2. digital
  3. 160137-108624

Streaming for beginner

I have a PS Audio front end-- DMP disc player and DirectSteam DAC. Very happy with the resolution and performance, especially from my redbook cd collection. For those familiar with the DSD, it is upgradable via a network bridge card to become a dedicated streamer. When I bought this DAC, I was looking ahead to an eventual migration to streaming.
I also have a Spotify account, that currently only serves me as a companion to my iPhone during walks and exercise.

My question: assume my goal is to stream for convenience, simplicity, and achieve audio quality that equals or surpasses that of redbook cd’s. I am not looking to purchase music or download it for storage. What am I missing? I also have a dedicated iPad that can serve as the interface to the DAC/Streamer. Spotify also claims that streaming in high resolution is available on my account. Do I need anything else? Am I oversimplifying this?

I am a beginner when it comes to streaming, so please answer in simple terms since I will not be familiar with a lot of the services and components mentioned elsewhere in these forums. In fact, confusing enough for me that it is forcing me to ask here.


mbiondo

Showing 4 responses by vtvmtodvm

vtvmtodvm
66 posts
 
mbiondo—
Re. sound quality, current redbook CD is as good as it gets; refer https://classicalcandor.blogspot.com/2020/01/on-cd-quality.html

Higher resolution programming sources are not going to provide any audible advantage, although the power of expectation bias can be very persuasive.
vtvmtodvm
66 posts
 
cleeds—Re. "Hi-Rez Audio Distinguished in Blind Testing": Any findings derived from an experiment involving 7 testers (average age 22) in a anechoic test chamber listening to test signals (not music) just doesn't convey much of material significance, at least not to me.

Today, it seems apparent that redbook resolution serves as an effective and sufficient means to preserve and recreate recorded music, and that higher rez alternatives convey no appreciable audible advantage. This conclusion does not exclude unique or unusual tests wherein some difference between redbook and higher rez might be perceived (e.g., 22 kids listening to test signals in a anechoic chamber), nor do those exceptions affect the validity of this general conclusion.
vtvmtodvm
66 posts
 
cleeds—Thanks for the reference. That's relatively new data; I hadn't seen it before. No time to review now, but will get to it soon.

Previous blind studies (all relatively old) had always indicated no statistically valid distinction between redbook and higher rez. And the general consensus is that redbook has only improved in the recent decade, as DACs have progressed. It may be (?) that rebook represents the point of perception, so that aural judgement is in a sort of "knife's edge" balance at that point.
vtvmtodvm
66 posts
 
cleeds—I'm not personally aware of any other evidence of controlled double-blind testing that indicates a statistically valid audible distinction between redbook and higher rez alternatives. That's why I was interested to see your reference, although disappointed with the result.

As previously noted, all prior evidence (from controlled blind testing) had always indicated no statistically valid distinction between redbook and higher rez. And the general consensus is that redbook has only improved in the recent decade, as DACs have progressed.

As for "appreciable", hey, that word isn't a subjective term. It simply implies obvious, or readily capable of being perceived; i.e., hi-rez presents no readily apparent (no "appreciable") advantage. That's what the available evidence indicates. Personal exceptions are inevitable; some might be valid, others might be the outcome preconceived bias.
More to discover