All of the above
Vote Your Ranking -If you have an opinion on this digital subject
There have been many statements made about this question here and on other forums stating differing opinions as which SQ is better :
1.-Red book CD
2.-Streamed High resolution files- i.e. Tidal/Qobuz
3.-Downloaded files purchased in Super Hi Res-Acoustic Sounds
4.-Red Book CDs ripped and stored for playback as files
Everyone may have an opinion on their preference
but is there any actual evidence of this? I suppose the only
way to produce evidence would be via blind testing and
survey results.
So please list in your preferred order the numbers
1,2,3,4 with the 1st being the best/ 4 the worst SQ
Audiophiles may have an idea of their preference
but is there any actual evidence? I suppose the only
way to produce evidence would be via blind testing and
survey results.
Does anyone have some hard facts as it relates to this query?
Thank You.
45 responses Add your response
Funny enough, I can think of at least one site that bans A/B testing as a prerequisite for “proof.” The thing is that everyone’s system and listening acuity is quite different. On my system, things far less than the 1-4 you posted make an audible difference. one is uncompressing flac files to WAV, which makes a larger difference sometimes than 44.1 vs. hires. But each jump to better files is audible. Even the drive I play the files off makes a small difference in sound quality (hardware Raid sounds better than software based raid).
|
3, I don't have many of these, but those I have were extremely well recorded/original masters
4, extremely close to 2, I doubt I could distinguish between the two in blind testing
1, haven't played cd's in a few years, so this not a fair rating, my experience is that transport used has great effect here
Bottom line for me, I have no strong preference for any playback method, all good for sq, rips and streams win on accessibility/create my own mixes. |
My 2 cents:
Over the last 15 years CD playback got remarkably better, coinciding with relatively inexpensive DAC's using new architectures around capacitor charging instead of resistors. There's an AKM document which seems to talk to this. Currently after a lot of fiddling I use Roon's upsampling to 96kHz and am happy enough to leave everything alone. |
Errors from Cd direct can be corrected by ripping. So after that the question becomes whether a streamer streams better from Qobus/Tidal rather than from a linked hard disc. That in turn is a function of the cables and spinner used in ripping vs. the quality of the cabling, routing and clean-up of ethernet. There simply is no universal answer to this, however, I‘d challenge anybody to better a well set up streaming system on high resolution. I would therefore posit that CD and DSD players are now becoming redundant. |
Too many variables to make this an apples-to-apples comparison. Any weak link in any of those chains could negate their inherent advantages. As with anything in high-end audio, EVERYTHING matters, so if something is off it takes your sound — whatever the source — to a lower and possibly substandard level. So, as much as I’d like an answer to this as much as anyone else, it’s impossible due to the myriad od variables that could significantly impact the results. Just my $0.02 FWIW. |
The point here is that we are talking about computer files. Are those files located on a silver disk, a bunch of disk drives, a USB thumb drive, or streamer from a central server through a service like Qobuz it is all the same… but every part has to be done well. A good streamer (there is on in each of these scenarios… as well as a DAC) will buffer the incoming file, provide absolutely quiet power to the circuitry that streams it to the DAC. So, given the current state of technology it only makes sense to put your efforts into choosing a streaming solution… unless you get a real kick out of fiddling with a disk. My streamer sounds as good as my vinyl… my vinyl rig is very good (see my user ID for my systems). There are many price points that streaming can equal other methods. |
@ghdprentice, I definitely have to agree with your assessment sir. Having bought and used every high end music reproduction format in the last fifty years plus, streaming is absolutely the way to go now in 2022. |
I do all 4 er 5 er 6...
*1 - Vinyl / turntable 1 - SACD player is so analogue, it is always my first choice 2 - Redbook CD is still, for me, the 2nd best 3 - 24/96 or better usually approaches my Redbook CD player, but not always 4 - As long as I have clean rip, software has to be perfect and the log without errors (think 3 & 4 can sometimes switch positions with the same recording) 2 - always last, still pretty good, but definitely last, (never seems as clean)
that was fun... friends I have had over always want to know all of the above and the ubiquitous Vinyl comparison as well, so I set this comparison up a few years back. Ironically even with the pops and sometimes crackles most of the people I have over, even though they hear the vinyl problems, like what a lot of them describe as the smoother sound of the turntable. |
I do not understand why people find it such a hassle to walk on over to a high quality cd transport or player and insert a good old fashion cd. To me, all this hi res this and that is not needed and just complicates things. At some point, it does not matter the resolution, as a human is not going to hear the difference. Maybe if you have Bat-Like hearing you will detect any significant difference.. Most here are older and surely have some hearing loss as it Is part of the aging process. Also, what disturbs me about the whole streaming thing is the Fact that you do not really own anything. Owning something, in my opinion, requires not only the ability to listen, but also the ability to touch and see what you own. So, for me, streaming this or that will remain as a tool to find or discover new music both current and old. Lastly, I do not like having to pay a premium every month just to listen to something. Over many years, you could have saved all that money to actually purchase a hard copy of what you like. To me, being surrounded by actual physical copies (lp’s, cd’s, cassette tapes, etc..) is part of the lifestyle and decor of being an audiophile...maybe I’m old, who knows...I cannot envision a listening environment without my physical media at my finger tips, as I find it comforting to gaze at what I’ve ammased over my many many years of collecting. The last time I checked, a digital file or download has not increased in value and is deemed pretty worthless. However, some of my physical copies of music have done nothing but go up in value. Take a look at what some lp's are going for on ebay and discogs..... |
Wow, not much of a consensus eh? Two votes for #1 Two votes for #3 One vote for #2 One vote for #4
The only takeaway is that most people, 18 of 23 here, have no decided preference.
Thanks to the respondents who felt able to respond to this hypothetical comparison.
The concept of blind testing seems get a lot people upset. Read that on several forums. |
Ya know, I really could care less if I actually own the file/LP/whatever that I want to play. If I can reliably keep what I want to hear at my beck 'n call, that's fine by me. I must say, too, that I'm totally in love with streaming classical. I feel like the king of the world. Hmmm, which artist/conductor/orchestra's Brahms' Fourth do I wish to summon to my stereo tonight? It hearkens back to the moment in time when I worked at Tower Classical Records on the Sunset Strip. So many choices! And a machine in the back room to reseal the record in plastic wrap after I've finished listening to it... |
3 - 100% I enjoy listening to my HD tracks and can hear a difference in micro detail and depth and space over my stored WAV/AIFF versions 4 - My stored WAV and AIFF CD's sound fantastic and I prefer this over Tidal 2 - Streaming Tidal HiFi is very good, but I do this the least often at home with my main system, otherwise love it in my car. 1 - Don't have a CD player... N/A Innuos Zenith MK3 with Phoenix USB Clock, Musetec MH-DA005, Technics SU-R1000, Parasound JC1+ amps, JBL L-100 75's, KEF KUBE 12b's dual |
I looked at this question again and realized it is two questions, conflated. One of sound quality of different methods of reproducing a digital file. Second of the sound quality of different resolutions.
So first holding the file type constant at red book CD. You can purchase components where: CDPlayer = Stored File = Streaming. With today’s technology all three are the best they have ever been… amazingly satisfying. If your system or experience has not shown this then if you swapped a component or two it could. The problem can be capability or the components you own are / were not tailored to the sound qualities you like… warmth or detail… etc. As far as file resolution the higher the better in general. But, of course it is equipment dependent on how obvious the difference will be. Often mastering can make a bigger difference in the SQ. Typically the more detailed oriented the equipment the more obvious the difference the SQ due to file type is perceived. More detail is not always good in a high end system. It is really easy to get so much you destroy the music and overly highlight the detail. One of the big challenges for most audiophiles is the get the balance right… with todays equipment greatly detailed and musical fully bloomed sound is possible. But as always… its going to cost you. |
@chorus A simple ranking is meaningless without a lot of caveats. For example, what CD transport player and what tech is employed ot make it sound good? If ripped and played from a computer, what is done to isolate THAT, and what is the path? You need ot get down to engineering. Sorry, reality.
Let's start with the basics. The bits don;t actually get affected at all. Bits really are bits. What we need to understand is that there are many more things at play both in the playback and in the path from the CD/file to the DAC. Rubber meets the road at the DAC. What comes before may impact it, but is otherwise irrelevant. At the DAC (deep inside, not the audio component with afancy plate)you must have:
Interested folks might want to read this blog on the analog-ish-ness of the input signal to the DAC. What may surprise you is that the signal is handled very differently depending ont the interface. SPDIF transmits timing. So if the CD transport's timing is so-so, the signal is so-so. USB on the other hand, just send the bits to a buffer and the DAC fixes everything. If you send god-perfectly-timed signal to the USB generating computer, it throws that timing away and regenerates it. Think about that. This means that, for good DACs, USB ought to be preferred. It also means that there cannot be timing (or bot) differences between a ripped and FLAC'd track and the same from a CD.
In case you think i'm a bit head that does not listed, far from it. I listed to every single one of these and immediately found ripped FLAC from my macbook played through bitperfect to a good DAC was consistently a little better than from a CD player SPDIF out. But USB is full of pitfalls. Most computers are SUPER noisy and transmit noise on the USB ground. They also have switching power supplies and their mere presence messes up the rest of your stuff, a little.
So you have to set everything up right. Isolate the USB interface or power it from a quiet linear PS. Put the whole computer or bridge on a LPS. Use a DAC with good jitter specs. I run my server (Roon) remotely on a dedicated server. I designed and built a bog LPS for it (do you realize what a server draws at startup!!!!! holy sh~t!). I fling that to a roon bridge running on a Rpi with its own dedicated LPS. The USB input of my DACs all are isolated. One has my own board that has its own power supply and transformer isolation. It sounds f-ing wonderful, and my DACs are not THAT expensive (<$1000 plus a bunch of my own tweeks). I should get a better DAC but will wait until my own design exists. I prefer Tidal and Qobuz. I doubt they actually sound any different than the4 CDs or ripped CDs, but they have a killer value: all the newly remastered albums - many of which leave the originals in the dust (hey the artists think so too, they did the work). I find that MQA is in fact better but its pretty darn small compared to a great red book CD. My absolute references, BTW remain red book, not because 16 bit is better than 24 -unpossible! its because they just happen to be great recordings lovingly mastered to digital. Listen to some of the Verve and Blue Note stuff done on 3 channel tubed master tape machines in the 60s and early 70s, or the Mercuries...... As to super high res streaming - i don't have many. While i think that24 bits is very useful in the studio, i dont honestly think that is where issues fall. If LPs can sound insanely good with ~ 70 db CDs ought to be able to scrape by with 96. (2^16 = ~65,500:1 = ~96 dB)
I hope this helps.
|
Amazon streams at a maximum of 256kbps which is about 2.5:1 compression (after lossless). Its hardly high end, and even getting that stream requires digging and digging through the configuration menus. Or pay up for their premium hifi offer. I actually find Tidal much cheaper at the end of the day, than buying zillions of CDs even used.
|
Is there any actual evidence that lp's sound better than digital or otherwise? When auditioning my latest speakers, the dealer used all Esoteric equipment. Did this over three days using insane equipment (for me) including a network dac (N-01XD ?) and the last day hookup up an clock based on Rubidium isotope, an atomic clock I guess. When the music was good, it was really fantastic but that was maybe one in ten cuts or worse. I thought, okay, that was streaming at a pretty good level. But then we listened to an Esoteric SACD player. Um, to me, not even close. Actually that so changed my mind about digital that I regretted , sort of my last digital player purchase. |
For most of the last 50 years vinyl was the best (not including reel to reel). Digital has gotten better and better… particularly in the last ten years. But the change first happened in the $1/2 million digital systems and worked down.
‘’Just think about the question a moment. There are hundreds of brands of turntables, phono stages, DACs… and thousands of users that have different values on what “great” sounds like. I know some people that systems scraping up the last bit of detail is “great”, and I will go running out of the room with my hands clasped over my ears yelling “make it stop”… ($150K).
So it depends on the price point and the components chosen and the listeners values. But, in general you still will get a bit higher performance out of the vinyl side for equivalent investment. This is particularly true at the lower cost levels. You can see my system under my user ID. at this time my digital and analog end are equal in there performance… they are pretty similar in cost at ~$40K each. I know folks with $500K systems and they say analog performs better, requiring a 10% - 20% premium. People I trust. But at this time I am absolutely sure if you spend the time and effort you can get spectacular results from either in systems from $25K - $250K. I think the nod goes to Ana log below that.
One other thing. In todays world (as in my system) streaming (with same red book quality) equals CD player (higher Rez files streaming wins) = analog. I have a new tone arm on the way… analog may pull ahead a bit. But probably just a bit. |
