Streaming Bashing

Audio Gear Talk Music Services
64

I was referring to the ´valid´ point solely. And as far as there are significant deficits regarding this particular parameter exposed by the very loud fraction of the self-declared objectivists, I cannot blame anyone for generally not taking measurements as a proof.

If judgement is subjective, this applies to evolving judgements or predictions from measurements as well. At least in the eyes of those being critical to measurements as a main and only proof, for which there is good reason.

That was my point: Even if Marian’s measurements are accurate in this case and pose enough of evidence for people understanding the technical background, it would not be accepted as proof by others.

I think they are not, as I was not referring to recording or production quality but to the necessary experience with excluding bias in listening tests and getting the results of objective and subjective parameters to a necessary level of congruence. These are exact skills you would acquire at university becoming a pro recording engineer and subsequent decades of experience. It is obvious that some hi-fi or high end pros have these as well, but as it is not a standardized career, it is very difficult for laymen to judge who is right and who is wrong here.

Again, I am not trying to make a point about differences between purely digital sources. Just trying to explain my view why certain positions like Marian’s , which I agree to, are difficult to proof and widely meet misbelief by people siding more with subjectivists.

The part for ´don’t hear´ I tend to agree to.

´Relationship to what we hear´ I disagree with, and that was my point regarding measurements not being taken as a credible proof. Most of popular and regularly executed measurements on hi-fi gear do not allow any prediction on sound quality or character. There is no difference between jitter measurements and THD below a certain level or SINAD. It is all inaudible if not exceeding the audibility threshold previously defined (and that is the only purpose of these measurements).

Looking at the way they are commonly used in hi-fi reviews and discussions drawing invalid conclusions from measurements towards sound quality or sound character, I would clearly disagree. As mentioned, the case for bit-identical digital signals is an exception in which the chain of evidence for the non-existence of differences is complete.

And yes, I see it as a problem that a significant amount of people do not accept such proofs.

65

Once again, you are equivocating. All my replies relate to what I said, and your responses.

Without sounding like a stuck records, this thread is about digital: CD (Red Book) vis-a-vis digital streaming services. So, please keep on topic.

Moreover, I wasn’t commenting on any opinion, but measurement (metrology), which is a bedrock of society. Not many (any?) human endeavours are achieved without measurements. Prediction is not measurement. Measurements may inform prediction, not the other way around. Furthermore, measurements are defined, repeatable, and have a known accuracy.

But I know when to stop flogging the horse, so think we should wrap up this thread of the discussion.

3 Likes
66

Would not that be a problem for the “other”? Earth orbited the sun even when everyone believed otherwise.

If you are talking about audiophiles’ favorite measure, price, then yes, it has no bearing on the sound quality. Neither do often quoted weight, dimensions, or case color.

Umm, that’s the “do not hear” part.

If you qualify “measurements perfectly match blind test results, but are not accepted by people who want to believe in magic” then yes.

But that’s no more a problem of measurements than people still believing that the Earth is flat. Objective facts remain such regardless of acceptance.

I do have a feeling that you may not necessarily be arguing in good faith.

67

Please explain to me why it is so damn hard to have a simple discussion about something that can be so easily tested:

Is the sound quality of streaming worse than the sound quality of CD playback?

Instead of addressing the question we get the following:

  1. A streaming may be using a different mastering of the recording. While this may be true it doesn’t addressing the basic issue.
  2. A whole big discussion about measurements. Important, yes, but not germane to the simple question.
  3. Another tangent about the cost of streaming
  4. A tangent about how the streaming data is delivered (fiber vs. cable vs. Wi-Fi)
  5. A discourse on how audiophiles went from hating to loving CDs
  6. And several more tangents which aren’t even worth listing.

What I’ve listed above seems to happen during the course of any discussion which dares to question any of the dogma so dear to audiophiles. Cables, bit rates, bit depths, type of DAC, etc.

First and foremost, high end audio is a business and as a business the main goal is to increase sales and profits. The goal of providing good sound quality is, at best, secondary. So if the business is selling cables then the last thing that business wants to hear is that all good quality, well made cables sound the same. If the business is selling CD players then of course CD playback is better than streaming. The list goes on and on.

Why do I defend the sound quality of streaming? Because about 18 years ago I decided to test the sound quality of streaming versus CD playback. I’m aware that this little test of mine predated the appearance of music streaming services but it proved useful nevertheless.
Here’s what I did.

First I ripped a CD to flac files.

Second I uploaded those flac files to Usenet by encoding them using yEnc, a binary-to-text encoding scheme.

Third I downloaded the encoded flac files and decoded them back to flac.

Fourth I put those downloaded flac files on my Logitech media server (LMS).

Fifth I compared the sound of the flac files being played using a Squeezebox Transporter to the sound of the original CD being played back on my MacCormack CD player.

Sixth I could not hear any difference what so ever and so from that point forward I just continued to stream music without obsessing about the sound quality.

6 Likes
68

Are we arguing that if you stream an album on say qobuz, it sounds different to buying from them and downloading it?

70

Not exactly. What I’m trying to say that two identical masters of the same recording, one played via streaming, either from a lossless streaming service or from a local music server like Roon, and the other played on CD player will sound exactly the same provided that the same DAC is used for both. Yes, that is a lot of conditions but when dealing with people who are firmly entrenched in their beliefs, one must bend over backwards to cover all the potential canards they will throw in the way. Completely insane but very necessary since people hate to have their beliefs challenged.

5 Likes
71

Are you that surprised though? I’m not sure what your intention was (and I agree streaming bashing is nonsense), but you ought to know by now that no matter what audiophile subject you bring up, someone is going to say that everything matters, bits are not bits, measurements are useless or misleading, and everything is forever open for debate.

2 Likes
72

If everyone agrees on a similar set of axioms, it would be easy to discuss the question and come to an answer everyone agrees to. That is seemingly not the case, and I doubt dogmatic approaches from either side would ever solve the issue.

The goal of providing the subjective impression of superior sound quality is vital to sales and profits in this case. And I doubt anyone trying to simply make money would come up with high end ideas in which he or she does not believe in. The number of potential buyers is declining, and the number of sellers rather increasing than decreasing. Not trying to defend anyone selling snake oil or questionable products, but without the necessary enthusiasm you would not sell anything.

The ironic thing is that dogmatic fractions on either side are naming each other ´flat-earthers´. If you want to take that extreme position and ensure no-one from the other position or the indecisive middle group takes your side, go ahead!

I see it more from a global point of understanding each other, learning from each other and pursuing a common goal of achieving increased sound quality and enjoying music. Although in this particular case I clearly side with the ´bit is bit´ fraction while trying to make clear that measurements are indeed useless when it comes to persuading others.

No, I was referring to the favorite measurements of the self declared objectivists dubbed hifi-astrologists, whose measurements are as insignificant on the question of sound quality as the jitter measurements of the ´CD transport sounds better than streaming bridge´ fraction. Unfortunately I cannot elaborate on that as mjw has made clear that we should stay on topic.

The opposite is the case.

I was hoping to point out that a dogmatic position from either extreme side will neither solve the issue nor persuade anyone. Moreover I see that such discussions on questions contrary to technical understanding and common sense are most likely to make both extreme positions appear in a questionable light eventually making the whole hobby less attractive and appearing to be freakish. As mentioned, in this case I side with the ´bit is bit´ fraction, but hostile comments coming from that side on audiophiles in general or people willing to spend money on things others find questionable, is in my understanding contributing to this hostile atmosphere.

That is what I find sad.

73

Only every high-end cable manufacturer under the sun. They aren’t even hiding that the stuff they are selling is fake, like “Cat 7” cables.

That’s false equivalency. Only one side has any kind of hard fact-based science to lean on. The other one can’t even back their subjective imppressions with a repeatable blind test.

Sorry, but that’s all just a rather flowery way to say “there’s some stuff I don’t like, but I have absolutely no proof that it is not actually true, so trust me, bro.”

You can persuade people to do all kinds of terrible things. It’s not even particularly difficult.

I thought at least some people were interested in objective truth… which is completely orthogonal to what someone may or may not persuade themselves of.

74

…which is interesting, since the McCormack (UDP-1?) and the Transporter had completely different DACs and analog output stages.

75

I don’t think it’s bashing. It’s just a statement of opinion.

In any case, in my opinion, when I play content from the internal SSD on my Titan, it has a SQ edge over the same thing streamed. Don’t get me wrong, they both sound awesome. I just hear a difference.

76

Not really arguing but,… How do you know they are the “same thing” though? Mastering makes a difference. Your local copy might be a different master than what is used on streaming services and might indeed sound better.

2 Likes
77

Certainly true, but in their eyes obviously irrelevant, as the goal is neither to have a scientific proof nor to pass some blind test. We should not forget that it is mainly a hobby and most people do it for fun.

No. I have given several examples of measurements and specs regularly used by self-declared objectivists which are as contradictive and dubious regarding their audibility and relevance for sound quality as jitter and other claims that different ways of digital transport are distinguishable from each other. A claim which I do not support by any means.

I do not think many music-loving people are interested in objective truth when it comes to a technical hobby promising to bring personal enjoyment. And although I disagree with their claims, I cannot blame anyone for believing things you and me find implausible, as the ones claiming to reveal ´the objective truth´ are offering equally flawed explanations, contradictive claims and dogmatic views on the subject which people intuitively perceive as something guaranteed to not bring joy.

My personal experience with people into what you might call ´audiophile delusion´ is, you never have any chance of persuading them by hard facts which things are irrelevant or they would not hear a difference between them. If you, on the other hand, show people a way to have more fun or understanding of factors which are far more relevant, you might have a chance.

My point when entering this discussion was mainly to plea for a certain level of tolerance allowing different philosophies how to listen to music best. My personal opinion: Claiming that CD sounds better than bit-identical streaming files (or vice versa) is as absurd and unattractive as telling people they must perceive or believe certain things because of measurements.

Isn’t it all about fun and enjoyment?

Absolutely true. It does not even need a different mastering process to constitute subtle yet audible differences. Slightly different level normalization or limiting (applied for lossy encoding further down the production chain) does lead to such level differences as well which might be perceived as superior or inferior when one does a listening comparison.

I always found it useful to rely on Qobuz as they according to my knowledge use the very same files as a base for streaming service and download. That is not a guarantee that a CD release will be identical bit-by-bit, of course.

78

You keep saying this. Is there an objectivist certification program?

2 Likes
79

I make a point of collecting old AAD CD’s and they often sound very different to the same album streamed. This has absolutely nothing to do with streaming vs CD, and everything to do with the version (compression/expansion, etc.)

1 Like
80

In my initial post I stated that it was several different YouTubers who were claiming that CD playback sounds better than streaming playback. As YouTubers these individuals are not hobbyists nor are they doing it for fun - they are doing it for money and their claims should, at the very least, be made after carefully controlled testing. Like that’s ever going to happen.

These audio debates get really tiresome since so many people fail to see the difference between an audiophile with no financial stake in a given assertion, like what a big improvement some network switch makes in the sound, and someone, such as a reviewer (paid with money or paid with free or “loaner” equipment) who has a financial stake in a given assertion.

So yes, audio is a hobby but it is also a business and the business side of audio is filled with lots of less than truthful individuals out to take my money from me.

5 Likes
81

I do this, too. Of course I then rip them, store them in Roon and play them with ARC in the car.

And relax.

3 Likes
82

The hobby argument doesn’t hold water no matter how you look at it. “I’m a hobbyist astronomer, so I can claim that earth is flat, because for me, it’s just a hobby, and I don’t care about dogmatic objectivism.”

I guess spending money on fancy audio gear can bring ‘pleasure’, but when you attribute that to improvements in sound quality and try to explain them by questioning established science, it’s expected - and required in my view - to be fact-checked.

2 Likes
83

Because, more often or not, I have bought the album from Qobuz after streaming it.