Thread: Streaming vs dedicated CD player

I rip any CD or SACD. Not only for sound quality but for convenience to play from my server. More important anything from my server is played through HQPlayer and up sampled to DSD512, sounding better than any spinner will play the disk in my view.

CD would win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

To me this all depends on the DAC. I know of no DAC in any CD player that will compete with the current SOTA DACs/network players that are out there. Not because they couldn't, just that's not where the manufacturers are putting their best DACs.

If we are talking about a CD spinner that only send digital to a DAC then -- every combo will be a different story. You really need to listen to each and decide which one you prefer.

Originally Posted by schmidtmike76

I’m looking for a back up or alternative to streaming for that moment when my old iMac dies or I have a Roon issue etc. I stream wirelessly from another room where my old 08 iMac runs Roon streams it to my router in my cave. From the router it’s Ethernet to the lumin. Zero issues over the last year no lags etc but still would like a back up. With my bryston BDA3 I probably should look for just a decent cheaper transport.

SimAudio makes a stand alone CD transport which would feed right into your BDA3. We sell it for $2000.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Originally Posted by schmidtmike76

im so dumb with computers I have no idea what they are lol hence the CD player back up. But I will look. To be honest my 08 iMac hasn’t gave me one ounce of grief. I have also been told even though it’s maxed out for processing power it does not affect sound quality. If that’s the case I’m in no rush.

When a computer is being pushed very hard it definitely affects the sound quality. Most playback software is CPU dependent so being maxed out is not a good thing. People who do not know will say it doesn't. but then again people say that cables make no difference also, so to each their own .

I did an experiment awhile back, comparing my MCD 1100 playing RBCD’s into my Yggdrasil via AES/XLR and the identical song played via SurfacePro 3 USB into Yggy Unison USB input. The SurfacePro 3 was running on its batteries and the files were on its internal hard drive.
I could not tell any difference between the two using a standard set of tracks I use to audition new gear. I’ve heard these tracks hundreds of times.

Now this is pretty good gear, certainly not at the level many of the folks here enjoy, so I can easily see how others may come to different conclusions.

Originally Posted by W9TR

I did an experiment awhile back, comparing my MCD 1100 playing RBCD’s into my Yggdrasil via AES/XLR and the identical song played via SurfacePro 3 USB into Yggy Unison USB input. The SurfacePro 3 was running on its batteries and the files were on its internal hard drive.
I could not tell any difference between the two using a standard set of tracks I use to audition new gear. I’ve heard these tracks hundreds of times.

Now this is pretty good gear, certainly not at the level many of the folks here enjoy, so I can easily see how others may come to different conclusions.

Were you playing the CD rip against the CD? For fun, play Tidal or QoBuz 16/44 against them CD. I found this to be quite different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Originally Posted by Randy Myers

When a computer is being pushed very hard it definitely affects the sound quality. Most playback software is CPU dependent so being maxed out is not a good thing. People who do not know will say it doesn't. but then again people say that cables make no difference also, so to each their own .

you are 100% right that it's a challenge for server makers to overcome. but......there are servers and dacs now (at higher price points for sure) that have met and overcome the processing power and heat issues that were real processing limitations until very recently. maybe investigate the Taiko Extreme server. it is a 99 pound music server. ninety nine pounds for a computer!!!

SGM EXTREME – Taiko Audio

i've owned one for a year. these are heavily back ordered taking a few months to get.

my point being that if you want digital gear that is not stressed by getting pushed hard they exist. but it will cost you.

I was playing the CD rip against the CD.

I’ve tried Tidal and Amazon Music comparisons against CD’s and the results are sometimes so wacky that the mastering must be totally different.

Other times they are close but the CD’s sound better. I have really slow internet speeds at both our houses so that may be a contributing factor.

Originally Posted by u-sound

did you ever had the chance to hear theyr alsyvox speakers?

why did you give the server away after a year?

sorry if my writing was not clear, i still own my Extreme Server and love it to death. Emile (the designer/builder) visited me in my room last November. i do own multiple Taiko products.....and have known Emile and Ed for a few years.

not visited the Netherlands ever, but would love to. two years ago i did hear the Alsyvox at RMAF and was impressed. i recommended them to a local friend who did buy them. great speaker.

Originally Posted by Randy Myers

When a computer is being pushed very hard it definitely affects the sound quality. Most playback software is CPU dependent so being maxed out is not a good thing. People who do not know will say it doesn't. but then again people say that cables make no difference also, so to each their own .

Are you running Windows?

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne

you are 100% right that it's a challenge for server makers to overcome. but......there are servers and dacs now (at higher price points for sure) that have met and overcome the processing power and heat issues that were real processing limitations until very recently. maybe investigate the Taiko Extreme server. it is a 99 pound music server. ninety nine pounds for a computer!!!

SGM EXTREME – Taiko Audio

i've owned one for a year. these are heavily back ordered taking a few months to get.

my point being that if you want digital gear that is not stressed by getting pushed hard they exist. but it will cost you.

Totally agree. These machines are certainly available... for a price . I hear the SGM Extreme is excellent, but for how much . Over $38,000... OUCH...

My Falcon Northwest configured as a dedicated server running Roon and HQPlayer does a wonder job in my view .

Originally Posted by mep

Are you running Windows?

Yes, on a 8 core i7 running off M.2 drives and gold standard power supply. As slimline configuration as can be done. The machine runs Roon and HQPlayer.... no other applications (I know Windows runs several but the over head is really non-existent in this machine).

Originally Posted by Randy Myers

Totally agree. These machines are certainly available... for a price . I hear the SGM Extreme is excellent, but for how much . Over $38,000... OUCH...

My Falcon Northwest configured as a dedicated server running Roon and HQPlayer does a wonder job in my view .

more like about $28,000 USD, but i completely agree with you that that is an ouch! number. there are other solutions that succeed to varying degrees at solving the same issues. so users have lots of solid alternatives at various price points.

the Extreme is for the crazy serious person who might have chased computer digital musical bliss for years, maybe built a new server himself every year for 6-7 years, and then observes all the investments he has made might total as much or more than an Extreme, but still are held back by certain barriers that the Extreme has solved. you look at drawers or shelves full of computer bits and pieces and realize it can end now.

or; maybe someone is considering a vinyl investment, but likes the fact that musical access is unlimited literally with digital streaming. the budget is re-purposed to the server.

so the Extreme does answer questions for some.....and be a reasonably rational decision.

but most either, don't choose to, or cannot choose to, buy one. like the tip top of any product category.

The reasons you need such power is because Roon is an absolute pig for resources. Like I’ve said, I love the interface, but sonically and it’s resourcing requirements, are not ideal. I won’t be surprised if people start to move away from Roon. I will be watching the SGM guys closely. They probably already know what I’m saying. I would be curious if they have tried any other software, like Audirvana and how it compared to Roon SONICALLY.

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne

more like about $28,000 USD, but i completely agree with you that that is an ouch! number..

I just saw the price in pound and did a conversion... sounds like a wonderful machine, but dam...

I truly wonder how much of a difference this would actually be from my Falcon running Roon and HQPlayer. I believe the rest of my system would be the limiting factor making it difficult to actually see any difference with this awesome server.

Originally Posted by Mike

The reasons you need such power is because Roon is an absolute pig for resources. Like I’ve said, I love the interface, but sonically and it’s resourcing requirements, are not ideal. I won’t be surprised if people start to move away from Roon. I will be watching the SGM guys closely. They probably already know what I’m saying. I would be curious if they have tried any other software, like Audirvana and how it compared to Roon SONICALLY.

Hehe, Roon is a lite weight in resource usage verses HQPlayer . HQPlayer is the software that drives the resource requirements over the top .

With just Roon running my CPU use is in the single digits but HQPlayer pushes all 8 CPU's in the 30-40% range, if I am recalling correct (I compared these a few months ago).

Originally Posted by Mike

The reasons you need such power is because Roon is an absolute pig for resources. Like I’ve said, I love the interface, but sonically and it’s resourcing requirements, are not ideal. I won’t be surprised if people start to move away from Roon. I will be watching the SGM guys closely. They probably already know what I’m saying. I would be curious if they have tried any other software, like Audirvana and how it compared to Roon SONICALLY.

Emile of SGM has tried them all, and is actually creating his own Roon alternative for his servers narrowly focused on high performance music applications. a few months back he did briefly send out some beta versions, but then found a Roon work-around of some of those Roon issues and pulled it back for more work. but it's on it's way.

the question will be whether he will offer it to users of other servers. i suppose that depends on how hard it is to have it be open enough to work on other servers, and how much secret stuff might be involved.

until i hear it in my system hard to know how it will turn out. but Emile has conquered other barriers no one else thought he could. so my money is on him.

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne

Emile of SGM has tried them all, and is actually creating his own Roon alternative for his servers narrowly focused on high performance music applications. a few months back he did briefly send out some beta versions, but then found a Roon work-around of some of those Roon issues and pulled it back for more work. but it's on it's way.

the question will be whether he will offer it to users of other servers. i suppose that depends on how hard it is to have it be open enough to work on other servers, and how much secret stuff might be involved.

until i hear it in my system hard to know how it will turn out. but Emile has conquered other barriers no one else thought he could. so my money is on him.

Mike, I’m not surprised Emile is building his own software as I’m certain he’s finding Roon is probably the bottleneck in his search for further sonic success. I wish him well and look forward to hearing how much better his software will sound.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Mike I have no idea where you get that Roon is a pig for resources. I have been running a SGC i5 without a hic-up for some time now.

Sure I tried Audivrana when I was looking for something to replace Sooloos. I have also A/B'd a Aurender unit vs Roon and found no SQ differences yet "I" felt the Aurender GUI was too complicated.

As far as a $28k Taiko unit I put that in the same box as Relentless amps and the XVX or MBL Extremes. No matter how good they sound my mind will not allow me to pull out the check book. I am glad those products are available for those who want the best.

Originally Posted by still-one

Mike I have no idea where you get that Roon is a pig for resources. I have been running a SGC i5 without a hic-up for some time now.

Sure I tried Audivrana when I was looking for something to replace Sooloos. I have also A/B'd a Aurender unit vs Roon and found no SQ differences yet "I" felt the Aurender GUI was too complicated.

As far as a $28k Taiko unit I put that in the same box as Relentless amps and the XVX or MBL Extremes. No matter how good they sound my mind will not allow me to pull out the check book. I am glad those products are available for those who want the best.

It is. It’s memory and CPU demands are high and thus noisy. Compare to low powered alternatives and let me know. Roon is hands down the best UI, but sonically I have heard better. I do this all day long.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The core usage on my unit seldom if ever hits 5%. There is an app to monitor it.

Originally Posted by Calvin

Mike,

I see many configurations of the Extreme available. Which would you suggest for the MSB Select II? Also which cables would one need to connect it? I figure a power, usb, and ethernet, but ... ?

Thanks in advance.

hi Joe,

mostly the configurations have to do with how much PCIe memory (if any) you want, and choice of various interfaces both input and output, that are non standard. mine has USB as primary and maximum memory.

most users use USB at this time.

i only have one output connection myself that i use presently, the USB. although i have also used an MSB Renderer too. for input i have used a regular Ethernet connection, although now i'm using the SPF optical interface input. the ideal of these different interfaces is jumping around. the Extreme is completely flexible on which is the best, and Emile is super helpful to support any changes. and if there is any upgrades, these are done remotely by Emile or his crew in a very timely way. appointments are made for windows of time so remote pathways don't need to be kept permanently open. very real world stuff, and it works seamlessly.

Originally Posted by u-sound

is the sgm a streamer as well or just storage?

both.

it's a steamer that uses a special PCIe internal interface for it's storage. this interface bypasses the normal processes hard drives or solid state drives typically use so it's faster and quieter. i've over-simplified this as i'm no techie. there is a 4808 post thread on What's Best Forum about the Extreme that will answer any and all questions you might have.

Originally Posted by still-one

The core usage on my unit seldom if ever hits 5%. There is an app to monitor it.

But that CPU is inherently noisy. That noise gets into the audio signal. I wish it wasn’t so because the UI is so damn good, but we can hear it when we do comparisons.

Anyway, if it works for you, that’s awesome. But I would encourage you to try something like an Aurender just for fun. You might be surprised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Originally Posted by schmidtmike76

Mike do you think a nucleus would sound better than my old iMac that runs Roon. Thanks, Mike

We went from an old Mac mini to the Nucleus in the store. Didn’t hear any change to be honest. Thought sound performance would improve, but it didn’t.

There’s an old post - 18 months ago maybe, where we compared Nucleus vs Innuos Vs Aurender. Aurender won. We had six guys listening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

How's that Aurender app?

Originally Posted by rbbert

How's that Aurender app?

The current iteration is very good. What’s coming, with the features coming (sorry, I can’t say!!), is going to be fantastic!

And let’s not forget, the Lumin app is also very functional and sounds great too.

Nothing touches Roon for look and feel and UI. Nothing. But in the store, we are constantly between Roon, Lumin and Aurender apps. I love the ecosystem of Aurender for stability and most importantly, sound.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

In my system playing a CD in my dCS Rossini gives the best result, in order of performance:
- CD in dCS Rossini
- Ripped files and high res downloads on SSD drive, connected to dCS Rossini
- Ripped files and high res downloads on Aurender N10 (Internal storage)
- Streaming (Qobuz/Tidal)with dCS Rossini
- Streaming with Aurender N10 (very close to Rossini, more a matter of taste, Aurender conductor App is very user friendly and reliable)
- Playing CD/SACD/Blu Ray with Oppo BDP 103D (Audiopraise digital board), Rossini as DAC.

In the last few years streaming has come closer to CD, changing the power supplies for router etc, and the addition of an audiophile network switch helped here.

Usually using the Aurender N10 to stream Qobuz, performance is still very good and so "comfortable", when I come across music I really like I will order the CD.

Originally Posted by Mike

But that CPU is inherently noisy. That noise gets into the audio signal. I wish it wasn’t so because the UI is so damn good

Ummm... 5% usage does not make a CPU noisy (that's like driving your car at 10 MPH, your engine is not working at all)... 30% use does not either in reality.... maybe the low power CPU's being used in dedicated built "servers" might get noisy but certainly not in well made appropriate powered machines. My 8 core CPU does not cause the machine to get noisy at all, even when HQPlayer pushes it harder than any other software available... much more so than Roon stand alone. Roon is actually very lite weight in CPU usage compared to most any other music playing software. Even JRivers is more resource demanding.

Originally Posted by mdp632

It's almost 2021 and physical CD playback still is the one to to beat. Quality over convenience every time.

Subjective yes and we can each prefer our own configuration. However, we can agree on the following facts.

1.) Advances in playback equipment for physical compact disc have taken compact disc performance to a higher level. (Esoteric FPGA , Luxman-D10Xu....)

2.) It takes an extreme amount of patience and deep pockets to remove distortion from computer/network audio.

3.) The simplicity of your CD player running a pair of analog outs in your pre-amp. I wonder if the shortest signal path has something to do with it? Network audio , not so much.

4.) Perhaps the issue was never with 16/44 Redbook CD format. The issue was with the playback equipment.

Hardware technology in recent years has breathed new life in the compact disc.

Playing from files stored locally versus stream across a network is exactly the same as playing from a CD except you do not have the noise of a physical disk spinning. It is the network and streaming element that starts causing issues, not the digital format being sent to your DAC.

Theoretically a ripped file could sound better than playing physical media since you can error correct over several encoding passes to get a perfect rip. When you spin a disc, you are counting on the disc player’s internal error detection and correction circuitry to do its thing perfectly. I’ve done some listening experiments on my system and have found no difference between the two. Perhaps someone with a more resolving system will have a different outcome.

Originally Posted by W9TR

Theoretically a ripped file could sound better than playing physical media since you can error correct over several encoding passes to get a perfect rip. When you spin a disc, you are counting on the disc player’s internal error detection and correction circuitry to do its thing perfectly. I’ve done some listening experiments on my system and have found no difference between the two. Perhaps someone with a more resolving system will have a different outcome.

I certainly would not say that my system is more resolving than yours .... I do notice a difference playing the ripped files versus the disk, and even more so comparing the SACD. I attribute these to a few things. First spinning the physical disk can add noise. Second the DAC being used. The DAC in my Oppo is solid, a ESS 9018, but it is not close to the T+A. Also being able to run the signal through HQPlayer and then on to the DAC at DSD512 is a huge improvement.

With SACD's they are playing at DSD64. While DSD64 is very good it also inherently has an issue with high frequency noise that does fall within the audible range. This is the reason that T+A turns off their WIDE function if DSD64 is detected for fear of damaging your speakers. By ripping the files I get the convenience of playing from the server but more important I can run them through HQPlayer and they end up sounding a whole lot better. I have definitely noticed the better the file going in the better it comes out of HQPlayer! So comparing a SACD rip to a DSD256 or DSD512 download running through HQPlayer simply sounds better.

Originally Posted by Randy Myers

I certainly would not say that my system is more resolving than yours .... I do notice a difference playing the ripped files versus the disk, and even more so comparing the SACD. I attribute these to a few things. First spinning the physical disk can add noise. Second the DAC being used. The DAC in my Oppo is solid, a ESS 9018, but it is not close to the T+A. Also being able to run the signal through HQPlayer and then on to the DAC at DSD512 is a huge improvement.

With SACD's they are playing at DSD64. While DSD64 is very good it also inherently has an issue with high frequency noise that does fall within the audible range. This is the reason that T+A turns off their WIDE function if DSD64 is detected for fear of damaging your speakers. By ripping the files I get the convenience of playing from the server but more important I can run them through HQPlayer and they end up sounding a whole lot better. I have definitely noticed the better the file going in the better it comes out of HQPlayer! So comparing a SACD rip to a DSD256 or DSD512 download running through HQPlayer simply sounds better.

Randy, to be fair, you have to use the same DAC section. Try a digital out (digital RCA) out of your Oppo into your DAC. Then compare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Originally Posted by Mike

The reasons you need such power is because Roon is an absolute pig for resources. Like I’ve said, I love the interface, but sonically and it’s resourcing requirements, are not ideal...

Originally Posted by Mike

...There’s an old post - 18 months ago maybe, where we compared Nucleus vs Innuos Vs Aurender. Aurender won. We had six guys listening.

Originally Posted by Mike

But that CPU is inherently noisy. That noise gets into the audio signal. I wish it wasn’t so because the [roon] UI is so damn good, but we can hear it when we do comparisons.

> there is also this thread which discusses this same topic of roon software and comparisons to others.

respectfully offered for consideration...

these are not objective tests of playback software. they are tests of hardware/software combinations ...and, imo, the differences heard are overwhelmingly if not entirely attributable to the hardware.

i would certainly hope an aurender would outperform a nucleus. aurenders and the like are highly-engineered, purpose-built music servers/streamers -- they are high-end audiophile components with the minimization of electrical noise as an overriding goal. the roon nucleus is an off-the-shelf intel nuc motherboard put in a fanless chassis -- as openly noted by roon, nothing audiophile about this at all.

admittedly, i am a huge fan of roon software; have never had any of the issues noted here and elsewhere, particularly wrt/ resource utilization; and don't see any remotely competative alternative for those wishing to use a (dedicated) computer in their digital stack -- also, roon ROCK has been a game changer.

that being said, no-one should expect high-end audiophile performance from a nucleus. it is a low-end, consumer-grade computer which is under spec'd for many of the use cases owners ask it to perform.

so, to evaluate the SQ of playback software where one software gets to use an aurender and the other software has to use a nucleus is just not a fair fight.

as always, i leave open the possibility that YMMV

images of an n10 and a nucleus...

Originally Posted by Mike

Randy, to be fair, you have to use the same DAC section. Try a digital out (digital RCA) out of your Oppo into your DAC. Then compare.

I have, I used a WireWord Coax cable also so not just a plain Jane RCA cable..... the rip played through Roon and HQPlayer is quite a bit better than spun on the player. Several members of our audio club have done the same comparison and all agree that the rip is better. I am one of the only one that uses HQPlayer though.

Again I do not have super high end spinner although most people would agree I do not have a cheap-o player either. I have done this test using both a Marantz SD-8005 and my current Oppo.

Originally Posted by Randy Myers

I have, I used a WireWord Coax cable also so not just a plain Jane RCA cable..... the rip played through Roon and HQPlayer is quite a bit better than spun on the player. Several members of our audio club have done the same comparison and all agree that the rip is better. I am one of the only one that uses HQPlayer though.

Again I do not have super high end spinner although most people would agree I do not have a cheap-o player either. I have done this test using both a Marantz SD-8005 and my current Oppo.

I have 3 CD players and its interesting the sound I can get by just running S/PDIF or AES ( if equipped) to either of my dacs with NO computer involved at all. Amazing what a different dac can do to the music of a CD player.