George - I agree with you on some things you mention here, but you're confusing file compression with music compression and they are two very different things. (Both have their place with music - but they're very different.)
File compression allows you to zip a file to reduce it's size, or in music terms, it allows you to convert a raw 44/16 (or other - default CD quality) file to a smaller file by eliminating "unneeded" portions of a song. A standard CD will play at something like 1024 - vs. an MP3 file at 128kb/s. The Bruce Springsteen album you reference from Qobuz is their hi-res 192/24 format - or roughly 4x the bandwidth the original would have used. (They're actually taking up far more bandwidth/ sending far more data for - what I agree with you - is a far poorer sounding mix.)
Music compression on the other hand deals with the difference between the very loudest part of a song - to the most quiet in terms of DB level. That's the dynamic range - and what the website you cite, is talking about. It's a complaint about how modern music / sound engineers mix music that far less dynamic range - in terms of loud to soft - today than in the past.
And, there are arguments for both. Is it what the artist originally intended? For older music, absolutely not! They meant for you to "lean in" and listen closer to the soft part of the music or vocals. But with kids 40 and younger today, with earbuds, and headphones, and car stereo systems, and Alexa speakers being used, it makes sense to form a better - more compressed, volume level so that you're not blowing out the ears of people or having to crank the volume up to hear the soft parts of a song, only to then have your ears blown out with the next song.
I also can't speak to "clocks" in music - I have no idea - but with respect to data - bit perfect, data - I am a senior systems engineer and trust me when I say this, with even a poor network system today, bit perfect data can be delivered with ease. No matter the cables being used, or whatever linier power supply you think might be the weak part of the chain, it's absurd to suggest that digital anything will deliver "noise" to your system short of some kind of ground loop or malfunctioning equipment. CD transports costing 2k, or 5k, or 20k - I'm sorry to say this - but without an internal dac being used, will have zero affect on the sound. A $20, cheap sony CD player, is more than capable of delivering bit perfect data to your external DAC. (Now, if you're dac is internal to your transport - that certainly can make a difference.... but if you're using a strict transport, I can prove over and over and over again - it is absolute bit perfect data that is being exported to your dac no matter what device is used and will make zero difference to the music.)
So to the original OP - my guess is that it was a difference in configuration or a setting that might have been off - certainly the dac WILL have an impact on the sound, so I'd recommend connecting a digital out on your transport, checking your settings to ensure you're streaming the same thing, and then re-doing the test. Because coming through the same DAC should be identical sound (WITH the caveat that George points out too - provided they're the exact same mix/ release of the album.)
And again - to be totally clear with you George, I see and understand, and even agree with your point. Compressed Dynamic Range of music - yeah - it does suck when I'm trying to get that "audiophile" experience at home on my system. But in the car, or waiting for an uber, or jogging, it's nice to have that volume compression so my ears don't blow out between songs or between parts of songs.
Wrapping all of this up - as a 40 year old, I have had the honor to live through the most dynamic changes ever witnessed for music (Short of when people had to attend live venues to ever hear music and instead, could listen at their home.) I had tapes in the car, and vinyl/ radio at home, and then CD's for both, and lived through sharing music on Napster, to what has flourished into bit perfect, steaming, uncompressed audio. And, we are at, what I think might be the last stage of music, but absolute, perfect surround music with Apple and Tidal introducing Atmos music. (it's game changing with the right setup and a well mastered mix.) So many audiophiles experienced that transition when music went from mono to stereo - and my generation is now experiencing that same change with surround. And, mixers today, despite having compressed volume, are getting there - we have settled on a great digital form, a standard, that hasn't existed for decades.
File compression allows you to zip a file to reduce it's size, or in music terms, it allows you to convert a raw 44/16 (or other - default CD quality) file to a smaller file by eliminating "unneeded" portions of a song. A standard CD will play at something like 1024 - vs. an MP3 file at 128kb/s. The Bruce Springsteen album you reference from Qobuz is their hi-res 192/24 format - or roughly 4x the bandwidth the original would have used. (They're actually taking up far more bandwidth/ sending far more data for - what I agree with you - is a far poorer sounding mix.)
Music compression on the other hand deals with the difference between the very loudest part of a song - to the most quiet in terms of DB level. That's the dynamic range - and what the website you cite, is talking about. It's a complaint about how modern music / sound engineers mix music that far less dynamic range - in terms of loud to soft - today than in the past.
And, there are arguments for both. Is it what the artist originally intended? For older music, absolutely not! They meant for you to "lean in" and listen closer to the soft part of the music or vocals. But with kids 40 and younger today, with earbuds, and headphones, and car stereo systems, and Alexa speakers being used, it makes sense to form a better - more compressed, volume level so that you're not blowing out the ears of people or having to crank the volume up to hear the soft parts of a song, only to then have your ears blown out with the next song.
I also can't speak to "clocks" in music - I have no idea - but with respect to data - bit perfect, data - I am a senior systems engineer and trust me when I say this, with even a poor network system today, bit perfect data can be delivered with ease. No matter the cables being used, or whatever linier power supply you think might be the weak part of the chain, it's absurd to suggest that digital anything will deliver "noise" to your system short of some kind of ground loop or malfunctioning equipment. CD transports costing 2k, or 5k, or 20k - I'm sorry to say this - but without an internal dac being used, will have zero affect on the sound. A $20, cheap sony CD player, is more than capable of delivering bit perfect data to your external DAC. (Now, if you're dac is internal to your transport - that certainly can make a difference.... but if you're using a strict transport, I can prove over and over and over again - it is absolute bit perfect data that is being exported to your dac no matter what device is used and will make zero difference to the music.)
So to the original OP - my guess is that it was a difference in configuration or a setting that might have been off - certainly the dac WILL have an impact on the sound, so I'd recommend connecting a digital out on your transport, checking your settings to ensure you're streaming the same thing, and then re-doing the test. Because coming through the same DAC should be identical sound (WITH the caveat that George points out too - provided they're the exact same mix/ release of the album.)
And again - to be totally clear with you George, I see and understand, and even agree with your point. Compressed Dynamic Range of music - yeah - it does suck when I'm trying to get that "audiophile" experience at home on my system. But in the car, or waiting for an uber, or jogging, it's nice to have that volume compression so my ears don't blow out between songs or between parts of songs.
Wrapping all of this up - as a 40 year old, I have had the honor to live through the most dynamic changes ever witnessed for music (Short of when people had to attend live venues to ever hear music and instead, could listen at their home.) I had tapes in the car, and vinyl/ radio at home, and then CD's for both, and lived through sharing music on Napster, to what has flourished into bit perfect, steaming, uncompressed audio. And, we are at, what I think might be the last stage of music, but absolute, perfect surround music with Apple and Tidal introducing Atmos music. (it's game changing with the right setup and a well mastered mix.) So many audiophiles experienced that transition when music went from mono to stereo - and my generation is now experiencing that same change with surround. And, mixers today, despite having compressed volume, are getting there - we have settled on a great digital form, a standard, that hasn't existed for decades.