More Consensus That Streaming Is An Inferior Format & Not High End?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly. That’s why CD (and vinyl) are stable investments where there is a gigantic amount of recordings available (in the many millions), whereas there is, relatively speaking, an infinitesimal number of high resolution recordings available. Take the much ballyhooed SACD discs. 20 odd years after its launch, you have maybe a few thousand SACDs released, many probably out of print now. Most eminently forgettable. High resolution streaming? Again, I’d be surprised if the numbers are much larger. Take the vast recorded repertoire of world music across the seven continents. How much of world music from Africa, India, South America, Australia etc. is in high resolution? I’m guessing 0.00001%, and that’s an overestimate. If you are a true music lover, and not an audiophile, you shouldn’t care two hoots about high res. And rightly so.

Audiophiles love to croon over a small handful of high res recordings. As Art Dudley acerbically put it in one of his reviews, if he heard one more Krall album played at an audio show, his skin would begin to Krall! Speak to the man (or woman) in the street. They’re music lovers, happy with their MP3 streaming via Spotify. To them, CD is high res! And they don‘t want it or don’t really care. If you are primarily listening to music in the car, or while jogging or at the gym, as 99% of the planet does, do you care about high res? Of course you don’t.

For what’s it’s worth, as someone who owns over 1000 SACDs, and has listened to many thousand high res recordings on Roon/Qobuz on an absolutely state of the art hi fi, if there’s a real difference between CD rendered on a top class transport like the CEC TL0 and an SACD or 24-bit 192 kHZ streaming album, I have yet to hear it. Individual differences in recordings vastly vastly dwarf any perceived differences in format. A simple example: Telarc released the complete Mozart symphonies conducted by Sir Charles Mackerras, which were recorded in a castle in Prague using a very simple 2 or 3-channel microphone with tube electronics, mostly by the great Jack Renner and by the equally great Tony Faulkner. For my money, the sheer beauty of these 16-bit recordings sound vastly better than many of the ghastly multimiked studio recordings that get released on SACD.

There is absolutely ZERO correlation between bit depth and recording quality in my 35+ years experience. Many of the greatest recordings in my 10,000+ record collection are humble 16-bit recordings done well by great recording engineers (or vinyl albums, many in glorious mono). Some of the worst recordings are poorly recorded high res streaming albums that sound ridiculously compressed to my ears. My spouse, no audiophile, but has far better hearing, says streaming often sounds terribly compressed. As logic would indicate. The files to get to you from thousands of miles away. You think Netflix 4K streaming is of the same quality as a 4K Blu ray in your house on a top quality Oppo into a front projector? Ha!

But, leaving all that aside, I’m thrilled to have streaming available, allowing me to sample composers and music I haven’t heard. Just listening to a sublime chamber album by Ferdinand Ries, a pupil of Beethoven. Recorded in — you guessed right — humble 16-bit. Sounds great to my ears.

Do yourself a favor. Stop fretting over bit depth. Or recording frequency. Enjoy music in any format. Life’s too short. We live on this planet for a nanosecond compared to the eternity of time. Ok, back to enjoying Ries…sipping some lovely Petit Verdot wine from a winery in Sonoma.

View attachment 103642


Amen to this. 'There is absolutely ZERO correlation between bit depth and recording quality in my 35+ years experience.'

Likewise I'm delighted to have Qobuz available, it helps screen music before purchase on vinyl or CD, vastly reducing the risk of disappointment and yet another album destined to sit on the shelf, only to be brought to be compared with something else or after you've forgotten how dire it was. Also if I'm working on a piece on lute or harpsichord, it's nice to hear a few interpretations to compare with my own.

But I can't imagine streaming ever becoming my main source. Horrific thought!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cjfrbw and hopkins
Do yourself a favor. Stop fretting over bit depth. Or recording frequency. Enjoy music in any format. Life’s too short.
I do agree and, given the relative availability of repertoire in stereo, I do listen to it most of the time. However, imho, the real value of SACD is multichannel. You can jump through hoops to argue about the ability of one stereo medium or another to deliver a credible recreation of a live performance but discrete multichannel is simply superior in its ability to capture and convey the experience of the performance and space.

In specific, I offer these two (musically and technically) outstanding multichannel alternatives to your examples:
5062.jpg

13935.jpg

Of course, I no longer expect mass adoption of multichannel by traditional audiophiles but I believe the reasons are not really about the overall quality of reproduction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cjfrbw and Amir
Hi Kal,

As it happens, I have both these SACDs. I’ve enjoyed reading your articles on multichannel reproduction in Stereophile. I do enjoy listening to SACD discs on my home theater in surround sound. Even using a relatively inexpensive Marantz AV8801 and Marantz multichannel amplifier, they sound quite nice. The added channels generate a richer ambience. Some of my Mahler SFO SACDs that I don’t like in 2 channel mode sound much nicer in multichannel. I don’t buy SACD discs that often any more, but here’s one I recently bought that I enjoy hearing. It’s engineered by Keith Johnson. The Gloria Dei Cantores is a choir from Cape Cod. Many of their other recordings on Qobuz are really lovely.

1675012098931.jpeg
 
As for the "dated" format of Redbook CD, my diverse experiences have convinced me that most audiophiles probably do not realize just how much musical information there is on a physical CD, down to the tiniest nuances of sound and musicians' performance. The amount of information encoded is stunning, just stunning.
This has been my greatest surprise in this hobby. The problem has been poor reconstruction, IMHO. Hearing what improved reconstruction accuracy achieved, by blasting my CD rips using PGGB, has been mind-blowing.
 
In the not too distant future, you’ll be “chatting” with your music server, let’s call it “chatRoon“ that will contain within it a massive deep generative model of the entire world’s music and synthesize any music you want depending on your mood. You could “whistle“ a tune to it, and it will riff on that melody the entire evening, generating endless novel variants. Say bye bye to your old fashioned music collections stored on, hard drives, SSDs and other quaint 2023 technology. There’s no need for such old fashioned storage devices. It will recall or synthesize any music you desire. The interface to such a system will look nothing like Roon. It will be quite bizarre to our current mindset, but one the next generation will find entirely natural. They’ll wonder at how quaint our world was with ”albums” and ”tracks“.
Maybe the interface will be something like an Apple watch, which will enable the AI to read and manipulate your vitals. At any rate, in the far future when the machines have turned us into batteries, chatRoon will be remembered (by those who choose the red pill) as a golden period. In the meantime, perhaps we should ignore the audio absolutism and dogma, forget the gear (they are machines!) and enjoy the music.
 
I do agree and, given the relative availability of repertoire in stereo, I do listen to it most of the time. However, imho, the real value of SACD is multichannel. You can jump through hoops to argue about the ability of one stereo medium or another to deliver a credible recreation of a live performance but discrete multichannel is simply superior in its ability to capture and convey the experience of the performance and space.

In specific, I offer these two (musically and technically) outstanding multichannel alternatives to your examples:
5062.jpg

13935.jpg

Of course, I no longer expect mass adoption of multichannel by traditional audiophiles but I believe the reasons are not really about the overall quality of reproduction.
binaural. I wager it is a lot simpler than multichannel but still suffers from a lack of commitment . AS far as audiophiles are concerned, 'build it and they will come" Traditionally we have little or no influence over software. No one cared what we thought about digital.
Are you suggesting if multichannel were widespread streaming could not handle it?
 
OK Kal then why is it that audiophiles have not adopted multichannel. Is it prejudice,, ignorance, the unwillingness to pursue yet another format , added expense, and/or limited software? If you were to hazard a guess.
 
OK Kal then why is it that audiophiles have not adopted multichannel. Is it prejudice,, ignorance, the unwillingness to pursue yet another format , added expense, and/or limited software? If you were to hazard a guess.
I can't really pick just one. All of the above and more. I am continually reminded of this.
John Curl exhumed the following quote from a mid-1960s letter to Stereophile, originally published in Vol. No. 4: "Sirs: I say that stereo is a first class fake and the biggest fraud ever put out by American Mfr. I have never found anyone who knows audio engineering or music that did not agree with this. All those who disagree just don't know enough to know the truth or they are liars engaged in selling stereo equipment. The only reason that most people have gone for stereo is that they have not had time, and will not take the time to get all the facts, so they are victims of advertising, the biggest con game in the world, and I am not so sure that they don't deserve what they get.
 
I am sorry John Curl never achieved the acclaim he deserves. He might be a tad bitter. I have heard rumors about what happened. I'll leave it at that.
I did some research about the origin of stereo. The first recordings were binaural. I think you can imagine what happened when they tried to play it back over two speakers. Not everything works in reverse. Stereo is not a fraud. It is an illusion. It is an attempt to provide better imaging than mono.
I doubt if multichannel is real either. At best it is an approximation.
 
Hi Kal,

As it happens, I have both these SACDs. I’ve enjoyed reading your articles on multichannel reproduction in Stereophile. I do enjoy listening to SACD discs on my home theater in surround sound. Even using a relatively inexpensive Marantz AV8801 and Marantz multichannel amplifier, they sound quite nice. The added channels generate a richer ambience. Some of my Mahler SFO SACDs that I don’t like in 2 channel mode sound much nicer in multichannel. I don’t buy SACD discs that often any more, but here’s one I recently bought that I enjoy hearing. It’s engineered by Keith Johnson. The Gloria Dei Cantores is a choir from Cape Cod. Many of their other recordings on Qobuz are really lovely.

View attachment 103665
Love Rachmaninoff, I remember reading him described as the musician’s trifecta and a triple threat.. a master composer, conductor, pianist… what a giant and I also really like his a capella all night vigil. Typical Rachmaninoff in that it is technically challenging but it also reveals a more deeply spiritual dimension to the composer.

A more convincing performance for me here is Paul Hillier leading the Estonian Philharmonic Chamber Choir on Harmonia Mundi… still a great recording but a bit more impassioned Rachmaninoff in spirit.

I’ll admit I’m not a fan of Keith Johnson’s Reference Recordings which tend to be a celebration of hifi sound but not often among the better music performances available. By comparison Harmonia Mundi as a label reliably gets the recordings right but also seems (and more importantly for me) is often a better curator of performance.

Also highly recommendable (but definitely less overtly hifi or audiophile-like perhaps a recording) but a more severe and intense and more purely Russian sourced performance is the 1965 Alexander Sveshnikov Rachmaninov Vespers with the State Academic Russian Choir originally on Melodiya. Sveshnikov and his Russian crew extract a dark matter kind of soulfulness in a raw and deeply passionate performance.

With Sveshnikov the emotional intensity is a greater driver of the sound and passion seems to play a greater part to the other more nicely etheric and perhaps more constrained responses. Passion and power seems to me to be a more Rachmaninoff thing.

I’d suggest we can learn a lot about Rachmaninoff from precedents in performance from those of the Russian school and especially from those who knew Rachmaninoff well just like we learn when listening to Vladimir Horowitz and his takes on the Rach 3.

But then again the thing with streaming is it’s easy to compare. If we just have hard copy libraries it’s more likely we’d not be able to easily or affordably explore for whatever is best whether our priority is more in the recording or more in the performance as so often we can’t have the ideal of both.

For those wanting a bit more on Sergei Rachmaninoff and his Vigil below is from an article written by Debra Lew Harder garnered from the interweb…


Sergei_Rachmaninoff1100px.jpg

Sergei Rachmaninoff in 1899
Library Of Congress/Corbis/VCG Via Getty Images

As a boy, Sergei Rachmaninoff often visited his grandmother’s house in the country, where he was mesmerized by the sound of church bells. And although he claimed he was not a religious man, the pianist and composer was influenced by that memory—the music and the bells of the Russian Orthodox Church gave him inspiration for one of his greatest works, his “All-Night Vigil” for à capella choir.

In the Russian Orthodox church, the all-night vigil is an actual part of the Russian (or Eastern) Orthodox liturgy. It traditionally precedes Sunday worship or important church feast days, and consists of three sections: Vespers (the evening prayer), Matins (prayer that takes place from 3 to 5 AM), and First Hour (the first prayer at dawn).

This is an extensive, lengthy service, involving many psalms, litanies, and, most strikingly, chants that have been sung since antiquity, originating in the Byzantine Empire.

Rachmaninoff composed his version of the all-night vigil in 1915, after his Second and Third Piano Concertos and the Second Symphony had brought him international recognition. Rachmaninoff's “All-Night Vigil” consists of 15 movements, nine of which are based on traditional Eastern Orthodox church chants that come from Greece, Kiev, and Russia.

Six of the movements are Rachmaninoff’s own invention, using motifs typical of Eastern Orthodox melodies. The dramatic high point of the work is the ninth number, Blagosloven esi, Gospodi (Blessed is the Lord,) which tells the story of the Resurrection. Rachmaninoff fans will recognize this chant as one he used in the exciting last movement of his final orchestral work, “Symphonic Dances,” written for The Philadelphia Orchestra.

A few short years after he composed “All-Night Vigil,” Rachmaninoff, in his 40s, was forced to flee Russia with his wife and daughters, at the onset of the Bolshevik Revolution. He had to reinvent himself, and decided to earn a living as a touring virtuoso pianist. Despite the fame and fortune he eventually earned, Rachmaninoff remained homesick for the Russia of his youth, from which he was forever exiled.
It is perhaps not a surprise that the sounds of his childhood, and of the Russian Orthodox Church reminded him of his homeland. He said that “All-Night Vigil,” along with his choral symphonic work “The Bells,” were his two favorite compositions. He asked that the 5th movement of “All-night Vigil,” Nunc dimittis, be sung at his own funeral.
 
Last edited:
Can you please explain what an expert audiophile is?

Simple. Someone who has audiophile opinions that agree with ours. :)

IMO no one can be an expert in audiophile matters in the high-end for every one. This is an hobby ruled by preference, at best people can be knowledgeable in their area of preference.
 
Last edited:
I am sorry John Curl never achieved the acclaim he deserves. He might be a tad bitter. I have heard rumors about what happened. I'll leave it at that.
N.B.: He didn't write that. He found that outrageous quote which, I think, epitomizes a lot of meaningless outrage.
 
I’ll admit I’m not a fan of Keith Johnson’s Reference Recordings which tend to be a celebration of hifi sound but not often among the better music performances available.
I agree and prefer the new !Fresh series from the SoundMirror boys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the sound of Tao
(...) I now realize I know less than I thought I knew did five years ago. It is a humbling hobby. (...)

An interesting subject - our attitude towards this hobby. I do not consider it an humbling hobby, I it perhaps I consider it the opposite. It is a rewarding hobby, extremely individualist and we should be proud of our achievements and preferences.
 
An interesting subject - our attitude towards this hobby. I do not consider it an humbling hobby, I it perhaps I consider it the opposite. It is a rewarding hobby, extremely individualist and we should be proud of our achievements and preferences.
Done as intentionally as we audio nuts do it, it's an act of self-expression. I get a visual image of us sculpting sonic worlds that speak to ourselves. There are a lot of right answers available.
 
I agree and prefer the new !Fresh series from the SoundMirror boys.
I did have Manfred Honeck and the Pittsburgh Symphony’s Shostakovich 5 saved but just went in and had a listen to their more recent release of the Brahms 4th symphony under !Fresh and also an earlier recording of the Dvorak 8 and yes, good stuff and very much worth having. Many thanks for the recommendation Kal.
 
Last edited:
Note to Paul M: Qobuz now has more than 90 million tracks available.

According to Qobuz (highlights added):

"Founded in 2007, Qobuz has just celebrated its 15th anniversary. Created by two music lovers, Qobuz’s purpose is to provide a unique experience built around music discovery, sound quality and editorial content; a streaming service which brings together music enthusiasts from all walks of life.

The digital revolution of the 2000s opened the way for streaming. Music streaming has revealed all the treasures of some of the vastest discographies. This shift has not been entirely positive however: piracy has had an impact on artist incomes; the need to conserve bandwidth has led to compressed, poor sound quality; and the development of algorithms has standardised our music consumption.

In 2007, two Frenchmen with a passion for music set out to create a platform which would respect artists and their work, providing recommendations for their users—like a (digital) record store. The service would be founded upon quality outright, intended for all those seeking to share and maximise their love of music. Thus Qobuz was born. Qobuz is for all lovers of music: fans and musicians, audiophiles and collectors, lovers of jazz, classical, rock, techno, world and metal alike—they all want to be part of a community which shares their values. These people come to Qobuz to appreciate truly authentic sound quality, in high resolution, straight from the studio. They come to (re)discover artists of all genres from the past, present or future, through rich and eclectic editorial content and playlists handcrafted (without algorithms!) by our team. They come to experience the freedom of collecting and ‘owning’ their music through our download store."
 
I have a question. I have a subscription to Qobuz and very much appreciate it. However, I cannot use it to the extent I would like to. I find the sound of streaming over the internet inferior to the sound of streaming the same digital files on my system. I at least think the streaming over the internet sounds different at different times and that streaming CD quality sounds relatively better than higher res--comparing to the same format played from the digital files I have downloaded from Qobuz. Obviously, this makes my hobby more expensive since I basically only audition albums by streaming. (The only difference between the streaming via internet and from my files is the source--the internet or a SSD attached to the Nucleus) My question is whether others find this true as well and whether this situation can be improved. I have satellite internet that runs at about 45mb/s and ping of 700. I could change to Starlink, which is several times more expensive. But I'd rather not if it wouldn't help, of course. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu