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

[Blackmorec]

4 hours ago, plissken said:

 

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.

 

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

 

I hope you aren't out there giving advice.

Here’s a picture of your average power supply in consumer grade network electronics. The size is roughly 100%  ie. correct size. 

When a data stream is ‘reconstructed’ (I used the word resynthesized) for transmission on a standard consumer network this is typically the power supply on which the data stream is based. Also bear in mind that the incoming power to this supply is 230V AC, so there’s also an AC to DC rectification going on, with all the associated vibration. By removing this supply and powering the circuit from a remote LPS like a DC3, the upgrade is SQ is night and day, like you’ve upgraded an amp or speakers.

 

The Meanwell supply in one very well known and hugely expensive Audiophile network switch can be had for $9 bucks, $7 if you buy more than a hundred units. 

 

In my original post I’m talking about a standard ethernet network based on typical electronic retailer supplied consumer networking products….not hand built, enthusiast designed servers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

On 9/18/2021 at 7:42 PM, Cebolla said:

 

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.

 

Very easy to verify by using an album for which there is only one release. 

[AudioDoctor]

21 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

Very easy to verify by using an album for which there is only one release. 

 

Even easier. Stream an album from Qobuz, then purchase and download that same album and listen to it locally. That will alleviate all questions.

[plissken]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

Here’s a picture of your average power supply in consumer grade network electronics. The size is roughly 100%  ie. correct size. 

 

Sorry, just some confusion on my part:

 

'Power supplies in commercial networking products are usually $5-$7 affairs made'

 

 

You are saying consumer then commercial...

 

[Blackmorec]

3 hours ago, MarkusBarkus said:

...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.

And with this set up do you still hear big differences between playback of locally stored and remotely streamed files? I’m talking about the cause of why local file playback sounds better than playing remote files over a typical LAN built with consumer grade electronics. What you are talking about is usually not the cause, rather the fix…ie steps taken to improve how remotely streamed files sound. 

[MarkusBarkus]

I'm on the record as saying these days, I hear virtually no difference between local and streamed files...other than from album to album, based on recording quality, mastering, etc..

 

That is, I hear differences between Album A and Album B at times, but not reliably between Album A Stream and Album A local.  

 

I would say my network and system is well optimized and attention has been given to the details, even those which cannot be shown to objectively matter.  
 

Streaming Qobuz here is pretty tasty these days. Did I agree or disagree with your point? I'm not sure... 

[firedog]

2 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Even easier. Stream an album from Qobuz, then purchase and download that same album and listen to it locally. That will alleviate all questions.

Not necessarily. Physical media (ripped), downloads, and the stream may not all be from the same master source. Even when they seem to be.

I've come across this a couple of times, where each different source was clearly not the same master (for instance, different levels of volume compression), even when in the same data format/sample rate. 

 

[AudioDoctor]

8 minutes ago, firedog said:

Not necessarily. Physical media (ripped), downloads, and the stream may not all be from the same master source. Even when they seem to be.

I've come across this a couple of times, where each different source was clearly not the same master (for instance, different levels of volume compression), even when in the same data format/sample rate. 

 

 

So you're saying that the stream of an album is a totally different master than the purchase of that same album, from the same source...

Right now, I am listening to this via a stream. You're saying the download will be an entirely different source, master, etc...

Forgive me for thinking that's a little ridiculous and nearing conspiracy theory levels of paranoia. That would DOUBLE Qobuz's storage requirements...

[firedog]

Where does the word Paranoia fit in? It doesn't unless you are making all sorts of assumptions that have nothing to do with what I wrote. I didn't write anything that hints at a conspiracy. It's all in your head, not mine.

And where does double come from?

I said I know of a couple of instances. I didn't say every album.

And btw, what makes you think there's one copy of the file and the streaming servers and the download servers are necessarily the same ones?  

[jiminlogansquare]

Has anyone just directly asked Qobuz about this, and if so, what was their response?

 

I would think that if the download files are actually superior to the streaming files, or if streaming degrades the SQ, and it is not some grand conspiracy, then Qobuz should actively push this and encourage people to purchase downloads to obtain the higher SQ. Their silence on the matter, in a vacuum, suggests they don't think there is any difference. 

[Blackmorec]

12 hours ago, davide256 said:

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.

Hi there, i used the word ‘commercial networking products’ when more accurately i should have said ‘consumer networking products’. I’m talking about the stuff that the average consumer is given by their ISP or buys from their local Branch of Curry’s or PC World.

 

Also you are talking high-level Network Standards jargon, while I’m talking about what actually happens physically when a voltage stream from a cable is stored on or read from a local buffer in a network device like a router, switch or network bridge.  

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

On 9/18/2021 at 5:25 PM, hlkaye said:

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?

 

One explanation and solution is  given here:

 

 

Not everyone who has tried it agrees with the claims (a few of us do) but the explanations are interesting.

 

Alternative solutions (but not explanations) are given here, for example (though I think even with all this Qobuz is not quite up to the quality of local files either):

 

 

This is just one example of a network configuration. There are as many as there are users on this forum. No guarantee of success with this approach.

 

Or you can just forget about the whole thing and try to enjoy your system as is.

 

But then, don't spend too much time on AudiophileStyle reading about network products, power supplies, DAC...  :) 

 

 

[Blackmorec]

What I learned by studying the networking standards and theory is that whenever files are moved across a network, as long as the final file is a ‘bit perfect’ copy of the original file, all should be good.  But is that true for audio? In audio, we take that bit perfect file and transpose it into an analog voltage stream which we amplify then transpose into sound pressure waves, which we then detect using our ears and transpose twice more, once into nerve impulses then again into conscious music in our brain.  And it seems that when the final measure (detection device) is our subconscious limbic system, the ‘bit perfect’ strategy no longer seems to hold up given that otherwise identical files (from a bit structure point of view) sound different….sometimes markedly so…one generating real pleasure and happiness and the other seeming to grate and irritate. Hmmm. So something is afoot, but what? At this stage we need the measurement guys to step in and tell us what’s changing.  But so far all they tell us, using standard measurements is that nothing has changed but that can hardly be true, given that we perceive large differences. 

My feeling is that they are looking in the wrong places and measuring the wrong things. What we are looking for is very, very small changes in amplitude, phase and frequency in the differential between the 2 signals reaching our ears. If those change, even by minuscule amounts, what we perceive changes. So once we find out why we hear 2 different versions of an identical bit stream, we can begin to understand what’s generating those changes and come up with strategies to ameliorate those shifts. 

Of course, the above contradiction of the theory is based entirely on perception, and to fully understand what’s going on, we need to thoroughly investigate the whole process by creatively applying the most sensitive measurement tools, of which we have lots. Given my background in highly sensitive analytical systems, I’m fairly sure that the key is in creatively applying measurements rather than just slavishly following standard test procedures, which to date, to the best of my knowledge have revealed nothing. We need to look at the basis by which our brains detect/identify the differences and work out how to model those same measures using existing tools. 

Experienced audiophiles with highly resolving systems have learned that by applying better cables, routers, clocks, power supplies, DC cables etc. to a network, perceived sound quality improves. We can correlate those improvements to 

less jitter

less noise and ripple

less EMI

less vibration 

fewer cable reflections

less network traffic

less CPU interrupts etc. 

But what we haven’t yet done is qualify exactly what those effects are having on the final music we listen to. 

I have spent the past 3 years improving all the above aspects of my network and digital streaming in general and my system has reached a point that I never believed possible from digital in general.  My observations predict that if were to install yet better USB and Ethernet cables for example I would hear further improvements, similarly if I were to further improve my already top class power supplies, I could still gain substantial benefit. So far, having performed dozens of similar upgrades I haven’t been disappointed, even once.  I would however be really happy to find out precisely why these improvements are having the effect they do but the uniform answer I always get is ‘expectation bias’, which is frankly BS, given the cumulative effects.   What we need is some really good EE or CS PhD student to undertake the research of how network quality impacts sound quality in audio network streaming. Such research would have considerable commercial applicability and I’m damned sure some quite decent funding could be put together via a consortium of interested companies. 

The reason locally stored files sound better than their remotely streamed counterparts is entirely down to network quality. We can restore the balance with carefully selected network components, but we still can’t explain in scientific and engineering terms exactly what doing so accomplished, beyond the improved perception. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

36 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

What I learned by studying the networking standards and theory is that whenever files are moved across a network, as long as the final file is a ‘bit perfect’ copy of the original file, all should be good.  But is that true for audio? In audio, we take that bit perfect file and transpose it into an analog voltage stream which we amplify then transpose into sound pressure waves, which we then detect using our ears and transpose twice more, once into nerve impulses then again into conscious music in our brain.  And it seems that when the final measure (detection device) is our subconscious limbic system, the ‘bit perfect’ strategy no longer seems to hold up given that otherwise identical files (from a bit structure point of view) sound different….sometimes markedly so…one generating real pleasure and happiness and the other seeming to grate and irritate. Hmmm. So something is afoot, but what? At this stage we need the measurement guys to step in and tell us what’s changing.  But so far all they tell us, using standard measurements is that nothing has changed but that can hardly be true, given that we perceive large differences. 

My feeling is that they are looking in the wrong places and measuring the wrong things. What we are looking for is very, very small changes in amplitude, phase and frequency in the differential between the 2 signals reaching our ears. If those change, even by minuscule amounts, what we perceive changes. So once we find out why we hear 2 different versions of an identical bit stream, we can begin to understand what’s generating those changes and come up with strategies to ameliorate those shifts. 

Of course, the above contradiction of the theory is based entirely on perception, and to fully understand what’s going on, we need to thoroughly investigate the whole process by creatively applying the most sensitive measurement tools, of which we have lots. Given my background in highly sensitive analytical systems, I’m fairly sure that the key is in creatively applying measurements rather than just slavishly following standard test procedures, which to date, to the best of my knowledge have revealed nothing. We need to look at the basis by which our brains detect/identify the differences and work out how to model those same measures using existing tools. 

Experienced audiophiles with highly resolving systems have learned that by applying better cables, routers, clocks, power supplies, DC cables etc. to a network, perceived sound quality improves. We can correlate those improvements to 

less jitter

less noise and ripple

less EMI

less vibration 

fewer cable reflections

less network traffic

less CPU interrupts etc. 

But what we haven’t yet done is qualify exactly what those effects are having on the final music we listen to. 

I have spent the past 3 years improving all the above aspects of my network and digital streaming in general and my system has reached a point that I never believed possible from digital in general.  My observations predict that if were to install yet better USB and Ethernet cables for example I would hear further improvements, similarly if I were to further improve my already top class power supplies, I could still gain substantial benefit. So far, having performed dozens of similar upgrades I haven’t been disappointed, even once.  I would however be really happy to find out precisely why these improvements are having the effect they do but the uniform answer I always get is ‘expectation bias’, which is frankly BS, given the cumulative effects.   What we need is some really good EE or CS PhD student to undertake the research of how network quality impacts sound quality in audio network streaming. Such research would have considerable commercial applicability and I’m damned sure some quite decent funding could be put together via a consortium of interested companies. 

The reason locally stored files sound better than their remotely streamed counterparts is entirely down to network quality. We can restore the balance with carefully selected network components, but we still can’t explain in scientific and engineering terms exactly what doing so accomplished, beyond the improved perception. 

 

Using a DAC with an electrical connection to the rest of your system is asking for trouble. This is the case with USB, SPDIF, AES, I2S or Ethernet inputs. These connections are in fact like highways (with several Ghz bandwidth) for noise to enter the DAC. 

 

Lowering noise in your "source" is not something that can be done with any reliability - you would have to measure exactly the spectrum of noise, and that is not possible as any small change is going to matter and every single configuration is going to be different. The best approach, and probably the least costly, is to improve things on the DAC side.

 

Whether all this matters or not, and if it does, how "far" can you go using the type of solutions you describe, is anyone's guess, as the "perfect" system does not exist and never will. 

[Blackmorec]

2 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

Using a DAC with an electrical connection to the rest of your system is asking for trouble. This is the case with USB, SPDIF, AES, I2S or Ethernet inputs. These connections are in fact like highways (with several Ghz bandwidth) for noise to enter the DAC. 

 

Lowering noise in your "source" is not something that can be done with any reliability - you would have to measure exactly the spectrum of noise, and that is not possible as any small change is going to matter and every single configuration is going to be different.

 

The best approach, and the least costly, is to improve things on the DAC side. Whether all this matters or not, and if it does, how "far" can you go using the type of solutions you describe, is anyone's guess. 

I follow your logic but here’s the problem. Take any one of the best DACs in the World (you decide which, because it doesn’t really matter), connect it up however you want and have a listen to a remotely streamed file. Mmmmmm wonderful, I’m sure. 

~Now go ahead and upgrade the power supply on your pre-server switch from the standard, cheap-as-chips SMPS to say a DC4. And what sounded wonderful previously, now sounds doubly wonderful and that’s because with every piece of hi-fi equipment I’ve ever encountered in over 45 years of very actively pursuing this hobby, they all follow the same rule….the better the input, the better the output. I not aware of a single piece of kit that fails to respond to this precept.  I am aware of one very talented manufacturer who is developing a system that by design produces great music independently of the network input quality but even that system responds positively to replaying a file streamed to RAM then disconnecting the network.   

 

As to least costly…..there you may be right, given that I haven’t compared a lot of DACs on a straight switch - server - ethernet patch cords vs my DAC fed by my optimised network, so I can’t really comment. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

1 minute ago, Blackmorec said:

I follow your logic but here’s the problem. Take any one of the best DACs in the World (you decide which, because it doesn’t really matter), connect it up however you want and have a listen to a remotely streamed file. Mmmmmm wonderful, I’m sure. 

~Now go ahead and upgrade the power supply on your pre-server switch from the standard, cheap-as-chips SMPS to say a DC4. And what sounded wonderful previously, now sounds doubly wonderful and that’s because with every piece of hi-fi equipment I’ve ever encountered in over 45 years of very actively pursuing this hobby, they all follow the same rule….the better the input, the better the output. I not aware of a single piece of kit that fails to respond to this precept.  I am aware of one very talented manufacturer who is developing a system that by design produces great music independently of the network input quality but even that system responds positively to replaying a file streamed to RAM then disconnecting the network.   

 

I don't see how any of this is any different than what I said. 

[Blackmorec]

11 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

I don't see how any of this is any different than what I said. 

A better DAC still has the same problem. ~It may sound better but it’s still equally sensitive to the network quality. So your solution doesn’t address the actual problem, given that your better DAC will still exhibit large differences between local and remote file playback as long the remote playback is via a poorly optimized LAN 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

19 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

A better DAC still has the same problem. ~It may sound better but it’s still equally sensitive to the network quality. So your solution doesn’t address the actual problem, given that your better DAC will still exhibit large differences between local and remote file playback as long the remote playback is via a poorly optimized LAN 

 

You misunderstood or misread me. I am not saying the DAC I mentioned is better overall (better than what?) I am just saying that the designer specifically adressed the issue of source dépendancy. Some of us confirmed it worked (blind or sighted). 

 

The term "poorly optimized LAN" is, relative. You don't know what a well optimized LAN is. Is it this switch or that one, with which power supply? With which clock? Some people are cascading these things - is that better? No one knows how far a solution is optimized... 

[plissken]

3 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

The reason locally stored files sound better than their remotely streamed counterparts is entirely down to network quality. We can restore the balance with carefully selected network components, but we still can’t explain in scientific and engineering terms exactly what doing so accomplished, beyond the improved perception. 

 

This is easily tested. I'm game for testing this if others are. I'll help put in the effort if others will sign on to participate. But @Archimago already did something like this...

 

Doesn't mean it can't be done again.

[davide256]

9 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

...

 

Also you are talking high-level Network Standards jargon, while I’m talking about what actually happens physically when a voltage stream from a cable is stored on or read from a local buffer in a network device like a router, switch or network bridge.  

But you aren't... please  understand that 1 reason why we do digital networks instead of analog network signal transmission is that it eliminates additive noise transmission.

 

5 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

...

The reason locally stored files sound better than their remotely streamed counterparts is entirely down to network quality. We can restore the balance with carefully selected network components, but we still can’t explain in scientific and engineering terms exactly what doing so accomplished, beyond the improved perception. 

No, thats not the case. This is purely a function of software and endpoint hardware optimization. Qobuz legally has to do content protection to prevent piracy, which adds overhead to streaming  caching and causes background network activity demand on the CPU. An offline local file eliminates the network activity demand on CPU and a purchased file allows you to bypass the Qobuz app entirely for your preferred/optimal player.

[PavelDosko]

this is not always the case, for example the Euphony stylus saves streaming tracks to RAM (current and following) when playing from Qobuz (Tidal, etc.) and the playback itself takes place from RAM.

[davide256]

1 hour ago, PavelDosko said:

this is not always the case, for example the Euphony stylus saves streaming tracks to RAM (current and following) when playing from Qobuz (Tidal, etc.) and the playback itself takes place from RAM.

 At some point during play network activity resumes to stream next track into buffer, else Qobuz would be annoying for pauses if Euphony buffered between tracks.

[AudioDoctor]

17 hours ago, firedog said:

Where does the word Paranoia fit in? It doesn't unless you are making all sorts of assumptions that have nothing to do with what I wrote. I didn't write anything that hints at a conspiracy. It's all in your head, not mine.

And where does double come from?

I said I know of a couple of instances. I didn't say every album.

And btw, what makes you think there's one copy of the file and the streaming servers and the download servers are necessarily the same ones?  

 

I am merely pointing out your ridiculous assertion.

[firedog]

29 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

I am merely pointing out your ridiculous assertion.

That isn't at all what  you were doing, but that's okay. 

I leave you to your habit of making zero evidence assumptions and assertions about other peoples motives and ideas. Enjoy yourself and your bubble of falsehoods.

[AudioDoctor]

8 minutes ago, firedog said:

That isn't at all what  you were doing, but that's okay. 

I leave you to your habit of making zero evidence assumptions and assertions about other peoples motives and ideas. Enjoy yourself and your bubble of falsehoods.

 

k