Good question. I hadn't really thought about it like that. I guess I would have to compare a bunch of transports versus streamers to verify. But assuming it is true, then it is reassembling, cashing, and cleaning of the internet input and the tuner that allows connection to streaming services and control of what is playing (the app).
bits is bits
Being a retired IT tech, Iʻm a "bits is bits" guy. I keep seeing people rank different streaming services against each other and I have to say, Iʻm mystified. Modern recordings are all digital masters and remastered. If two different hi-res streaming services, say Qobuz and Tidal, have the same track available, why would one sound different from the other, let alone better?
The stream is being fed over TCP/IP from the source, and I see no reason that it you were to do a cksum on the same file/track being delivered by either streaming service, that they would exactly match. So why do people claim better sound from one streaming source over the other. Iʻm assuming they are both full resolution sources, not mp3.
- ...
- 109 posts total
thanks @ghdprentice I know I simplified the steps a bit (a lot) |
Well, yes, at the 50,000 ft level they are both digital sources that do the same job. However they’re technically very different; a CD transport consists of an actual CD transport (I know, confusing), of which there are only very few manufacturers, such as Sony, Philips or TEAC. TEAC transports are found in Esoteric products because Esoteric is a brand of TEAC. A Russian guy maintains a database of which CD players use which transports, you can look it up. In contrast, most streamers are low-powered computers (usually ARM Cortex CPUs, same as the newest Raspberry Pi) running some cobbled-together version of Linux and a proprietary app layer. I’ll leave it at that. As far as cost, top-shelf transports aren’t much cheaper than their streamer equivalents. Look up the aforementioned Esoteric transports, and Accuphase too. The big difference is that CD transports are a stagnant technology at best, whereas streamers are all the rage so most of the debate takes place around the latter. The commonly held audiophile credo is that streamers are the bee’s knees whereas PCs are despicable garbage, which is ignorant nonsense since they’re one and the same thing (assuming of course we're talking about a custom build optimized for audio duties, as opposed to a feeble macbook). There’s a whole lot more to it, but I’ll leave it at that for now :)
|
@devinplombier sounds like you just started. I’d be eager to learn more. You have a great way of conveying it. And I am sorry to be so ignorant about streaming, if that helps, I am fluent on the IT side. Also, I took apart a few CD players to fix them, and they did look very similar/swappable. Another ignorant question: if CD is lossless, then who cares if there is another technology that can come close or as good? Other than access to more music. |
Redbook CD resolution is 16 bit 44.1khz Streaming offers 24 bit 192khz Does higher resolution streaming sound as good as CD or better? That depends on the components you’re running this comparison on. This is where a cheap cd transport i.e. audiolab or cambridge, will beat equally priced streamer feeding the same DAC if you want high quality digital front end it will cost accordingly be it a cd transport or a streamer
|
- 109 posts total