OK, audiophiles: Let's talk streaming

[cvanc]

Share your thoughts, speak of both the services and the hardware you use.

I've got Qobuz and absolutely love it, with an asterisk that the search functions could be a little more sophisticated and flexible. (But I'm spoiled by web sites like McMaster & Digi-Key which don't deal with music, but what robust flexible search functions they have.)

 

[jderimig]

Share your thoughts, speak of both the services and the hardware you use.

I've got Qobuz and absolutely love it, with an asterisk that the search functions could be a little more sophisticated and flexible. (But I'm spoiled by web sites like McMaster & Digi-Key which don't deal with music, but what robust flexible search functions they have.)

I also have Qobuz. Stream with Volumio using a RPi with Allo One SPDIF hat. DAC is a Denafrips Ares 2. Direct connected to power amp with passive (stepped attenuator). Love it.

 

[John Kemker]

Tried Qobuz. Was very disappointed in its reliability when using it while driving. Switched back to Tidal. Easier to use, has most of my music, and doesn't hiccup in the middle of music, just because.

 

[NateB]

I am usually driving or at work when I stream music, so it is bluetooth from my cell phone to my car or a pair of Galaxy earbuds at work. I like these ear buds because you can turn off active noise canceling and boost voices which allows to hear my radio when a call goes out. I just use You Tube Music to stream since the premium subscription gives you music and removes ads from videos.

I have an Arturia Minifuse interface which allows the guitar to go in to the computer with studio headphones or monitors out. It is an improvement over the stock computer speakers and adequate for my needs. Like I said in another thread, my ears have been killed from too many loud concerts and too much occupational exposure. I can no longer hear differences from high end gear.

 

[Donnager]

NVM

 

[ghostfather]

I use Volumio to stream both Tidal and sometimes Spotify. I've ripped my CD collection years ago to FLAC to use as a library.

As far as hardware, I've settled on Raspberry Pi 4 streamers with a good filtered power supply, and separate clocks on the audio hat. I have 3 of them in house, and can synchronize them (like Sonos), or play them separately. I use an Hifi Berry DAC2 HD hat with a Burr-Brown PCM1796 DAC in stereo mode, an Allo Boss2 with Cirrus Logic CS43198 DAC in stereo mode, and my pride and joy is an Orchard Audio with dual Burr-Brown PCM1794A DAC chips, each channel in mono mode.

The Orchard Audio streamer is in the living room with my Klipsch LaScala clones and monoblock amps, the Hifi Berry streamer powers an older Sony system in my wife's office, and the Allo Boss2 powers the TEAC amp and speakers in my (rocket) workshop.

Orchard Audio makes a better spec audio hat using AKM's latest AK4499EXEQ chip as DAC, with an AKM AK4191EQ ΔΣ Modulator for digital pre-processing. I may end up buying that and replacing one of my other streamers.

I haven't tried Roon or MoOde Audio streaming software, but both work fine with Raspberry Pi hardware

 

[ewomack]

I have yet to use a streaming service, so I'm not completely sure how they work, honestly. Instead, I still download MP3s and listen to them on an iPhone.

Whenever I've seen someone using a streaming service, they have tended to have it on a specific genre and randomized. Whatever comes next comes next. That kind of listening rarely appeals to me, so perhaps I've just avoided streaming because of that? I'm guessing one can use a streaming service in other ways, such as listening to an album in the "traditional" way, but I've never explored it.

How would some of you describe streaming services? Should I try them? Or, since I tend towards the "traditional" listening, should I just stay where I am?

 

[alexzogh]

Prefer the audio quality on Qobuz, but still some missing tracks in their collection. Prefer Tidal user interface, and the suggested tracks.

Really glad Tidal moved beyond proprietary MQA, as my DAC, a chord Hugo never supported it.

 

[ghostfather]

With Tidal and Spotify, you can listen to whole albums, and sometime playlists that others have put together, or start your own playlist. Or take a playlist from someone else as starting point, and throw out what you don't like, and add what you do like.
Some playlists are centered around an artist or band (best of compilations, for example), or just their live work. Some playlists are thematic, like "70's Rock Power Ballads" or "Background Jazz" or "Rock hits from 1977". I can also stream most radio stations or podcasts.

I stream everything, I don't have a tuner or CD player or record player. My CD collection and most of my vinyl records have been digitized years ago to my NAS, as a music library. That's how radio stations do it, they no longer have turntables or CD players or tape, everything is digitized to a disk server.

Your interface is important, though. I choose my music via Volumio as a web site on my Raspberry Pi based streamer, which I can operate from a laptop, telephone, or tablet. Other streamers may have other ways to operate them, some better or worse.

 

[John Kemker]

Prefer the audio quality on Qobuz, but still some missing tracks in their collection. Prefer Tidal user interface, and the suggested tracks.

Really glad Tidal moved beyond proprietary MQA, as my DAC, a chord Hugo never supported it.

Same here. I run a Schiit Modi for a DAC at the moment, and none of the Schiit DACs do anything other than plain-jane PCM.

 

[GlenP]

A streaming audiophile?

Is that not an oxymoron?

 

[tsmith1315]

A streaming audiophile?

Is that not an oxymoron?

Don’t shoot the messenger:

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/uptone-audio-etherregen-ethernet-switch/

 

[ghostfather]

A streaming audiophile?

Is that not an oxymoron?

Perhaps it once was, when most streaming services were using lossy formats, like MP3 or AAC, which throws away musical information to achieve small file size or low bandwidth streaming.
2024 is the age of "lossless" streaming. Lossless usually means at least CD quality (16-bit/44.1 kHz), often higher quality. Tidal, Deezer and Qobuz have been doing this for years. Tidal gives its HiFi subscribers the option of listening to Master Quality Authenticated (MQA) certified tracks (up to 24bit/96kHz), while Amazon Music HD gives its subscribers the ability to listen to “Ultra HD” (up to 24-bit/192kHz).
My entire music library of hundreds of CD's now reside in my NAS disk server as FLAC files, a compressed lossless format that takes up about half the space as the original PCM data stream from a CD. Compressed is not the same as lossy, it is an exact copy of the CD. I also stream my FLAC files to my audio systems.
Most audio reviews I read, the reviewers are using digital music on their laptop to stream through a high-end DAC, and into an amp or pre-amp, and on to the rest of the system. All recording, mixing, and mastering is digital anyway, so the highest quality for audiophiles are going to be digital sources.

So, yes, I am a streaming audiophile. Certainly a step up from CD's as far as quality and possibilities.

 

[FredA]

Lossless streaming = nothing lost in the stream = everything already thrown away before you get around to streaming junk.

 

[ghostfather]

Lossless streaming = nothing lost in the stream = everything already thrown away before you get around to streaming junk.

The term “lossless” was essentially created to to mean the opposite of “compressed” or “lossy,” which refers to digital music files that have had a lot of their details — specifically their high and low frequencies — stripped away in order to save space on your smartphone or computer.
So assume nothing is lost before streaming, the digital source is of high quality, at least the same as CD. Streaming is just streaming, and there are safeguards in the IP stack, the Ethernet protocols, or USB digital streams to insure no digital data is lost. So, yes, nothing is lost in the stream.
>> everything already thrown away before you get around to streaming junk.
that's lossy streaming, for example, an MP3.

 

[ghostfather]

If you have the equipment to experience spatial music, like movie soundtracks, Apple Music makes it possible to stream high quality Dolby Atmos tracks, for a more immersive experience.

 

[FredA]

I know what "lossless" means.
Also know sampling is SO misunderstood that things are indeed lost.
Just the moniker "perfect sounds forever" with 44kHz sampling underscores the lack of understanding and how, when left to marketing, words become meaningless.

 

[jderimig]

I have found in my Qobuz streaming the difference in SQ from redbook to 192khz/24bit is minute compared to the mastering disasters variability in the source material in libraries. I have often found the Redbook versions of albums on Qobuz frequently sound much better than the higher resolution versions.

 

[FredA]

I have often found the Redbook versions of albums on Qobuz frequently sound much better than the higher resolution versions.

I've found "follow-up" releases RARELY sound better then the original.
Somebody always wants to muck with the sounds and things go south.
Once sampled, no amount of up-sampling will do anything but break things.

 

[cvanc]

Let me start by making sure you all know about a spectacular web site: https://www.stevehoffman.tv/

Mr. Hoffman is an actual mastering engineer and this is where the recording studio / mastering / release history folks hang out. Be warned, for music lovers this place is a bottomless pit - in the good way.

Anyway a lot of releases called "remasters" were released during The Loudness Wars and they were NOT meant to please audiophiles, they were meant to be louder. This web site is a useful tool to sort out WHICH release, WHICH remaster, is the one to seek out. It can often be a pretty deep dive as so many titles have been remastered more than once by different people with different goals.

Have fun in there

 

[jderimig]

Also (you can learn a lot of Steve Hoffman forum site) the mastering for CD is usually different than the mastering for the original vinyl release if there was one. Mastering for vinyl was an artform because you had to manage the constraints of the allowable vinyl real estate and the cutting lathe. Many of the vinyl re-releases going on now are sourced from the Redbook master. Not the same.

If you have Qobuz and enjoy or can tolerate Elvis Costello, stream the Redbook version of Armed Forces and the 192khz version. The Redbook version blows away (sonically) the hi-rez version.

 

[John Kemker]

Let me start by making sure you all know about a spectacular web site: https://www.stevehoffman.tv/

Mr. Hoffman is an actual mastering engineer and this is where the recording studio / mastering / release history folks hang out. Be warned, for music lovers this place is a bottomless pit - in the good way.

Anyway a lot of releases called "remasters" were released during The Loudness Wars and they were NOT meant to please audiophiles, they were meant to be louder. This web site is a useful tool to sort out WHICH release, WHICH remaster, is the one to seek out. It can often be a pretty deep dive as so many titles have been remastered more than once by different people with different goals.

Have fun in there

A lot of Prog Rock has been remastered by Steve Wilson, of Porcupine Tree. Excellent remasters.

 

[cvanc]

It sure gets more complicated as you look deeper. For instance...

One of the reasons some early CDs were considered inferior to vinyl was the fact that some of the pre-correction needed to deal with the limitations of vinyl was baked into the 2 track master tape and not applied live as the cutting lathe was making the stamping master. Some early Motown CDs are just Godawful, but later versions also exist that are much improved.

And later on... well how many times has a popular Jethro Tull album been remastered by now? (Pick any big artist) Different eras, people, and goals depending a lot on the era. The Loudness Wars were all about reducing dynamic range for the car market, where this made some sense. But one of those remasters compared to the lowly original 16/44 Red Book head-to-head might well disappoint a fidelity nut.

I've found many examples of this on Qobuz, where it's easy to get every released version of a single song in a list. Just listen to the first few seconds of each one in turn, it's plain as day. The sound quality does NOT directly follow release date or bit depth or sample rate. You give a quick listen to them all and it's usually easy to tell subjectively which is actually the highest fi. And it might be the original Red Book version!

 

[cvanc]