All of this is over my head but my lying eyes don't deceive me. Blu Ray players are head and shoulders above streaming. Period. From AI Overview:
Streaming services use compression techniques (like HEVC/H.265) to reduce file sizes and bandwidth usage, which can lead to some data loss. Blu-ray players, especially 4K, use less aggressive compression (H.264/AVC) to preserve more details.
Streaming services typically use lower bitrates (data transmission rate) than Blu-ray players. For example, a 4K Blu-ray might have a bitrate of 40-70 Mbps, while a streaming service might only offer 10-25 Mbps.
Due to lower bitrates and more aggressive compression, streaming can sometimes show more visible compression artifacts, like banding, blocking, or a loss of detail in dark or fast-moving scenes. Blu-ray, with its higher bitrates and less compression, generally produces a clearer, sharper, and more detailed image.
Blu-ray often includes lossless audio formats (like DTS-HD Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD), which provide better sound quality than the compressed audio formats used in streaming (like Dolby Digital Plus) according to Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum (of all sources).
Blu-ray discs can store significantly more data than a streaming service. A standard 1080p Blu-ray can hold up to 50GB, while a 4K Blu-ray can hold up to 100GB.Streaming services, on the other hand, compress the video into much smaller files, often in the range of 10-13GB for a 4K movie.
The argument that a Ferrari doesn't turn blue for a moment is specious. What streaming does is change the color tone from something like Rosso Barchetta to Rosso Berlinetta or Rosso Cino or even worse, Rosso Corsa.
When streaming audio, there's really no doubt that all the packets get there in time and in order but that's a numbers game. That's all that's being discussed and relies on everyone to just take their word for it as they can hear the difference.The signal in a CDP isn't compressed and travels a matter of inches while the streamed version is compressed and then uncompressed and travels around the world.
This numbers game presupposes that the resultant sound is not in the least affected when compressed and uncompressed and focuses only on the numbers. That's the very definition of a red herring:
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion.
How many here jumped on the MQA bandwagon only to see it shot down? That compression scheme corrupted the sound. How many are fully invested in streaming and find the need to validate it to others? There are so many previous threads on this that, in the end, went nowhere. Both sides stayed put.
A casual search on the internet shows more contradictions to arguments for streaming not being brought up but well known to those who can rattle off numbers and protocols like there's no tomorrow. It's in threads like this that one can find consensus to put forth their arguments without fear of being challenged. I certainly don't have the chops for that but there are so many recording engineers online that say otherwise as well but they rarely frequent sites like this. Some have in the past and when they do, the thread goes silent for awhile and then gathers momentum, picking up where it left off with the hopes of not hearing from them again.
It's not that those who prefer CDs and better quality endpoint devices think there's magic in our choices though we are told that. It's the ones who say that a compressed signal can travel through a dirty and noisy chain and remain its virgin self when uncompressed that abide by magic.
All the best,
Nonoise
