Is Resolution The Only Barrier Between Stream And Own

[rando]

As of late I'd been neglecting all else in favor of good old 16/44.  A few conversations here reminded me how much good music lies outside this, the widest dispersed format currently, in either direction.  Which got me thinking about the need to keep on hand 3.6GB, reasonable size for SACD on hard drive, of CD quality music that is readily available through streaming.  Would I be safely storing anything but physical copies of music if a voice command or couple button presses brought DSD/DXD level quality to me over an internet connection?  Probably not forever.  Nothing is.  Ditching the endless amount of drives and backup routines and filtering new purchases into both has allure. 

 

What would it take you to agree all of the audiophile requirements were met at levels satisfactory to consider serious listening?

[Ron Scubadiver]

With streaming you don't know if it will be there tomorrow.   Contracts with the labels are not perpetual.

[driedmango]

As long as you aren't listening to dynamically compressed pop music. The big difference is mainly the dynamic range. If you are going to listen to pop...well SACD is better

[rando]

Ah, but what gets put on the internet never disappears.

[kumakuma]

Owning provides more flexibility such as the ability to put on all of my digital devices in whatever format I want.

[PeterSt]

Streaming never sounds good, let alone better (I know, you did not ask for the latter).

 

Ehm, ditch the few SACD in favor of the million Redbook. You did not ask for that (opinion) either, but that's what it is about.

 

I have a fair deal of the SACD catalogue (ripped) and a couple of K Hires. It's only Redbook I play. Well, you know ...

[rando]

I did say in the case of it satisfying all audiophile concerns.  Most of us consider storing the active file into RAM meeting one of them.  At which point streaming is only step 1 that needs to happen in an acceptable period of time.  

[PeterSt]

No comprendo.

 

4 minutes ago, rando said:

Most of us consider storing the active file into RAM meeting one of them

 

Then most if us don't understand ?

[PeterSt]

[rando]

Ooh, the dreaded language barrier rears its head ( a little swollen red one smaller than a thumbnail).

 

What if streaming could be made to sound as good as a download or rip?  Maybe even through the intelligent processing of a certain known and well loved software.  

[mansr]

59 minutes ago, rando said:

What if streaming could be made to sound as good as a download or rip?

If the same file is streamed, it sounds the same.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, rando said:

Most of us consider storing the active file into RAM

Show me how to make a software player that doesn't bounce the data through RAM.

[Blake]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

Streaming never sounds good, let alone better (I know, you did not ask for the latter).

 

 

Streaming redbook content from Tidal sounds no different than a downloaded cd of the same music.

 

I do agree with you about SACD's- I couldn't care less, none of the music I listen to is available on SACD, nor would I care if it did.  Redbook quality is high resolution in my book.

 

[daverich4]

44 minutes ago, Blake said:

 

Streaming redbook content from Tidal sounds no different than a downloaded cd of the same music.

 

 

That really hasn’t been my experience. I can’t quite put my finger on it but Tidal just doesn’t sound as good to me. At the very least I find myself dealing with listener fatigue more often than when listening to files stored on my NAS. I use Tidal regularly but if I hear something I like via Tidal, I buy it. YMMV. (I know, you already said that it does.) ??‍♂️

[rando]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

If the same file is streamed, it sounds the same.

 

Constant network activity dl'ing a 3.6GB file is going to have an effect.  Why, the layers of anti-piracy code it would have to be wrapped in.  Even if you have a fast connection and it loads the entire file into RAM it will still be a tainted copy.  You are still incurring a lot of background processing.  Tidal was addicting but the music output ultimately lacked key intrinsic qualities.  

 

This wasn't the root of my question though.  If anything I attempted to swat all this aside and act as if a perfect replication of loading the disc had occurred.  Exploring what else stands between just enjoying music instead of doing all the other computercentric maintenance was very much what I've been debating.  Quite literally is the ability to force a handful of GB's downstream the only hurdle to redefining being a computer audiophile.  

[diecaster]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. 

[Albrecht]

4 hours ago, rando said:

As of late I'd been neglecting all else in favor of good old 16/44.  A few conversations here reminded me how much good music lies outside this, the widest dispersed format currently, in either direction.  Which got me thinking about the need to keep on hand 3.6GB, reasonable size for SACD on hard drive, of CD quality music that is readily available through streaming.  Would I be safely storing anything but physical copies of music if a voice command or couple button presses brought DSD/DXD level quality to me over an internet connection?  Probably not forever.  Nothing is.  Ditching the endless amount of drives and backup routines and filtering new purchases into both has allure. 

 

What would it take you to agree all of the audiophile requirements were met at levels satisfactory to consider serious listening?

Hi,

Redbook (level) playback (or streaming) on a LAN, via a NAS, - has significantly higher SQ than playing back via streaming through an Internet Service.

Plus, the availability of music on any streaming service is grossly limited, and only going to get worse.

Plus, streaming services do not pay fair royalties.

[Albrecht]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

If the same file is streamed, it sounds the same.

That is not true

[Albrecht]

2 hours ago, Blake said:

 

Streaming redbook content from Tidal sounds no different than a downloaded cd of the same music.

 

I do agree with you about SACD's- I couldn't care less, none of the music I listen to is available on SACD, nor would I care if it did.  Redbook quality is high resolution in my book.

 

That is not true

[rando]

27 minutes ago, diecaster said:

I have no idea what you are trying to say. 

 

You may prefer the monysllabic grunting in the general direction of a topical matter followed by a command to Discuss that has spurred many longwinded threads here.  

 

It was a somewhat open topic with enough contradictions to allow personally defining what, if anything, would keep you chained to physical copying and maintaining disc images.  

[diecaster]

54 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

That is not true

 

Tell me exactly how an album streamed from Tidal via Roon sounds any different than the exact same album I rip and play via Roon. 

[diecaster]

47 minutes ago, rando said:

 

You may prefer the monysllabic grunting in the general direction of a topical matter followed by a command to Discuss that has spurred many longwinded threads here.  

 

It was a somewhat open topic with enough contradictions to allow personally defining what, if anything, would keep you chained to physical copying and maintaining disc images.  

 

Actually, I prefer clarity. You may use more polysyllabic words but you don't use them in a way that makes you meaning clear....

[wgscott]

3 hours ago, diecaster said:

 

Actually, I prefer clarity. You may use more polysyllabic words but you don't use them in a way that makes you meaning clear....

 

Word salad sans sentence structure and grammars badly verily.

[kumakuma]

4 hours ago, diecaster said:

 

Actually, I prefer clarity. You may use more polysyllabic words but you don't use them in a way that makes you meaning clear....

 

I'm glad I'm not the only way struggling to understand his posts.

[firedog]

6 hours ago, diecaster said:

 

Tell me exactly how an album streamed from Tidal via Roon sounds any different than the exact same album I rip and play via Roon. 

I can't. Streaming from my HD almost always sounds better to me than Tidal. In some cases the  masterings are different, although in many cases I don't think they are.  I don't have an explanation.
 

I also playback through an ethernet streamer. (ethernet in, USB or  SPDIF out). Many people say that should also make no difference  as opposed to straight USB to my setup, which is galvanically isolated. But it does. The streamer playback has an added level of clarity - a cleaner sound. The streamer setup also sounds better than running the USB output of the server   to a galvanically isolated, "noise reducing" USB to SPDIF converter, and then to my setup.  Again, many would say it "can't" sound better, but it does. I've repeatedly tested these differences and A/B'd them. Results are consistent. 
 

Since I'm not making any claims  for your system, I don't have to explain why or how it happens. However, maybe you should be a tiny bit humble and acknowledge that possibly something is going on (other than my imagination) that you don't know about or understand.