Would you pay for high quality streaming?

[dave2010]

I use various music sources, such as Napster, Classical.com, Spotify, last.fm, BBC iplayer channels, and even RadioIO. I am aware that these don't deliver the highest quality sound, and in some cases they don't even deliver moderate quality - but despite this I continue as I like some of the music on some of these. Of course if the music doesn't work for me and the quality is also terrible I switch to something else. I do feel that the quality levels are sadly low on some channels, and it''s only the quality of the music which keeps me listening. There's a limit to how much I can take at low quality though.

I noticed that RadioIO whose music selection I rather like has so-called Audiophile channels, though these are currently only 192kbps - and I suspect mp3. There are other stations also offering this kind of service.

My question is: "What level of quality would you like to see on such a radio service, and how much would you be prepared to pay for it?"

Obviously we could all ask for at least SACD or hi-res download quality, but that would be silly. In any case a lot of material only exists in CD quality. I think that eventually someone will offer FLAC streams, but surely these will be quite expensive compared with, say, 320kbps mp3, aac or Ogg Vorbis.

There is another question too: "Would you be prepared to pay for one high quality audio channel, or would you rather pay slightly more for a bundle?"
The issue here is whether radio stations should somehow get together to provide bundled services. I might be prepared to pay £10/month for RadioIO, but I wouldn't want to do that for all the stations I might listen to. On the other hand £15 or £20 for a bundle of stations (from around the world?) might be good value.

[Themis]

I have iPod (with 400VBR) for listening my music (when not at home) and FM or satellite for radio.

I'm ready to pay £1/month for a 320+kbps radio service. I could go up to £5 for a bundle. But it has to be without any advertisements/announcements. ;)

[DSJR]

I'm hoping the time is fast approaching when download speeds are fast enough across the country that MP3 is unnecessary, or at least, anything below 320Kb/s. We can but hope.

I'm on an uncompetitive broadband/phone package currently and noticed my supplier is offering a tons better one for less money. When I enquired about changing the reply was that this new package is with a different company and my exchange doesn't yet have the equipment to use it. Once the above is sorted and I can enjoy up to 20Mb/s speeds, I'll be first in the queue.

[Labarum]

Themis, have you tried the D-Dur lossless stream?

http://radio.cesnet.cz:8000/cro-d-dur.flac

It's FLAC in an OGG container and not many softwares will play it

Foobar in Windows will

http://www.foobar2000.org/

as will VLC Player on most platforms

http://www.vlcplayer.co.uk/

The quality however is very close to the OGG stream at about 256 kbit/s

http://www.rozhlas.cz/audio/download/ddur_maxogg.m3u

http://www.rozhlas.cz/d-dur/english

All free!

[Alex_UK]

Currently very happy to pay £9.99 per month for the Spotify Premium service - 320 kbps, no adverts, and software and choice improving all the time.

[Spectral Morn]

My answer...............

Over my dead body.

To do so (before time) will help kill physical media off.

When I have no choice but not before.


Regards D S D L

[trailer]

Do you really think that you will get high quality streaming? Look at the majority of the mp3 download sites that are available, iTunes, Amazon etc, they only do 256 or 320 mp3's. That is what the majority of the public are happy with. They don't need/want or probably even know the difference between low or high res downloads to listen to on their iPods.
Don't Spotify pay the artist 0.000001p per play or something?
I'm afraid streaming services might end up reducing the quality of music even further.

Edit: I would actually prefer to purchase high res downloads to keep if the choice available didn't consist of either classical or totally obscure artists.

[The Grand Wazoo]

My answer...............

Over my dead body.

To do so (before time) will help kill physical media off.

When I have no choice but not before.


Regards D S D L

I'd strongly disagree with this Neil.
Since I've been using Spotify, I've been able to preview countless albums I'd never have the chance to otherwise.
I use Spotify to find new music - if I like what I hear, I buy it from a shop......an independant shop.
My only concern is that this is what I used to use my local library for, I'm not going there as often as I used to & I want to support that service.

I've been able to try out countless new albums since I've been using Spotify and my life is much richer for it. The musicians are also just a little better off because of it too.

[Spectral Morn]

I'd strongly disagree with this Neil.
Since I've been using Spotify, I've been able to preview countless albums I'd never have the chance to otherwise.
I use Spotify to find new music - if I like what I hear, I buy it from a shop......an independant shop.
My only concern is that this is what I used to use my local library for, I'm not going there as often as I used to & I want to support that service.

I've been able to try out countless new albums since I've been using Spotify and my life is much richer for it. The musicians are also just a little better off because of it too.

Chris I think we will probably have to disagree, but to my mind if you use a service like this and pay for it your use of it provides the data/statistics that will convince record companies to eventually stop making physical media. You can see it already in HMV very little to buy and its getting less and less. Small independent shops will probably stick with it but eventually if a thing is not commercially viable the record companies will pull the plug on it.

I am an old fashioned kind of guy as I like to handle what I play. The idea of using a computer for this freaks me out, the ramifications are massive. The early adopters are forcing the rest of us into a digital/computer future I really don't want any part off. I am being dragged kicking and screaming towards it and I am not happy.


Regards D S D L

[magiccarpetride]

I use various music sources, such as Napster, Classical.com, Spotify, last.fm, BBC iplayer channels, and even RadioIO. I am aware that these don't deliver the highest quality sound, and in some cases they don't even deliver moderate quality - but despite this I continue as I like some of the music on some of these. Of course if the music doesn't work for me and the quality is also terrible I switch to something else. I do feel that the quality levels are sadly low on some channels, and it''s only the quality of the music which keeps me listening. There's a limit to how much I can take at low quality though.

I noticed that RadioIO whose music selection I rather like has so-called Audiophile channels, though these are currently only 192kbps - and I suspect mp3. There are other stations also offering this kind of service.

My question is: "What level of quality would you like to see on such a radio service, and how much would you be prepared to pay for it?"

Obviously we could all ask for at least SACD or hi-res download quality, but that would be silly. In any case a lot of material only exists in CD quality. I think that eventually someone will offer FLAC streams, but surely these will be quite expensive compared with, say, 320kbps mp3, aac or Ogg Vorbis.

There is another question too: "Would you be prepared to pay for one high quality audio channel, or would you rather pay slightly more for a bundle?"
The issue here is whether radio stations should somehow get together to provide bundled services. I might be prepared to pay £10/month for RadioIO, but I wouldn't want to do that for all the stations I might listen to. On the other hand £15 or £20 for a bundle of stations (from around the world?) might be good value.

Red book CD quality delivered as FLAC is perfectly good for me. My tolerance for pain stops at the 320 kbps; anything lower than that is blasphemous to my ears.

Rather than paying for subscription, I'd rather pay for hosting my music in the 'cloud', and streaming it on demand. Amazon s3 currently offers such streaming service, and it works like a charm.

The added advantage of such arrangement is that we could band with our friends and acquaintances and share each others' libraries. Before you know it, you may have access to lossless streaming of pretty much any music material you may be interested in (the assumption is that your friends share similar music tastes, of course).

[technobear]

I've said it before but what the heck... once more with feeling :D

I will never, so long as there is breath in my body, be guilty of paying so much as one penny piece for (lossy) compressed music.

My view is that anything streamed as MP3 is a sample only and a poor facsimile of the real music and should therefore be free.

I am of course happy to pay for the uncompressed original. I might consider a subscription to a FLAC stream if I had more time to listen or if I could record it and skip through it later.

[magiccarpetride]

I've said it before but what the heck... once more with feeling :D

I will never, so long as there is breath in my body, be guilty of paying so much as one penny piece for (lossy) compressed music.

My view is that anything streamed as MP3 is a sample only and a poor facsimile of the real music and should therefore be free.

I am of course happy to pay for the uncompressed original. I might consider a subscription to a FLAC stream if I had more time to listen or if I could record it and skip through it later.

You're right. Paying for lossy music is like paying for a book where 90% of paragraphs of text are missing, or are printed with the palest ink possible, and cannot be consumed.

Or, paying for a glossy magazine where 90% of the photos are washed away...

Or, paying for a cheese burger where cheese is made of toxic plastic, Chinese style...

[Spur07]

I am an old fashioned kind of guy as I like to handle what I play. The idea of using a computer for this freaks me out, the ramifications are massive. The early adopters are forcing the rest of us into a digital/computer future I really don't want any part off. I am being dragged kicking and screaming towards it and I am not happy.


Regards D S D L


No, I think you're just suffering from paranoid delusion. its a common dysfunction amongst the aged. Please seek the services of a suitably qualified therapist immediately.

[magiccarpetride]

I am an old fashioned kind of guy as I like to handle what I play. The idea of using a computer for this freaks me out, the ramifications are massive. The early adopters are forcing the rest of us into a digital/computer future I really don't want any part off. I am being dragged kicking and screaming towards it and I am not happy.

Regards D S D L

Am I to understand from this that you're only using analog media? So CDs are out of question for you?

[Spur07]

Am I to understand from this that you're only using analog media? So CDs are out of question for you?

magic, every time I read your posts I do it in the voice of Alan Partridge - it's bloody weird but very compulsive :lolsign:

Have you ever thought of slipping in a few partridge-isms into the conversation every now and again? something like,

back of the net!

double-wicket-maiden

I've just come back from an after hours lock-in at my local Tandy store in Norwich shopping centre

or

has anyone spent a sunday afternoon dismantling a corgi trouser press in a travel tavern?

[magiccarpetride]

magic, every time I read your posts I do it in the voice of Alan Partridge - it's bloody weird but very compulsive :lolsign:

Have you ever thought of slipping in a few partridge-isms into the conversation every now and again? something like,

back of the net!

double-wicket-maiden

I've just come back from an after hours lock-in at my local Tandy store in Norwich shopping centre

or

has anyone spent a sunday afternoon dismantling a corgi trouser press in a travel tavern?

Hahaha, good one! No, I wasn't sure if any of you guys remember a 13 year old sitcom (probably the best one ever).

A propos... a propos? You don't know what a propos is? Well... you ought to have basic grasp of Latin if are to work at Curry's!

[dave2010]

For me, I'm sorry guys, but the effort of ripping loads of CDs, and then maybe loading up to some form of cloud just seems too much effort. If I want to listen to a CD I just put one in the player.

Obviously some of you like Spotify, as I do - and I even like some of the other services with lower quality sound at times, as they may have music I want to listen to. For preference, like most of you, I'd rather have higher quality, but if it's a choice between hearing something good in poor quality sound, and hearing something bad in super sound, well - figure which I'd usually go for.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough in the thread opening that I was also interested in radio style channels. I find it odd, but sometimes it's quite fun to listen to what might be someone else's choice of music, and radio often does that. That way there'd be surprises, and sometimes worthwhile new discoveries.

One I quite like is RadioIO, but the basic quality is not great, and even the so-called Audiophile channels available as a Premium offering are only 192kbps mp3s. Hence my question related to balancing feasible quality against cost.

[magiccarpetride]

For me, I'm sorry guys, but the effort of ripping loads of CDs, and then maybe loading up to some form of cloud just seems too much effort. If I want to listen to a CD I just put one in the player.

This may be false math. No one's precluding me from popping in a CD into the player if I feel like it, of course, even after I've ripped it. But the benefit of popping the CD into my Mac and let it get ripped (for your information, it's not expecting me to shovel coal into a furnace whilst it's ripping it) is a one time cost that is tiny compared to the ensuing years of super convenient ability to have all my music at my fingertips. I use Squeezebox Duet remote, which allows me to cue up any tracks I feel like playing next, as well as enjoy the convenience of browsing my playlists, artists, albums, genres, periods, years, and also search at random. All that from a comfort of my cozy listening armchair, never lifting my lazy ass up.

Nothing compares to this. I have thousands of CDs in my house, and can't tell you how many times I've been pulling my hair trying to find just that special one that I've developed hankering for, but the bugger wouldn't surface. Maybe my son took it without letting me know? Or wait, maybe a friend borrowed it and I forgot about it?

Now, with all my music fully digitized and streamed wirelessly, any thought that pops into my head gets satisfied in a matter of seconds.

This technology truly helped me rediscover music, and fall in love with music all over again. I'd never go back to the music that is arrested inside some dinky easily damaged plastic container (such as CD/DVD) that one has to rip the house apart in order to locate!

[technobear]

I can't imagine ever wanting to play a CD I own when it sounds so much better streamed via the Transporter.

People who want to cling to spinning discs are missing out. Streamed audio trashes CD replay for sound quality at any price point you care to mention.

The Arcam rDAC will be out any time now. High quality Wolfson DACs, decent output stages and !! ASYNCHRONOUS USB !! for £300. Pair that with a £300 netbook and you have a high end digital source that will thrash any CD player up to several thousand pounds.

Even the venerable Transporter thrashes any CD player up to around £3000. Add a Caiman and it gets even better. However, the new Arcam rDAC may well make the Transporter and Caiman redundant. We shall see.

[Spectral Morn]

Am I to understand from this that you're only using analog media? So CDs are out of question for you?

No I do use digital in the form of CD,SACD and DVD Audio (not often though). The type of digital I was referring to is that comes out of a computer.

Hey you less of the aged comments ;) please.

You guys who do all this downloading, ripping, streaming instead of playing physical media are creating the environment for the music providers to stop making physical media for me and other like me to play. This is a fact not paranoia and the problem (as I see it) is getting worse. Why should I have to content myself with buying S/H old music (not that there is anything wrong with that) and not bang up to date new releases.

Even if the new music is available as a CD (special order/copy) or Vinyl will it be full bandwidth or a bloody low res recording, because that is what everyone else is buying.

It seems to me that Rome is burning while many play music off their computers. I fear the death of sound quality because those who care about quality are in the minority, even if they/you use a computer as a source. The majority of the public think MP3 is great :doh::eek::(

I see the possible digital future as being dead, cold and frankly I don't want an upgrade or to be assimilated. Resistance may be futile but I am going to resist.


Regards D S D L

[Spectral Morn]

This technology truly helped me rediscover music, and fall in love with music all over again. I'd never go back to the music that is arrested inside some dinky easily damaged plastic container (such as CD/DVD) that one has to rip the house apart in order to locate!

What crap...sorry but I am tired of this being used as a + point. It was used with vinyl and now CDs heck if you can't look after your stuff I despair. Every CD or vinyl record I have ever bought is in the same condition I bought it in. Its not hard to look after this stuff.

Unless my house burns down or blows up or gets wiped out by a tidal wave then I will always have them. Stick it on a HD and you have to do back ups and a back up of the back up in the hope the HDs don't go puff . Why would you be bothered.

You guys will pay a fortune and have nothing to show for it, nothing just a stream of one and zeros in a bloody HD or in a cloud :lol::lol::lol:. Count me out, I like having something to show for my money and I like going to real shops and talking to real people. You all want to become borg, go ahead. I can see it now fat blobs with no legs or arms (you don't have to move to access what does not exist)strapped with machinery linked to the web and music pumped into your brains as is the nutrients you call food. Hey sounds a bit like a Dalek.

Me I am off to the hills with my old fashioned enjoyable life and world.

Oh yeah don't get me started about on-line radio, FM rules.


Regards D S D L

[bigmoog]

What crap...sorry but I am tired of this being used as a + point. It was used with vinyl and now CDs heck if you can't look after your stuff I despair. Every CD or vinyl record I have ever bought is in the same condition I bought it in. Its not hard to look after this stuff.

Unless my house burns down or blows up or gets wiped out by a tidal wave then I will always have them. Stick it on a HD and you have to do back ups and a back up of the back up in the hope the HDs don't go puff . Why would you be bothered.

You guys will pay a fortune and have nothing to show for it, nothing just a stream of one and zeros in a bloody HD or in a cloud :lol::lol::lol:. Count me out, I like having something to show for my money and I like going to real shops and talking to real people. You all want to become borg, go ahead. I can see it now fat blobs with no legs or arms (you don't have to move to access what does not exist)strapped with machinery linked to the web and music pumped into your brains as is the nutrients you call food. Hey sounds a bit like a Dalek.

Me I am off to the hills with my old fashioned enjoyable life and world.

Oh yeah don't get me started about on-line radio, FM rules.


Regards D S D L



I 100% agree with this excellent post. Digital 'streaming' etc is another fad fueled by the sheeplike mentality that 'technology' is our saviour.

I spent 15 ears in I.T., of which 5 were in SuperComputing.....all my colleagues in science and I.T, just are astonished at the cost of 'high end' Harddisk and streaming kit...'a rip off'


the technology is always a moving target and subject to the human error in software construction......every 6 months we have an upgrade or new version of some such kit....anyone paying 1000s on a DS kit is a mug IMHO..........the masses are spoon fed a PC World overview of what It means to store and playback digital files..........and anyone claiming a 24bit studio digital master is the real thing hasnt got a f*****g clue about music or computing...or indeed reality.....no doubt some people will claim a certain 24bit download has PRAT and all else is gaslight zzzzzzzz


for the record I use apple kit to store and stream my digital files;)

[quadsugdenman]

Me I am off to the hills with my old fashioned enjoyable life and world.

Oh yeah don't get me started about on-line radio, FM rules.
Regards D S D L

+1

Technology in this particular case is for pure convenience and the music is certainly not the better because of it - Follow that Dalek I say !! :exactly:

[Mr. C]

What crap...sorry but I am tired of this being used as a + point. It was used with vinyl and now CDs heck if you can't look after your stuff I despair. Every CD or vinyl record I have ever bought is in the same condition I bought it in. Its not hard to look after this stuff.

Unless my house burns down or blows up or gets wiped out by a tidal wave then I will always have them. Stick it on a HD and you have to do back ups and a back up of the back up in the hope the HDs don't go puff . Why would you be bothered.

You guys will pay a fortune and have nothing to show for it, nothing just a stream of one and zeros in a bloody HD or in a cloud :lol::lol::lol:. Count me out, I like having something to show for my money and I like going to real shops and talking to real people. You all want to become borg, go ahead. I can see it now fat blobs with no legs or arms (you don't have to move to access what does not exist)strapped with machinery linked to the web and music pumped into your brains as is the nutrients you call food. Hey sounds a bit like a Dalek.

Me I am off to the hills with my old fashioned enjoyable life and world.

Oh yeah don't get me started about on-line radio, FM rules.


Regards D S D L

You Go Neil,

Fire up that high horse again my good man :lol:

Why would you let yourself be used a '+' point :hmm: you are an intelligent and articulate gent rise above it, after all you are a moderator and a great many people on AOS look up to you, why take the bait?

I would like place a couple of views on the table here, I for one have had CD's for nearly 20 odd years, they are in the condition pretty much I purchased them, so I do concur on this point Neil.

Personally my cd collection will not be transposed to HD at any point, as I have yet to hear ANY ripped cd sound as good as the original played through a system using the same dac as a conventional cd transport.

Now lossless red book and high resolution audio data files are a different matter, they are simply not affected by the same criteria that effects optical media therefore from a purely performance point of view it is for myself (and a great many others) a way forward in securing much better naturalness and musicality nothing more.
Pretty convinced most people given the choice (and hearing the difference) would opt for this route.

Now a great number of people wish to travel this path for purely ease of use, convenience only. Plus the ability to have they entire music collection in one small area. Less space, hassle and ear bending from the good lay for those it is a win<>win situation.

Not quite sure why you are so anti server/streaming based system, they can happily live in co-existence with other formats both vinyl and CD.
Certainly not expensive, to have a SB Touch £250 and a respectable dac £200-600 to compliment your system.
Backing up data, OK a Lacie Raid 2 TB off board drive around £150, certainly not strong outlay, most vinyl guys will think nothing of dropping between £900-£2200 on a cartridge at some point :scratch:

If this is still too much 'grief' for you, try a 32 or 50G flash drive, simpler still.

The point of the reply is not to say 'bah, thrown away your CD's and Vinyl its old hat' far from it, use the true studio red book masters and high resolution files to enhance your system performance, not take over it.
Look at the balanced approach, the best of all three worlds, it will make your system more enjoyable, giving you greater listening pleasure and satisfaction, and in the long run that is what we ALL wish for is it not?

[lovejoy]

To all of those extolling the virtues of convenience in computer based audio, I say bah!

I've ripped and re-ripped my entire CD collection I don't know how many times now due to hard drive losses, format changes, platform changes, missing tag information, bad rips, changes in playback software etc. etc. etc.

I've then spent another age getting all of the artwork downloaded and making sure things were in the correct directories and labelled properly and in its right place.

Then another significant amount of time performing backups, or restores, mirrors and synchronisations between different pieces of equipment.

I'm not getting the convenience angle people!!

In the end I said B****CKS to all of this and started listening to vinyl again, and life is better for it.

Stop worrying about the bits and listen to the tunes.

[magiccarpetride]

It seems to me that Rome is burning while many play music off their computers. I fear the death of sound quality because those who care about quality are in the minority, even if they/you use a computer as a source. The majority of the public think MP3 is great :doh::eek::(

As far as sound quality goes, I don't see SACDs taking off any time soon. I think it's a dead format.

High resolution FLACs, on the other hand, are poised to take off. And guess what -- you can't burn those on a CD and play it back on your CD player.

[magiccarpetride]

What crap...sorry but I am tired of this being used as a + point. It was used with vinyl and now CDs heck if you can't look after your stuff I despair. Every CD or vinyl record I have ever bought is in the same condition I bought it in. Its not hard to look after this stuff.

Unless my house burns down or blows up or gets wiped out by a tidal wave then I will always have them. Stick it on a HD and you have to do back ups and a back up of the back up in the hope the HDs don't go puff . Why would you be bothered.

You guys will pay a fortune and have nothing to show for it, nothing just a stream of one and zeros in a bloody HD or in a cloud :lol::lol::lol:. Count me out, I like having something to show for my money and I like going to real shops and talking to real people. You all want to become borg, go ahead. I can see it now fat blobs with no legs or arms (you don't have to move to access what does not exist)strapped with machinery linked to the web and music pumped into your brains as is the nutrients you call food. Hey sounds a bit like a Dalek.

Me I am off to the hills with my old fashioned enjoyable life and world.

Oh yeah don't get me started about on-line radio, FM rules.


Regards D S D L

You seem to think that anyone who adopts digital streaming is obliged, by the law, to take all their CDs and burn them in their back yard.

I am here to educate you that this is not the case. I still have all my CDs, and can play them at will. I was not required by the law to get rid of them once I made a faithful replica and host it in the cloud.

Speaking of the cloud, if you go with a reputable vendor, such as Amazon, you don't have to worry about your hard drive going tits up. Amazon guarantees safety of your content, and its availability 24/7.

Another advantage of digital streaming for me is that any show I download, I can listen to the moment the download finishes. I don't have to scramble and dick around trying to find blank CDs to burn a copy I could play in my CD player. Same goes for the material my musician friends send me.

Last but not least, streaming bit-perfect signal into my Caiman DAC beats any CD player I've ever heard as far as sound quality goes (even beats turntables). It's a win-win-win situation all around.

But you guys are free to continue to act like three year old spoiled brats and continue throwing your futile tantrums.

[magiccarpetride]

I'm not getting the convenience angle people!!


That's because you don't have friends in high places who would educate you about the virtues of the cloud computing. However, count yourself lucky, because today is your lucky day. I am here to tell you that you can subscribe to the digital storage and streaming with a reputable vendor, such as Amazon (there are many, many others, of course).

Once you subscribe to their service, your digital media is guaranteed to be available to you 24/7, wherever the hell you are. And both you and I know that too-big-to-fail businesses such as Amazon, Google, etc. are not going out of business any time soon.

That's not convenient enough for you?

[Mike]

Streaming is the future... It's just the way it is! :violin:

[magiccarpetride]

Streaming is the future... It's just the way it is! :violin:

No, this can't be! Does it mean I live in the future? How?

[bigmoog]

That's because you don't have friends in high places who would educate you about the virtues of the cloud computing. However, count yourself lucky, because today is your lucky day. I am here to tell you that you can subscribe to the digital storage and streaming with a reputable vendor, such as Amazon (there are many, many others, of course).

Once you subscribe to their service, your digital media is guaranteed to be available to you 24/7, wherever the hell you are. And both you and I know that too-big-to-fail businesses such as Amazon, Google, etc. are not going out of business any time soon.

That's not convenient enough for you?


incredibly naive statements, offered with no evidence for future proofing of 'your' content:)

[Mike]

No, this can't be! Does it mean I live in the future? How?

Sadly, no!

It just means that many of us are dinosaurs! :(

[magiccarpetride]

incredibly naive statements, offered with no evidence for future proofing of 'your' content:)

Someone expecting any proof for what future brings in not being naive?

[lovejoy]

That's because you don't have friends in high places who would educate you about the virtues of the cloud computing. However, count yourself lucky, because today is your lucky day. I am here to tell you that you can subscribe to the digital storage and streaming with a reputable vendor, such as Amazon (there are many, many others, of course).

Once you subscribe to their service, your digital media is guaranteed to be available to you 24/7, wherever the hell you are. And both you and I know that too-big-to-fail businesses such as Amazon, Google, etc. are not going out of business any time soon.

That's not convenient enough for you?

Your offer of an education is kind but quite misplaced. I have in fact entered the 21st century and subscribe to Spotify. I think for £9.99 a month it is an excellent service. I appreciate the higher bitrate and the lack of adverts that the paid version gives and it's a very good way of exploring music I'd never get to hear otherwise, and as you rightly point out, it avoids all of the pitfalls I mentioned earlier.

The problem is though that if you want the best quality, the 'cloud' solution isn't there yet. I wonder if it ever will be as the vast majority of people who will use computer audio will be more than happy with 320kbps, in fact, the vast majority are happy with 128kbps.

I'm guessing your comment about turntables was a bit tongue in cheek. As much as I think the Caiman is a fantastic piece of kit (I have a modded one for computer audio myself), my Well Tempered turntable with even a very modest cartridge eats it for breakfast and still feels very hungry afterwards.

There may be no contest in terms of sound quality but the two serve clear purposes within my system. The streaming side gets me into new music and the turntable allows me to enjoy it as it should be. This, I cannot see changing, and believe me, I've tried!

[magiccarpetride]

Your offer of an education is kind but quite misplaced. I have in fact entered the 21st century and subscribe to Spotify. I think for £9.99 a month it is an excellent service. I appreciate the higher bitrate and the lack of adverts that the paid version gives and it's a very good way of exploring music I'd never get to hear otherwise, and as you rightly point out, it avoids all of the pitfalls I mentioned earlier.

The problem is though that if you want the best quality, the 'cloud' solution isn't there yet. I wonder if it ever will be as the vast majority of people who will use computer audio will be more than happy with 320kbps, in fact, the vast majority are happy with 128kbps.

I'm guessing your comment about turntables was a bit tongue in cheek. As much as I think the Caiman is a fantastic piece of kit (I have a modded one for computer audio myself), my Well Tempered turntable with even a very modest cartridge eats it for breakfast and still feels very hungry afterwards.

There may be no contest in terms of sound quality but the two serve clear purposes within my system. The streaming side gets me into new music and the turntable allows me to enjoy it as it should be. This, I cannot see changing, and believe me, I've tried!

You seem to equate cloud with the streaming of some 3rd party content. I look at it as the way to stream my own, lossless content. I don't mind streaming lossy content while enjoying an educational session, such as when I'm learning about the new jam bands on the scene. However, once I separate wheat from chaff, and discover some awesome performers, I go out, buy the real McCoy, rip it and upload it for my own convenience. I then store the CD (the container) in a safety vault, just in case.

Caiman by itself is not the be-all/end-all in the world of digitized music. It's but a link in the chain. A lot (if not most) depends on your source. Is your source bit-perfect? How noisy is it? Jittery? If you're feeding the signal from a $25 DVD player that you've purchased in Walmart, and it goes via optical out into the Caiman, of course it's gonna sound shitty. Caiman cannot turn turd into enjoyable, edible food.

But in a well balanced system that feeds quiet, bit-perfect signal into the Caiman via a high quality digital coax cable, the sound quality is nothing short of amazing. It does approach the unfathomable holly grail of analog sound.

[lovejoy]

Caiman by itself is not the be-all/end-all in the world of digitized music. It's but a link in the chain. A lot (if not most) depends on your source. Is your source bit-perfect? How noisy is it? Jittery? If you're feeding the signal from a $25 DVD player that you've purchased in Walmart, and it goes via optical out into the Caiman, of course it's gonna sound shitty. Caiman cannot turn turd into enjoyable, edible food.

But in a well balanced system that feeds quiet, bit-perfect signal into the Caiman via a high quality digital coax cable, the sound quality is nothing short of amazing. It does approach the unfathomable holly grail of analog sound.

Modded Caiman using AD826 op-amps, the full set of cap mods, linear power supply feeding 15V, and at the height of it's performance I was using a Macbook Pro with a Hi-Face with it's own dedicated power supply and a top quality coax digital cable into the Caiman and the Pure Music software. So hardly a $25 DVD player.

I too thought that it was sounding very close to the turntable for a while, that was until I got the cartridge loading correct on my phono stage, now the deck leaves it for dead. That's why I sold the HiFace as my listening habits changed and I now just use the Macbooks optical out again. It suits my needs perfectly.

[Gazjam]

To all of those extolling the virtues of convenience in computer based audio, I say bah!

I've ripped and re-ripped my entire CD collection I don't know how many times now due to hard drive losses, format changes, platform changes, missing tag information, bad rips, changes in playback software etc. etc. etc.

I've then spent another age getting all of the artwork downloaded and making sure things were in the correct directories and labelled properly and in its right place.

Then another significant amount of time performing backups, or restores, mirrors and synchronisations between different pieces of equipment.

I'm not getting the convenience angle people!!

In the end I said B****CKS to all of this and started listening to vinyl again, and life is better for it.

Stop worrying about the bits and listen to the tunes.

Its not that difficult in my experience...
The problems folk seem to be having stem from short-cutting the process in my opinion.

Rip it Once...using DB Poweramp: will automatically tag and drag AlbumArt of the web for you.

Invest in 3 external HDDs (£160 should do it) and make 3 copies of EVERYTHING

Store two of them physically somewhere else...

Forget it all..and just enjoy the music.

Do it ONCE...and PROPERLY...and you never need to think about it again.

Oh, and dont go wireless if you can help it.
That can open up a whole other can o' worms and its no wonder folk want to go back to putting CDs in a CD player...
I ran Cat5 throughout my house..sure it took time and effort..but like ripping CDs you only need to do it once.

Just my £0.02 worth..it was worth it for me, and Ive 2700 odd albums in my collection.


I use my Sony DVD into my Dac for "better than cd" quality replay

[magiccarpetride]

Modded Caiman using AD826 op-amps, the full set of cap mods, linear power supply feeding 15V, and at the height of it's performance I was using a Macbook Pro with a Hi-Face with it's own dedicated power supply and a top quality coax digital cable into the Caiman and the Pure Music software. So hardly a $25 DVD player.

I too thought that it was sounding very close to the turntable for a while, that was until I got the cartridge loading correct on my phono stage, now the deck leaves it for dead. That's why I sold the HiFace as my listening habits changed and I now just use the Macbooks optical out again. It suits my needs perfectly.

Macbook Pro as a source is the weakest link there. Ditch general purpose computers (they are shitty, they are noisy and full of hiccups) and go with a dedicated appliance, such as Logitech Squeezebox Touch, or Linn Majik. Then return here to report your findings.

[purite audio]

Actually the MBP is a superb source, use a' hiface' or better still take the firewire output .
Keith.

[roob]

MCR sorry to say this but you are talking through your arse.

[lovejoy]

Alex makes a good point. But the biggest problem with computers apart from the noise, is the fact that it's doing 1 million and one things other than playing music. Even with 'Pure Music' running there are nights when it sounds awful and other nights when it sounds stunning. It's nothing to do with mood or noisy mains as I can stick a record on and everything is as good as ever, so a lot of it is to do with what process priority each task is running at, or what has been broken in the latest software update. I tried locking the system down for a while and not doing any more updates and sticking with what I knew sounded good, but you can't expect to have a general purpose computer and not install anything on it.

So what is the source you are using magic Alex?

[magiccarpetride]

Its not that difficult in my experience...
The problems folk seem to be having stem from short-cutting the process in my opinion.

Rip it Once...using DB Poweramp: will automatically tag and drag AlbumArt of the web for you.

Invest in 3 external HDDs (£160 should do it) and make 3 copies of EVERYTHING

Store two of them physically somewhere else...

Forget it all..and just enjoy the music.

Do it ONCE...and PROPERLY...and you never need to think about it again.

Oh, and dont go wireless if you can help it.
That can open up a whole other can o' worms and its no wonder folk want to go back to putting CDs in a CD player...
I ran Cat5 throughout my house..sure it took time and effort..but like ripping CDs you only need to do it once.

Just my £0.02 worth..it was worth it for me, and Ive 2700 odd albums in my collection.


I use my Sony DVD into my Dac for "better than cd" quality replay

Funny, I've never experienced any problems with streaming music wirelessly...

I feel that at this juncture we have reached a point where the technology is mature enough for us to start porting our content into the cloud. I've been working in the information technology industry professionally for over 20 years, and I know all about the flakiness of the computing infrastructure. Not until very recently was I in the position to trust computers to host my precious content, however I now see that we're getting out of the woods. The cloud computing is indeed the only sensible way to go, and you will see that in not too distant future almost all businesses and smart individuals will go that route.

I've already made the transition, and am done with the silly 'buy 8 external hard drives, copy your content to all the drives, ship one to your grandma, bury another one in a secret place, store another one in a bank safety deposit vault' etc. Yes, you don't want to put all your eggs in one basket, but the baskets are nowadays virtual, not physical. And they're getting dirt cheap, so there's no reason not to minimize the risk by going all the way into the cloud.

And like I said, at the end of the day I'm still holding onto the physical containers (i.e. shiny silver discs), in case of a major catastrophe of planetary proportions (but the question is, would anyone care in that case?)

Off my soapbox.

[Mr. C]

I do believe Mr. airbourne rug navigator, you sir are a professional wind up artist of the first order, failing that a 120% 24 carat stubbon head in the sand merchant.
Eihterof which you would win an olyimpic medal for.

Why not decend back to planet earth and attempt to be grounded and realistic, rather than spouting suck utter cack for 90% of the time.

Have you considered theorapthy?, it feel it would be worth rather than upgrading your dac, a good dose of reality would help about now.

[magiccarpetride]

MCR sorry to say this but you are talking through your arse.

What's your take on the pedestrianization of the Norwich city center? I'll be honest with you, I'm dead against it.

[magiccarpetride]

I do believe Mr. airbourne rug navigator, you sir are a professional wind up artist of the first order, failing that a 120% 24 carat stubbon head in the sand merchant.
Eihterof which you would win an olyimpic medal for.

Why not decend back to planet earth and attempt to be grounded and realistic, rather than spouting suck utter cack for 90% of the time.

Have you considered theorapthy?, it feel it would be worth rather than upgrading your dac, a good dose of reality would help about now.

Rather than obsessing about the personality traits of the posters, why don't you focus on providing counter-arguments? The easiest thing in the world is to launch an ad hominem attack. Anyone with an IQ of an inch worm can do that, and I for one don't see how's that contributing to the quality of discussion here?

In other words, shoot the message, not the messenger. Ah, but that's a much harder endeavor than to continue insulting people left, right and center, isn't it?

[magiccarpetride]

Alex makes a good point. But the biggest problem with computers apart from the noise, is the fact that it's doing 1 million and one things other than playing music. Even with 'Pure Music' running there are nights when it sounds awful and other nights when it sounds stunning. It's nothing to do with mood or noisy mains as I can stick a record on and everything is as good as ever, so a lot of it is to do with what process priority each task is running at, or what has been broken in the latest software update. I tried locking the system down for a while and not doing any more updates and sticking with what I knew sounded good, but you can't expect to have a general purpose computer and not install anything on it.

So what is the source you are using magic Alex?

Logitech Squeezebox.

[Marco]

Guys,

Can we please cut out the personal jibes and stick to the discussion topic?

Cheers! :)

Marco.

[roob]

Even with 'Pure Music' running there are nights when it sounds awful and other nights when it sounds stunning.
Well I can't say this has happened to me, my Mac/Pure/Hiface based system sounds good to me at anytime of the day, but then again my Hiface has its own battery PS so that would make a difference.

[technobear]

When I tried the HiFace, I judged it as on par with a Squeezebox 3 but nowhere near the Transporter.

Alex, you should try a Transporter. It will open your ears :)

[magiccarpetride]

When I tried the HiFace, I judged it as on par with a Squeezebox 3 but nowhere near the Transporter.

Alex, you should try a Transporter. It will open your ears :)

Transporter into the Caiman, or with its own internal DAC?

[magiccarpetride]

Guys,

Can we please cut out the personal jibes and stick to the discussion topic?

Cheers! :)

Marco.

Right on. In the heat of the 'battle', while trying to expound on the necessity of focusing on the message and not on the messenger, I fell victim of attacking the messenger:(

Odd... I do regret my act, and promise that from now on I'll be strictly responding to the submitted content, and will abstain from commenting on any individual foibles of our esteemed members.

[Spur07]

Its not that difficult in my experience...
The problems folk seem to be having stem from short-cutting the process in my opinion.

Rip it Once...using DB Poweramp: will automatically tag and drag AlbumArt of the web for you.

Invest in 3 external HDDs (£160 should do it) and make 3 copies of EVERYTHING

Store two of them physically somewhere else...

Forget it all..and just enjoy the music.

Do it ONCE...and PROPERLY...and you never need to think about it again.

Oh, and dont go wireless if you can help it.
That can open up a whole other can o' worms and its no wonder folk want to go back to putting CDs in a CD player...
I ran Cat5 throughout my house..sure it took time and effort..but like ripping CDs you only need to do it once.

Just my £0.02 worth..it was worth it for me, and Ive 2700 odd albums in my collection.


I use my Sony DVD into my Dac for "better than cd" quality replay

spot on Gaz.

Ripping your music collection isn't the most enjoyable pursuit in the world, so do it only once and do it properly.

[technobear]

Transporter into the Caiman, or with its own internal DAC?

Well both are very good but the Caiman adds a bit of extra sparkle and decay that the Transporter's DAC misses.

[magiccarpetride]

Well both are very good but the Caiman adds a bit of extra sparkle and decay that the Transporter's DAC misses.

OK, my mouth is watering now. All I need now is to dig around the sofa to see if I could collect $2,000.00 in loose change, and then we're off to the races!

[technobear]

Personally I'd be waiting to see how good the Arcam rDAC is.

If it has a decent clock, decent regulators, decent output stages, there is potential to make the Transporter + Caiman obsolete.

I'll believe it when I hear it but it's certainly a possibility. It wouldn't be the first time Arcam had come out with a world beating product at a low price. We shall hear!

[roob]

If the John Westlake designed Audiolab ever appears add that to your list.

[lovejoy]

Well I can't say this has happened to me, my Mac/Pure/Hiface based system sounds good to me at anytime of the day, but then again my Hiface has its own battery PS so that would make a difference.

You know what? The more I look at this, the more I am convinced I've been unlucky with the timing of my Mac purchases. I have 3 Macs (well, had, the Mac Mini has been sold) all bought late 2006/early 2007. All three of them suffered the initial clicking problems using the HiFace drivers - a problem that only a very small minority of people suffered at all and I've had to constantly battle with the MBP to keep it sounding anywhere near decent. It seems that crappy Intel chipsets are to blame, but all of this has somewhat jaded my computer audio journey. Wind back 3 years to when I was using a Shuttle PC with a NOS DAC and it never set a foot wrong. This discussion is making me realise that it's time to put things right again...

So what's the way forward? I'm used to iTunes on a Mac, I wouldn't want to touch it with a bargepole on a PC. I'm open to ditching iTunes but I'd want something that's as nice to navigate, also bearing in mind that I have iPods to feed. I like the flexibility of using a computer - I want Spotify, iPlayer, internet radio, Last.FM, MySpace and anything else shiny and new that comes along. I want 24/96 capability. It needs to be wireless, and most of all, it needs to consistently sound good. I don't believe a Squeezebox is going to be an upgrade over an MBP -> HiFace -> Caiman except maybe in consistency terms.

Is a Transporter the answer?

[roob]

For the ultimate in PC audio read this.
http://www.cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=CMP.Guide
Build a music server along the guidelines from this site.
The designer of my dac has built one, we compared it against mine and it is better than my mac setup.
It did cost him c£2500 but it is top of the range, SSD,top of the range Zalman case etc, using normal hard drives etc will bring the cost down.

[HighFidelityGuy]

To answer the original question of this thread; I'd certainly consider paying for streamed music using a service such as Spotify, provided that it was at least CD quality uncomressed and preferably higher than CD quality. I would have to be able to play whatever I wanted, whenever I wanted and without any adverts or other breaks. Failing that I would (and have) pay for high resolution downloads that I get to keep.

Streaming at less than CD quality should be free or very cheap. Streaming at CD quality should be a little cheaper than buying a CD. Streaming or downloading at higher than CD quality should be about the price of a CD or slightly more depending on just how high resolution it is.

I would never pay for any music that was less than CD quality.

[lovejoy]

For the ultimate in PC audio read this.
http://www.cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=CMP.Guide
Build a music server along the guidelines from this site.
The designer of my dac has built one, we compared it against mine and it is better than my mac setup.
It did cost him c£2500 but it is top of the range, SSD,top of the range Zalman case etc, using normal hard drives etc will bring the cost down.

Holy moley!
A new build project, some fascinating reading, a dedicated music system and a rather smart looking box. You might just have hit the nail on the head!

Nice one roob!

[roob]

No probs, if you do build one be sure to let us know.

[lovejoy]

That's a promise.. With pictures!

[roob]

Rich.
If you are just looking for better than cd replay get one of these
http://www.chevronaudio.co.uk/html/untitled24.htm
I have just dug mine out after six months due to messing about with the Mac system and straight away I realised it was better than the Mac. It does not have a nice interface like iTunes and you have to buy SD cards you can get about 12 cds on a 8Gig card but if you are just interested in SQ its a no brainer.

[lovejoy]

Thanks Andy,
I'd been pondering one of these just to have a play with. They look very interesting but I quickly reached the conclusion that past a bout of initial enthusiasm I'd probably get fed up of having to keep copying albums to SD card.

But not to worry because I've already started sourcing the parts for the super computer build ;-). The case forms the bulk of the cost, but I'm not going to skimp on that bit as it does look rather special and I really don't want to go back to a separate screen.

[roob]

If you need any advice on the build drop Colin at Chevron an email, he is a nice guy and always willing to help, mention I sent you.

[lovejoy]

Thanks again Andy, I have a question for you already ;).

In your opinion how good is the touch screen in the computer case in terms of using it to navigate the music library. How good is it's touch sensitivity and what is the feel of the screen like?

I ask because it looks like all of the media cases with screens I can find seem to have been designed around 2006, so I'm guessing it's not the sort of quality you get from an iPhone screen, and more likely to be the soft and squidgy screens you get on cheap GPS systems.

[roob]

Hi Rich.
Sorry can't help on that one, when I was at Chevron Colin was using a monitor and a remote so didn't see the touch screen in action.

[lovejoy]

No worries. Will have to see if I can track one down to have a play with and report back.

[lovejoy]

Well, I decided to give the touchscreen a miss after some concerns and instead found a way of not needing a monitor at all (once everything is set up anyway)...

foo_touchremote + remote app allows you to control Foobar via an iPod Touch/iPhone and has exactly the same look and feel (only without the glitches) as if you were controlling iTunes with it.

Then I found 'Remoteless' - an app for controlling Spotify from your iPhone/Touch. This works a treat too.

All I need now is a controller for internet radio and job is a goodun!

The new components have been bought, the system has been put together and Windows installed. Still a lot of work to do in terms of optimisation and my new sound card hasn't arrived yet, so I'm currently running into the Caiman with USB. In saying that however, the Mac is already a distant memory. To say the new PC sounds better than the Macbook Pro would be like saying that space is a bit bigger than a pea.

Full thread on the new build to follow in a few days...

[TONEPUB]

Ianyone claiming a 24bit studio digital master is the real thing hasnt got a f*****g clue about music or computing...or indeed reality.....no doubt some people will claim a certain 24bit download has PRAT and all else is gaslight zzzzzzzz



Well, at least you're open minded...

There is a lot of 24/96 stuff that sounds awfully good and if you've bought anything on LP in the last 10-15 years, chances are it was recorded 24/96 anyway, cleaned up and MAYBE sent to a two track analog master tape before being pressed to LP. Almost nothing has been recorded to analog tape in the last 10 years or so.

Some of it sounds very good, some sounds terrible. Always depends on who's twiddling the knobs. I've made some pretty good digital captures with my Nagra LB at 24/96 (sometimes altered a little bit with the Manley Massive Passive Studio EQ) and have been very pleased with the results. I've certainly heard more than my share of dreadful analog.

Not quite sure what alternate reality you're living in, but in my alternate universe, there's some good digital living quite happily amongst some good analog.

[michaelhigh]

I use various music sources, such as Napster, Classical.com, Spotify, last.fm, BBC iplayer channels, and even RadioIO. I am aware that these don't deliver the highest quality sound, and in some cases they don't even deliver moderate quality - but despite this I continue as I like some of the music on some of these. Of course if the music doesn't work for me and the quality is also terrible I switch to something else. I do feel that the quality levels are sadly low on some channels, and it''s only the quality of the music which keeps me listening. There's a limit to how much I can take at low quality though.

I noticed that RadioIO whose music selection I rather like has so-called Audiophile channels, though these are currently only 192kbps - and I suspect mp3. There are other stations also offering this kind of service.

My question is: "What level of quality would you like to see on such a radio service, and how much would you be prepared to pay for it?"

Obviously we could all ask for at least SACD or hi-res download quality, but that would be silly. In any case a lot of material only exists in CD quality. I think that eventually someone will offer FLAC streams, but surely these will be quite expensive compared with, say, 320kbps mp3, aac or Ogg Vorbis.

There is another question too: "Would you be prepared to pay for one high quality audio channel, or would you rather pay slightly more for a bundle?"
The issue here is whether radio stations should somehow get together to provide bundled services. I might be prepared to pay £10/month for RadioIO, but I wouldn't want to do that for all the stations I might listen to. On the other hand £15 or £20 for a bundle of stations (from around the world?) might be good value.

With Pandora's features, yes. And I do hope it comes to you folks across the pond (or am I the one who's across from y'all?). Any service that lets you design custom stations would be better off streaming hirez files, and as the average ordinary Joe, so to speak, can grasp the new tech (as they did upon the arrival of the CD), I'm sure they would pay for the quality boost, once recognized. Convenience factor saved satellite radio for awhile over here (traveling without radio fadeouts) but I see a backlash to satrad with the combining of XM/Sirius. Neither could make it on their own, and I don't hold out much hope for the future for them, given the current state and the more recent developments concerning computer-based streaming. Isn't it exciting to be in the middle of a market-wide media upheaval!!! I guess it seems more that way to me, over here than y'all, who've been streaming and wav-ing and flac-ing for quite some time now... food 4 thought...

[michaelhigh]

I've said it before but what the heck... once more with feeling :D

I will never, so long as there is breath in my body, be guilty of paying so much as one penny piece for (lossy) compressed music.

My view is that anything streamed as MP3 is a sample only and a poor facsimile of the real music and should therefore be free.

I am of course happy to pay for the uncompressed original. I might consider a subscription to a FLAC stream if I had more time to listen or if I could record it and skip through it later.

I'm on board... Never will I pay for mp3.

[michaelhigh]

When I tried the HiFace, I judged it as on par with a Squeezebox 3 but nowhere near the Transporter.

Alex, you should try a Transporter. It will open your ears :)

Why tout the Transporter when the Touch comes just as highly touted for so much less bread? (rhetorical question, I know)...

[michaelhigh]

OK, my mouth is watering now. All I need now is to dig around the sofa to see if I could collect $2,000.00 in loose change, and then we're off to the races!

Go for the Touch. Ask Ali.

[Ali Tait]

Why tout the Transporter when the Touch comes just as highly touted for so much less bread? (rhetorical question, I know)...

To be fair, the Transporter is better,but it's a lot more money. I reckon it will be phased out soon.

[Welder]

:lolsign:
Oh dear (wipes away the tears of mirth)
Lots of noise about convenience versus quality. The fact is file based audio has the potential to give better quality than any physical medium that relies on mechanical transport or pickup because the really noisy stuff is the transport and the pick up link! :rolleyes:
What about jitter etc? You get exactly the same problems in a CD player. They use a DAC; it’s just you can’t see it unless you look inside. I don’t remember hearing all this jitter talk when it came to CD replay and no it isn’t because with file based audio the Dac is futher away :scratch:
All the debates about cables etc applies to all sources :scratch:
Hard drive failure and unreliable online storage; come on, stuff breaks, even those funny needle thingies some of you drag around those vinyl discs and CD transports :scratch:
As Gazjam says; rip it once, 3 copies, preferably one in WAV (just in case lossless isn’t :doh:)
Sure, computers can be noisy, but strangely enough the people that design Dacs know this and the vast majority of today’s Dacs have noise rejection systems that perform below the noise floor those glowing valves and hot resistors produce.

Okay, the initial rip is a chore. Sure, there are problems with computer based audio, mainly centered around the computer itself, but all the other mediums have their problems as well.

The horrible truth is most of us don’t have either the equipment or hearing abilities to differentiate between a 320 mp3 and a redbook recording let alone all the subtle nuances, higher harmonics and electrical effects we all get so anal about.
Give it a try, see if you can hear the difference between a 24/96 and a 24/192 sample for example then work your way down. I suspect most of us will end up around redbook.
I’m not knocking those who prefer one medium to another for whatever reasons they may have but file based audio can give equal sound quality and give a vast increase in convenience and maybe even a reduction in cost.

It would seem from a great many of the critics of file based audio haven’t heard a top class computer audio system. Check one out, then come back here and rubbish the sound quality.

Oh arr, the on topic bit (well Marco is running a bit warm atm). can you listen to streamed music on your record deck or CD player?
http://www.radioparadise.com/

[michaelhigh]

:lolsign:
Oh dear (wipes away the tears of mirth)
Lots of noise about convenience versus quality. The fact is file based audio has the potential to give better quality than any physical medium that relies on mechanical transport or pickup because the really noisy stuff is the transport and the pick up link! :rolleyes:
What about jitter etc? You get exactly the same problems in a CD player. They use a DAC; it’s just you can’t see it unless you look inside. I don’t remember hearing all this jitter talk when it came to CD replay and no it isn’t because with file based audio the Dac is futher away :scratch:
All the debates about cables etc applies to all sources :scratch:
Hard drive failure and unreliable online storage; come on, stuff breaks, even those funny needle thingies some of you drag around those vinyl discs and CD transports :scratch:
As Gazjam says; rip it once, 3 copies, preferably one in WAV (just in case lossless isn’t :doh:)
Sure, computers can be noisy, but strangely enough the people that design Dacs know this and the vast majority of today’s Dacs have noise rejection systems that perform below the noise floor those glowing valves and hot resistors produce.

Okay, the initial rip is a chore. Sure, there are problems with computer based audio, mainly centered around the computer itself, but all the other mediums have their problems as well.

The horrible truth is most of us don’t have either the equipment or hearing abilities to differentiate between a 320 mp3 and a redbook recording let alone all the subtle nuances, higher harmonics and electrical effects we all get so anal about.
Give it a try, see if you can hear the difference between a 24/96 and a 24/192 sample for example then work your way down. I suspect most of us will end up around redbook.
I’m not knocking those who prefer one medium to another for whatever reasons they may have but file based audio can give equal sound quality and give a vast increase in convenience and maybe even a reduction in cost.

It would seem from a great many of the critics of file based audio haven’t heard a top class computer audio system. Check one out, then come back here and rubbish the sound quality.

Oh arr, the on topic bit (well Marco is running a bit warm atm). can you listen to streamed music on your record deck or CD player?
http://www.radioparadise.com/

I take a CD. I rip it to flac in MediaMonkey. I see the kbps go up astronomically. I see the .flac suffix at the end of the file name. I play the file from my computer out to my mixer with a wee bit of EQ. It sounds better than the CD. It sounds better than the mp3. It sounds better than the radio through the same setup. It sounds better than a record, but I still cling to the medium. It will sound better with a Caiman, modded or not. It will sound better with a Squeezebox to play the higher resolution, which will be as high as I can get it. It will sound better through my optimized system, and rightly so because I have applied the knowledge I've received here and elsewhere to do so. The effort has paid off in spades. I am happy and getting happier with each new addition. Way hey!:lol:

[Ali Tait]

:lolsign:
Oh dear (wipes away the tears of mirth)ju
Lots of noise about convenience versus quality. The fact is file based audio has the potential to give better quality than any physical medium that relies on mechanical transport or pickup because the really noisy stuff is the transport and the pick up link! :rolleyes:
What about jitter etc? You get exactly the same problems in a CD player. They use a DAC; it’s just you can’t see it unless you look inside. I don’t remember hearing all this jitter talk when it came to CD replay and no it isn’t because with file based audio the Dac is futher away :scratch:
All the debates about cables etc applies to all sources :scratch:
Hard drive failure and unreliable online storage; come on, stuff breaks, even those funny needle thingies some of you drag around those vinyl discs and CD transports :scratch:
As Gazjam says; rip it once, 3 copies, preferably one in WAV (just in case lossless isn’t :doh:)
Sure, computers can be noisy, but strangely enough the people that design Dacs know this and the vast majority of today’s Dacs have noise rejection systems that perform below the noise floor those glowing valves and hot resistors produce.

Okay, the initial rip is a chore. Sure, there are problems with computer based audio, mainly centered around the computer itself, but all the other mediums have their problems as well.

The horrible truth is most of us don’t have either the equipment or hearing abilities to differentiate between a 320 mp3 and a redbook recording let alone all the subtle nuances, higher harmonics and electrical effects we all get so anal about.
Give it a try, see if you can hear the difference between a 24/96 and a 24/192 sample for example then work your way down. I suspect most of us will end up around redbook.
I’m not knocking those who prefer one medium to another for whatever reasons they may have but file based audio can give equal sound quality and give a vast increase in convenience and maybe even a reduction in cost.

It would seem from a great many of the critics of file based audio haven’t heard a top class computer audio system. Check one out, then come back here and rubbish the sound quality.

Oh arr, the on topic bit (well Marco is running a bit warm atm). can you listen to streamed music on your record deck or CD player?
http://www.radioparadise.com/

I have a couple of albums in both redook and 24/96. I find the difference obvious,but then electrostatics are known for their transparency.

[Welder]

Ali Tait (Sry, don’t know your first name)

“I have a couple of albums in both redook and 24/96. I find the difference obvious,but then electrostatics are known for their transparency.”

I can accept many people will be able to differentiate between 16/44.1 and 24/96.
However, a lot depends on the particular album and of course your hearing and equipment.
In my experience a well recorded and re-mastered 16/44.1 and say a standard 24/96 of the same album can be very difficult to tell apart.
While my equipment won’t do 24/192, I spent some hours comparing 24/96 and 24/192 on a mates system and try as I might, I couldn’t pick one from the other and neither could he.
I became interested in the bit rate and frequency debate when I abandoned Vinyl.
While not gospel, a good place to start is Nyquist Theorem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
Then perhaps read a little on how the majority of recording engineers recorded mainstream music and the equipment the used.
I think you will find much of redbook quality material didn’t get recorded beyond 16kHz due to limitations in decent recording mikes.
Try putting a few tracks through a frequency analyzer; I think you may be shocked at the limited range of many recordings.
The increase in frequency the higher resolution tracks have even if recorded cant be reproduced by the majority of amps and speakers; most are 20kHz to 20Hz. You can with high bandwidth amps and a pair of headphones replay past 20kHz if its on the recording.
The simple fact is if it wasn’t recorded in the first place no amount of revealing kit is going to reproduce it.
This is one instance where “I know what I hear” doesn’t cut it. If it isn’t there you cant hear it, and what is there can be measured.
My personal opinion is anything beyond 24/96 is a bit of a con despite the current trend for Dac manufacturers to make Dacs with 24/192 and above capabilities.
When you next download a high resolution track, run it through a frequency analyzer, you may want your money back.

[Ali Tait]

Is the 16khz limit you mention relevant? Most older than their teens would be lucky to hear this high,and in any case there is little to no musical information at or above these frequencies.

While I agree that the quality of a recording is the most important factor, I still maintain that a high rez version of a well recorded album is easily superior,at least to my ears in my system,but perhaps not in the way many would think. I perceive the high rez as having more detail,but mostly it's depth of soundstage that I find greatly increased. If this is a priority for you,as it is for me,hence why I enjoy using statics,then the improvements of high rez are obvious,at least to my ears.

[Welder]

I don’t doubt what you can hear and in general I agree that hi res has sonic advantages.
As I said (or did I) I can differentiate between 16/44 and 24/96 in with my kit.
My interest is at what point does increased frequency become inaudible to the majority?
I have attributed depth of sound stage primarily to increased bit rate rather than frequency; I may be wrong.
Above 16kHz, well some harmonics can have frequencies well above 16kHz and this is what the advocates of 192 and above seem to be saying can be heard.
However, my main point is the recent glut of 192 capable Dacs and of course, the increased price being charged for this option is basically dishonest; the majority is unlikely to hear any difference between 192 and 96.
Still, I suppose similar could be said for many luxury goods.

[Stratmangler]

Ali Tait (Sry, don’t know your first name)

That would be Ali - which it is;)

[Ali Tait]

Indeed,short for Alasdair,which is Gaelic for Alexander!

[Ali Tait]

I don’t doubt what you can hear and in general I agree that hi res has sonic advantages.
As I said (or did I) I can differentiate between 16/44 and 24/96 in with my kit.
My interest is at what point does increased frequency become inaudible to the majority?
I have attributed depth of sound stage primarily to increased bit rate rather than frequency; I may be wrong.
Above 16kHz, well some harmonics can have frequencies well above 16kHz and this is what the advocates of 192 and above seem to be saying can be heard.
However, my main point is the recent glut of 192 capable Dacs and of course, the increased price being charged for this option is basically dishonest; the majority is unlikely to hear any difference between 192 and 96.
Still, I suppose similar could be said for many luxury goods.

Agree about the new dacs,but it's always the same with new tech. Have you heard any asynch usb yet? Is there any real benefit SQ-wise?

[StanleyB]

Agree about the new dacs,but it's always the same with new tech.
Doesn't have to be that way.

[michaelhigh]

Indeed,short for Alasdair,which is Gaelic for Alexander!

Is Gaelic the language (dialect?) Roger Waters is speaking in, on "Ummagumma" on his solo side "...with a pict" ?

[Ali Tait]

Dialect??? DIALECT??? I'll have you know Gaelic is a proper bloody language Sir!!

So there!

[Ali Tait]

Doesn't have to be that way.

Agreed!

[Welder]

Thanks Chris & Ali. Just wasn’t sure :)
Ali.
All the Dacs I’ve actually owned have been asynchronous USB. I’ve tried others.
As for the benefits of asynchronous USB: well, I set out to only use USB connectivity and from what I’ve read, if you’re going this route then async seems to have the most going for it.
I couldn’t say with any honesty if it’s better than adaptive for example; it’s just what the Dacs I prefer the sound of have. So I’m going to stick with it.
I would have a touch by now if they had USB in and out. Hopefully it’s on its way.

[Ali Tait]

Well I believe you can have the Touch output usb with a bit of trickery. I thought usb is limited as far as high rez is concerned?

[Welder]

It is with Windows to 24/96 using native drivers. Other OS and some Dacs with custom drivers can get round this.
But it’s the OS I want to get rid of. Computers would be grate if it wasn’t for the operating systems :rolleyes:
However, I need USB in and out on the touch. One to connect a remote hard drive to; the other as USB out.

[Ali Tait]

I think Logitech would be onto a winner with a super Touch-a few more facilities and a more powerful processor for say around £400 or so.Would be a very competitive product if it sounded good enough.

[dave2010]

Re the original question, seems the BBC is now proposing to do something better than it has done previously, so the marginal costs for UK license payers for a streaming service will be minimal. Info at (e.g) - http://www.newstatesman.com/broadcast/2010/10/launch-high-radio-audio-sound - there've been several press releases/announcements. I think they're going to upgrade the sound of the iPlayer as well, so it won't just be streaming audio, but on-demand as well.

Probably won't be high enough quality for some enthusiasts, but should be better than what we've had in the past. [Even now it's a lot better than a few years back - when the sound was more like listening to AM or poor quality cassette tape, plus digital burbles and squeaks ...]

Maybe eventually we can persuade the BBC and others to do FLAC. Not sure if surround sound is worth it though - but the Norwegian Radio did try it for a while - not sure if they're stll doing that. One slightly interesting thing from some recent announcements/articles is that apparently the BBC is using surround sound on some of the TV channels - but I've not really tried that either.