2. digital
  3. 166623-94555

CD v Streamed



Uncompressed CD audio will take about 10.6mb per minute to play, to stream that takes big space and dollars to stream an album, see what your streaming company’s takes mb per minute to stream, find out and post up here.

I hear CD’s are better, I get better dynamic range from CD every time it’s A/B to me, now that could be that the streaming companies are using the "later compressed re-issues" of the same albums, you can find that out here https://dr.loudness-war.info/
Or that the streaming process itself compresses the music to save "streaming size" to save big dollars even if in small amounts.

Here’s a video from the CEO of Disc Makers Pty Ltd, yes he probably also biased because he manufacturers CD’s and vinyl, and is a very bad dancer.
https://youtu.be/YHMCTUl2FQo?t=1

Cheers George
128x128georgehifi
audiom3
137 posts
 
@georgehifi it's disappointing because the potential was there. Kind of like Sat Radio. Such a great concept but a complete failure in execution. I was all set to pay for a year of Qobuz after my 30 day trial but now I really need to weigh all options. Or maybe just pay for ROON and rip the rest of my CDs and LPS to a NAS.
jafant
18,802 posts
 
Another +vote for CD is Better.

Happy Listening!
in_shore's avatar
in_shore
596 posts
 
Good topic George,  I’m with ya ,..
antigrunge2
1,331 posts
 
I can‘t get either my audioaero capitole mk2 nor CDs ripped to my Innuos Zenith Mk3 to be anywhere near as good as the Qobus stream via Innuos. Not sure what you are all on about. I will though admit to having had to spend an inordinate amount of time on getting my router/ethernet/USB sorted, so therein may well lie the answer.
audiom3
137 posts
 
@antigrunge2 I tried everything with Qobuz. I run a full Sonore opticalRendu setup with upgraded Sonore LPSs (using Roon) to a PS Audio DS DAC and then out to my Ayre KX/VX-5 Twenty combo (to Focus SE speakers). I found almost everything on Qobuz moderately to severely compressed. I know it's not my gear because my local wav and dsf files sound stunning using the exact same pathway.

I signed up for Tidal yesterday and even though most songs that I tested were 16/44.1, there was significantly less compression. Most songs had none but then some definitely had compression applied.. I mention this because almost everyone who's tried both services seems to prefer Qobuz. I don't get it. But it's easy to test. Play a few songs on Qobuz then switch over to Tidal. You'll have to turn up the volume quite a bit to match levels. I'm not claiming Qobuz is applying the compression but they're using some horrid remasters if not. Then again, I say this on faith as I have no way to know what the heck is going on. But if both streaming companies aren't molesting their streams, why and how can they sound differently? Qobuz has much more bass, more body with less treble extension. Tidal sounds more neutral in my setup. Meaning, less bass and mids and sweeter,  more extended highs. Some may think this is somewhat clinical and maybe that's why they prefer Qobuz. I don't know. But Tidal is worlds better in my setup. It sounds much closer to my ripped files than Qobuz. Seems unlikely that they're using different masters but you never know..  More listening/testing needed this weekend to confirm what I've heard thus far from Tidal.
More to discover