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

[jbrrp1]

The digital server you use can have a significant impact on the streaming sound quality of your system. I ran an Antipodes DX II for awhile, and local files were distinctly better than streaming. It got "stuffed" by yet another Roon bloatware update, and stopped functioning very well, so I bought a Roon Nucleus for interim use while I put an order in for the Taiko Audio Extreme server. The Nucleus had quite a similar sound quality differential (on top of it being worse sounding than the Antipodes overall, and by an important margin). The Taiko Extreme, on the other hand, makes Qobuz streaming vs. local files so close in SQ that I really just don't even think about the source - - they both sound really good!

45 mb/s should be just fine for streaming musical content, IME. I did OK with ~8 mb/s.

 

[PYP]

Agree the streamer makes a difference. With the Grimm MU1 (streamer/server/Roon endpoint/DDC), I do not hear a difference between ripped FLAC files and streaming files.

 

[the sound of Tao]

One thing that I have found over the last few years is that the better my approach to my server and optimising it’s setup the difference between recordings has become more easily obvious and yet the overall gap between streaming and wav files off the drive has clearly been closing as it seems to be more and more often reported with more high end server setups.

I also believe some systems are setup to work better with spinner transports and others can make more out of server based transports and that context of setup can make streaming sonically more challenging but the greatest asset of streaming music the ultimate freedom of exponentially exploring the best performances remains.

I have found digital setup in general to be very critical of outcome and people can easily underestimate what is needed and that it is simply not a plug and play medium and outcomes can be highly variable from system to system.

There are also I figure quite fundamental differences in approaching setup for digital and analogue systems... so much so that I’d think there’d be a good argument for setting up two distinctly separate systems, one purely for digital and the other purely for analogue.

I’d even give the systems different primary functions, one system for the greatest music accessibility and to explore music freely and to learn more about music and artists performance in an accelerated way and the other to explore the extraordinary potentials for experiences in no holds barred analogue sound.

 

[godofwealth]

I think it’s best to think of the current generation of streamers like CD players were in the mid 1980s. Promising technology, huge potential, but as yet unrealized. Streaming will get substantially better in the years to come. Till then, just enjoy what we have.

 

[Gregadd]

Switch to tidal. Don't use streamer. It's redundant.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

One thing that I have found over the last few years is that the better my approach to my server and optimising it’s setup the difference between recordings has become more easily obvious and yet the overall gap between streaming and wav files off the drive has clearly been closing as it seems to be more and more often reported with more high end server setups.

I also believe some systems are setup to work better with spinner transports and others can make more out of server based transports and that context of setup can make streaming sonically more challenging but the greatest asset of streaming music the ultimate freedom of exponentially exploring the best performances remains.

I have found digital setup in general to be very critical of outcome and people can easily underestimate what is needed and that it is simply not a plug and play medium and outcomes can be highly variable from system to system.

There are also I figure quite fundamental differences in approaching setup for digital and analogue systems... so much so that I’d think there’d be a good argument for setting up two distinctly separate systems, one purely for digital and the other purely for analogue.

I’d even give the systems different primary functions, one system for the greatest music accessibility and to explore music freely and to learn more about music and artists performance in an accelerated way and the other to explore the extraordinary potentials for experiences in no holds barred analogue sound.

i see it differently, that if a system promotes all types of music, and scales of music, then it should be format agnostic. if the presentation of your digital differs radically from your analog then something somewhere is 'off'. i suppose it's possible that your speakers or signal path for digital to be optimized, verses your analog, just happens to work out that way. but that would be an outlier situation. normal would be all the sources would be chosen for your personal tastes.

i can see a lifestyle aspect that might matter, if you have a desire to have a more multi-tasking spot, maybe more family inclusive, where you are switching from one focus to another constantly maybe that is your streaming spot, and your analog spot is more isolated and focused on music only. you still want high quality music in that communal spot, but more simple/flexible use gear.

but streaming/files/digital can fully benefit from the best system possible and will and should deliver. music should be music wherever.

maybe headphone users might have separate amps and headphones for various sources and types of music. would not be my approach but i could see it.

 

[Gregadd]

i see it differently, that if a system promotes all types of music, and scales of music, then it should be format agnostic. if the presentation of your digital differs radically from your analog then something somewhere is 'off'. i suppose it's possible that your speakers or signal path for digital to be optimized, verses your analog, just happens to work out that way. but that would be an outlier situation. normal would be all the sources would be chosen for your personal tastes.

i can see a lifestyle aspect that might matter, if you have a desire to have a more multi-tasking spot, maybe more family inclusive, where you are switching from one focus to another constantly maybe that is your streaming spot, and your analog spot is more isolated and focused on music only. you still want high quality music in that communal spot, but more simple/flexible use gear.

but streaming/files/digital can fully benefit from the best system possible and will and should deliver. music should be music wherever.

maybe headphone users might have separate amps and headphones for various sources and types of music. would not be my approach but i could see it.

Here. Here.
Optimally I would prefer that my system be the "master" of all sources. Both hardware and software. As your system exemplifies that is an expensive and exhaustive proposition.
Some of us have to settle on a system that is a "jack' of all and "master "of one.
I have multiple headphone setups. (Partly because I am just an audio hoarder). One is so I can go mobile. The other two allow me to compare tube and solid state.

 

[jeff1225]

I set up a simple streaming system for parties and to find new music. I’m surprised by how much I’m listening to it, emotionally engaging and a lot of fun.

Qoboz + BlueNode Streamer + Schitt Yiggy LIM

 

[bryans]

I set up a simple streaming system for parties and to find new music. I’m surprised by how much I’m listening to it, emotionally engaging and a lot of fun.

Qoboz + BlueNode Streamer + Schitt Yiggy LIM

To me this is what I call enjoyment!

 

[the sound of Tao]

i see it differently, that if a system promotes all types of music, and scales of music, then it should be format agnostic. if the presentation of your digital differs radically from your analog then something somewhere is 'off'. i suppose it's possible that your speakers or signal path for digital to be optimized, verses your analog, just happens to work out that way. but that would be an outlier situation. normal would be all the sources would be chosen for your personal tastes.

i can see a lifestyle aspect that might matter, if you have a desire to have a more multi-tasking spot, maybe more family inclusive, where you are switching from one focus to another constantly maybe that is your streaming spot, and your analog spot is more isolated and focused on music only. you still want high quality music in that communal spot, but more simple/flexible use gear.

but streaming/files/digital can fully benefit from the best system possible and will and should deliver. music should be music wherever.

maybe headphone users might have separate amps and headphones for various sources and types of music. would not be my approach but i could see it.

Definitely setting up two zones is about creating two different experiences and you’re right theres one that is less focused and a share space and the music in it is more about supporting the movements and moments of everyday life and personal relationships rather than listening being the primary focus of that space.

Also my preference for larger horns with SET does create some challenge about one system always doing it all… Ked is right, some horns can do the spectrum (rock jazz, rnb, classical, electronic dance) but as an example looking at a smaller OB with less drivers versus a larger wall of OB with a few more 15inch woofers we can niche that out a bit and get even more specialised for scale. But definitely choice of gear can also be about whether we can or want it all to multipurpose or rather work within constraints to make it to deliver a bit stronger in certain genres if then also a bit more genre specific… for me a choice of two way OB horn doesn’t come without some set boundaries to work within.

There’s probably a few other reasons why I aim for more specific functionality… most immediately there’s a potential for cost efficiencies that suit my realities by going one source within a system. While I get that it’s possible to make a system that is complex and multi sourced and does it all but at the level you play at Mike it’s not an inexpensive proposition to optimise it all and then provide all the libraries of various formats of music to feed it. I think it’s awesome you have that. But my approach is just a function of the context of my life.

Then there’s also two ways at looking at the bigger picture dynamic we can set up when we have multiple competing sources within one system. Sure competition drives continuous improvement but also drives continuous investment. Improve the vinyl drives to improve the digital drives to improve the tape… its a cycle and buying one successful tweak can drive that tweak expenditure through all the sources.

There’s not too many universally optimal systems but you have shown it is possible but comes at cost. If I could afford at this stage to get an analogue system again set up as my other one I’d be at it for sure. I love gear almost as much as I love the music.

 

[stnsw]

Okay, I think I have gathered from this that no one thinks the quality of the internet matters in streaming music from the internet versus streaming the same files in your own system? Just to clarify.

The signal path here for streaming from internet is satellite modem to router to network switch to Nucleus which sends files to HQPlayer on Aqua LinQ, or Nucleus sending files from SSD to HQPlayer on Aqua LinQ for purchased files.

The purchased, downloaded files sound better. I understand from the video that begins this that streaming may not sound as good from the source, though others dispute this. An also take your point that something better than the Nucleus might sound better, though it isn't supposed to be fiddling with the sound. However streaming sounds better or worse from one time to another, which seems to implicate the network the files are coming in from.

As for source of files, I've listened to Tidal compared to Qobuz. It does not sound better. Then too Tidal does not give you booklets, makes searching ( at least classical music) catalogue harder, has less high res music, does not give you a membership that allows discounted purchases, and pays artists less than Qobuz. All up I'd place Qobuz first, Spotify second (ease of search, surprisingly good sound), Tidal third.

 

[Gregadd]

Okay, I think I have gathered from this that no one thinks the quality of the internet matters in streaming music from the internet versus streaming the same files in your own system? Just to clarify.

The signal path here for streaming from internet is satellite modem to router to network switch to Nucleus which sends files to HQPlayer on Aqua LinQ, or Nucleus sending files from SSD to HQPlayer on Aqua LinQ for purchased files.

The purchased, downloaded files sound better. I understand from the video that begins this that streaming may not sound as good from the source, though others dispute this. An also take your point that something better than the Nucleus might sound better, though it isn't supposed to be fiddling with the sound. However streaming sounds better or worse from one time to another, which seems to implicate the network the files are coming in from.

As for source of files, I've listened to Tidal compared to Qobuz. It does not sound better. Then too Tidal does not give you booklets, makes searching ( at least classical music) catalogue harder, has less high res music, does not give you a membership that allows discounted purchases, and pays artists less than Qobuz. All up I'd place Qobuz first, Spotify second (ease of search, surprisingly good sound), Tidal third. ]Emphasis supplied]

I am glad this is not a popularity contest. See video in this thread.

 

[rando]

Okay, I think I have gathered from this that no one thinks the quality of the internet matters in streaming music from the internet versus streaming the same files in your own system?

@oldmustang might be willing to address this to some degree if asked correctly. He went from the modern equivalent of dial up to Starlink internet with I believe a phenomenal set of equipment (his head) to gauge the full sweep of technological leaps made therein.

The closest we probably came to handling your assertion in here was touching on system videos and other YT uploads of interest for their audio quality.

 

[Gregadd]

I am glad this is not a popularity contest. See video in this thread. Yes, I would place Spotify second and leave Qobuz unranked.

 

[oldmustang]

@oldmustang might be willing to address this to some degree if asked correctly. He went from the modern equivalent of dial up to Starlink internet with I believe a phenomenal set of equipment (his head) to gauge the full sweep of technological leaps made therein.

The closest we probably came to handling your assertion in here was touching on system videos and other YT uploads of interest for their audio quality.

Rando mentioned my name? And here I was napping. . .

I hear an improvement in sound quality when streaming music via Starlink provided internet versus the CenturyLink DSL I had been living with for about five years.

However I can't say that the improvement is due to faster download speeds with Starlink (they definitely are much faster than the slow DSL), due to somehow "cleaner" low-noise internet, or due to differences in hardware quality -- though to be fair to Starlink, I was running my CenturyLink DSL modem/router from an Uptone Audio JS-2 linear power supply while Starlink is using their stock built-in power supplies for the router and mesh access points, so the hardware or at least power advantage should have favored the CenturyLink.

So there you have my anecdotal experience.

Hope this helps,

Steve Z

 

[oldmustang]

Rando mentioned my name? And here I was napping. . .

I hear an improvement in sound quality when streaming music via Starlink provided internet versus the CenturyLink DSL I had been living with for about five years.

However I can't say that the improvement is due to faster download speeds with Starlink (they definitely are much faster than the slow DSL), due to somehow "cleaner" low-noise internet, or due to differences in hardware quality -- though to be fair to Starlink, I was running my CenturyLink DSL modem/router from an Uptone Audio JS-2 linear power supply while Starlink is using their stock built-in power supplies for the router and mesh access points, so the hardware or at least power advantage should have favored the CenturyLink.

So there you have my anecdotal experience.

Hope this helps,

Steve Z

I guess to fully participate in the question about streaming vs local file playback sound quality I should add that prior to using a Taiko Extreme server I favored playback of local files (.wav, .dsf or .aif) over streaming. Now however I find differences between streaming and local file playback in terms of medium to be so small as to be insignificant (to me).

You might note I didn't include .flac files in my list of local files. I hear a meaningful difference between .flac and the uncompressed formats available. Since storage is cheap and getting cheaper, I opt to go with what sounds better to me.

Steve Z

 

[stnsw]

Thank you. My question is fully answered.
Sorry I mentioned the streaming platforms--it had come up in preceding posts as changing quality, but not pertinent to my question
Susan

 

[rando]

Rando mentioned my name? And here I was napping. . .

I did, and thank you for replying along the lines mentioned.

I hear an improvement in sound quality when streaming music via Starlink provided internet versus the CenturyLink DSL I had been living with for about five years.

However I can't say that the improvement is due to faster download speeds with Starlink (they definitely are much faster than the slow DSL), due to somehow "cleaner" low-noise internet, or due to differences in hardware quality -- though to be fair to Starlink, I was running my CenturyLink DSL modem/router from an Uptone Audio JS-2 linear power supply while Starlink is using their stock built-in power supplies for the router and mesh access points, so the hardware or at least power advantage should have favored the CenturyLink.

So there you have my anecdotal experience.

Hope this helps,

Steve Z

For some very obvious reasons we never explored in here why this might exist beyond the depths you touched upon. There was scattered evidence of considering quality of internet connection in this thread that could've been mined for a response. Yours was such a stark change I felt it might allow direct focus.

I'm glad you also saw fit to anecdotally suggest high end streaming is not solely dependent on linear psu or a closet full of stacked switches, etc.

 

[oldmustang]

I did, and thank you for replying along the lines mentioned.



For some very obvious reasons we never explored in here why this might exist beyond the depths you touched upon. There was scattered evidence of considering quality of internet connection in this thread that could've been mined for a response. Yours was such a stark change I felt it might allow direct focus.

I'm glad you also saw fit to anecdotally suggest high end streaming is not solely dependent on linear psu or a closet full of stacked switches, etc.

I'm glad my posts are useful. One person's experience but I am serious, within my means, about trying to get the best sound quality I can as I love music so much.

My experience with switches, stacked switches, FMCs and fiber and selecting SFPs for sound quality, as well as heroic vibration control measures for my home networking equipment has been variable. I can hear differences but on the whole not enough to make me continue investing money in such things and indeed, I have gone back to good quality UTP CAT6 copper ethernet cable between Starlink router and (cheap Netgear 108E) switch, and between Starlink wifi access point and Extreme server and I enjoy the sound quality.

Steve Z

 

[Amir]

Off-topic but useful article from Lynn Olson about real resolution of digital :

dac

dsd