Why buy high end streaming equipment?

Innocent Bystander posted:

French Rooster posted:

 

 

to have better sound quality with a streaming/ dac / nas combo vs your esoteric ko3, you will need to spend a minimum 6 or 7 k GBP on something like naim ndx/ xps2, lumin s1, melco/ chord hugo. With an nds/555dr/ nas or linn klimax ds3 or melco / chord dave, you will have better sound quality than your esoteric k03.   But we are not talking about naim muso / kitchen sound..... these dacs are connected to your main hifi equipment ( your preamp) and to ethernet too.  So, with high end streaming ( from music stocked on a nas, not directly from tidal or qobuz) , you can have better convenience and better sound quality.

Actually it's a bit cheaper: Melco/Hugo is under £4k, ditto Naim Uniti CoreHugo . And of course there are cheaper renderer options, but that is where it starts to get fiddly. (This is not knocking your post, just expanding it a bit)

yes you are right, i was giving very approximate prices.....melco/ hugo is the cheapest of my examples....under 4k , you must be right.

Bob the Builder posted:

Streamed music will not match a very good vinyl or CD set up it just won't one day maybe but at present never. It is however much more convenient and much more accessible and fits in with the instant gratification style of modern living but if you are very serious about SQ it just does not stack up, at present.

streamed directly will not match cd replay, but it can be very close. But streamed locally from a nas can sound better than played on the best cd players....

ChrisSU posted:

Hmack posted:

Of course there is nothing to stop you from also subscribing to Tidal Premium or Qobuz. Then you will have the best of both worlds. Your existing CDs will be available from your NAS, and the need to purchase additional CDs or files will be mitigated by your subscription to your chosen Internet based streaming service.  

Just to be clear, Tidal Premium is a lossy 320 stream. Tidal HiFi is (usually, but not always) 16/44 CD quality. Most who have tried it on the ‘legacy’ Naim streamers have found that it still doesn’t match the sound quality of locally streamed CD rips into the same streamer. 

Chris,

Yes, you are correct. Apologies for my mistake.   

Tidal Hi-Fi is the service to which I subscribe and which I meant to reference in my recent posts. However, on my systems (admittedly not using legacy Naim streamers), the quality of much of the material available on Tidal is very nearly the equal of, and in some cases the equal of locally streamed CD rips of the same material on my NAS.  

Sorry for the confusion.

Hmack posted:

ChrisSU posted:

Hmack posted:

Of course there is nothing to stop you from also subscribing to Tidal Premium or Qobuz. Then you will have the best of both worlds. Your existing CDs will be available from your NAS, and the need to purchase additional CDs or files will be mitigated by your subscription to your chosen Internet based streaming service.  

Just to be clear, Tidal Premium is a lossy 320 stream. Tidal HiFi is (usually, but not always) 16/44 CD quality. Most who have tried it on the ‘legacy’ Naim streamers have found that it still doesn’t match the sound quality of locally streamed CD rips into the same streamer. 

Chris,

Yes, you are correct. Apologies for my mistake.   

Tidal Hi-Fi is the service to which I subscribe and which I meant to reference in my recent posts. However, on my systems (admittedly not using legacy Naim streamers), the quality of much of the material available on Tidal is very nearly the equal of, and in some cases the equal of locally streamed CD rips of the same material on my NAS.  

Sorry for the confusion.

i agree for very near. But streaming hirez ( 16/48 and above) from a nas is generally even better.....

Bob the Builder posted:

Streamed music will not match a very good vinyl or CD set up it just won't one day maybe but at present never. It is however much more convenient and much more accessible and fits in with the instant gratification style of modern living but if you are very serious about SQ it just does not stack up, at present.

Many people disagree with this viewpoint, and certainly I completely disagree that local network streaming doesn't compare with a very good CD setup.

My experience (and I have heard a good many streaming and CD set-ups) would indicate otherwise. This of course is my opinion (and that of many others) based on those systems to which I have listened. Your opinion is obviously different. 

OK, so MuSoQb does not support Quboz, so the only way to play QUBOZ hi-res files is via Airplay or Bluetooth....so the Ethernet cable is unplugged and tomorrow I’ll try some CD rips and hi-res files via the UPnP interface.

Is hi res worth bothering with on something like Muso? (As opposed to 16/44)

Hmack posted:

Bob the Builder posted:

Streamed music will not match a very good vinyl or CD set up it just won't one day maybe but at present never. It is however much more convenient and much more accessible and fits in with the instant gratification style of modern living but if you are very serious about SQ it just does not stack up, at present.

Many people disagree with this viewpoint, and certainly I completely disagree that local network streaming doesn't compare with a very good CD setup.

My experience (and I have heard a good many streaming and CD set-ups) would indicate otherwise. This of course is my opinion (and that of many others) based on those systems to which I have listened. Your opinion is obviously different. 

 

some megabucks cd/sacd players like dcs vivaldi with upsampler and clock, metronome kallista or top of the range esoteric can compete with the best streamers/ dacs, but they cost around 100k..... Naim cd555 is not so far from nds, but with hirez ( good hirez), the nds is a step beyond.    And i see also on your profile that you have anymore no cd player in your system but linn kds1.....     For me you are partly right....

Blackmorec posted:

OK, so MuSoQb does not support Quboz, so the only way to play QUBOZ hi-res files is via Airplay or Bluetooth....so the Ethernet cable is unplugged and tomorrow I’ll try some CD rips and hi-res files via the UPnP interface.

with which streamer?

I did actually mean streaming services Tidal etc I have ripped CD's to my macbook and streamed them from there via an inexpensive spdif converter to a Chord 2Qute and also loaded them on to a usb and played them into both ND5XS/2Qute and Raspberry Pi/2Qute and on both occasions they sounded excellent better than I remember CD sounding although that was (CD) a few years back. I did stream these CD Rips from my macbook over wifi via eye connect into my ND5XS and ND5XS/2Qute and that didn't sound as good as the hard wired stream.

james n posted:

Bob the Builder posted:

Streamed music will not match a very good vinyl or CD set up it just won't one day maybe but at present never.

I take it you mean streamed as in internet services such as Tidal rather than music streamed from a music server (Core / NAS etc) ?

I did James but then I have never tried a Core see my last post I'm not arguing against any hard wired stream or a stream unwired via an NDS or 272/555 because I havent heard one if anyone read my posts I was talking about what I can afford here and my third to last post I agree does not reitterate that fact so apologies for misunderstanding if any I just presumed people would know I wouldn't  argue about things I had not personally heard.

Ah ok - i was just using the Core as an example of local storage / server. All understood what you mean now 

After re reading my previous posts I probably could have made my sentiments a bit clearer and that is that my views are only about my own experience and that I believe that digital reproduction is getting better all the time and I have no doubt that this technology will overtake vinyl one day in terms of SQ.  The sound you can get today from a computer is night and day compared to 5 years ago, wether or not the 'feeling' that you get from computer based music will ever overtake that which a record can give is a whole other argument.

Now on to streaming I listen to mainly Tidal and 320kps radio stations like Linn Jazz which sound great through my set up more than passable and definitely better through my 2Qute than through my previous UnitiQute 2 and ND5XS and so to the OP I would say yes in my experience a better quality set up can make the same res streaming services and the same 320 radio station sound better.

I am a bit different as I never really bought  fully into CD's at that time I listsened to lots of rare Reggae and Dance music only available on vinyl and so CD was for casual listening in exactly the same way as streaming is today and today I only own 50 CD's at most and so streaming even if I preferred it would be a huge financial undertaking for me. If I owned as many CD's as I do records I would of course probably rip them all and stream them but I'm not convinced IMO that streaming over wifi is the optimum way to stream and where possible a wired stream must be better.

In answer to the question “Why buy high end streaming equipment?”, and speaking generally, streaming has revolutionised enjoyment of my music. (I should make it clear that when I refer to “streaming” in this post I refer exclusively to playing music from a NAS device connected to my Nova by Ethernet cable. I don’t subscribe to any on-line streaming services and probably never shall. I should also mention my interest is exclusively in classical music.)

Simply, it's been a revolution because, first, it is much more convenient to listen to streamed classical music selected from the Naim app than to play and program CDs. I no longer have to remember how to program the CD player to play selected tracks   and I don't need to get up and change CDs in the middle of longer works. Secondly, I have been able to discover the joys of high resolution music—which can sound stunning and very much better than CD quality.

For me, this form of "streaming" had been a most wonderful reintroduction to music that I have loved for very many years. Now, from this little diversion, it's back to some beautiful, early morning high resolution Mozart...

Stephen

Bob the Builder posted:

After re reading my previous posts I probably could have made my sentiments a bit clearer and that is that my views are only about my own experience and that I believe that digital reproduction is getting better all the time and I have no doubt that this technology will overtake vinyl one day in terms of SQ.  The sound you can get today from a computer is night and day compared to 5 years ago, wether or not the 'feeling' that you get from computer based music will ever overtake that which a record can give is a whole other argument.

Now on to streaming I listen to mainly Tidal and 320kps radio stations like Linn Jazz which sound great through my set up more than passable and definitely better through my 2Qute than through my previous UnitiQute 2 and ND5XS and so to the OP I would say yes in my experience a better quality set up can make the same res streaming services and the same 320 radio station sound better.

I am a bit different as I never really bought  fully into CD's at that time I listsened to lots of rare Reggae and Dance music only available on vinyl and so CD was for casual listening in exactly the same way as streaming is today and today I only own 50 CD's at most and so streaming even if I preferred it would be a huge financial undertaking for me. If I owned as many CD's as I do records I would of course probably rip them all and stream them but I'm not convinced IMO that streaming over wifi is the optimum way to stream and where possible a wired stream must be better.

 

I know some people are only interested in online streaming, and I feel for them if they have less than perfect playing capability due to the limitations or vagaries of the internet, but it simply does not fit with my music playing habits nor general philosophy re buying vs renting.

However, even to me, online streaming does have a place, but only as a way of hearing enough to know if I like a particular piece of music with which I am unfamiliar, to decide if it is worth buying, e.g something a description on the 'what are you listening to' thread suggests might be to my taste. For that the quality isn't critical, and the likes of Spotify (standard) is perfectly adequate, or failing that for some things uTube on my iPad (though better with headphones). But I doubt I would ever subscribe for such a service, unless it was a very notional sum, and  online streaming imperfections aren't important.

Incidentally, one can rip LPs and stream them from a local store, with the sound of playing vinyl preserved forever but with the convenience of digital storage and play and no more replacing cartridges/styli. It won't make vinyl sound better, but done well won't make it sound worse either, and if desired the  albums can be kept handy for viewing the sleeves if/when wanted (though negating the storage space aspect). This is not suggesting that you do do it, merely pointing out that it is an option. Indeed, one could buy an ADC secondhand, try ripping a few and assess the result, and if not liked simply sell on the ADC at negligible net cost. (Cost likewise even if entire collection ripped.)

I solved the problem of album art and sleeve notes by scanning the CD booklets, and photographing LP sleeves/booklets.  Now I can just look at them should I wish on my iMac or iPad.  Much better than Rovi, which most of the time can't find the album in its list, and even when it does, won't give me the information I would like, such as which musicians are on a particular track.

I did the LPs (including 'digitising' them) when my LP12 hadn't made its way into my study, and I wanted to be able to listen to them in there.  Now that is moot, and I can use the LPs themselves (bliss!).   I think I'll find it useful for knowing when my cartridge needs replacing - obviously that will be when my digital copy starts sounding better than the vinyl.

The LP rips are very good, BTW, but I still prefer the original LP (sorry for disagreeing with you, Innocent)

Dungassin posted:

.

I did the LPs (including 'digitising' them) when my LP12 hadn't made its way into my study, and I wanted to be able to listen to them in there.  Now that is moot, and I can use the LPs themselves (bliss!).   I think I'll find it useful for knowing when my cartridge needs replacing - obviously that will be when my digital copy starts sounding better than the vinyl.

The LP rips are very good, BTW, but I still prefer the original LP (sorry for disagreeing with you, Innocent)

No probs disagreeing - it would be boring if we all agreed!

Interesting angle re determining when cartridge needs replacing!

Dungassin posted:

...

The LP rips are very good, BTW, but I still prefer the original LP (sorry for disagreeing with you, Innocent)

That's bound to be the case.

Start with a set of recording tapes (digital or analogue), then process these to a master tape (digital or analogue) and that process creates a loss of SQ.

Then go through the vinyl cutting and pressing process, and there's a substantial loss of SQ here.

Play this back on a TT, cartridge & phono stage and yet another loss of SQ occurs.

then...

1 Play this back through the amp and speakers

2 Digitise through an ADC (delay), reconstruct the analogue signal through a DAC and a loss of SQ occurs, then
       Play this back through the same amp and speakers

The only difference is an ADC / delay / DAC cycle and that can't be perfect, so yes there's a loss of SQ relative to direct playback of the LP through the same equipment.

There's no way that digitisation and signal reconstruction could improve the signal.

Huge posted:

Dungassin posted:

...

The LP rips are very good, BTW, but I still prefer the original LP (sorry for disagreeing with you, Innocent)

There's no way that digitisation and signal reconstruction could improve the signal.

Agreed.   I just did so that I could use the LPs (indirectly) in my study.   The copies are pretty good and I'm happy to listen to them.  Rather like the old days of using my Nakamichi CR7 to make copies.  Sometimes hard to tell copy from original.   I do cross-check an original LP with the digital copy every few weeks, just to check that my Dynavector TKR doesn't need replacement yet.

Huge posted:

 

There's no way that digitisation and signal reconstruction could improve the signal.

Absolutely - as I did say in my post.

But it won't wear, nor be at risk of accidental scratching, nor ingrain more dust (nor, of course, would be possible to improve by cleaning out any dust that may have been ingrained n the LP at the time of digitising...). And it is possible to remove some types of surface noise like clicks and minor scratches without audible detriment, useful for any irreplaceable treasured recordings!

Innocent Bystander posted:

Bob the Builder posted:

Streamed music will not match a very good vinyl or CD set up it just won't one day maybe but at present never. It is however much more convenient and much more accessible and fits in with the 

Oh yes it will! Or more correctly, oh yes it can! (Panto time anyone?!)

For sound quality, unquestionably (streaming from own store, that is.) For enjoyment - well it depends what gives one enjoyment, 

 

It’s nice to be back on the forum... been a bit distracted recently... of course ‘streamed’ music can sound the same as a very good CD music... it is all down to the implementation, and from a digital audio perspective the architecture of a CD player and a digital PCM streamer can be identical... effectively a media server is a CD transport, and the control point, renderer and DAC are the CD transport logic and DAC.... 

Vinyl is different as it effectively is a playback transformed/distorted by a specific transformation filter... the filter response could be modelled to provide the distortion and transformations, but I suspect it would be better to use the analogue transformation filter in its place... certainly probably cheaper to do it that way for a given sound quality presentation.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Huge posted:

 

There's no way that digitisation and signal reconstruction could improve the signal.

Absolutely - as I did say in my post

I am not so sure.. I was reading an article from the AES library that was quite thought provoking... in essence current audio recording and replay is effectively very far from perfection... one author’s definition of high definition audio is audio that is indistinguishable from reality .... and we are very far from that... and I suspect until we use neural implants at some point in the future it will remain so because of electro/mechanical constraints, recording-replay system chain bandwidth distortion issues and other limitations...

Therefore given recorded and replayed audio is so compromised, one can argue that one can modify and process the sound to compensate for its difficiencies so it ‘sounds’ more convincing or attractive to our brains for a given replay system chain... so I would argue one could reconstruct a signal in a particular way to improve its cognitive relevancy or enjoyment...

In that case, S-I-S why does high fidelity exist? Surely everyone (?) on this forum is after the closest representation of the real instruments and singers?  In ones own listening room. Period. And that’s within one’s affordability level.

(Mind you who listens in mono by the way??!)

This begs the question I started this thread off with. Streaming means using the Internet and in the very long term, when one can stream at 24 bit 196kHz or whatever that is (2880Mb/s?) then a high end streamer doesn’t justify itself!!

If you want to catch sand thrown at you, is it better having an Olympic athlete catching it?

Why does 'hifi' exist? Think about - if you accept the best audio 'quality' is indistinguishable from reality, then if our systems were perfect there would be no difference between audio replay types, designs and brands... but clearly that is not the case. Techniques, methods, styles and brands bring out certain traits or focus on certain aspects that they believe are most relevant or distinguishable for their market - this is therefore optimising the compromise to suit a house style or style range.

Indeed there has been some discussion on this forum, and I have participated in it, where some consider the audio replay source device as a type of musical really instrument - and specific devices bring out characteristics better than others for certain types of music.. CDX2 vs NDS vs CDS3 for example, or NDAC vs NDS vs Hugo .. you perhaps get the idea... 

In the limit a DAC, preamp, power amplifier and loud speaker is a reconstruction filter of the encoded recorded signal - and therefore it is modified or optimised to suit a specific outcome or range of outcomes.

But of course, and this is where the AES article explored this in more depth - the sounds are  modified and optimised the moment they are captured on a microphone or fed into a mixing line input from an amplified instrument.

Simon

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Huge posted:

 

There's no way that digitisation and signal reconstruction could improve the signal.

Absolutely - as I did say in my post

I am not so sure.. I was reading an article from the AES library that was quite thought provoking... in essence current audio recording and replay is effectively very far from perfection... one author’s definition of high definition audio is audio that is indistinguishable from reality .... and we are very far from that... and I suspect until we use neural implants at some point in the future it will remain so because of electro/mechanical constraints, recording-replay system chain bandwidth distortion issues and other limitations...

Therefore given recorded and replayed audio is so compromised, one can argue that one can modify and process the sound to compensate for its difficiencies so it ‘sounds’ more convincing or attractive to our brains for a given replay system chain... so I would argue one could reconstruct a signal in a particular way to improve its cognitive relevancy or enjoyment...

Would that not constitute "digitisation, transformation and signal reconstruction" rather than just "digitisation and signal reconstruction"?

(I'm aware that there is always a degree of transformation inherrent in both the digitisation and reconstruction processes, but surely one of the objectives is to keep these minimal and it would be exceptionally coincidental were they to actually significantly compensate for other deficiencies in the replay chain.  It's also arguable that although this may improve the final acoustic result it's still a degradation to the 'signal' as it passes through the "digitisation and signal reconstruction" process.)