Streaming vs CD’S

I've said it before that I don't trust "hi-rez" files on streaming services. The majority of time I find i prefer the sound of the 16/44.1 files over their "hi-rez" brethren. I have found some exceptions, but my overwhelming preference is for the CD quality.

It only takes seconds to compare the different versions of an album and sometimes the difference in SQ is shocking.
 
With a very small degree of knowledge and use of readily available (free) apps the actual "resolution" and dynamic compression of any audio file can be easily determined, although if one is only streaming then one would also need to be able to record the stream (somewhat more complicated). When the mastering is the same, true "hi-res" will almost always sound better than CD quality (i.e., 16/44.1)
 
rbbert said:
With a very small degree of knowledge and use of readily available (free) apps the actual "resolution" and dynamic compression of any audio file can be easily determined, although if one is only streaming then one would also need to be able to record the stream (somewhat more complicated). When the mastering is the same, true "hi-res" will almost always sound better than CD quality (i.e., 16/44.1)
Click to expand...

That's part of the problem because the mastering isn't always the same and files above 16/44.1 aren't always what they claim to be.
 
mep said:
That's part of the problem because the mastering isn't always the same and files above 16/44.1 aren't always what they claim to be.
Click to expand...
Of course; my point is that if you care it isn't that hard to sort things out.
 
mep said:
I think we are saying the same thing.
Click to expand...
Sort of. I have thousands of hi-res albums that sound better than the CD versions, and maybe a few hundred (if that) where a CD version sounds better; your implication is that you have found the opposite to be true. This may be due simply to listening to different music. Admittedly I only very rarely bother even listening to a hi-res remastering of an album originally recorded in 16 bit PCM.
 
Using Tidal my experience is typically a 96k version will be preferrable over the 44.1k. The option to have both to compare seems to be getting smaller.

When there have been 192k versions to compare I pretty much never prefer the 192k. This has been the same with both ML and Esoteric DAC's. 192k just sounds thinner and sometimes more distant, that's the only way I can explain it. 96k when abailable seems to be my preferred sweet spot. That's with no conversions going or upsampling on my end going on.

An excellent example of how good 44.1k can be listen to Pacifica by The Vampires. On Tidal but not found on Qobuz of last check. Now to read the posted articles to see if any light comes on :)
 
The articles seem (to me) to be directed at those listeners who are somewhat less knowledgeable than most of us here, but I may be overestimating the level of knowledge and sophistication here... At least I didn't notice anything that hasn't been discussed previously at audiophile forums such as this.
 
mep said:
I've said it before that I don't trust "hi-rez" files on streaming services. The majority of time I find i prefer the sound of the 16/44.1 files over their "hi-rez" brethren. I have found some exceptions, but my overwhelming preference is for the CD quality.

It only takes seconds to compare the different versions of an album and sometimes the difference in SQ is shocking.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. I find I always prefer the original recordings to any of the "remastered" crap of the older classics on streaming platforms. The 'normal' original recordings just sound better to my ear.
 
Many audio cd's also have problems and sound very poor. An example: Meet the Eels from Eels. It sounds like something went wrong at production.
 
Good CDs, bad CDs, good (re)mastering and bad (re)mastering. If your system has a great transport, and a fair streamer, you would naturally prefer CDs, and visa-versa.

Boomers, like me, might always want to hear the whole album, in the original order. Younger folk are much more likely to create playlists. I am coming around.

I, quite readily, converted to digital file playback, and never owned a “great” CD player/transport. I’m not saying that my MSB Premier with Renderer is better than your CD player system, but it crushed all the players I ever owned. I have an Oppo for DVD and SACD playback, through my DAC.

The mire of “hi rez”, up sampled, resampled, files, new recordings from master tapes, it goes on, and on… no guarantee that the file is any better than the original CD presentation.

I have used a DAC that sounded better with files resampled to DSD. I’m sure there are other DACs that “sound” best at a certain file resolution.

All that being said, I digitized my CDs, and gave them away. I rarely buy CDs, buying the music files online, usually in the highest “good” resolution. A bit of research put in helps a lot. I will usually search for new music on Qobuz, and buy it if the mood strikes, or I feel the access might become restricted.

All my physical storage space is given up to LPs, and to a much smaller degree DVDs.
 
NewAlkyogre said:
Many audio cd's also have problems and sound very poor. An example: Meet the Eels from Eels. It sounds like something went wrong at production.
Click to expand...

Right, the second article touched on this and I think we all would agree if the album isn't produced good in the first place nothing is going to help in regards to high resolution or upsampling etc.
 
Just a few albums and artists where the hi-res versions are clearly superior to the CD's
All the latest hi-res Pink Floyd
All the Fleetwood Mac albums from the 2013-2014 "flat transfers"
All the Pretenders albums from the 2013-2014 "flat transfers" (there are also a lot of other artists represented in the Warners "flat transfers" series)
Any of several Grateful Dead "box sets" that were released in both hi-res and CD (a bit unfair here, since the CD's have slightly more dynamic compression)
Any ECM album that has both CD and hi-res
 
rbbert said:
Just a few albums and artists where the hi-res versions are clearly superior to the CD's
All the latest hi-res Pink Floyd
All the Fleetwood Mac albums from the 2013-2014 "flat transfers"
All the Pretenders albums from the 2013-2014 "flat transfers" (there are also a lot of other artists represented in the Warners "flat transfers" series)
Any of several Grateful Dead "box sets" that were released in both hi-res and CD (a bit unfair here, since the CD's have slightly more dynamic compression)
Any ECM album that has both CD and hi-res
Click to expand...

Are you talking streaming files or files on your hard drive?
 
Most all the jazz music I listen to was originally recorded on 2 track tape with tube tape decks and tube consoles.

When CDs first entered the market, the record labels saw they had a new cash cow to resell their catalog of recordings from musicians they controlled.

All of their original transfers from the original analog master tapes to digital files were done at 16/44.1 for CDs.

Years later when "hi-rez" formats came on the scene (24/48, 24/96, 24/192), does anybody think the recording labels hauled out their precious master tapes so they could recut new digital files for each of the new bit depth and sample rate formats?

If memory serves me correctly, SACDs entered the marketplace claiming to be a superior format compared to RBCDs (16/44.1) before the new PCM "hi-rez" digital formats were introduced. SACDs never gained the commercial acceptance of CDs.

Outside of audiophiles, many people never heard of SACDs or any digital audio formats outside of CDs. That's why I don't automatically believe that files listed at "hi-rez" rates are anything more than upsampled files from the original 16/44.1 master files.
 
mep said:
Most all the jazz music I listen to was originally recorded on 2 track tape with tube tape decks and tube consoles.

When CDs first entered the market, the record labels saw they had a new cash cow to resell their catalog of recordings from musicians they controlled.

All of their original transfers from the original analog master tapes to digital files were done at 16/44.1 for CDs.

Years later when "hi-rez" formats came on the scene (24/48, 24/96, 24/192), does anybody think the recording labels hauled out their precious master tapes so they could recut new digital files for each of the new bit depth and sample rate formats?

If memory serves me correctly, SACDs entered the marketplace claiming to be a superior format compared to RBCDs (16/44.1) before the new PCM "hi-rez" digital formats were introduced. SACDs never gained the commercial acceptance of CDs.

Outside of audiophiles, many people never heard of SACDs or any digital audio formats outside of CDs. That's why I don't automatically believe that files listed at "hi-rez" rates are anything more than upsampled files from the original 16/44.1 master files.
Click to expand...
Can you post a few of these jazz titles? I am happy to see if they are true hi-res and have good mastering (i.e., not over-compressed or EQ'ed), because my experience with the type of albums you mention is that virtually all the hi-res versions are just that, although a few (not many) do have worse mastering. The ECM titles to which I referred are that type of music and recording, and the hi-res releases are true hi-res with (usually) the same mastering as the original LP's. This is also true for the vast majority of hard bop and modal jazz I have from the late '50's through the '60's. Many of the BlueNote titles released about 10 years ago, though, do have overcompressed mastering but are true hi-res.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top