I will buy:
Unless its a brand new release then my first port of call is to try and find a used CD of the release with the best DR. I'll pay extra for the wide DR version as long as it is not a ridiculous amount.
If it's a new release I'll weigh up the cost of a new CD or a download from Qobuz. I prefer a physical copy, but as I have a Qobuz Sublime subscription a high res download is often substantially cheaper - under £7 is typical for a 24/44 or 24/96 download.Can you explain me why a greater compression on the dynamic range makes it more easy to compete agains others?
Enviado do meu HTC_M10h através do Tapatalk
Halfway Tree
20-11-2018, 17:16
Can you explain me why a greater compression on the dynamic range makes it more easy to compete agains others?
Enviado do meu HTC_M10h através do Tapatalk
Until fairly recently when streamed the more compressed an album is the louder it would be compared to a similar album that had better dynamics. Louder = more noticeable when it comes to internet radio or streaming. Artists and recording engineers knew this and hence the loudness wars were not only confined to CD.
Most streaming services got wise to this and last year began to implement loudness normalisation. A heavily compressed album will now sound quieter than a dynamic album on many of the streaming services. But it takes time for this to filter through to artists and so heavy compression is still going on.
However, rather than just mastering for a good dynamic range mastering engineers (some) are recommending different mastering for different streaming services, CD etc. So what you hear via a streaming service might not be the same dynamically as what you hear if you buy the CD. Madness.
Hopefully, this may not be typical, but this is an example of what is going on. This is from the Matthew Gray Mastering website: (http://https://www.matthewgraymastering.com/mastering/masters-for-streaming)
"Do we need a different master for each medium and service? In an ideal world, yes we do. But practically speaking two masters is close enough to the ideal; typically this would mean a traditionally competitive (less dynamic) master if you're releasing your music through iTunes or plan to do a physical release on CD, along with another more dynamic master for releasing to Spotify, YouTube, Apple Music and Tidal etc."
So more compresssed for CD and more dynamic for Spotify - what?
So, streaming services may be coming to our rescue by using loudness normalisation as there is no longer an advantage to excess compression - but artists and mastering engineers are not going to change overnight. And of course if the basic mix is heavily compressed there is nothing the poor mastering engineer can do about it anyway.
AJSki2fly
20-11-2018, 20:11
I was told by a chap who worked for many years as an engineer at several studios in London including Abbey road that compression like this crept in with MP3’s primarily due to the mass market being young people listening on mobile devices and with headphone/earbuds so they overemphasise the bass and lower the ceiling (dynamic range) to get rid of perceptible hiss, result a wall of sound. Even worse is some lazy engineers started feeding these mixes into cd production, driven by cost I believe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yonks ago I did quite a lot of LP rips. Very big temptation to compress music as the results could sound more 'immediate' and dramatic. But of course at a loss of true dynamic range. But if the rip was destined for an MP3 player which often were used in noisy environments the compression boosted quite passages. But play these MP3s (or even the wav files the MP3 files were derived) on a good audio system the sound was very fatiguing.
AJSki2fly
20-11-2018, 21:02
Yonks ago I did quite a lot of LP rips. Very big temptation to compress music as the results could sound more 'immediate' and dramatic. But of course at a loss of true dynamic range. But if the rip was destined for an MP3 player which often were used in noisy environments the compression boosted quite passages. But play these MP3s (or even the wav files the MP3 files were derived) on a good audio system the sound was very fatiguing.
Completely agree and this IMO is when it is easiest to tell an lossy mp3 or aac from a 16/44.1 digital cd or FLAC (as long as it hasn’t inherited the compression from the master).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've listened to the same track downloaded at different resolutions, with resulting diminishing returns the higher the res.
The difference I found between 16/41(CD) and 24/96 was when you really crank it up, the higher res holds together better, where as the lower res gets shouty sooner. But I'm talking about seriously loud Blues/Rock. At normal listening levels, I would be hard pushed to tell them apart.
Floyddroid
20-11-2018, 22:06
I am ashamed to say that i haven't a clue how to stream anything. Something i have never got round to and a device i have never owned.:scratch:
Sherwood
20-11-2018, 22:12
I am ashamed to say that i haven't a clue how to stream anything. Something i have never got round to and a device i have never owned.:scratch:
https://tenor.com/view/shame-gameofthrones-funny-bell-walkofshame-gif-5464958
I am ashamed to say that i haven't a clue how to stream anything. Something i have never got round to and a device i have never owned.:scratch:
If you have ever listened/watched a youtube video or listened to say a news or music clip a you have 'streamed'. :)
Press the play button in the following link and you will be streaming away.
https://soundcloud.com/tkg-1/jazz-sax
jmudrick
21-11-2018, 00:38
I finally decided to pull the plug on Tidal and cancelled my subscription. Qobuz simply works better. It streams in CD+ resolution from multiple platforms, has a brilliant predictive search function, and handles my 4,000 album favorites on Android without issue. Tidal doesn't do these things and its inability to figure the album synch problem on Android after a year of acknowledging it was just a deal killer.
The Roon overlay fixes most of what is broken in Tidal but I'm not returning to Roon at this point. It's lovely, but expensive. The trial with Audirvana using the Thinkpad as a standalone worked well, managing local files,Qobuz and Tidal (including MQA) and upsampling it all to 24/96, the maximum my old DAC can handle. But there's no working remote for Audirvana on Windows. That's not an optimum situation as I don't want to have to sit at the laptop all the time.
Where Roon does more than I need, Jplay Fento is Jplay's new server and renderer package and it does exactly what I need if not everything I want. The Thinkpad with Jplay loaded up is now a server and renderer rather than the control PC, and BubbleUpnp provides control on my Pixel phone. All my Qobuz album favorites load up, as do the 300GB worth of music currently stored on a Micro SD card. Jplay does no upsampling but it shuts down PC activity more than the Audirvana would, and plays high resolution material.from Qobuz just fine (everything is played from memory buffer in Jplay). It sounds very very good.
Sherwood
21-11-2018, 01:22
I finally decided to pull the plug on Tidal and cancelled my subscription. Qobuz simply works better. It streams in CD+ resolution from multiple platforms, has a brilliant predictive search function, and handles my 4,000 album favorites on Android without issue. Tidal doesn't do these things and its inability to figure the album synch problem on Android after a year of acknowledging it was just a deal killer.
The Roon overlay fixes most of what is broken in Tidal but I'm not returning to Roon at this point. It's lovely, but expensive. The trial with Audirvana using the Thinkpad as a standalone worked well, managing local files,Qobuz and Tidal (including MQA) and upsampling it all to 24/96, the maximum my old DAC can handle. But there's no working remote for Audirvana on Windows. That's not an optimum situation as I don't want to have to sit at the laptop all the time.
Where Roon does more than I need, Jplay Fento is Jplay's new server and renderer package and it does exactly what I need if not everything I want. The Thinkpad with Jplay loaded up is now a server and renderer rather than the control PC, and BubbleUpnp provides control on my Pixel phone. All my Qobuz album favorites load up, as do the 300GB worth of music currently stored on a Micro SD card. Jplay does no upsampling but it shuts down PC activity more than the Audirvana would, and plays high resolution material.from Qobuz just fine (everything is played from memory buffer in Jplay). It sounds very very good.
My experience of Qobuz was different. Didn't like the interface at all. I'm surprised that you are streaming at all given the price of cds in the Russian Market! How is the FCC these days? :rolleyes:
jmudrick
21-11-2018, 01:28
I moved from Phnom Penh four years ago but while I was there I was streaming Spotify. I did pick up quite a few CDs which now live in boxes not likely to be ever played again.
Though I have no problem with it, I generally don't use the Qobuz interface since I use the BubbleUpnp app to control both cloud and local files playback. Where I do use it is to search new albums to add to favorites , The mobile app search works brilliantly.
As I indicated Tidal album favorites saved on Windows don't even load in either the Tidal mobile app or the BubbleUpnp app. This issue emerged with the rollout to Android 8.0 more than a year ago and remains "something we're working on to fix". I'm done. For folks with less than s few hundred albums favorites synch may be working fine.
My experience of Qobuz was different. Didn't like the interface at all. I'm surprised that you are streaming at all given the price of cds in the Russian Market! How is the FCC these days? :rolleyes:
I am ashamed to say that i haven't a clue how to stream anything. Something i have never got round to and a device i have never owned.:scratch:
Your podcast is a streamed service Steve.
Streaming used to mean audio or video listened to live over the internet, as apposed to downloaded and listened/watched on your device, so this includes internet radio, BBC iplayer and services like Spotify.
The meaning seems to have changed slightly though, due to so many people having home networks, NAS drives or wifi to access their networked files. So access across a local network is also classed as streaming now. If it's not on the device your listening to, its "Streamed" from somewhere else. Sometimes, just to confuse things, the terms music server or networked music can be thrown in, but there is so much crossover and folks using terms without actually knowing what they mean, it all becomes meaningless.
I'm a purist on this and still consider streaming as music/video not on your system/network and listened to over the internet. Networked music (for me) is different as you have/own a copy of the actual file on one or more of the linked devices. But like I say it's become the same thing to a lot of folks and accepted as part of the vernacular. Even the companies selling gear have accepted this is the way things are so the meaning has evolved.
I'm a purist on this and still consider streaming as music/video not on your system/network and listened to over the internet. Networked music (for me) is different as you have/own a copy of the actual file on one or more of the linked devices. But like I say it's become the same thing to a lot of folks and accepted as part of the vernacular. Even the companies selling gear have accepted this is the way things are.
That troubles me on occasion too Ken, especially when you are trying to explain methodology to people who for some reason have a totally different understanding of what is actually going on - or don't understand at all and just refer to anything in file based audio as streaming, which can get confusing. The phrase music server for example, as that's what I have and it operates (to me) entirely differently to streamed music, but people refer to it as a music streamer. I guess having had a background in IT and working with servers, I perhaps understand the concept a little more, but it's still frustrating at times.
Streamed music for me is simple, it's source is the internet or somewhere other than networked music or music contained on a music server. It's tricky at times being a pedant, but it's a cross I have to bear ;)
Tim - Yeh I guess we're both old school.
I think the usage has become amalgamated due to internet "live" listening being across the "either", be it wired or wireless. And WiFi/Bluetooth home networks being across the airwaves at a local level. For me the big differentiator is whether you have purchased a copy of the audio file and have it somewhere within your setup, on true streamed sources you don't own a copy.
I used to try and fight it, and pull people up when they said things like, they were Streaming from their NAS device. I just let it go now and put it down to the way things are. But as you point out, it can lead to misunderstandings on how the audio is actually being processed within a system.
Halfway Tree
21-11-2018, 12:35
I am ashamed to say that i haven't a clue how to stream anything. Something i have never got round to and a device i have never owned.:scratch:
You don't know what you're missing, Steve....:D
24717
Andy Nogger
21-11-2018, 16:17
My experience of Qobuz was different. Didn't like the interface at all. I'm surprised that you are streaming at all given the price of cds in the Russian Market! How is the FCC these days? :rolleyes:
I've tried all of Qobuz, Tidal, Spotify and now Deezer, just on the free trials so far, always on "premium" or "hi-fi" with the highest quality selected. My problem isn't the UI (they look pretty similar to me) but sound quality and continuity of service.
Admittedly I look for obscure stuff, already having a large music collection, so that may be a factor. But it's disappointing with all the services I've tried how often the music is poor sounding (e.g. highly compressed), or just stops without warning. I suspect all these companies have acquired their large libraries of content without checking all the files - maybe that is impractical? - and upsampled it where necessary to get their "lossless"/"hi-fi" files.
I have a fibre broadband connection in the middle of a city and direct Ethernet connection of my Auralic streamer to the broadband hub, so I don't think equipment is the issue.
One tip I have discovered: unticking the box for "equalise volume between tracks" or the equivalent seems to increase the dynamic range in some cases.
Sherwood
21-11-2018, 16:25
I've tried all of Qobuz, Tidal, Spotify and now Deezer, just on the free trials so far, always on "premium" or "hi-fi" with the highest quality selected. My problem isn't the UI (they look pretty similar to me) but sound quality and continuity of service.
Admittedly I look for obscure stuff, already having a large music collection, so that may be a factor. But it's disappointing with all the services I've tried how often the music is poor sounding (e.g. highly compressed), or just stops without warning. I suspect all these companies have acquired their large libraries of content without checking all the files - maybe that is impractical? - and upsampled it where necessary to get their "lossless"/"hi-fi" files.
I have a fibre broadband connection in the middle of a city and direct Ethernet connection of my Auralic streamer to the broadband hub, so I don't think equipment is the issue.
One tip I have discovered: unticking the box for "equalise volume between tracks" or the equivalent seems to increase the dynamic range in some cases.
Tim,
never once experienced any of the problems you referred to with streaming. Maybe the problem is with your setup.
Geoff
One tip I have discovered: unticking the box for "equalise volume between tracks" or the equivalent seems to increase the dynamic range in some cases.
As I've stated previously, this is also my finding and I turn this feature off when comparing audio players.
rmcin626
21-11-2018, 20:14
just trying tidal for the first time, trial version.
supapeet
21-11-2018, 20:25
Through the hi if I use Tidal Masters where that quality is available, via a laptop wirelessly connected to a Blue Sound Node 2i.
Spotify for the car and the Roberts Stream Radio located in the kitchen. Never tried any of the others. My main drivers are quality of sound and choice for the hi fi in my listening room.
Halfway Tree
21-11-2018, 21:12
As I've stated previously, this is also my finding and I turn this feature off when comparing audio players.
Ken, this is the volume normalisation that I mentioned in post #171. It all depends on how it has been implemented.
JRiver for example uses the "R128 analysis method which is the international standard for loudness normalization. The R128 standard targets -23 loudness units below full-scale (equivalent to -23dBFS) as the volume reference level. Media Center's implementation of the standard targets an 83dB output at the reference level."
If a streaming service or replay software uses this then there should be no quality loss when implemented. Unfortunately, not all streaming services or players implement it - I could be wrong but I think Spotify uses ReplayGain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReplayGain) which has different levels, so you can't directly compare a service using R128 with one using ReplayGain as they will output at different levels.
In any service if you turn off volume normalisation then those tracks that are more heavily compressed will sound louder. And they may even be mastered differently for different services - unfortunately this makes comparing apples to apples nigh well impossible.
Conspiracy theory? - maybe - but there is much more to MQA than just sound quality IMO.
Thanks for the link to the interview with Brian Lucey, interesting read. I spent the last few days reading about MQA and watching a whole bunch of presentations on YouTube and look forward to hearing it, but I don't like what I've heard from the sceptics and even a talk by Bob Stuart didn't convince me it's needed.
One things for sure though, it is as you say much more than just sound quality - lot's a marketing speak too, even from Bob Stuart, which always makes me suspicious.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.