In reality high-definition audio (as in true 24-bit and 96-192 KHz) never really caught on our ears Mostly because the improvement is not audible to the human ear. The humble CD is capable of storing pretty much anything you can hear and not much more. It was designed that way. With high-definition audio, you’re literally paying for quality improvements that you can’t hear. The signal on a CD is recorded by sampling the original audio signal 44,100 times per second (44.1 kHz). The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, on which all digital audio is based, states that this will EXACTLY preserve a signal that contains nothing higher than half the sampling rate - 22,050 Hz in the case of a CD. Human hearing tops out around 20,000 Hz, and that’s for a young person with healthy ears. 96 kHz will exactly preserve sound up to 48,000 Hz, and 192 kHz will preserve up to 96,000 Hz. Unless you happen to go “woof,” you can’t hear anything between 22,050 and 48,000 Hz. And even a dog can’t hear much higher than that - maybe a rodent or an insect could hear the extra frequencies preserved by 192 kHz sampling. Similarly, using 24 bit samples looks very good on paper, but it doesn’t really preserve anything extra that you can hear. Using 16 bit samples, which is the standard for a CD, gives you 65,536 (2^16) possible values to which any given sample in an audio signal can be rounded. Using 24 bit samples gives you 16,777,216 (2^24) possible values. The rounding of samples to the nearest available value creates what’s called quantization noise. That noise is measured by the dynamic range, which is the volume in decibels to which you must turn the loudest sounds in order to just barely hear the noise. The dynamic range for 16 bit audio is 96 dB; for 24 bit audio it is 144 dB. Now, consider that a very quiet room in a typical home has about 30 dB of background noise. That means that to hear any quantization noise on your 16 bit recording, you’d have to turn the volume up so that the loudest sounds are at 126 dB. That’s about the threshold of pain for most people. So unless you plan on playing your music so loudly that it makes your ears hurt (and you have equipment that can produce that volume), 16 bits is plenty. Note that the 174 dB you’d need to hear quantization noise with 24 bit is loud enough to literally KILL you! Double-blind studies have been done that show listeners, including audio engineers, can’t reliably tell the difference between 16/44.1 and formats like 24/96 or 24/192. This applies only to the final copy of the recording, however. If you will be doing post-production, equalization, dynamic range compression, or other edits, the audio needs to be at least 24 bit and 192 kHz in order to prevent distortion from multiple rounding errors. But there’s no advantage to using higher sampling frequencies or bit depths than used on a CD on the copy used by the masses. High-def recordings do sometimes sound better than the regular CD, but this is due to better mastering and production on the high-res version. For example, the high-res version might not have been victimized by the loudness wars. If you really want higher fidelity sound, you’ll want to (1) use better speakers/headphones, better amplifiers, add a headphone amplifier if you don’t have one, etc. (2) use a better format for your music. MP3 is tolerable when used at high bitrates, but if you have the space and support for them, use something lossless like FLAC or Monkey’s Audio and (3) seek out older pressings of CDs at used CD stores and online. Anything made prior to about 1994 or so is likely to sound considerably better than a modern CD because the loudness wars weren’t yet in full swing back then. Alternatively, you could try vinyl if that’s your thing.
IF a function x(t) contains no Fourier components higher than B hertz, it is uniquely determined by giving its coordinates at a series of points spaced 1/2B seconds apart. What it does NOT say is that a signal with components higher than B hertz will have all components up to B hertz perfectly preserved, and the rest discarded. The fact is most recorded music does contain information above 22.05kHz. We couldn’t hear that on its own, but when it is aliased by Nyquist-Shannon sampling it appears as noise. Band-limiting itself is the problem, not the limit being imposed. Plus, reconstructing perfectly the original signal from the sample is not a trivial task, otherwise all DACs would sound the same. The more information we have for that process, the easier it gets. PLUS, the phase of the sampling matters, there is only one way to capture a 22.05kHz signal with a sample rate of 44.1kHz, unless that exact phase is chosen, information will be lost. Consider a 22.05kHz sine wave, if you sample at the nodes, you get silence. I agree with you on bit depth though. After all, the noise floor can only go to 0, and it’s basically already there with 16 bits.
@@Mud_AleX No, do forget Japanese printed CDs. The only affect that pressing quality can have on the signal is reduced jitter, which a master clock can easily account for. Mastering is orders of magnitude more important.
I always prefer physical media over digital. However, having a digital library is convenient for certain occasions. Don't get me wrong, I rather blast music via CD's and Vinyl's.
I can name a half dozen CD producers whose output, through my PS Audio Memory Player and Directstream DAC, is simply sublime. I’m never going to give up on CD. For sure, most my streamed music sounds excellent and I agree with Paul, the stored and played DSD files are peerless.
Yes to everything. High-res for the mainstream is just a marketing instrument to pull more money out of pockets. The quality of the devices and the mix is more important. Only in controlled environments like Paul described an objective discrimination of format quality is feasible.
What I don't understand is you go back to record. Records got updated a few times from gramophone to microgrove (the one we use). Yet we don't update cd's, at all. Maybe cd's current can fade. But a modern cd, should ultimately replace it. But still be able to play the old cd's as well.
@@goldenharborstudios7180 Well, the CD is designed to be in the spectrum in a range audible to most people, i.e. 20Hz to 20kHz (actually a bit more than that) and the resolution is so high that 99% of CD listeners will never be able to differentiate between that and a high resolution FLAC or whatever. Thus, the need to upgrade is not there. With the switch from Shellac to Vinyl, the jump in terms of sound quality was huge. So the pressure to switch was much higher.
@@thomasa.243 while in fact you can't hear 20 Hz only feel and practically nobody can hear 20000 hz, at least not at an age where you can afford proper hifi and room acoustics
@@Harald_Reindl Well, I mean, this is the theory behind it. And the theory is only a model of what the real world is. But yeah, a child of 10 years old has probably that range of hearing. Even at 20 or 30 it is reduced so much that you will no longer be able to hear above 16kHz or so about. That is actually an interesting crossover between Physics, Biology, Mathematics, Psychology and Computer Science where each field is only able to grasp a small portion of the complete problem. Bose btw, love them or hate them, was one of the pioneers in researching "how we are hearing" but this is a bit of a sidenote 😅
CD has one great advantage over ANY streaming service. Streaming music is played back through a computer, at some point. Computers are not high fidelity audio devices. They WILL add noise to your signal. You can try to filter the noise, you can try to electrically isolate the computer, but some noise will get through. CD player/transports ARE high fidelity audio devices. They feed a cleaner signal to your preamp/amp. And that is where they make up the difference in sampling rates.
Agree, it really depends on the expertise put into the recording and its mastering. However, I have not heard much superiority from a high quality stream over a well mastered CD. I listen to a lot of both, and cannot tell much of difference. The later generation CD players can retrieve a lot from a red-book CD. Their sound has evolved enough, where many no longer have that crystalline edge, that so plagued players of the mid 80's and 90's. I do stream more often though. Not because the sound is better, but due to the convenience. You really can not beat it. The fact that you can setup playlist and listen to an selection of quality recording for hours, without having to get out of your chair is an major plus. That being said, streaming totally sucks when the internet goes offline. So I have kept my library and still deal with the hassle of changing them. With CD you never have to worry whether or not your internet bill been paid up.
@Bobby Brady Just as written. If you wish to be spoon fed and definition look up crystalline and edge in the dictionary and draw your own conclusions. I consider it foolish to elaborate further. Like you, I also found the sound of the first generation of players to be crystal clear, but still did not like the sound. They were akin to listening to a player piano, the notes and timing of the phrases were precise. But they could not convey the feeling that goes into the performance. If you enjoyed those early pieces technology, no problem with that. The sound of CD back then, simply was not my cup of tea. I prefer the sound of the current generation.
@Bobby Brady Clarification? I wonder when was the last time you heard something performed live? If you are not familiar with live music in of itself. Any statement I elaborate on is merely pearls before swine. Forgive my preaching. I for one do not have an a system that simply plays sound. For me to invest in such a thing would be daft. I have an system that plays music. What makes music? It is not simply a collection of sound but the artist who is putting their heart and soul into their instrument and/or voice. If you truly cannot see that, nor for the matter, expect from your own system; an ability to convey the feeling an artist's is putting into their performance. There really is nothing further to discuss. We are too far apart in what we demand from our systems. In closing, I find, that this is not an particularly useful discourse. Merely a pissing contest over outdated technologies, which for the most part are no longer being utilized. I suspect no current CD player or CD are being manufactured the same way, as when first introduced.The fact is, the industry has moved on. I think it is time we do as well. Signing off.
@Bobby Brady As stated, casting pearls before swine. You are right, I cannot. For me to explain my observations further, is like trying to describe the color of the sky to one who won't remove their blindfold. Until you are willing to take it off and see it for yourself. Nothing I say will make any sense. Combine that with the truth, that there are no facts I'm able to give that will let you see beyond your own prejudices. Such an effort, is not worth my time. You remark, that in order to skirt giving an logical answer, I am over inflating the importance of music as art, and downplaying the science and technology. You do realize we are referring to things developed way back in 1984? Really? What is the point? I can see no value in hashing out the failings/merits of an once emergent technology that has matured significantly and is so much better now days. My apologies, but I have no desire to live in the past. More importantly, let us address differences in our music system's priorities. The fact mine are not the same as yours, is also irrelevant. Nonetheless, permit me to challenge your assertions about my artsy-fartiness. In what world do you live in where music is taught within the engineering and science department? What objective scientific measurement exists that can verify 100% of the time that an new musical piece will be enjoyed by everyone? To try an shoe-box an subjective experience into an objective one is just plain silly. The arts in of themselves are an expression of ones feelings and one's subjective view on life. Those type of things being conveyed by an music system are far from irrelevant. Music is not amalgamation of instruments playing notes. Music comes from a person's heart, it is by its very nature an expression of the joys and sorrows of life. Whose enjoyment is totally an subjective experience of the individual who is listening. I find the same goes for the playback system and media used to enjoy it. It is not merely a collection of ones and zeros, interpreted by an algorithm and played back by a machine, that is important. Those are nothing but tools. Whose effectiveness is questionable at best, fully subjective, and cannot be quantitatively measured. Otherwise, someone would be already making something that can be universally enjoyed by everybody. List one manufacturer who has achieved this goal? Other than the engineering that goes into creating the components, there is little hard science to be had. That is not hipster talk either, but an cold, hard, fact. You speak of the frustration with those that prefer an image put on film over the obvious superior quality of one from a digital camera. Again, you are missing the point. The supposed superiority of the digital image for many is questionable. It is the subjective preference towards things developed from film, versus the one printed out from a computer, that is at the heart of the matter. The superiority of the digital camera means nothing. You cannot account for, nor objectively measure, someone's particular prejudices and tastes.
@Bobby Brady Again, those are contributing factors for an component to have great sound quality. When a system offers true clarity, the feeling that the performer is putting into their piece is also recreated. Music listening is a pleasurable, emotive, experience not a scientific one, that has some sort of quantitative result. Really stupid of us to belabor this point. No offense, put on something and enjoy your system. None of this discourse is worth a hill of beans.
SACD beats CD. I love my Marantz SA-KI Ruby SACD/CD/DAC and love it even more when listening to a SACD's on it. Such a shame that the discs you can buy are very limited. Fortunately, it's a brilliant CD player too. :-)
I stumbled upon this video but had this question for a long time. Great explanation. Besides that: what ever you buy, your ears are the final 'receiver' and they will never be as good as when we were kids. I enjoy my cd's every day. Do buy good recordings! I like classical music and most music is available in different versions. It's worth buying a good recording, not just for the performers but for the effort put in making the recording and producing. I have made live recordings in both studio's and churches, music halls. Some recorded on hard disk, some on dat-tape. The final product was a cd. It all sounded fine due to the effort of the professionals in the recording room.
When you stop paying the streaming subscription all of the music is gone. If you have the physical copy you don’t have to worry about that and you can listen to your favorites as long as they last and you have a player.
Or some 'twit' comes along and deems your favourite album to be violating some essence of humanity, and gets it pulled from store shelves & streaming providers...... No problem if you posses a copy.
@@paulstubbs7678 Is a problem if they pulled it from store shelves now isn't it? But online there are infinite copies of the digital version, all archived never to be lost.
@@BlueOvals24 streaming is different from digital copy. Yes they are both digital copies but you dont own streaming media. So the moment the record company or spotify removes or dont release a 2nd version of your fav music, then too bad for you. A digital copy is a copy of your physical media, a flac is a higher version or less compressed version. Streaming services are compressed like x10 more. Don't confuse yourself.
@@riezexeero7392 Yeah and digital copies are a scam. $20 and you got 2 albums, fuck that. I'll take the risk of one or two songs being removed from Spotify, besides, that sort of thing is rare since it's a loss for both Spotify and the record company. At the very worst I only have to buy a handful of digital copies. It would cost me thousands to own all the songs I have on Spotify.
Thank you Paul! It's not about the perfect sound waves in a row, it's about the music. One reason people are partial to albums. When that was the format of choice artists knew it and recorded music to the limitations of what a album could contain. They knew super high and low tones would take wider groves in the albums meaning less recording time on the album. Sharp peaks in the grove would cause needle bounce and to much info and loudness would turn into a muddled mess. So they recorded clean recordings. That's why people like them (imho) and for those who are not afraid to admit it, that's why CD's of older recordings sound so good. CD's can store so much more information then a album can (not to mention the pop, hiss and cracks are gone) and the older recordings have so much less data to store because they were made for albums. It's like a 100g hard drive with a couple pictures stored on it. I also can understand why some recordings sound worse at higher res. Decades of interviews from artist (on YT) complaining that didn't like this or they didn't finish that you start noticing stuff I'm sure when it was put it out to the masses (on album.....AM radio) they thought no one would ever notice. Some bands would do things in one take. A single missed note would be covered over with something else. Today, the quality of equipment the average listener has and recordings they can get is better then some of the studios it was recorded in at the time and you hear those mistakes. I remember when CD was becoming a format a lot of bands took a long time to release their past stuff on CD and when they did it was always "remastered". From what I understand some was "re-recorded".
My theory on why the CD format is superior as a playback medium is that only data you can hear is being processed, processing a lot of data that you can not hear will always make the sound muddy even on the best playback system. 24/192 is a studio format that is used as a RAW file for head room not for sound quality. i've heard the 5 vs 22 microsecond theory, but that is on the top of the list in the "Snake oil" chart... :-)
I find streaming with a good streamer to be very acceptable. Most streamers in the $3,000 range will almost match CD players. Streaming is about convenience and ability to access tons of music with very little compromise. Yet, I still have my CDs, not many but collection is growing. I tend to lean towards the CD quality. Recently, just had my first experience with DSD. It sounds great, very similar to analogue. Most impressive.
What happens when the network goes crazy? Can the streamer play independent of the useless network? I just wish I could get hold of all the albums on my streaming apps playlists... I would immediately unsubscribe on all of them and delete those useless things from my devices! Just got my listening session ruined by the crapy so called high-speed network, and am playing my CD's now and am feeling much better! I just hate streaming!
TurtleShell 8024 ... my network is like 99.9% trouble free. Hardly ever have issue with streaming. But, but if it does, I still got my CDs 😬 I still purchase CDs. It’s still good. I usually get albums that I really like.
I've tried most of the High def streaming services ( the most recent being Amazon). What I found was that the audio had been mixed to take out the dynamics and seemed to have some kind of volume normalisation across all recordings. Comparing the streamed version to a file ripped from a CD was almost always worse quality. I played back both the stream and the CD rip on the same software, computer and DAC. I even tried ripping a stream or downloading a file and the same was true. I mainly listen to classical music but the thing that broke my heart was the 50th anniversary re-issues of the Grateful dead albums ("Anthem of the Sun", "Aoxomoaxa"). The early 2000s CD versions (mastered using Plangent and issued on HDCD format) are better every time. It is very sad that the potential of 24/96 audio is not being realised. Another great video - can't wait to see (hear) what your new streamer does.
Just a note, almost all streaming software has a switch to enact volume leveling, and often the software will turn it back on when your not looking. Also, you are right, IMHO, that the streaming services, at least Spotify and Tidal, perform some DSP on their stream to 'sweeten' it, which might be swell on an iphone, but is horrible on a great stereo.
@@bc527c Thanks for the tip. I always hunt for any kind of volume normalisation, 'sound enhancers' etc and turn them off on any device or software that I use. It's so easy to get the wrong settings with digital audio and you will never even know what you might be missing by simply making a few settings changes.
Occam's Razor basically says: When there is a problem with several possible solutions, the simplest solution is the correct solution. I will take a CD ( SACD ) over streaming every time!
Agree, but it would be nice to have good quality streaming. And flac(mqa) could work (small size) if it had the support of the music industry (artists, producers manufacturers)
Glad I found your channel. I came here because I was considering selling or giving away hundreds of classical music CDs that an old friend of mine collected. I inherited them. He is no long here. I listen to them but I’m not an avid classical music listener as he was. But I still enjoy them. Anyway, that’s what made me think about questioning the quality. Whether they are obsolete. Whether I should depart with them or keep them. Thanks.
Paul does not like promoting his own products too much in his videos, so I’ll do it for him. I own a PS Audio DirectStream DAC with the Network Bridge II. I stream Qobuz using Roon using wired Ethernet from my remote server. I can also play CD’s using a Rotel CD player as a transport with a digital coax cable connected to a coax digital input on the PSA DAC. The sound quality is so extremely close that I no longer bother locating the CD I want, I just choose what I want to hear using my smart phone as a lighted Roon remote sitting in my listening chair. Call me lazy, but for $15 a month for a Qobuz subscription, which was the price of a single CD back in the day, I’m not getting out of my chair on my knees with a flashlight anymore.
Still love listening to my CD's and albums. Some of my friends have gotten rid of their CD's AND their albums!!! AHH! Streaming through their phones, etc. YUK!
Carl Capps ... I started out with Bluetooth. Not the Bluetooth is getting better and better. May not sound just like a CD but it’s still very enjoyable. I’ve not tried AptX HD yet though. I’m an Apple user 😞
Carl Capps ... I’ve pulled the handbrakes. It can get outta hand. Am pretty satisfied with what I have but still eyeing the Marantz SA10 but am wondering how much better will it sound than my Cary CD500. 🤔
@@angelwars3176 I have over 5,000 songs in my Spotify library. It would cost way too much money to get a CD download of every single one. That's also why I like streaming, I've never had more than a few hundred songs back when I was ripping CDs. I've got no reason to go back to CDs, especially since Spotify will be launching a HIFI version this year.
I prefer using Airplay when I stream Tidal. Not because it's the best sound, but because it's the most convenient way. And I can't hear much difference when streaming MQA tracks through other protocols. CD quality is capable of doing wonders.
I've listened to some Master recordings on Tidal, and I have to say it can sound pretty amazing. I generally think my Sooloos/Meridian gear is better in terms of portraying a holographic sound stage. Streaming is important because of the range of titles that can be accessed. Artists I love but I haven't been able to source their recent work.
@@seamuscannon4603 I just got a Lumin U1 Streamer, and I have to say the current sound I'm getting is excellent. If there is stuff that is "thrown away" it is certainly not apparent to my ears. With the right source material, it is jaw dropping: The bass, dynamics and silence between the instruments are second to none.
my history is opposite xD I play CDs, minidisc or ipod. I can play "for free" the same song or the same playlist dozens of times, repeat, random or changing between plalists. I don't care if the streaming is HiFi, it is not for money, even a lot of songs I like aren't on streaming service. Useless for me.
@@georgemartinezza Ya, that can be frustrating. I do have a CD player and enjoy listening to my favorite music not on streaming. I get the issue you're talking about here. and ya nice not to have to pay- but it isn't an expense I really notice every month.
CD All the way. A High End CD player that upscales to DSD sampling rates beats my 32/384Hz/DSD DAC hands down. Plus there are more to high end players than just the DAC.
So you haven't experienced MQA? Consider that when an artist records their music it has to be "down sampled" or "mastered" to 44.1hz to fit on a CD. So, what if it was never down sampled, but put on a server in an un-mastered state and you could listen to it fully uncompressed at resolution speeds of 190 or 380?
@@gideonkloosterman Not really. It is a codec and there is a form a compression. Weirdly, some report that it is lossy and other report that it uses FLAC as a container which is not lossy. After 2 years of listening to MQA, I can tell you it's lightyears beyond any 44.1 or 48 hz FLAC file of the same song. The depth and clarity just cannot be beaten by any normal consumer format.
@@falcon048 I believe it uses songname.mqa.flac so its compatible with non-mqa players. But yeah you're right, MQA sounds really good. Not as nice as 192khz though, which is why it's a shame Qobuz is so expensive
I've played CDs on a new Denon system I bought and listened to streamed music on it and actually preferred the CDs, although I only tried Deezer free streaming, i kept getting Ads popping up telling me the subscription version has better sound. Lets just say I haven't bothered to subscribe as I have no idea if it will sound better so I will try Tidal etc and see what sounds best. Incidently I have a 27 year old (bought from new) Denon D90 bi wired to Castle Inversion 50 speakers. CDs sound stunning as they always have done
Paul is absolutely right on this one. For me there’s the “Media” that which is the hardware that is carrying the “Content”. You can have the best Media in the world but the process(s) that were used to capture the Content was CaCa, or, Glorious. So Played back on the best Media in the world the Content may sound like CaCa. I have a small collection of LP’s of the Beach Boys from the 60’s. The LP being the Media. Taking the LP technology as it was at the time there are tracks on those LPs where the Content is absolutely Glorious. The Beach Boys tended to spread out the capture of Content for an LP over time, sometimes many days and weeks, and in various Studios. So quality of Content on any particular LP varies greatly. But out of 12 tracks on an LP a couple of those tracks will be “Glorious”.
Captain Win He is referring to the tracks on that one album were recorded at different recording studios. Therefore some tracks sound better than other tracks on that album depending on which recording studio was used. Not all recording studios are the same.
Paul, I’m still using a P300 clearly seen in today’s video. I bought it from you personally at the 1999 Stereophile audio show in Chicago. It’s still going strong powering my CD transport, DAC and Freya preamp after a re-cap last year, cooling fan and your upgrade when I sent it to you for a minor repair some years ago. Cheers, Paul, and thanks for all you do!
I've always read that Electra records were not recorded very well, jazz records are notorious for excellent recording techniques, which is why even the old stuff sounds so good.
CD's for me I like cassette tapes and records also,I have Pandora on my phone. Streaming music to me is nothing like the physical copies of music because you don't own the music when streaming it. Physical copies of music is for ever if you take care of it 💯💪
CD produces better sound quality than hi res streaming. I took on a project to review this very thing. CD walks all over hi res streaming for 3 dimensionality and sound stage. Something is being lost over the network. CD easily eclipses streaming of any resolution. A £4k cd player walked over a very well regarded £10k streamer (streaming hi res content). We are being sold a LIE with high res. Compared the same tracks too in various, streamed, resolutions and included some HD Tracks downloads from the internal drive to minimise the network involved).
Revealing, and a factor to be seriously considered, Alex. I have this philosophy that just because a technology is new, different, or in a complex way a combination of both, it may not function to supersede the existing technology. It does not imply that such a different technology is somehow better, advantageous, or more correct.
@@georgeanastasopoulos5865 Hi George. My thoughts exactly. I trust my ears alone. I am always after depth of image, as anything does left to right these days. I would love streaming to be there now, as would be so much more convenient but until that day CD will continue as my main digital source. I simply will not sacrifice my soundstage for convenience. Streaming is good for finding new music (or allowing kids to use your system) but that is about it for me. Thanks for both the reply and the interesting comments George. Have a good one. Enjoy the music....
Hi Paul, you sort of answered the question on a high level. A very good more in depth youtube video on the subject and worth watching is one from anadialog channel (the good and bad of Hi Res audio) which he posted today.
I love good high res recordings and stream a lot of 24/96 FLAC from Qobuz and also MQA from Tidal Masters. But one of the best sounding recordings I ever listened to is in 16/44 (CD Quality).It’s Patricia Barber‘s album “Cafe Blue“. It‘s neither available in HighRes FLAC nor in DSD, and I don‘t care. Why does it sound so good? The name of the mastering engineers is Gus Skinas and Nick Prout.
Depends on the source. If the "hi resolution streaming" was sourced from a CD...then it isn't any better than the CD since they have the same 44.1Hz resolution. NOW, if you have a Master Quality Audio Source running at 190hz or upwards of 380Hz, that's a different story.
@@kennyg.6608 There are a lot of factors that can diminish the quality of sound on streaming. The quality of your network connection is one. Whether or not Bluetooth is in the chain. Bluetooth compresses the audio and in so doing, it removes some of the fidelity. The bit rate and source of the file that is being streamed is also a concern. This is why I use Tidal. They have the highest possible bit rates for each file. They also offer MQA (Master Quality Audio) files. My wife uses Spotify and all the songs it plays reduces the vocal track and extends the bass. Even when I use USB Audio Pro to bluetooth FLAC files, it's not as good. If I have to stream, I am using Tidal. :)
In my time I have owned several record players and loved them. I have own several high end CD players and never loved any of them. And now hi-res music files have made CD obsolete as a digital music storage medium. RIP, I don't miss CD's
Should you wish to buy the CD/medium then you can keep its contents (although I've heard that in certain countries is illegal to rip your own discs). Streaming is fine, but it stops whenever you choose not to pay the subscription. Probably best of both worlds is to use free streaming for casual listening and buy the music you really love...
@Gabriel....there are streaming services and then there is streaming your own music. So for me, it doesn't stop. Also if I choose there are likely 1000s of radio stations I can stream. However, they are largely compressed. Every channel seems to have their own streaming protocol, or I have no idea why some stations clearly stream in lower mp3 bit rates (& sound sh!te), whilst others don't. 😆
It is the recoding skills (of engineers as main factor) that dictates the quality of reproduced musical sounds. Then ->dsd->hi-re->CD. Opinion based on hearing.
My opinion a cd sounds very good better than those guys who say that vinyl lossless/uncompressed sounds better, I think not, also i have a philips mp3 player that has quality sound coming from that little thing !
I tend to favour listening to music from CD if from a digital source. Furthermore, I have this philosophy that just because a technology is new, different, or in a complex way a combination of both, it may not function to supersede the existing technology. It does not imply that such different technology is somehow better, advantageous, or more correct.
we can hear past our in ear 20 khz limit by the property of resonances. fast taps can induce a slower resonance. this happens with in speakes as well as our physical body as well, shaping the sound through modulation. it can also interact with other sensory cells that start to vibrate. for sub 20 hz bass the higher order resonances are audible , while we also feel the physical air pressure. high res is only better if the supertreble is indeed musical, and not interfering with the main resonances or direct sound. streaming is also only better if its buffered and ran on a local clock afterwards, as otherwise phase issues, low hz bass issues and data completeness issues can arise.
I compared Ray Charles Loves Company yesterday CD vs Tidal Streaming, and I thought the CD was more solid, clear, and smoother than streaming, which reminded me of Bluetooth 🤔🤔
The method used to play a performance back is VERY dependent on the care used when the track was mastered and recorded. The majority of tracks were mastered before the technology existed to record with DSD quality. Some of them will benefit from DSD playback and some won't. When the CD first became available they just dumped analog tracks onto the new format with out any thought of mastering the tracks and the result was terrible. Thousands of cd's were mad that just sounded bad. If you see a release of older material on DSD you better understand how it was done so you don't pay for something your not getting.
how about ripping the same cd to server and stream it through a dac, compare with play that very same hard copy cd in transport and using the same dac in the same system? would it then be the matter of which transport is superior?
It's telling that 90% of people stream horribly produced music through a $5 speaker they bought at Walmart... all the while wondering "what is the superior format?" You try and tell them their Beats headphones are junk and they invariably reply "I dunno, they sound good to me." Most people don't even know what good music sounds like anymore.
I like CD's. I'm going on a trip to town, I take a couple...no fiddling with menus or choosing stuff...just shove it in the slot and adjust the volume. Done. When I want to check out my latest creation, I burn a quick copy and go out to the car. Then I take it in to my Wife at her computer and when she's done I take it back to my recording room and either store it or throw it away. It's mentally easier for this old man to handle a physical object than to search around in my computer for stuff. I guess I will move up to Bluetooth eventually but I love the simplicity of CD's and I've noticed the quality of sound mainly depends upon the equipment being used for playback or the quality of the headphones. I will probably never use a streaming service because I don't listen to music as a rule unless I'm working on some. Once I'm done with a full CD, I'm done with it. I don't want to listen to it, I want to work on the next one.
I'm old skool ... CD all the way....besides CD is better quality to my ears.... first choice would be vinyls, then sacd, then hdcd, then redbook cd, then DSD, WAV, FLAC, APE...... NO streaming!!!!!!
For the regular folks CDS are better. Streaming could be better in a control environment but getting your music through a party on the internet too many factors will influence the quality you get.
I truly appreciate your videos! What you said here puzzles me. In the end you said "And CDs are some of the best sound that we have here", while you earlier said that DSD and High Res is better. Would you kindly clarify? Thanks!
hires is in most cases shit with turned up treble and bass so you can hear a difference why? because 44100 is enough for any human ear and when you hear a difference it's not because hires but because a different mixing
@@Harald_Reindl well, i'm an audio engineer and i can tell you that, what you said is true, we use hi sample rate and bit depth in production to prevent aliasing and noise, after that we don't need it any more
Paul, really like the PS audio gear and your wise & joyful attitude. My current digital setup is a PS Audio Stellar Gain DAC, SACD player, Small Green Computer Sonic I5, Ultra Rendu, Qobuz & Roon. Listening through Martin Logan Electrostatics, I hear everything good or bad as you have stated previously. I have many WAV music files stored on the Sonic I5 SSD and I also stream Redbook and Hi Rez tracks from Qobuz. Roon does Sample Rate Conversion if I wish and I typically prefer Redbook streams upsampled to 88.2 with the Smooth Linear or Precise filter from Roon. Hi Rez streams I leave at their native resolution. I change the Stellar Gain DAC filters between # 1 or # 2 depending on the original recording quality of the track and how bright or dull it sounds natively. The upsampled Redbook Qobuz streams sound very good if the original material was recorded well. The native Hi Rez streams are typically very good too if recorded well. When I compare tracks that I have on my SSD vs the same streamed Qobuz tracks at the same resolution & volume, the SSD tracks usually are superior, a bit more robust and fuller sounding, but not a huge difference. I picked up a demo sampler CD (full Redbook 44.1/16) recently from the Capital Audio Fest show. That sampler disc is extraordinarily good. The point is, native resolution (Low or Hi) is important and can make a difference, but the magic ingredient in my opinion will always be the quality and engineering skill of the original recording, in any native resolution (except MP3's or the like). CD vs Streaming is subjective. Each has it pros & cons. I will say that thanks to Qobuz streams and Qobuz suggestions, I've been exposed to some very diverse, engaging and highly enjoyable music that would not have been possible without streaming. CD's & SACD's are great and can sound very good under the right conditions, but my primary for now is my personal Roon playlists filled with a mix of my favorite and great sounding SSD files and streams!! With my Ipad and Stellar Gain remote in hand, I'm always in for a great listening experience and wonder where Qobuz and Roon will take me this time. Peace.
Fat Rat it depends on which streaming service you use and a couple otter factors . Right now Qobuz is running a deal I believe , $14.99 for there HiRes streaming package and imo is the best sounding streaming service. The other one is Tidal , if yo ur military or a veteran you can get the military discount for $11.99 for there HIRes package. If your not into having the best quality music then Spotify and many otters are available.
Fat Rat yep no problem. I guess that’s one way to look at it . The biggest reason I stream is because of all the great new songs and artist I find , then I buy it on vinyl or cd . So you can buy and have a ton of cds and vinyl (as I do) and never experience new music and just keep rotating through them or you can find new music through streaming and support that artist by buying there album . I also have a great digital setup that sounds outstanding (to my ears) from streaming. Ymmv
It's the labels that send the files Some of the recordings are great and clearly from high quality digital masterings Some are to my ears just the CD rip that my player says it up sampled
Just like Eric said, it’s the music labels that send the files and for independent artists, it’s music distribution services like CD Baby and others that send the files to streaming services. So yeah, sometimes they get it wrong. I have found a few albums that have one or two songs that are a different version from what they are supposed to be on the original albums.
As a classical fan, the most important feature for me is not the bit rate but rather the recording venue and the skill of the sound engineers. A dry acoustic does no one any favours. Give me space every time. Let the music breathe and the format is not so important. However, I am looking forward to trying SACD after years of streaming...
What stops them from simply up-scaling CD to Hi-Fidelity and just saying its High Bit Rate? How much 70's music has had the master tracks encoded into higher res recordings available for the public.
I use qobuz too! I'm trying to get into CDs I'm a 27 year old. I was there when HMV shut down. What hardware would you recommend for someone on a budget. At best I have Bose QC 35 2 headphones wish to connect them to a cd player. Is there a type of cd I need to buy from my artists are or all of them good?
I play CDs, minidisc or ipod. I can play "for free" the same song or the same playlist dozens of times, repeat, random or changing between plalists. I don't care if the streaming is HiFi, it is not for money, even a lot of songs I like aren't on streaming service. Useless for me.
I couldn't agree more Paul! For CD it is in the recording thereof, but importantly, the mastering, AND the label company. It seems to me that most contemporary Jazz sound good, as does Spanish guitar (then again, a single instrument or at least very few) - and, Chamber usually (all things being equal) sound better that an entire 100+ piece orchestra. Overall most Classical does NOT all sound good as does the previous mentioned; certain labels are amazing and sound like I am at the concert, while others sound like a, well... mediocre recording, not live. My favorite 2 Label Co. which is to me anyway VERY ACCURATE, (after comparing hundreds of classical CD and 22 of the top Label Co's) are; Hänssler Classic & Deutsche Gramophon.
5:03 same as for movies; streaming's not a patch on a 4k disc, or even good quality "regular" Blu-ray disc. So, I will never get rid of my CD-collection, and I am collecting Blu-ray's and 4k-discs as fast as my (slim) wallet will allow!
I bought a few thousand cd’s a few years ago from an auction house, mainly classical and jazz. Didn’t realise they’re so desirable again. I stream for convenience and it sounds good enough for me.
Interesting. I understand and appreciate all of the points but the one about physical CD typically sounds better than streaming. Why would that be? Does streaming include digital playback from local storage such as a hard drive? If so, I'd have to think it would be equal or better than playback from a physical CD. The CD player can at best provide all the bits. So that part confuses me. If the DAC is the same, how can playback from a CD transport be better than playback from memory? In my case I assume the playback is always buffered, reclocked and isolated from all other upstream electronics. So I am listening to the quality of the clock and the DAC and the output buffer.
Streaming isn’t horrible I liked the idea when it first started because it was different you can listen to any song any time and add as many as you wanted with Apple Music but once I listened to lossless I didn’t like Apple Music for the fact I could tell the difference in quality. I currently now buy my music from Qobuz and he tracks and 7digital. It was disappointing seeing apple didn’t add lossless downloads to the iTunes Store cd quality in the iTunes Store would have been huge but they didn’t do that which isn’t a huge deal since I own the music I like in lossless format and I don’t have to rely and streaming for it.
on a desktop computer with an external dac and good speakers, high resolution audio streaming (such as tidal) will sound better than the same songs on CD coming out of that same setup. at the end of the day the CD is still a collection of 1s and 0s burned onto a physical medium. it's data being read by a laser then played back. the high resolution streaming offers more data to the DAC and will provide superior audio.
DSD doesn't blow anything away... the commonality is that most production from DSD would have been taken from a higher quality source or possibly a master tape. Paul if your interested in doing a blind test of DSD compared to a Mobile Fidelity Ultra Disc II (just a CD) please let us know...
Issues I have with streaming: Ownership, or lack of. I want to own the media and resell, gift or trade at a later time. A well curated, maintained physical media collection still has a certain street cred among audiophiles and musicphiles whether vinyl or optical discs, which includes Cd, Sacd, Dvd video concerts, dvd-a, and Blu-ray video concert and Blu-ray audio discs I want to admire cover art and read inserts and booklets included as I listen, which can be quite extensive even for the small cd form factor. Provenance- as others mention, you really don’t know what data stream or master source you’re getting, ie was the 20/48, 24/96 or whatever upconverted from 16/44 on the providers servers? Or a true hi res digital studio recording or new hi res digital transfer from the studio tapes? What source master tape or digital? Physical media gives you proof of provenance multiple ways. Yes vinyl or cd could be counterfeit but there are multiple codes like Ifpi and others on optical discs to authenticate, plus Accuraterip databases. Cost- lossless tiers command higher fees, more data use over cell plans. Looking at the prices of used lossless media like cd dvd Blu-ray, if you do the math, I doubt most subscribers don’t listen to enough music per month on a time basis, counting actual minutes of music heard vs minutes on a disc, to justify the cost. I pay 20 cents to a dollar for most used CDs I have, currently somewhere around a thousand. I haven’t listened to most yet, and do about 5-7 a week averaging 50min each
In a zombie apocalypse scenario, with some epic fighting I could procure a diesel electricity generator and still play my CDs while the spotify staff is having their brains eaten in their dead server rooms.
I'm not totally convinced that higher resolution streaming is better than say, a CD, because of the way internet data is delivered - it's susceptible to network latency, jitter and packet loss. Discs are manufactured from a DDP with no such losses, and as long as your player has quality converters and is working properly, it won't suffer such data deterioration.
I know that this is 3 years old. I’ve just been watching a lot of the videos on this channel and I’ve noticed on all channels none of the hosts ever seem to bring up quality of internet connection being a factor in streaming. I don’t care if you have a gigabit connection. If you are in a bad or high traffic region your streaming quality will be compromised. I know that streaming tech has improved a lot, but it will still drop your quality if you have a slow or compromised connection. Let me know if my thinking on this is flawed in some way.
I could be wrong about this. But it can also be the bandwidth that's being streamed. Depending on the bandwidth and the equipment. listening music on those phone from those being streamed sight like amazon which I have no experience or online internet radio. The resolution has might be squashed a bit or a lot to prevent dropouts. Cds or physical media vinyls can have more information that streaming cannot get on the radio internet. Finer details. Always like cds and there are some fine details in the physical medium. Even movies or videos streaming on the youtube amazon netflix and so on. Video quality is degraded compared to physical media. But this is about sound of music streaming on the internet. Never can beat physical media to my point of view.
I've tried to explain it like you've explained it but people on the net want to believe that their 192 kHz mp3 files sound the same as a DSD file and will argue long past the point of reason. It's a more accurate mathematical representation of binary discrete data to analogue output but that's not where it ends, in my experience mastering is the primary factor and I've heard some awful sounding DSD files.
The question is simple. On the same track, given all other things are equal (recording, mastering, arrangements, etc.), would but rate and sample size matter?
I remember back in 80's when first CD player showed on the market, some radio station presented their newly purchased toy. There was a lot of talk about the quality and clean sound produced by new equipment. At the end of the show, they all agreed that LP sounds better than CD. I tend to agree with this statement too, even though I no longer have my LP collection. Technically speaking it's all about data and how it is processed. More data equals more sound details, and yet old fashioned turntables have slight edge over CD player.
I would agree that more data provides more sound details, but there is a point where you can no longer perceive these details even though your dog or cat may easily do so. CD data is designed to extend to the human limit of sound perception. The recording may not take advantage of these limits, but it does have the potential.
Hi Paul. Do you have Irish roots? I live in Dublin. I’m an amateur hifi enthusiast. I need help setting up my Marantz disc player to my amp(ud8004 and s48004).
My opinion: For me, Cd is the same as high-rez in sound quality, but better in convenience and availability, way better. Music from the 60s and early 70s? Nothing beats original pressing vinyl, period.
Well, I have an essence HDACC and it reports the input bit rate. When I play a CD, DVD and BD discs, they report different source bit rates. However, when I stream music, no matter what service I stream from, even so called HRA audiophile services, they all report standard 1411 BPS. I have no idea what is happening to the bits across the internet. So, I just prefer to play discs because I know that I am reading what was recorded on the published product. Mind you I do rip CDs into WAV using EAC because that software is free and reports how that went. My impression of audiophile streaming is that despite the bit rate still coming in at 1411 BPS, the recordings sound absolutely stunning. So I agree with Paul that it mostly just comes down to how it was done. The skill and experience of the recording engineer is just hands down the most important factor, not so much whether it's standard or high res audio. Like Paul a friend has tested various digital resolution recordings from the same chrome master tape. Everything recorded and played back on the same equipment. I have listened to these as well and I don't care what some say, they do sound different and some of the sounds are very obviously different. But at the end of the day, the above truth still wins out every time for me.
@E. O. With the storage available these days, the bloat of lossless uncompressed formats like WAV is not a problem at all. Not even on my DAP. Heck, dual 512 GB cards and 1TB cards becoming available now. That's a lifetime of WAV files. What do you mean by WAV incorrectly reports bit-rate, do you mean as a file property? There are other lossless uncompressed options if file properties are a concern. The only place that bloat is an issue is low memory mobile devices. If your mobile in public places, the street, shopping centers, the car etc, there is simply no point in lossless music anyway as the environmental noise floor negates any possibility of benefiting from & enjoying it's subtleties of tonality and dynamics. If your doing that, then you are not listening to the art of music, your just into the beat and drive which is what lossy is for. I did eventually track down my streaming issue in regard to bit rate. The issue is windows 10 has no option to pass through the incoming bit stream. You can only select the output bit rate and windows 10 resamples to that. There is no pass through option damitt! The DAC can only report what it gets from Windows 10 and the options it provides are more restricted over USB 3 then over HDMI. So, I am using HDMI now. I think a similar thing must be happening with other smart streaming devices as well, not passing an unaltered stream from the internet, though the same does not appear true when playing DVD or BD discs on a smart disc player. It's probably all about licencing protections, but it means I cannot verify the bit-rate from the LAN. How can we overcome this issue and get an unadulterated bitstream over the internet directly into a DAC? The DAC only sees what that some smart interface provides. There appears no way to know whether the internet stream is native or resampled.
Nice channel, most of things I hear here is something I already knew, but that's not bad, I'm getting assured or I learn new stuff. But as I see comments there are is so much bad dogmas and misunderstanding. All that some people understood was cd good, digital files bad, that is funny. All I got instead was: music producers focus on cd's so they mix it for cd, if you get the file saved to higher resolution you won't get better performance. It's just the same with putting music mixed for cd's to vinyl.
Hi, thanks for the great work and love for music you put on your videos, I have a Krell KAV 300I, so my question for today at least is: Why it sound harsh on highs and a bit bloated on mediums and very loud on bass when I turn it on? After 40 to 60 minutes it becomes the sweetest thing on Earth for my ears, but in the meantime it makes me nuts. Do you think you can enlighten us on why this is happening , maybe with a video about warmup or something?; Thank you in advance. Greetings from Guadalajara, Mexico.
Some of these streaming services also have the download function of music. and I should point out that record companies have been recording music in more than 16 bit resolution for more than ten years. the CD you buy today is actually scaled-down music even though it says SBM = super bit mapping on the case
A very vague answer. Let me do it one better: They all can sound great. But current technology does'nt even harvest 1/10 of all the mentioned technologies. There are different levels of sound, and in regards to what is best, just generally hunt for the most expensive solution, there are exceptions to this rule, but generally just follow the money... If something cheaper is better, then that typically just means that the cheaper gear runs at a higher efficiency than the more expensive gear. So yes I could in theory make a 10 dollar cd player sound better than high quality DSD that costs 10 times more. Please also notice the fact which no one talks about, and that is that our gear can physically on run around 20bit 44khz, all the rest is basically just mathematical compensation which gives the following problems: It is more subdued, controlled, has a more flat response, is more conservative, and looses it's dynamics. And now for the stuff that no one really is talking about: 16bit does not overload the chip compared to the higher resolution recordings. Meaning that, there is a more of a natural musical/direct flow when you have a 16 bit format on cd or harddisk or your are streaming via the net. So basically, a lower bit is a more raw and unfiltered and free flowing sound. But also remember this, that some few high quality files or DSD can sometimes give the illusion of sounding better. Usually it just makes the sound more smooth and controlled and pleasant, lacking some bite and attack and naturalness. This is a thing that no one talks about in the industry. So just because your cheap dsd sounds better than your cheap CD at a lower bit, does not equal that CD is a worse medium. Quite the opposite. I have heard most things on the market, and can say that DSD is not good enough yet. But if we can produce a cheap that physically runs around 32-64 bit via some miracle, then yes I believe that it then would beat everything. The problem is just that playing a 24 bit file maxes out at around 20 bit which effects the sound badly making it seem not quite there with out current technology. The correct answer lies in asking a different and more relevant qustion: what creates the best sound: that is simple: 1. do not convert sound. 2. Use the highest quality parts. 3. Have the shortest circuit with the best design. Most manufactorers are only looking a getting junk hardware to play more effecient and labeling a new technology.
