Sharing Top Notch, Reference Music Links.....

[steve]

Dan came over and we found this selection, Handel's Messiah from Sidney Opera House.
Voices, ambience are wonderful. I can see this testing one's system.
For those interested Hallelujah at 1:54:51

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR0cEOTpYSk

Another one to compare quality and sonic differences, from Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
Just Hallelujah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akb0kD7EHIk

Cheers

steve

[steve]

I lost the link to this selection but just found it tonight. An incredible, spacious, natural recording.
And she can sing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66-A2MyVDbU

cheers

steve

[steve]

I started this string to check one's stereo system. Last night, I was at audiophile/music lover Dan's house
and we compared Roon, Tidal, QObuz using the exact same selections.

Did we hear a difference between these three? Does a rabbit have ears?

But, but, but bits is bits. Yeah, right.

I have "voiced" my system using Tidal since it seems closest to redbook and Youtube premium
in terms of tonal balance (although youtube is lesser musical quality).

Does anyone else perceive a difference? If so, what difference?

cheers

steve

[Nick B]

I started this string to check one's stereo system. Last night, I was at audiophile/music lover Dan's house
and we compared Roon, Tidal, QObuz using the exact same selections.

Did we hear a difference between these three sources? Does a rabbit have ears?

But, but, but bits is bits. Yeah, right.

I have "voiced" my system using Tidal since it seems closest to redbook and Youtube premium
in terms of tonal balance (although youtube is lesser musical quality).

Does anyone else perceive a difference? If so, what difference?

cheers

steve

In very general terms, Qobuz sounds a bit better for me. But since some of the old recordings are just available on one or the other, I’ll take what I can get. Also, it’s not clear to me sometimes if the CDs are exactly the same on both Tidal and Qobuz.

Of course, bits is bits, cables is cables, zip cord is great etc etc 😳

[GDHAL]

Hi folks. Apparently we have more than one thread on this forum essentially addressing the same (streaming portion only) question.

Time for me to stir the proverbial pot just a bit.

I posted in another thread "I do not stream, therefore, I have no personal experience comparing the services you mention.

However, from what little I've read and heard from audio club members, Quboz seems to be preferred. I don't know if that's because of audio quality, overall value or both."

What I didn't post, but will do so now, is that, truth be told - or at a minimum in my opinion - streaming of any kind *is inferior* (sonically and reliably) to having and subsequently playing the "same" file locally.

Best.

Hal

[Nick B]

Hi folks. Apparently we have more than one thread on this forum essentially addressing the same (streaming portion only) question.

Time for me to stir the proverbial pot just a bit.

I posted in another thread "I do not stream, therefore, I have no personal experience comparing the services you mention.

However, from what little I've read and heard from audio club members, Quboz seems to be preferred. I don't know if that's because of audio quality, overall value or both."

What I didn't post, but will do so now, is that, truth be told - or at a minimum in my opinion - streaming of any kind *is inferior* to having and subsequently playing the "same" file locally.

Best.

Hal

Feel free to stir the pot at any time. Different opinions are welcome and fun imo. I won’t disagree with you one bit on streaming likely being inferior, because a number of guys who’s ears I trust very much have said the same thing. But here’s the deal… when streaming, I have a selection of a virtually endless stream of artists, albums, and tracks. My pocketbook does not allow for the purchase of that incredible volume of music. I am also trying to get rid of physical media. I’ve already sold my vinyl equipment and donated and sold as many of my albums as possible. I am going to try and do the same thing with my CD collection of 500 or so. For me, nowadays, less is more and simple is better….

[GDHAL]

Thank you, Nick.

And yes, there are some advantages to streaming, relative to playing locally, depending on ones listening habits, preferences, etc.

Sure, physical space of retaining CDs, vinyl, or in my case, external hard drives is disadvantages. I really feel for those with large reel-to-reel collections. 30 minutes of music on media the size of a frisbee, albeit supposedly the crem dela crem of audio.

And, as you state, the catalog of music in terms of what's available is rather large where streaming is concerned.

I suppose in an ideal scenario, one could strive to have multiple options (streaming and playing local, analog, digital, etc.)

Best.

Hal

[Nick B]

Thank you, Nick.

And yes, there are some advantages to streaming, relative to playing locally, depending on ones listening habits, preferences, etc.

Sure, physical space of retaining CDs, vinyl, or in my case, external hard drives is disadvantages. I really feel for those with large reel-to-reel collections. 30 minutes of music on media the size of a frisbee, albeit supposedly the crem dela crem of audio.

And, as you state, the catalog of music in terms of what's available is rather large where streaming is concerned.

I suppose in an ideal scenario, one could strive to have multiple options (streaming and playing local, analog, digital, etc.)

Best.

Hal

Hi Hal,

Have you ever tried any streaming setup on a trial or had a bit of exposure via an audio friend?

Nick

[GDHAL]

Hi Nick.

I have never tried any kind of streaming on a trial. Never tried any kind of streaming at all in my system.

As far as exposure to streaming, if you include other systems owned by audio club members and audio shows, I've listened to at least two dozen different systems that utilize streaming. Within that, I cannot be absolutely certain which streaming service the particular system was using, but I *think* (based on conversations alone) that Quboz would have been the predominant service used.

Best.

Hal

EDIT: I'll add that without exception, where these systems I've heard had an alternative source (some did not, only streaming) such as a CD player, an analog rig, or the ability to play the digital file directly from the streamer, that always sounded better, and in most cases the difference was obvious. (i.e. not something subtle that one had to struggle to hear a difference). Streaming has limitations of 24/96 and in addition to that limitation (which I'll admit is not a big one because 24/96 is rather a gold standard in digital, despite higher resolutions being available) the paramount limitation IMO boils down to compression and the extra artifacts (noise, many other hardware devices in the chain, etc) that streaming entails. If any wireless transmission is part of the streaming, then it gets even worse.

[Nick B]

Hi Nick.

I have never tried any kind of streaming on a trial. Never tried any kind of streaming at all in my system.

As far as exposure to streaming, if you include other systems owned by audio club members and audio shows, I've listened to at least two dozen different systems that utilize streaming. Within that, I cannot be absolutely certain which streaming service the particular system was using, but I *think* (based on conversations alone) that Quboz would have been the predominant service used.

Best.

Hal

EDIT: I'll add that without exception, where these systems I've heard had an alternative source (some did not, only streaming) such as a CD player, an analog rig, or the ability to play the digital file directly from the streamer, that always sounded better, and in most cases the difference was obvious. (i.e. not something subtle that one had to struggle to hear a difference). Streaming has limitations of 24/96 and in addition to that limitation (which I'll admit is not a big one because 24/96 is rather a gold standard in digital, despite higher resolutions being available) the paramount limitation IMO boils down to compression and the extra artifacts (noise, many other hardware devices in the chain, etc) that streaming entails. If any wireless transmission is part of the streaming, then it gets even worse.

Thanks, Hal. I appreciate getting your perspective on this.

Nick

[GDHAL]

You're welcome, Nick.

For your reference:
https://www.audionervosa.com/index.php?topic=8579.0

 

[steve]

Hi Gents,

I checked out search results concerning streaming services. Tidal is the only one that does hi rez, 
up to 9216kbps at 24 bits. That is more than 6 times possible rate of any other streamer.
So far, differing opinions.

Looking forward to more responses.

cheers
steve

[GDHAL]

Hi Gents,

I checked out search results concerning streaming services. Tidal is the only one that does hi rez, 
up to 9216kbps at 24 bits. That is more than 6 times possible rate of any other streamer.
So far, differing opinions.

Looking forward to more responses.

cheers
steve

Hi Steve. That is simply not true. In fact I was wrong too thinking Quboz did up to 24/96. Looks/reads like Quboz can go 24/192. I base that on their subscription plans. Unless they are false advertising, which I sincerely doubt.

https://www.qobuz.com/us-en/music/streaming/offers

Best

Hal

EDIT: I do read what you're referring to
https://tidal.com/pricing

To late for me to check now, but 9216kbs ***PCM*** is simply not possible. That rez must be referring to a different and probably lossy format, or is a misprint.

EDIT 2: Steve, Tidal is referring to the "bitrate", not the "sample rate". They are completely different things.

Here are the (succinct) definitions of "sample rate", "bit depth" and "bit rate". It's all fruit, but apples, oranges and coconut. Not apples to apples.

The rate of capture and playback is called the sample rate. The sample size—more accurately, the number of bits used to describe each sample—is called the bit depth or word length. The number of bits transmitted per second is the bit rate.

[steve]

Hi Gents,

I checked out search results concerning streaming services. Tidal is the only one that does hi rez, 
up to 9216kbps at 24 bits. That is more than 6 times possible rate of any other streamer.
So far, differing opinions.

Looking forward to more responses.

cheers
steve

Hi Steve. That is simply not true. In fact I was wrong too thinking Quboz did up to 24/96. Looks/reads like Quboz can go 24/192. I base that on their subscription plans. Unless they are false advertising, which I sincerely doubt.

https://www.qobuz.com/us-en/music/streaming/offers

Best

Hal

EDIT: I do read what you're referring to
https://tidal.com/pricing

To late for me to check now, but 9216kbs ***PCM*** is simply not possible. That rez must be referring to a different and probably lossy format, or is a misprint.

EDIT 2: Steve, Tidal is referring to the "bitrate", not the "sample rate". They are completely different things.

Here are the (succinct) definitions of "sample rate", "bit depth" and "bit rate". It's all fruit, but apples, oranges and coconut. Not apples to apples.

The rate of capture and playback is called the sample rate. The sample size—more accurately, the number of bits used to describe each sample—is called the bit depth or word length. The number of bits transmitted per second is the bit rate.

I understand the definitions Hal. Yes, the link below refers to bit rate. According to the link, the bit rate is
some 6 times that of any other service. 24/192 is for all the services except the lesser ones like YT etc.

https://theauris.com/blogs/blog/top-8-music-streaming-services-with-high-quality-audio#:~:text=Top%208%20Music%20Streaming%20Services%20With%20High%20Quality,which%20makes%20it%20stand%20out%20from%20competitors.%20

"If you’re looking for a music streaming service with the best quality sound, then Tidal is by far the best option. Tidal’s streaming platform is focused on sound quality, bringing users a lossless audio experience that is unlike any other streaming service.

"It comes with a standard option that is the best compromise between data usage and sound fidelity. But if you have a faster wifi connection, you can upgrade to a master package that gives unbroken sound quality with the highest possible resolution over streaming. The hi-res package streams up 9216kbps at 24 bits.

"Tidal can accomplish this by using a breakthrough audio codec called Master Quality Authenticated (MQA)."

If I remember correctly, redbook is ~1.411kbs bit rate, which some others accomplish.

Tidal is listed as no 1 for audio quality, although on stereo Dan's system, QObuz sounded better, esp in the highs.
However, Dan's speakers use a notch filter in the upper midrange which could affect the highs. It will depend upon
the frequency band of the notch filter.

cheers

steve

[GDHAL]

Steve, I have no vesting in streaming because I don't use it.
If the information stated in the following link is true, bye-bye Tidal (and your assertion).

https://goldensound.audio/2021/11/29/tidal-hifi-is-not-lossless/

Best.

Hal