Thread: Don’t real audiophiles own their own media?

Oh no, I’m not a real audiophile. Bummer.

In my defense, I still have about 100 CDs from my youth in a box somewhere in the garage. Do they still count?

I just remember I do own 2 turntables.

I would like to thank all of you that took part in seriously answering the question.

The question was,

Originally Posted by Calvin

I’m for owning my own media. IMO this is part and parcel of being a real audiophile. What about you?

My mind wasn’t changed by the thread. “I’m for owning my own media. IMO this is part and parcel of being a real audiophile.”

As I see it, the answer revolves around the proper definition of an Audiophile and a Music Lover. Sound quality (SQ) matters more so to Audiophiles than Music Lovers. The SQ of streaming is not at the same level as owned media. So, Audiophiles own their own media – as SQ is one of their central focuses.

As I see it, the answer was more fully realized in multiple parts:

First, Gregm briefly defined the difference between an Audiophile and a Music Lover saying,

Originally Posted by Gregm

... Music & audio hobbyists are concerned about reproducing the recorded musical session in their homes.

Music lovers enjoy listening to the piece of music while pure audiophiles appreciate the reproduction SQ.

Second, Mike masterfully demonstrated (post 122) and explained (post 134) the differences between SQ in streaming and owning media. While his whole post should be seriously read and re-read as a tutorial on Streaming SQ, in summary he stated,

Originally Posted by Mike

So yes, quality matters, provenance of the recording version you are listening to really matters. Everything matters. And this is why audiophiles seeking the best of their favorite albums do their homework and buy media.

After this Randy stressed the importance of SQ and being an Audiophile stating,

Originally Posted by Randy Myers

I put forth the proposition that to an audiophile quality in the music does indeed matter.

Be it refining our gear, be it finding a better version of our favorite music, whichever form of media one chooses to use to listen, quality in the music is what makes us tick. ...

To me this is what being an audiophile means.

And Kingrex summarizes,

Originally Posted by Kingrex

I can see where an Audiophile needs to own some amount of music. Because in my definition, they are looking for some of the best, pristine versions of their favorite music.

Do you remember Coke in a bottle? To me that will always be the real Coke. Some here can remember when Coca-Cola changed their recipe. That was bad - real bad. The new stuff isn’t as good – and never will be.

While it can still be immensely enjoyed, streaming ain’t the real thing. Audiophiles own and desire to listen to the real thing. For them owning media is part and parcel of what it means to be an Audiophile.

Thanks again to all who sincerely participated.

Originally Posted by Shadowfax

Good thread and overall discussion. I picked up many good points but do not stream anything more than Pandora thru my 2 OPPOs for background music.

I listen to about 2TB of digital files on my high end Office System while working

PC > JRiver > Firestone Fubar II Dac fed by AudioQuest Cinamon USB > Lepai 20X20 > Dynaudio 42s

I still stream from my Aurender N100 and even rip files on my ACS10 as well. It's fine for causal listening.

Originally Posted by Calvin

I would like to thank all of you that took part in seriously answering the question.

The question was,



My mind wasn’t changed by the thread. “I’m for owning my own media. IMO this is part and parcel of being a real audiophile.”

As I see it, the answer revolves around the proper definition of an Audiophile and a Music Lover. Sound quality (SQ) matters more so to Audiophiles than Music Lovers. The SQ of streaming is not at the same level as owned media. So, Audiophiles own their own media – as SQ is one of their central focuses.

As I see it, the answer was more fully realized in multiple parts:

First, Gregm briefly defined the difference between an Audiophile and a Music Lover saying,



Second, Mike masterfully demonstrated (post 122) and explained (post 134) the differences between SQ in streaming and owning media. While his whole post should be seriously read and re-read as a tutorial on Streaming SQ, in summary he stated,



After this Randy stressed the importance of SQ and being an Audiophile stating,



And Kingrex summarizes,



Do you remember Coke in a bottle? To me that will always be the real Coke. Some here can remember when Coca-Cola changed their recipe. That was bad - real bad. The new stuff isn’t as good – and never will be.

While it can still be immensely enjoyed, streaming ain’t the real thing. Audiophiles own and desire to listen to the real thing. For them owning media is part and parcel of what it means to be an Audiophile.

Thanks again to all who sincerely participated.

You were looking for confirmation bias. And of course you cherry picked responses that satisfied your bias. All is well is the ‘real’ audiophile world.

Originally Posted by nicoff

You were looking for confirmation bias. And of course you cherry picked responses that satisfied your bias. All is well is the ‘real’ audiophile world.

Cherry trees (Truth) bear cherries (Facts) - not sour lemons (Fiction).

The facts confirmed that Audiophiles are more concerned about SQ than Music Lovers and that streaming SQ is not as good as media SQ, so Audiophiles will own media. We also learned that some think they are Audiophiles when they are actually Music Lovers. Both are good, but there are differences.

If the real audiophile is the guy that chases the absolute quality of sound and constantly upgrading and buying more gear, cable, tweaks, chasing some lofty goals with no real defining gauge to go by.. If the answer to the sound vs music is I have to have best quality sound to enjoy music... Well, it is very often the same guy that gets burned out from it all. Don't take my word for it, just let time do its thing...

This morning I am dedicating to Coleman Hawkins as Roon auto-curates for me. Over 130 albums of delicious, big, warm, breathy, Tenor saxophone just billowing across my room with the EL34 running in triode mode. Barely using a few watts to create a very satisfying sound that I am not analyzing for accuracy or looking for truth in sound. The sound I am getting from streaming all these delicious tracks of music from over 50 years ago, that Roon itself is surprising me with is absolutely delightful. I can not ask for more and don't need more. Just let this moment last as long it can. Hours upon hours of my favorite music.

To me, that is my "audiophile" way. How you define your audiophile way is completely unimportant to me.

What was that warning sticker on my Ray Brown Soular Energy album?

Originally Posted by MPW

So what you are saying is that an individual that has invested $500k in a system and placed it in a dedicated listening room that has been professionally voiced and uses streaming as a source is not an audiophile, but a person with a $5,000 system that is randomly placed in his living room and is listening to a CD that he purchased in 1984 is an audiophile? Just want to make sure I am clear on this.

You're assuming that someone who spends megabucks on a high end system is automatically an Audiophile and you are further assuming that someone who only spends 5k on a system can't be an Audiophile. You're wrong on both counts. -- read see post 134 again, and understand the limitations of a streaming only system. Audiophile are more concerned about SQ than Music Lovers are, to summarize post 134:

...quality matters, provenance of the recording version you are listening to really matters. Everything matters. And this is why audiophiles seeking the best of their favorite albums do their homework and buy media.

Calvin, you keep implying that an audiophile is a connoisseur of good sound. A perfectionist. Please explain what gauge, measure, musical experience, or other knowlege you rely on to differentiate the recorded music and analyze the sound for its accuracy and fidelity. Another words, what exactly are your credentials in such topics?

Originally Posted by TheOctopus

Calvin, you keep implying that an audiophile is a connoisseur of good sound. A perfectionist. Please explain what gauge, measure, musical experience, or other knowlege you rely on to differentiate the recorded music and analyze the sound for its accuracy and fidelity. Another words, what exactly are your credentials in such topics?

An Audiophile is a perfectionist - IMO, a person who is journeying towards perfection in audio reproduction. I wasn't aware I needed a degree in audio engineering to understand such.

What are my credentials in such topics? I want to learn. That's one reason I made the OP. I thought this was kind of obvious. I didn't know you owned this forum and didn't consider learning as a sufficient reason for posting a topic.

However, one thing I do know - you're not my teacher and never will be. That's why you are going back on "ignore."

Originally Posted by MPW

You missed my point. My point was that there are many ways to achieve great sound. Using physical media can be a way. An expensive system that is expertly set up in a great room is another way. I would hate to vote that system or its owner out of the "audiophile" club simply because streaming is the source. That seems to be what you want to do. I'm not sure why, but carry on.

From what I understand just having great sound doesn't make one an Audiophile. It's not about voting someone out of a club, it's a matter of knowing who is actually a member of the club in the first place.

Originally Posted by nicoff

You were looking for confirmation bias. And of course you cherry picked responses that satisfied your bias. All is well is the ‘real’ audiophile world.

+1

Originally Posted by MPW

You would have the initial qualifier be the use of physical media. Do you use physical media? Yes - you may be considered an audiophile. No - you may not be considered an audiophile. How does this grow our hobby and help it stay healthy for future generations that might really enjoy this diversion? I believe the key to striving for "perfection" as you mentioned in post 171 is to judiciously optimize the listening position/speaker/room interaction. This includes the use of lasers to precisely level speakers and measure distances. It includes the use of Room EQ Wizard software to precisely measure the low frequency response of the room to optimize the listening position. Even though this is my path to audiophile nirvana, I understand that it is not for everyone. I don't use it as a qualifier to consider others audiophiles. Again, lots of ways to achieve great sound and strive for "perfection". Personally, I prefer the idea of being inclusive and not exclusive.

I never stated, the initial qualifier for being an Audiophile is the use of physical media. However, as seen in the thread it is a qualifier. While there's "lots of ways to achieve great sound and strive for "perfection,"" you can't get there without the right media! No matter how good your system and room are the same principle applies: Garbage In, Garbage Out = GIGO. Audiophiles don't settle for garbage...

Does your inclusivity for being an Audiophile include using an iPhone and streaming music? Perhaps playing music on a car radio? Perhaps you're an Audiophile if you sing in the shower? Where do you draw the line of someone having the title Audiophile?

Originally Posted by Calvin

An Audiophile is a perfectionist - IMO, a person who is journeying towards perfection in audio reproduction.

That's right!
I also think that being an audiophile has to do with attitude. Has to do with the search for the best possible reproduction. And that implies both, looking for a good system and looking for the best recordings that exist, because we certainly agree that quality at the source is fundamental.
If we succumb to quantity at the expense of quality, we will soon be no different from the new generations who listen to music especially on youtube, ignoring quality almost completely.
So, for me, the media is very, very important.
The only objection is that it must have a remote control.

Originally Posted by AudioFredd

The term which somewhat upsets me here is "real audiophile". Really, who cares? I appreciate the comments by Calvin for trying to define what an audiophile is, but this is just dead theory.

I use the term audiophile for people which share my passion about music, my enjoyment in listening to music and a specific type of interest in reproduction quality, which helps to refine my perception of music. The gear and the media used to do this is secondary. With this in mind I would say, that a first degree initiate is no less a "real audiophile" than a grand master of the audiophile lodge.

... and ... ownership of media is totally irrelevant to me.

The word "real" is needed to differentiate from those that make up an incomplete definition of the term Audiophile like you did above.

Please join the new discussion:

What is an Audiophile?

How about :
‘real audiophiles’ are poseurs pretending to be audiophiles? They want to be audiophiles so badly that they find it necessary to attempt to differentiate themselves.

Originally Posted by nicoff

How about :
‘real audiophiles’ are poseurs pretending to be audiophiles? They want to be audiophiles so badly that they find it necessary to attempt to differentiate themselves.

Differentiate themselves from someone you have yet to define. You haven’t defined what an Audiophile entirely is? What are they? A complete definition - not some one liners. See

What is an Audiophile?

Originally Posted by Calvin

An Audiophile is a perfectionist - IMO, a person who is journeying towards perfection in audio reproduction. I wasn't aware I needed a degree in audio engineering to understand such.

What are my credentials in such topics? I want to learn. That's one reason I made the OP. I thought this was kind of obvious. I didn't know you owned this forum and didn't consider learning as a sufficient reason for posting a topic.

However, one thing I do know - you're not my teacher and never will be. That's why you are going back on "ignore."

You want to learn? Seems to me you want to troll. You are learning by telling others how or what they should they listen to and that streaming is inferior and you are not an audiophile if you don’t collect physical media? I’ll ask again by what gauge or measure you have arrived at the fact that streaming is inferior? Have you consulted with the industry and labels embracing streaming to let them know they are fools? You should do so quick because streaming took off like Space X rocket and there is no turning back. Statistics speak for themselves.

Is a guy with a set of headphones listening to a 352.8 DXD one microphone recording done in an award winning studio in Europe with a vacuum tube microphone and captured on a Studer A80 reel to reel tape machine running at 15ips a music lover or an audiophile or neither because he doesn’t have a 44.1Khz version of this music on CD? Please school me. Perhaps headphones are not an audiophile tool either?

Originally Posted by TheOctopus

You want to learn? Seems to me you want to troll. You are learning by telling others how or what they should they listen to and that streaming is inferior and you are not an audiophile if you don’t collect physical media? I’ll ask again by what gauge or measure you have arrived at the fact that streaming is inferior? Have you consulted with the industry and labels embracing streaming to let them know they are fools? You should do so quick because streaming took off like Space X rocket and there is no turning back. Statistics speak for themselves.

Serge when someone places you on “ignore” on this forum they can’t see your posts. The only way I saw this one is that I signed out and then it became visible. It seems you have made quite a few posts I haven’t interacted with. Now you know why.

You keep insisting streaming is better quality than vinyl and tape or at least is equal to it. But you have not proven that. An assertion is not evidence.

So please interact word for word with Mike’s post below. Convince me that he’s wrong. Talk to us about the superior quality of A2D converters, compression, etc. over tape and vinyl.

Here’s his post so you can see it.

Ok, so I will take that as a yes, DAC’s do matter. Well here’s the problem:

EVERY SINGLE digital recording MUST go through an Analog to Digital conversion process. So when you click play on that track on Tidal or Qobuz, you are at the mercy of whatever piece of crap A2D converter was used at that time. Think about A2D converters in the 80’s, 90’s, etc.

A few summers ago, we toured recording studios. Their A2D converters are absolute junk. They said “$500 would be a huge expense on an A2D.” Many smaller studios are using the A2D built into their Mac computers and software.

They are not using high quality A2D converters like the ones from Merging Technologies. They are using very inexpensive A2D converters and up until about 2015, most were not even the equivalent of a Chord Mojo on the DAC side. I saw them with my own eyes and talked to a famous Mastering Engineer for confirmation.

When you add to that the obsession with compression, you now have a true double edged sword for many modern digital recordings.

Mastering Engineer Bob Katz is a friend of mine. I was introduced to Bob many years ago by our mutual friend Mike Chaffee who sadly passed away earlier this year from Covid. Bob has been to my house, I’ve been to his house, we’ve chatted many times. I’ve read his books on Mastering. I attended the seminar he gave to our audiophile society. Did you know that MOST recordings today are cut to 24/96, and those 24/192 files are usually just upsampled 24/96 done on not the best equipment in the world? That’s why the 24/96 often sounds better! I’ve talked to Bob at length to really understand what the hell is going on with digital today.

Here’s a little story: I have a local customer named Bill. His absolute favorite album in the world is “Sinatra and Strings”. Bill is a streaming/digital only guy. Every time Bill would come in the store, he would play the album and mumble wondering how Frank could allow such a terrible recording. “Listen! Listen!” he would say, “those strings are so harsh sounding. How could Frank approve of this?” I said “Bill, I have an original first pressing of this album at home and a MOFI repressing from the master tapes. I’ll bring them in.”

The next time Bill was in the store, I put on both albums, his jaw hit the floor. “It wasn’t the recording at all!!!!!” he shouted. Yup, it was the horrible A2D conversion process.

There are great digital recordings where they’ve taken the time and care to do things right. Listening to the recordings of say Rumer are a perfect example of outstanding digital.

But when you look at the Doors album above, that’s coming from the master tapes, using proper equipment and it will NEVER EVER see an A2D process, at least for the vinyl pressing.

So yes, quality matters, provenance of the recording version you are listening to really matters. Everything matters. And this is why audiophiles seeking the best of their favorite albums do their homework and buy media.

Originally Posted by TheOctopus

Is a guy with a set of headphones listening to a 352.8 DXD one microphone recording done in an award winning studio in Europe with a vacuum tube microphone and captured on a Studer A80 reel to reel tape machine running at 15ips a music lover or an audiophile or neither because he doesn’t have a 44.1Khz version of this music on CD? Please school me. Perhaps headphones are not an audiophile tool either?

Serge,

Tape is physical media. It beats steaming. PERIOD.

Originally Posted by Calvin

Serge when someone places you on “ignore” on this forum they can’t see your posts. The only way I saw this one is that I signed out and then it became visible. It seems you have made quite a few posts I haven’t interacted with. Now you know why.

You keep insisting streaming is better quality than vinyl and tape or at least is equal to it. But you have not proven that. An assertion is not evidence.

So please interact word for word with Mike’s post below. Convince me that he’s wrong. Talk to us about the superior quality of A2D converters, compression, etc. over tape and vinyl.

Here’s his post so you can see it.

It is actually you Calvin that keeps implying that streaming is inferior. Technically speaking, digital is vastly superior to analog be it tape or vinyl by the dynamic range, resolution and noise floor. It was developed to propel the music industry forward. So there is that. If you don’t know the specs of digital vs tape vs vinyl, look it up. How digital is implemented and what filter is used is up to the people from both the equipment/gear and music mastering and production. Digital can sound absolutely gorgeous. Download some high resolution music that was natively recorded in high resolution and mastered with care and then tell me if you still prefer vinyl or digital.

Until you have done that personally, there is nothing else to discuss. Yes, I know the selection of such boutique native high res is very limited but it is still a very valid point.

One can enjoy vinyl, one can enjoy tape, one can enjoy CD, SACD, XRCD, HDCD as well as the widely accepted and newest trend that has revolutionized music consumption for the audiophile as well as the masses, which is streaming. 192/24 files on Qobuz sounds damn fine to my ears. Very analog and smooth so I don’t need convincing. The 352.8 DXD is jaw dropping when I listen so I don’t need convincing. Vinyl and CD I have listened for over 30 years to, so I know what they sound like. Nothing against any media or source, whatever turns you on.

Calling people out as something less than an audiophile because they prefer to listen to high resolution files or 192/24 over Qobuz or even MQA which has been developed vs 44.1 CD or a used vinyl record is silly and only irritates those of us who have been into the hobby for decades.

Originally Posted by TheOctopus

It is actually you Calvin that keeps implying that streaming is inferior. Technically speaking, digital is vastly superior to analog be it tape or vinyl by the dynamic range, resolution and noise floor. It was developed to propel the music industry forward. So there is that. If you don’t know the specs of digital vs tape vs vinyl, look it up. How digital is implemented and what filter is used is up to the people from both the equipment/gear and music mastering and production. Digital can sound absolutely gorgeous. Download some high resolution music that was natively recorded in high resolution and mastered with care and then tell me if you still prefer vinyl or digital.

Until you have done that personally, there is nothing else to discuss. Yes, I know the selection of such boutique native high res is very limited but it is still a very valid point.

One can enjoy vinyl, one can enjoy tape, one can enjoy CD, SACD, XRCD, HDCD as well as the widely accepted and newest trend that has revolutionized music consumption for the audiophile as well as the masses, which is streaming. 192/24 files on Qobuz sounds damn fine to my ears. Very analog and smooth so I don’t need convincing. The 352.8 DXD is jaw dropping when I listen so I don’t need convincing. Vinyl and CD I have listened for over 30 years to, so I know what they sound like. Nothing against any media or source, whatever turns you on.

Calling people out as something less than an audiophile because they prefer to listen to high resolution files or 192/24 over Qobuz or even MQA which has been developed vs 44.1 CD or a used vinyl record is silly and only irritates those of us who have been into the hobby for decades.

What about Mike’s post Serge? Provide evidence that Mike is incorrect? Make me a believer (if you can). Interact with Mike’s posts paragraph by paragraph Serge.

What about Mike’s post? It’s all true. There is a sea of music out there. You will find complete garbage that was loudness mastered, dynamic range compressed and abused on CD because the labels wanted the louder CD to sell. Back when people would go to Tower Records and such and listen before buying, the loud CD would sound better to the average consumer and the industry knew that.

How about vinyl? You honestly think all vinyl is created equal? Ha! That’s a joke. How about the industry cutting your new shiny vinyl from a crap digital source only to make a buck on you? Sure, some pressings are legendary, go seek them out and pay up. Big $.. Let’s see how many you can collect.

I still have cassettes from the 80’s. Virtually unlistenable now. Time killed the tape.

New R2R tapes? $300 to $600 each. Knock yourself out. How many will you buy or are you going to listen to the same few dozen over and over? How about an R2R machine? Do you have a nicely restored version? Any idea what a serious R2R machine goes for?

I really enjoy music and I obviously enjoy it in high fidelity but I will take it in any media if that is the only way. So what’s wrong with enjoying music in the car if that’s where I am enjoying it while driving?

By the way what do you think happened to Tower Records? Music piracy that preceded streaming killed that model. Other than small record stores enjoying a vinyl resurgence and selling a whole bunch of worn out and beat up records to the millennials who think it’s HIP right now, they’d be closed too. There are not enough audiophiles out there for every record store to survive. Where there were 10 in a geographical area before, there is 1 now... believe me, I grew up in NYC...

So in a nutshell, don’t knock any source of music. Enjoy your music any way you like. Like vinyl and tape? Buy them!

The physical media has seen a dramatic drop in sales over the decade.

Originally Posted by Calvin

Serge,

Tape is physical media. It beats steaming. PERIOD.

Well, this tells me you have very little understanding of anything related to how or in what ways music is recorded, mixed and mastered. The only way to get that boutique file that was natively captured in high resolution is to download it to your computer. The source of the recording I used as an example does not offer that R2R master tape for sale nor are they in the business of duplicating the masters. You can’t use the master for many copies as you wear it out and every copy of a copy of a tape gets progressively less in quality. So download and enjoy it is.

The reality of things is such that digital can and does sound phenomenal. Streamed or on CD. I still have my Tacet CD’s. The German label often made classical recordings with tube microphones and virtually no transistors in the chain. Obviously it still has to be transferred to a CD... but they sound very smooth and analog without any digital glare or hardness of tone. Tube warmth and glow, even on CD.

Yes, they will sound different depending on your DAC. I have three different filters on my DAC... Are they vinyl records not going to sound different with a different cartridge/analog rig? Are they not going to sound different on a different tape machine with different heads?

But... when I compare the Tacet CD to the identical versions streamed over Roon, while there is a tiny difference at best, it’s nothing to even meaningfully discuss because I cannot tell which is closer to the truth. Perhaps my sacd player is playing it different or maybe the USB interface and my internal DAC when I stream? Bottom line, I don’t care. Both are great sound.
‘With many other CD to streaming, no difference that I can appreciate enough to be concerned.

Originally Posted by Mike

I tried!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That’s OK Mike. You’ve made it clear.

Originally Posted by Mike

I didn't mean to "like" post 181. My apologies. Blame clumsy fingers.

I understand your intention was to “like” post 175.

Originally Posted by TheOctopus

What about Mike’s post? It’s all true. There is a sea of music out there. You will find complete garbage that was loudness mastered, dynamic range compressed and abused on CD because the labels wanted the louder CD to sell. Back when people would go to Tower Records and such and listen before buying, the loud CD would sound better to the average consumer and the industry knew that.

How about vinyl? You honestly think all vinyl is created equal? Ha! That’s a joke. How about the industry cutting your new shiny vinyl from a crap digital source only to make a buck on you? Sure, some pressings are legendary, go seek them out and pay up. Big $.. Let’s see how many you can collect.

I still have cassettes from the 80’s. Virtually unlistenable now. Time killed the tape.

New R2R tapes? $300 to $600 each. Knock yourself out. How many will you buy or are you going to listen to the same few dozen over and over? How about an R2R machine? Do you have a nicely restored version? Any idea what a serious R2R machine goes for?

I really enjoy music and I obviously enjoy it in high fidelity but I will take it in any media if that is the only way. So what’s wrong with enjoying music in the car if that’s where I am enjoying it while driving?

By the way what do you think happened to Tower Records? Music piracy that preceded streaming killed that model. Other than small record stores enjoying a vinyl resurgence and selling a whole bunch of worn out and beat up records to the millennials who think it’s HIP right now, they’d be closed too. There are not enough audiophiles out there for every record store to survive. Where there were 10 in a geographical area before, there is 1 now... believe me, I grew up in NYC...

So in a nutshell, don’t knock any source of music. Enjoy your music any way you like. Like vinyl and tape? Buy them!

The physical media has seen a dramatic drop in sales over the decade.

I’m glad you agree with Mike. But since Mike is correct and your streaming content is done with a cheap A2D Converter then I don’t understand how streaming could sound better than vinyl or CD. And then there’s the compression issue. My experience has been that streaming is not superior to physical media.

Mike ended his comments by saying, “So yes, quality matters, provenance of the recording version you are listening to really matters. Everything matters. And this is why audiophiles seeking the best of their favorite albums do their homework and buy media.” This is speaking of the quality of physical media over streaming. Unless I’m reading this incorrectly, he’s saying physical media matters and is better than streaming. And I agree with this.

One of my non-COVID friends brought his SME Synergy over to my house. We compared the same songs on vinyl, CD and streaming. The SME won hands down. For me snare drums and cymbal splashes had much greater punch. The sound stage was wider and fuller. Everything was better. I loved that little SME. The CDs finished 2nd.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy streaming too. I use a N100 to stream and rip CDs with a ACS10. Qobuz is great for convenience and casual listening, but not critical listening. When I put on ripped files (technically streaming) everything gets better. Maybe I just have a poor DAC for streaming Qobuz - a Luxman D08-u - but I can tell the difference between streaming Qobuz and my ripped files. But on good days when my back is well, I’m using physical CDs as the quality difference is even larger than ripped files or Qobuz (but Qobuz is better than Tidal).

Quality for me is ranked:

Physical Media
Ripped Media
Streaming

Originally Posted by Calvin

I’m glad you agree with Mike. But since Mike is correct and your streaming content is done with a cheap A2D Converter then I don’t understand how streaming could sound better than vinyl or CD. And then there’s the compression issue. My experience has been that streaming is not superior to physical media.

Mike ended his comments by saying, “So yes, quality matters, provenance of the recording version you are listening to really matters. Everything matters. And this is why audiophiles seeking the best of their favorite albums do their homework and buy media.” This is speaking of the quality of physical media over streaming. Unless I’m reading this incorrectly, he’s saying physical media matters and is better than streaming. And I agree with this.

One of my non-COVID friends brought his SME Synergy over to my house. We compared the same songs on vinyl, CD and streaming. The SME won hands down. For me snare drums and cymbal splashes had much greater punch. The sound stage was wider and fuller. Everything was better. I loved that little SME. The CDs finished 2nd.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy streaming too. I use a N100 to stream and rip CDs with a ACS10. Qobuz is great for convenience and casual listening, but not critical listening. When I put on ripped files (technically streaming) everything gets better. Maybe I just have a poor DAC for streaming Qobuz - a Luxman D08-u - but I can tell the difference between streaming Qobuz and my ripped files. But on good days when my back is well, I’m using physical CDs as the quality difference is even larger than ripped files or Qobuz (but Qobuz is better than Tidal).

Quality for me is ranked:

Physical Media
Ripped Media
Streaming

I compared my SACD’s to streaming both over speakers and my headphones to eliminate as many variables. Slight difference at best and nothing to strongly prefer. I have not found any cases where streaming was clearly superior to any XRCD or SACD. Qobuz in some cases sounded better to Tidal and especially MQA to my ears. Very audible difference on some recordings. I don’t have an MQA dac and it punishes you if you listen to MQA that way. So I compare non MQA tidal to Qobuz. Again, some may prefer the more forward and dynamic sounding Tidal versions. They obviously tweak their files differently. Qobuz seems to be geared more towards the ears of audiophiles that enjoy classical and Jazz while Tidal as we know is heavy into RAP, POP, R&B, etc.. they may be catering to the younger generation with a different taste and preference. But Qobuz sounds noticeably more laid back, relaxed and less forward. So yes, digital conversions and whatever the Roon may be doing.

FPGA DACs get new updates. Today it’s the version Mt.Fuji, tomorrow Kilimanjaro and it sounds different. People seem to like that. Roon, Tidal, Qobuz may also change and tweak their sound.

We still cannot gauge or measure which is closer to what happened in the studio 50 years ago or even last month... The recording engineer may know.

So why even worry about it? If it sounds good, roll with it.


I’ve owned an SME20/2/V arm and I also have a Luxman but it’s the D-06 version. Try the various filters in the Luxman...

Originally Posted by Calvin

You're assuming that someone who spends megabucks on a high end system is automatically an Audiophile and you are further assuming that someone who only spends 5k on a system can't be an Audiophile. You're wrong on both counts. -- read see post 134 again, and understand the limitations of a streaming only system. Audiophile are more concerned about SQ than Music Lovers are, to summarize post 134:

So true. Is Bill Gates with a $500 audio system who never listens to it an audiophile? I threw the name out. The point is, the same type guy with a Ferrari he never drives because he prefers the Mercedes and Auto Aficionado.
$5,000 can make a decent system. Especialy if the owner has a nice JVC direct drive TT with self modded dampening and power supply upgrades. Maybe he has a home made record vacuum (like me) and collects the best used vinyl he can find.

I call the $5,000 guy an audiophile. The $500k guy is just a rich dude who was introduced to a happy audio dealer through a friend.

Point taken MPW. I have meet people online who have spent a significant amount of time building out an excellent digital foundation with attention paid to streaming. Good routers, modems and switches with proper cables and PS to maximize performance. Heck yea they are audiophiles. Maybe you call that, owning the source.

But I start to waffle on the term audiophile if someone invested in a decent something or another but never spent any time optimizing their system. They spent $8K or so. Set it on a shelf. Turn it on and listen. Little more though went into cabling, isolation, optimizing the digital backbone or power supply. They just play music. I call that more a music lover.