… if you stay wedded to the same classic recordings … For those of us who constantly seek new recordings by new musicians, remaster/remix is not an issue, and the digital versions are just what the physical media (if it exists at all) was created from.
2 Likes
There is no reason to choose rips versus streaming from Tidal and/or Qobuz. Do both. Why not?
4 Likes
Sure, but not everyone listens to modern music only. I listen to everything, old and new. Streaming is still great for discovering new music, having access to what you don’t have on physical media yet, or listening to something where you don’t care about quality so much and the version on Tidal/Qobuz is sufficient, or simply when there is no better version (new music). But all my favorite albums of older music are either coming from physical media or are downloads from other places, because they are much better than the version available on Tidal/Qobuz. Saying ‘streaming is where it’s all going’ is simply not true, or at least not the whole truth.
This is a silly argument, not worth having. It’s a false choice. Do both.
3 Likes
Yeah this is where I’m at - but with a very heavy leaning towards downloading the lossless version or if necessary, finding the actual CD and ripping that to lossless; because as I said earlier, streaming services haven’t got what I need!
I’ll always choose ‘finding and ripping’ over streaming though… I need to own it! 
3 Likes
I’m the opposite. I got rid of all my LP’s and CD’s years ago. I currently have almost 2000 albums linked in Tidal and Qobuz. I actually own 4 albums, and that’s only because they are my brother and myself.
That said, I do wish I could get back all my old LP’s. I bought most of the Beatles LP’s when originally released.
1 Like
It’s funny - and interesting - the choices we make… 
That’s obviously working for you nicely @Jim_F so fair play; who am I to tell you that’s rubbish?
My route has been Vinyl - CD - MiniDisc (remember that!!?? They were flipping’ cool though! My whole wedding playlist (sit down music then dancing stuff), was brought to the wedding in my pocket on 6 MD’s!! Loved it!) Anyway, we digress… 
Minidisc - CD (again; in fact they were kinda in tandem) - iTunes era AAC’s - now Lossless
… and every time there’s been a move, I’ve had to have in the collection everything I had before and then some!
It’s not really working out that way this time around though, as I can’t (afford to) re-buy 3500 CD’s/Albums that I have in iTunes, so happy to live with the two libraries split - (inferior) iTunes stuff in iTunes and the quality in Roon - all by itself. (Not pointing Roon to the iTunes stuff).
But if an album really moves me, it has to be in Roon now; no doubt about it! And the more I rediscover music in this quality, the less I’m turning to iTunes; iTunes has just turned into a catalogue for me in the last few weeks, just to see what I need to have in Roon.
I would have considered the streaming route - like yourself - IF they had everything I listen to! Sadly none of them do.
So trying to make do for now. (But secretly searching for 2780 albums!! 
)
1 Like
That is simply not true. Utter nonsense. Qobuz gives me many thousands of new recordings, many in higher than CD quality.
Please explain how a CD of a recent recording is better than a 24/192 streamed version of the same piece.
If you are one of those living in the past “audiophiles” still trying to get Dark Side of the Moon to sound ok on your stereo then sure, remasters of forty year old material are sometimes poor, but for those of us listening to music that has been made recently the quality available from streaming services and download services is unsurpassed. As a music lover it is beyond the wildest dreams I may have had forty years ago that I can now stream a perfect copy of the studio ,aster of a great recording.
2 Likes
@Jez I was coming to this next - after writing that ‘book’ in my last post…
@Jakub_Burdych Come on Bro… physical CD ain’t getting anywhere near the quality of that!!
… Unless it’s SACD you’re talking?
I did not say that CD quality version of THE SAME RELEASE sounds better than a higher res version of THAT SAME RELEASE. Hi-res version ‘should’ sound better, although I dare to say for most people the differences are inaudible, unless you have really good ears and setup.
I’m talking about qualitative difference between various release versions. And it’s not only about the classic audiophile pieces. Sure, if there’s a fresh new music, you won’t find any other release usually. But this is valid even for newer releases. One example that comes to my mind is not so old Daft Punk - Random Access Memories - I have a vinyl rip which sounds much better than whatever is available on Tidal/Qobuz. And that’s just vinyl rip that sounds worse than if I would listen to that vinyl directly with a turntable (which I don’t have at the moment unfortunately).
As I said in my previous post - streaming services have great benefits, if you are listening to new music only, then you do not have any other choice, but it’s important to realize their limitation as well and that is very limited selection of masters / releases that are available there. It’s either new music or remixes / remasters, all affected by loudness wars. Even if I set aside all the new music where options are limited or do not exist at all, it’s quite rare to find a good sounding release there.
I’m sorry, I listen to mostly classical music and jazz, and what you are saying is just nonsense. We are living in a golden age of incredible recordings of incredible quality available for a trivial monthly subscription. No loudness wars either. And there are some incredible jazz reissues, like Pat Methenys catalogue on ECM, now in hi-res, very beautifully remastered. Pretty much every recording I listen to is wonderful. If recordings mostly sound rubbish to you your Hi-fi system is not doing its job.
3 Likes
I disagree. We are living in a golden digital age that gives us instant access to most music for very cheap. But at the same time we are living in an age of loudness wars since about 1995 and that for me is the biggest issue we are still facing in the hi-fi listening space. If you are listening to classical or jazz, where dynamic range is even more important than in other genres, I’m surprised you are saying this. The fact that you listen to a recording on a streaming services and it sounds great to you does not mean that there isn’t any better sounding release somewhere else. Maybe you just did not have a chance for a comparison, so no wonder you don’t realize on what you are missing. And no, it’s not a problem with my system. These are very audible differences that you will hear via headphones, big stereo setup, small stereo setup, cheap or expensive, whatever…
I have examples of tracks - Tidal vs. physical media, high DR vs. low DR, hi-res vs CD quality, etc… as a clear evidence that I am using to prove my point. You can PM me and I can upload it for you somewhere to try for yourself.
1 Like
I’m with you 110% If I like it, It will be ripped and added to my collection. My EULA to streaming services that comes with my payment: If the data goes through my computer, it may end up on my disk as well as heading to my speakers.
It always makes me shudder to see an album that I like in the streaming service with the big warning label: (Remastered). I don’t need more compression in my life and with the loudness wars still raging, that’s what we get.
Sheldon
1 Like
I’ll chime in briefly here in support or @Jakub_Burdych. Try before you buy or purchasing HD releases is something of a lottery. I got “burnt” once in a rush to buy the Doors albums in less than glorious HD, my old CD rips are quite clearly better in this case. I can tell the difference between them at 320 VBR MP3 on the iPod. The difference is clearly audible and it’s obvious which is worse. As much as I love tech this is also generally true:
CD’s of properly mastered recordings can sound very good indeed. The great thing with a streaming service is that you can try before you buy.
I to have learned to fear the remaster…
I’m afraid the loudness wars are never going to end, because there is a clear correlation louder -> sells more. The only hope I have is that there will be a strong enough community of audiophile enthusiasts that will force publishers to make releases with higher DR, not made for Spotify and airpods masses. And no, hi-res formats like MQA are not the fix to this problem, although they help to increase the awareness about sound quality with a wider audience in some way as a side effect.
For people thinking hi-res is da best thing - this is interesting https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality?t=1595849896820
It’s a kinda blind test, which has some limitations and not very good track selection, but it’s a place to start and see for yourself that the difference between hi-res and lossy formats is not as big as people usually think and also proves the point that a much bigger quality difference is in various release version, not so much in the audio format. Good luck in that lottery 
This entire discussion is off-topic. The OP did not ask about the difference in SQ between streaming vs his local music files.
2 Likes
@Jim_F has a point, in facts it’s worse than that. After asking 3 pretty tight questions:
It’s rambled some, and with that I’m out.
1 Like