why does streaming from local storage sound better than the same album, at same resolution streamed from Qobuz?

[hlkaye]

I apologize if this has been asked and answered before but I searched for an answer and couldn't find one.

I use a Sonic Transporter i5 to stream from an internal solid state drive and using Roon.  When I play an album from a ripped CD it sounds significantly better than the same album streamed from Qobuz.  In both cases, the ethernet signal feeds my Auralic Vega G1 streaming Dac.  In both cases, the ethernet signal passes through a Sonore Optical Module deluxe and EtherRegen.  Yet the Qobuz version sounds flat and distant, less transparent and vivid, and without the sense of spaciousness.

Any explanations?  Any solutions?

[DuckToller]

No explanation nor solution.

Did you try to play Qobuz from your local library (pc or phone) ? Where you can have the stream itself or the Qobuz file locally on your SDcard/HDD?

You could either use WiFi or an otg cable/USB into your Vega, and go further upstream to look where the quality loss arrives, given it sounds equal directly send to the Dac. You could have your local file in your phone SDcard to compare, for example.

From that test you can get some data points that help you to better understand your problem.

A standard answer I have read several times: 

it could be the use of different pressings / master versions of the same record, I. E. In the Led Zep catalogue..

Best of lucks, DT

[R1200CL]

41 minutes ago, hlkaye said:

When I play an album from a ripped CD it sounds significantly better than the same album streamed from Qobuz. 

Any particular album, or just any ? 
 

Where is album stored ?

You may spend around $200 at SGC and add HQplayer embedded on that Sonictransporter i5. 

[DuckToller]

 

[Iving]

Brilliant topic

10/10

[Iving]

3 minutes ago, Iving said:

Brilliant topic

10/10

Addendum: Much of the conversation, liveliness and energy on this and other Audio Forums roots in the fact that not all things can be explained - at least to everyone's satisfaction.

I am only one user/person/member/audiophile - but I stay local and away from online streaming for all sorts of reasons. One advantage of local only is that you have to deal with a much reduced set of vagaries.

Anyway - good luck with the topic and whatever you choose to do for yourself.

[Cebolla]

1 hour ago, DuckToller said:

A standard answer I have read several times: 

it could be the use of different pressings / master versions of the same record, I. E. In the Led Zep catalogue..

 

A standard answer and difficult if not impossible to verify, given that Qobuz strip all header metadata from their FLAC file tracks, including most importantly for identification purposes, the MD5 audio signature in the STREAMINFO block that's normally added by the FLAC encoder.

[Iving]

 

2 hours ago, hlkaye said:

When I play an album from a ripped CD it sounds significantly better than the same album streamed from Qobuz ... the Qobuz version sounds flat and distant, less transparent and vivid, and without the sense of spaciousness.

 

No Album specified. Looks like a generic observation.

 

Duck & Cebolla's preferred (and utterly plausible) explanation is tested/confirmed easily enough. Is local always better? Mostly better? Depends? Can you get info confirming whether you are comparing like with like? Does Qobuz provide such detail?

[Cebolla]

No MD5 audio signature means you have no instant simple bit perfect reassurance to compare with. So you need to capture the audio and compare manually.

[AudioDoctor]

10 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

 

No Album specified. Looks like a generic observation.

 

Duck & Cebolla's preferred (and utterly plausible) explanation is tested/confirmed easily enough. Is local always better? Mostly better? Depends? Can you get info confirming whether you are comparing like with like? Does Qobuz provide such detail?

 

In my experience, local always sounds better than streamed.

[Iving]

I was thinking also - usually a CD will tell you whether it's a year xxxx remaster by who etc. If Qobuz provided equiv. info for comparison it would be a leg up for comparative testing across multiple Albums. I have no idea how Qobuz works. I shall retire!

[AudioDoctor]

5 minutes ago, Iving said:

I was thinking also - usually a CD will tell you whether it's a year xxxx remaster by who etc. If Qobuz provided equiv. info for comparison it would be a leg up for comparative testing across multiple Albums. I have no idea how Qobuz works. I shall retire!

 

IMO comparative testing across multiple albums isn't even necessary. Listen to an album on Qobuz, then download that album and give it a listen from your local storage spot. I don't know the words to describe the difference, it's there and easy to spot, imo. There is just less there with the streamed file, as good as it may sound. I still stream for convenience and discovery. If I want the album I buy it.

[davide256]

Qobuz sounds pretty good streamed on my Euphony Roon or Windows 10 Roon  setup. The subliminal cues that create a lifelike playback are diluted comparing an album

streamed from Qobuz vs the same album bought and stored to NAS but its not a big difference.  Have tried Roon core in the following configurations on my i5 server build,

booting from M.2 drives,  boot OS solution does make a difference.

 

from best to worst

1. Euphony w/Roon core

2. Windows 10 64 bit w/Roon core

3. Roon rock

 

you might give a whirl to a thumb drive boot test trial of Euphony w/Roon core to see if that reduces the difference.  I wasn't impressed with Roon rock but

Roon core under Euphony or Windows installation sounds pretty good.

[PeterG]

My experience is also that local is always better.  Almost all of my music is CD rips into a Naim Uniti Core.  I have tried numerous times to buy a streamer with equal sound quality, and as AudioDoctor notes, it is always a short comparison.  Before I had the Uniti Core, I found downloads from Qobuz and HD Tracks equivalent to CDs, or at least within the margin of error, so I think it's the streaming process rather than the download vs CD.

 

To me, the subliminal clues that Dave notes are what high end audio is all about, so that leaves me ripping CDs until they are no longer available.

[hlkaye]

Thanks to everyone for your comments and suggestions.  So far, I've compared several albums of piano trios and a Gil Shaham performance of the Brahms violin concerto, with which I am very familiar, and each time, playing the album from local storage seemed superior--greater clarity, transparency, vividness, etc, but of course, I knew which I was listening to, Qobuz or local storage.  Tomorrow I will borrow my wife 's golden ears and see if she notices consistent differences. I will also download an album from Qobuz and compare with the streamed version.

 

I will also consider taking the plunge with HQ Player.

[MarkusBarkus]

@hlkaye...have you also tried initiating streaming and unplugging the network...to play out of buffer to see if you still notice a difference between streamed and local? Caveat here is how your streamer buffers. 
 

Some folks are loading "albums" into buffer and unplugging network as a matter of routine listening process, as "the best network is no network" philosophy.

 

The differences I find between streaming and local are from album to album, not local vs. streamed. Caveat here is your streamer and network optimization, of course. 

[audiobomber]

18 hours ago, davide256 said:

Qobuz sounds pretty good streamed on my Euphony Roon or Windows 10 Roon  setup. The subliminal cues that create a lifelike playback are diluted comparing an album

streamed from Qobuz vs the same album bought and stored to NAS but its not a big difference.  Have tried Roon core in the following configurations on my i5 server build,

booting from M.2 drives,  boot OS solution does make a difference.

 

from best to worst

1. Euphony w/Roon core

2. Windows 10 64 bit w/Roon core

3. Roon rock

 

you might give a whirl to a thumb drive boot test trial of Euphony w/Roon core to see if that reduces the difference.  I wasn't impressed with Roon rock but

Roon core under Euphony or Windows installation sounds pretty good.

Some people also consider Roon to be sonically compromised. I don't use it, so I have no opinion:

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/what-features-of-roon-are-worth-the-price-compensate-for-roon’s-poorer-sound-quality.32265/

[dmackta]

Have you tried a properly conducted blind comparison test? Because when I do it sighted, the Qobuz stream always sounds better. ;-)

[davide256]

18 minutes ago, dmackta said:

Have you tried a properly conducted blind comparison test? Because when I do it sighted, the Qobuz stream always sounds better. ;-)

Hegel H590 vs?

[AudioDoctor]

edit, never mind I didn't see the winky face...

[Blackmorec]

In order to move a digital file along a piece of wire it needs to be converted into a voltage.  The voltage you create when listening to a ‘stored file’ is basically created in the server, using the server’s DC power supply, then shipped out to the DAC via an interface along a single cable. The DC power supply adds its own noise and ripple to the voltage representation of 1s and 0s and the cable adds any radiated emi voltages it may pick up.  Servers very often use high quality, low noise power supplies optimised for audio. So the resulting noise can be fairly minimal. 

 

When listening to remote files from Qobuz for example, the data bit stream is synthesised several times along the network, with each power supply adding its own noise and ripple to the stream. Power supplies in commercial networking products are usually $5-$7 affairs made in China from the cheapest components possible and are not optimised for audio applications. Then there are several cables along the way to pick up stray EMI. Noise from the multiple plover supplies interacts and create harmonics, so the final noise spectrum CAN be immensely complex.

 

So what ends up entering the DAC is either noise from a single, audio optimised PS plus a single cable’s worth of EMI in the case of a server stored file vs noise from a variety of super-cheap power supplies, plus harmonics, plus EMI from several cables, often long in length for remotely streamed files. 

 

[audiobomber]

2 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

In order to move a digital file along a piece of wire it needs to be converted into a voltage.  The voltage you create when listening to a ‘stored file’ is basically created in the server, using the server’s DC power supply, then shipped out to the DAC via an interface along a single cable. The DC power supply adds its own noise and ripple to the voltage representation of 1s and 0s and the cable adds any radiated emi voltages it may pick up.  Servers very often use high quality, low noise power supplies optimised for audio. So the resulting noise can be fairly minimal. 

 

When listening to remote files from Qobuz for example, the data bit stream is synthesised several times along the network, with each power supply adding its own noise and ripple to the stream. Power supplies in commercial networking products are usually $5-$7 affairs made in China from the cheapest components possible and are not optimised for audio applications. Then there are several cables along the way to pick up stray EMI. Noise from the multiple plover supplies interacts and create harmonics, so the final noise spectrum CAN be immensely complex.

 

So what ends up entering the DAC is either noise from a single, audio optimised PS plus a single cable’s worth of EMI in the case of a server stored file vs noise from a variety of super-cheap power supplies, plus harmonics, plus EMI from several cables, often long in length for remotely streamed files. 

 

Interesting description. Could there be another factor at work? EMI and RFI are very high frequency signals, and higher frequency vibrations die out faster than lower. Maybe there's more attenuation of noise vs. data over longer distances.

 

Just spitballing, due to something that @plissken said about there being nine hops before data reached his house, and how that would collect a lot of noise if EMI/RFI was a problem. I believe the closer the noise source is to the DA conversion, the greater the impact on sound quality. 

 

I have a LAN Isolator between my modem and router. I hear a bit of high frequency hash without the isolator. It's pretty minor but I'm audiophile, so I need the thing. 

[plissken]

2 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

When listening to remote files from Qobuz for example, the data bit stream is synthesised several times along the network, with each power supply adding its own noise and ripple to the stream.

 

The data, as it passes through routers is completely reconstructed and forwarded. Switches and routers routinely perform store and forward. Literally STORE data and then FORWARD.

 

When we are talking streaming content, ripple isn't a concern because you aren't going over copper but optical on these transits. There is no AC ripple on optical connections.

 

Quote

 

Power supplies in commercial networking products are usually $5-$7 affairs made in China from the cheapest components possible and are not optimised for audio applications. 

 

I'm curious where your information comes from. For my Aruba builds my power supplies have a cost starting at $350 for the lower wattage models. I'm pretty sure the BoM is way beyond $5-7. You also get a life time warranty *Lifetime for the product cycle*

 

Or did you mean consumer?

 

Quote

Then there are several cables along the way to pick up stray EMI. Noise from the multiple plover supplies interacts and create harmonics, so the final noise spectrum CAN be immensely complex.

 

Huh. The data doesn't support you in this though. All these devices convert AC to DC and by virtue of conversion everything besides 50/60hz fundamentals are all sorted on properly designed gear like the Meanwell Supply with the ground strap.

 

Quote

So what ends up entering the DAC is either noise from a single, audio optimised PS plus a single cable’s worth of EMI in the case of a server stored file vs noise from a variety of super-cheap power supplies, plus harmonics, plus EMI from several cables, often long in length for remotely streamed files.

 

I hope you aren't out there giving advice.

[davide256]

3 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

In order to move a digital file along a piece of wire it needs to be converted into a voltage.  The voltage you create when listening to a ‘stored file’ is basically created in the server, using the server’s DC power supply, then shipped out to the DAC via an interface along a single cable. The DC power supply adds its own noise and ripple to the voltage representation of 1s and 0s and the cable adds any radiated emi voltages it may pick up.  Servers very often use high quality, low noise power supplies optimised for audio. So the resulting noise can be fairly minimal. 

 

When listening to remote files from Qobuz for example, the data bit stream is synthesised several times along the network, with each power supply adding its own noise and ripple to the stream. Power supplies in commercial networking products are usually $5-$7 affairs made in China from the cheapest components possible and are not optimised for audio applications. Then there are several cables along the way to pick up stray EMI. Noise from the multiple plover supplies interacts and create harmonics, so the final noise spectrum CAN be immensely complex.

 

So what ends up entering the DAC is either noise from a single, audio optimised PS plus a single cable’s worth of EMI in the case of a server stored file vs noise from a variety of super-cheap power supplies, plus harmonics, plus EMI from several cables, often long in length for remotely streamed files. 

 

Sounds like you are not a STEM graduate, haven't trained in digital circuits and networks. Impactful noise can only be originated from the router/switch itself to a

connected source/endpoint. Do worry about that. In between any noise passed from a next hop  device is far, far below the noise level of the connected router/switch

itself. Commercial networks no linger use wire connection other than for local hop, too slow, everything is muxed over fiber between switches and routers inside a commercial network.

 

More troublesome is product quality on packet/frame processing, cheaper gear behaves more erratically than a Cisco or Juniper product, Don't cheap out on your network

hardware. Intel ports are good but beware of the "comes with" Ethernet port of other manufacturers. Historically endpoint devices behave oddly when the network behaves oddly

 

The line about "data bit stream is synthesised ", thats not how it works. Data is transmitted in IP packets encapsulated inside  Ethernet frames, read into and out of buffers as its

received and transmitted. The data operations that occur are on frame and packet headers in order to switch/route traffic, data payload  is untouched between source

and destination.

[MarkusBarkus]

...yeah, the power and data models may be a bit out of date, @Blackmorec. For example, I have about three feet of copper in my network. The rest is fiber. All components, including network components, are on good quality LPSs. For example.