How’s so? CD transports don’t have DACs, and many CD players have digital outputs, typically S/PDIF. Also, many streamers don’t have DACs, just digital outputs, typically USB. You can thus use the same DAC with both.
1 Like
I believe it was clearly stated CD player, not CD transport.
To be a CD player it must logically have an inbuilt DAC or it would then not be a player but a transport.
Absolutely true you can bypass the players internal DAC with a digital output of course which is quite often the best choice.
If you wish to drill down to semantics of course 
2 Likes
Excuse my pedantry, but I do think we need to drill down to semantics for a few reasons:
- My understanding is that audiophiles’ gripe with streaming - as opposed to CD playback - is not related to differences between built-in DACs, but rather with the nature of the bitstreams.
- Any fair comparison between the two must assume, as I pointed out, the exact same analog chain. (It must also assume the bits are the same, which is easier overlooked and harder to achieve.)
- It may not be evident to everyone that there’s a difference between players and transports and between streamers and networked DACs.
That about all the semantics I can think of.
I guess “streaming” bashing in this case refers to what we receive from Qobuz, vs. streaming from music we own, stored on our own servers?
I don’t believe that either. It’s expectation bias. However, fiber does eliminate any of the “crud” from the utility network, like EMI/RFI traveling along a cable. Yet once fiber gets into the home, everything goes back to a cable (Ethernet) along with routers and switches, and a typical home is a noisy place for that sort of thing (appliances, dimmers, LED bulbs, etc.). If a person’s home is also using fiber, that can further provide benefits, but since just about all devices we own use Ethernet or WiFi, it’s kind of pointless.
Having a streamer with galvanic isolation and precision reclocking is what I use in my main system, and it helps eliminate the differences (if any) between streaming from my own server vs. Qobuz. Honestly I don’t hear any difference between the two. I’ve used cheaper streamers and even a computer in my main system, and they are…lacking. Not bad by any means, but there is a lot of room for improvement. I have a handful around the house for background music and less critical listening and honestly, in those situations, I have zero complaints. And in those situations, I wouldn’t hear a difference between streaming sources anyway.
I do have fiber to the house, but that’s due to the ISP being very reliable, and the symmetrical down/up speeds (vs. 10:1 down/up ratio with our cable provider) that I need for my work. I never once entertained the idea that it would be any better for audio.
Bias when trying to understand measurements is as real, and so are unreliable interpretations of measurements and people who do measurements but do not have a clue about how they translate to audible or inaudible phenomena.
Not doubting your results in this particular case, as they seem to be plausible, but advising in general against using measurements as a main argument on the question of audible differences and sound quality. It easily brings one into a dogmatic position which is most likely not to be accepted by many people who have made contrary experience (not saying that all of these are legitimate or executed correctly).
According to my experience, the weak links in any hi-fi systems regardless the price are always room acoustics, loudspeakers and the compatibility thereof. Nothing else. Not saying there are no downsides and audible compromises in very cheap DACs, but I would never call this a weak link.
Have done such experiments with similarly expensive components by Esoteric and other brands. No-one could tell a difference, neither those who advocate streaming sounding superior to CD nor those vice versa.
In a way, there is some truth in that. Taking my point about actual weak links, if people have speakers with significant weaknesses, compromised room acoustics or improper pairing of the two (including placement, room treatment, DSP or whatever is helpful in the particular case), their opinion on sound quality, significance of digital equipment, DACs or amplifiers is worthless. They might come to any implausible conclusion because they have major acoustic flaws in their system.
Oh you must be referring to that big bad monster known as jitter, The Emperor’s New Clothes of high end audio.
1 Like
From the OP´s initial description, it sounded rather like people who publicly advocate CD sounding better compared to any streaming, may it be from a service like Qobuz, a local server or internal storage of the hi-fi device.
Sadly Sigmund Freud did not have a chance to offer an explanation, but it most be something pretty deep with offense and inferiority complexes.
By no means. I am not referring to anything when it comes to claims made by some audiophiles on audible differences between different purely digital sources. I prefer not to waste my time with that.
Just saying that delivering a definite proof accepted by most of people will not be successful on the base of measurements alone.
Ya know, I did the whole chasing the sound quality thing for some time (my Covid lockdown obsession) and probably (definitely) spent too much money on it. But now I’m just content to sit back and relax and enjoy the music. I still have to get over my over analysis of music quality at times but now I just focus on finding good music that sounds good to me and try to enjoy. I don’t worry so much about bits and bobs on my system to try and get the the extra nanometer of quality that I may on not be actually hearing. What I have is good enough for now. It is about the music after all.
So, I pretty much stopped watching audio hardware reviews and watch more on music, new releases and quality sounding music and work on exploring and finding new music on Roon/Qobuz.
I got tired of the chase and now trying to learn how to just enjoy the music. That’s just me. YMMV.
11 Likes
Hear hear 
That’s pretty much it, although the YouTubers proclaiming the superiority of CD do not necessarily claim to be audiophiles, although in this case they are indeed acting members of the high end audio media since they simply shilling for the CD player manufacturers. The manufacturers send them equipment to review and they repay them with an “insightful” review.
I thought of jitter, since it something that can be measured by test equipment but not heard by ANY human, unless the jitter is from a totally broken DAC. Kind of like those speakers that can all the up to 40kHz. Funny how some measurements can lead to manufacturers chasing all the wrong things in an effort to please clueless audiophiles.
2 Likes
This isn’t bias, it’s competence. Very different.
3 Likes
I’ll admit I haven’t heard about “interpretation bias” before. I find it highly unlikely though to misinterpret measurements when they don’t change at all from one configuration to another.
Totally agree, but this was, as mentioned, not was I was referring to.
That is no phenomenon limited to speaker manufacturers or audiophiles. Would rather say it is as common among self-declared objectivists who do some kind of spec competition having no clue how what they measure, translates to audibility. Some chase SINAD, some chase THD, some chase step response, some chase tilted FR drawn with a ruler, some chase jitter - without reasonable correspondence to sound quality any of these goals is equally worthless and more a dogmatic distinction between ´halal´ and ´haram´.
I agree that interpreting measurements, and more importantly understanding which measurements do not allow any prediction on sound quality or audibility of certain phenomena, requires competence. And I do not mean the ability to buy an AP or Klippel system and press the ´Execute measurement´ button. This is not competence.
I am talking about training one´s ability to judge what one actually hears as well as decades of experience with room acoustics, judging sound quality and producing recordings.
As mentioned, in case of the ´bit is bit´ discussion there is not much to misinterpret. Measurements, if executed and applied properly, can in some cases proof the non-existence of audible differences. This is mostly limited to cases in which there is evidence that the underlying signal is not altered by any means. But these are rather exceptions than rules.
I was more referring to the fact that they are not capable of persuading anyone or delivering proof in most of cases, so I recommend to leave them aside.
Ask any audio lab engineer running a loudspeaker measurement under anechoic conditions without having done a subjective listening test about his or her prediction on the resulting sound character. I have not encountered anything more biased and distorted in the audio world, even the most esoteric highenders are less biased when testing expensive equipment over cheap one.
1 Like
Streaming has advantages and disadvantages. I do notice the constant evolution of Tidals’s catalogue.
When listening to music sound is more complex than simply bits.
For example streaming has different resolutions and mixing from vinyl; CD quality is different than lossless and individual experiences are unique. I say enjoy you do you and let others do them.
The reasons could be beyond the bits ranging from signal transfer, speaker designs and room acoustics. Personally I wonder more about how our brain listens versus remembers when you are listening to music you recognize.
This was not my meaning. Measurements are determined, not predicted. Competence is needed to ensure that measurements are accurate, repeatable, and, above all, valid. The level of competence required varies, depending on the type and complexity of the measurement.
I believe you to be equivocating here. Judgement is subjective, and room acoustics has nothing whatsoever to do with the digital domain (that is, the topic of this thread.) Moreover, record production is not relevant here since we are discussing the playback of digital recordings. Such comments are misleading.
1 Like
Except, of course, that (apart from jitter) all of those measurements have quite direct relationship to what we hear (or don’t hear).
They can always show the absence of audible difference (assuming you do proper measurements, of course), like when you stream and play the same recording.
Most of the time they do deliver proof. That some people prefer not to be persuaded is not a problem of measurements.
Isn’t the discussion about streaming the same recording vs playing the very same CD locally? If masters are different the whole discussion is pointless.
Is it? A CD played through a transport using vs streaming music connected to the same DAC using same connection (i.e., USB, optical, etc.) to preamp/amp or integrated amplifier.
I missed that distinction - my bad.
oh, now CD quality is not longer lossless?
1 Like
It’s still different if you don’t stream the exact same bits as the ones on the CD.
1 Like