• If you ever spot Spam (either in the forums, or received via forum direct message) please use the Report button at the bottom of each post to make sure a Moderator can handle it quickly. Thanks for your help in keeping things running smoothly!

Streaming; better than CD?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

fr0g

New member
Jan 7, 2008
445
0
0
NSA_watch_my_toilet said:
davedotco said:
Put simply the CD player reads the disc once, in real time, and errors may occur, premium ripping software will read the disc a number of times to get all the data correctly then perform a 'check sum' calculation to show that it is correct. Play both data streams through the same dac and they should sound the same, unless the CD is difficult to read, in which case the RIP may sound better.
I like it how the FIRST sentence in the FIRST answer is already a technically completely wrong.

CD's had and have always today a mistake corrections that is absolutely flawless. Some first designs needed some improvement but the technology was rapidely mastered and never changed since them. CD was and are extracted with an accuracy of 100%. I don't like to make crossgender examples (because informatic is informatic) but If it wheren't so, you couldn't use any computer CD at all to transport a programm, because the content would never be extracted well. And when the sound wheren't extracted correctly, you wheren't able to listen to your songs without some very audible holes in it (like the old discmans that jumped sometimes due to massive rattling).

They are real advantages about streamdacwhatever.

1) The mecanic is one of the downpoint of cd players, that could break during the year and, for some unserious brands, become difficult to replace (around 80% of the builders today are unserious and will not offer repair of the transport after a 5 years time... the best reaches 15 to 20 years of parts warranty).

2) The fact that you can quickly access what you like with more speed is another strong point too.

3) And you will be able to play your original stuff on some higher level (even if I aleredy think that the CD 44/16 is more than enough for enjoying troublefree reproduction).

But be aware that, everytime you are putting on an informatic device, it will try to spy out the content of your private life. Sometimes a little bit, sometime massively. For me a major downpoint in all this technology. Although, you have no insurance that CD will stay integrated to your PC's during a long period of years. If I search the floppy disc on my computer now, I will not find it, and it's the same problem with cd.
I have a some CDs which are unplayable in a normal CD player because of scratches , because the error correction is not robust enough to deal with them.

Grab something like EAC though and they rip 100% perfectly. It takes a while as the damaged areas are re-read countless times, but once it's done, it's done.

As for the loss of privacy. Meh.
 

andyjm

New member
Jul 20, 2012
15
0
0
NSA_watch_my_toilet said:
davedotco said:
Put simply the CD player reads the disc once, in real time, and errors may occur, premium ripping software will read the disc a number of times to get all the data correctly then perform a 'check sum' calculation to show that it is correct. Play both data streams through the same dac and they should sound the same, unless the CD is difficult to read, in which case the RIP may sound better.
I like it how the FIRST sentence in the FIRST answer is already a technically completely wrong.

CD's had and have always today a mistake corrections that is absolutely flawless. Some first designs needed some improvement but the technology was rapidely mastered and never changed since them. CD was and are extracted with an accuracy of 100%. I don't like to make crossgender examples (because informatic is informatic) but If it wheren't so, you couldn't use any computer CD at all to transport a programm, because the content would never be extracted well. And when the sound wheren't extracted correctly, you wheren't able to listen to your songs without some very audible holes in it (like the old discmans that jumped sometimes due to massive rattling)..
Well no, actually. Audio CDs use a far less robust form of error correction than CD ROMs. Both use a 'Hamming code' (Google Reed-Solomon if interested) which allows errors to be detected and corrected. The amount of additional error correction data included with the original PC or audio data dictates how robust the error correction is. More robust error correction, more extra error correction data on the CD, less space on the CD for your data. While much of this is ancient history, CDs are defined by the 'Red Book' and CD-ROM by the 'Yellow Book'. Red book audio CDs have a greater capacity for user data than Yellow book CD-ROMs.

When the error correction on an audio CD has more errors than it can cope with, the CD player will interpolate (make up data) between good samples. For small quantities of errors this is undetectable. The design of the error correction is pretty good, usually it is the laser guidance system that fails first on badly damaged discs, and the disc becomes unplayable.

For those of you who have used ripping software with 'accurate rip' or similar features, a checksum is generated to compare your rip with others who have done the same. In my experience, one CD in 20 fails the accurate rip test. This doesn't mean 19 CDs in 20 had no errors, just that the error correction system was able to correct the errors that did occur. It is likely that this rate is greater for CDs played on a CD player as a PC can have multiple goes at re-reading the CD data during a rip, whereas the CD player only has one shot at it.
 

davedotco

New member
Apr 24, 2013
20
0
0
andyjm said:
NSA_watch_my_toilet said:
davedotco said:
Put simply the CD player reads the disc once, in real time, and errors may occur, premium ripping software will read the disc a number of times to get all the data correctly then perform a 'check sum' calculation to show that it is correct. Play both data streams through the same dac and they should sound the same, unless the CD is difficult to read, in which case the RIP may sound better.
I like it how the FIRST sentence in the FIRST answer is already a technically completely wrong.

CD's had and have always today a mistake corrections that is absolutely flawless. Some first designs needed some improvement but the technology was rapidely mastered and never changed since them. CD was and are extracted with an accuracy of 100%. I don't like to make crossgender examples (because informatic is informatic) but If it wheren't so, you couldn't use any computer CD at all to transport a programm, because the content would never be extracted well. And when the sound wheren't extracted correctly, you wheren't able to listen to your songs without some very audible holes in it (like the old discmans that jumped sometimes due to massive rattling)..
Well no, actually. Audio CDs use a far less robust form of error correction than CD ROMs. Both use a 'Hamming code' (Google Reed-Solomon if interested) which allows errors to be detected and corrected. The amount of additional error correction data included with the original PC or audio data dictates how robust the error correction is. More robust error correction, more extra error correction data on the CD, less space on the CD for your data. While much of this is ancient history, CDs are defined by the 'Red Book' and CD-ROM by the 'Yellow Book'. Red book audio CDs have a greater capacity for user data than Yellow book CD-ROMs.

When the error correction on an audio CD has more errors than it can cope with, the CD player will interpolate (make up data) between good samples. For small quantities of errors this is undetectable. The design of the error correction is pretty good, usually it is the laser guidance system that fails first on badly damaged discs, and the disc becomes unplayable.

For those of you who have used ripping software with 'accurate rip' or similar features, a checksum is generated to compare your rip with others who have done the same. In my experience, one CD in 20 fails the accurate rip test. This doesn't mean 19 CDs in 20 had no errors, just that the error correction system was able to correct the errors that did occur. It is likely that this rate is greater for CDs played on a CD player as a PC can have multiple goes at re-reading the CD data during a rip, whereas the CD player only has one shot at it.
Thank you Andy, saved me the trouble.

When I did rip a large batch of CDs, I had a similar experience, around 1 in 15-20 failed the 'Checksum' though i do not recall any audible issues with them.

On a related note, I recall Paul Miller measuring the outputs of CD transports back in the late 90s. If I recall correctly, he was able to show bit accuracy as well as the usual jitter and out of band measurements.

I am unable to find any reference to this on milleraudioresearch or Hi-fi News, but I will search a little more when I can.
 

Jota180

Well-known member
May 14, 2010
22
2
18,525
You could not pay me to go back to a CD player now!

As has been said, all things being equal (DAC) etc streaming should present less potential issues as there's no moving parts.

You also have the convenience factor with streaming. All your music is within reach sat in your favourite chair. You can play whole discs, play lists or stick the lot on random or stick genre's on random.
 

Gazzip

New member
Jan 15, 2011
88
0
0
davedotco said:
andyjm said:
NSA_watch_my_toilet said:
davedotco said:
Put simply the CD player reads the disc once, in real time, and errors may occur, premium ripping software will read the disc a number of times to get all the data correctly then perform a 'check sum' calculation to show that it is correct. Play both data streams through the same dac and they should sound the same, unless the CD is difficult to read, in which case the RIP may sound better.
I like it how the FIRST sentence in the FIRST answer is already a technically completely wrong.

CD's had and have always today a mistake corrections that is absolutely flawless. Some first designs needed some improvement but the technology was rapidely mastered and never changed since them. CD was and are extracted with an accuracy of 100%. I don't like to make crossgender examples (because informatic is informatic) but If it wheren't so, you couldn't use any computer CD at all to transport a programm, because the content would never be extracted well. And when the sound wheren't extracted correctly, you wheren't able to listen to your songs without some very audible holes in it (like the old discmans that jumped sometimes due to massive rattling)..
Well no, actually. Audio CDs use a far less robust form of error correction than CD ROMs. Both use a 'Hamming code' (Google Reed-Solomon if interested) which allows errors to be detected and corrected. The amount of additional error correction data included with the original PC or audio data dictates how robust the error correction is. More robust error correction, more extra error correction data on the CD, less space on the CD for your data. While much of this is ancient history, CDs are defined by the 'Red Book' and CD-ROM by the 'Yellow Book'. Red book audio CDs have a greater capacity for user data than Yellow book CD-ROMs.

When the error correction on an audio CD has more errors than it can cope with, the CD player will interpolate (make up data) between good samples. For small quantities of errors this is undetectable. The design of the error correction is pretty good, usually it is the laser guidance system that fails first on badly damaged discs, and the disc becomes unplayable.

For those of you who have used ripping software with 'accurate rip' or similar features, a checksum is generated to compare your rip with others who have done the same. In my experience, one CD in 20 fails the accurate rip test. This doesn't mean 19 CDs in 20 had no errors, just that the error correction system was able to correct the errors that did occur. It is likely that this rate is greater for CDs played on a CD player as a PC can have multiple goes at re-reading the CD data during a rip, whereas the CD player only has one shot at it.
Thank you Andy, saved me the trouble.
+1. Nearly spat out my cornflakes.

Inspite of the potential accuracy benefits of rips over CD's I do still have a real soft spot for those shimmering little discs. Mine are all ripped to FLAC on my NAS and I agree with others that this offers unparalleled and virtually instantaneous access to ones music collection. For some reason however if I really want to "listen" to an album I still pop the top of my CD transport and play the physical disc. When I use the digital player/streamer my experience is less relaxing, more restless. Perhaps this is because with all that music at my finger tips I tend to hop about a bit, jumping from track to track and not becoming as immersed in the experience as I do with CD's.

However I am pretty confident that this less a universal flaw in streaming as a medium and more an example of my own indiscipline when given too many options. If somebody puts a plate of food in front of me I will eat everything even if I am no longer hungry. A bottle of wine in my house cannot be re-corked. If something is offered to me then I will consume it!
 

davedotco

New member
Apr 24, 2013
20
0
0
Gazzip said:
davedotco said:
andyjm said:
NSA_watch_my_toilet said:
davedotco said:
Put simply the CD player reads the disc once, in real time, and errors may occur, premium ripping software will read the disc a number of times to get all the data correctly then perform a 'check sum' calculation to show that it is correct. Play both data streams through the same dac and they should sound the same, unless the CD is difficult to read, in which case the RIP may sound better.
I like it how the FIRST sentence in the FIRST answer is already a technically completely wrong.

CD's had and have always today a mistake corrections that is absolutely flawless. Some first designs needed some improvement but the technology was rapidely mastered and never changed since them. CD was and are extracted with an accuracy of 100%. I don't like to make crossgender examples (because informatic is informatic) but If it wheren't so, you couldn't use any computer CD at all to transport a programm, because the content would never be extracted well. And when the sound wheren't extracted correctly, you wheren't able to listen to your songs without some very audible holes in it (like the old discmans that jumped sometimes due to massive rattling)..
Well no, actually. Audio CDs use a far less robust form of error correction than CD ROMs. Both use a 'Hamming code' (Google Reed-Solomon if interested) which allows errors to be detected and corrected. The amount of additional error correction data included with the original PC or audio data dictates how robust the error correction is. More robust error correction, more extra error correction data on the CD, less space on the CD for your data. While much of this is ancient history, CDs are defined by the 'Red Book' and CD-ROM by the 'Yellow Book'. Red book audio CDs have a greater capacity for user data than Yellow book CD-ROMs.

When the error correction on an audio CD has more errors than it can cope with, the CD player will interpolate (make up data) between good samples. For small quantities of errors this is undetectable. The design of the error correction is pretty good, usually it is the laser guidance system that fails first on badly damaged discs, and the disc becomes unplayable.

For those of you who have used ripping software with 'accurate rip' or similar features, a checksum is generated to compare your rip with others who have done the same. In my experience, one CD in 20 fails the accurate rip test. This doesn't mean 19 CDs in 20 had no errors, just that the error correction system was able to correct the errors that did occur. It is likely that this rate is greater for CDs played on a CD player as a PC can have multiple goes at re-reading the CD data during a rip, whereas the CD player only has one shot at it.
Thank you Andy, saved me the trouble.
+1. Nearly spat out my cornflakes.

Inspite of the potential accuracy benefits of rips over CD's I do still have a real soft spot for those shimmering little discs. Mine are all ripped to FLAC on my NAS and I agree with others that this offers unparalleled and virtually instantaneous access to ones music collection. For some reason however if I really want to "listen" to an album I still pop the top of my CD transport and play the physical disc. When I use the digital player/streamer my experience is less relaxing, more restless. Perhaps this is because with all that music at my finger tips I tend to hop about a bit, jumping from track to track and not becoming as immersed in the experience as I do with CD's.

However I am pretty confident that this less a universal flaw in streaming as a medium and more an example of my own indiscipline when given too many options. If somebody puts a plate of food in front of me I will eat everything even if I am no longer hungry. A bottle of wine in my house cannot be re-corked. If something is offered to me then I will consume it!
This is very much the point. It is the psychological 'effect' of putting on a disk and 'preparing' to listen that does it.

It alters your frame of mind and you listen in a different way and, sometimes, get a better experience for your trouble. Sounds silly analysed in that way, but it is a real effect.

An old friend (and client) would take this a bit further. He would sit and discuss with his wife the 'Program' for the evening, usually over afternoon tea, and construct a concert from his extensive vinyl collection that would be played that evening.

It might be 'themed' or devoted to a single composer but they would decide on the music, which recording, the running order and when to have the interval. They would then sit down, pour some wine and listen as they would at a concert. A nice big room, vintage Tannoys, Quad amplification and a nicely tuned Roksan/SME setup.

These days having to change the record every 20 minutes or so would annoy me, but they took it in their stride.
 

cheeseboy

New member
Jul 17, 2012
245
0
0
cse said:
Streaming doesn't even come close to competing wth CD/CACD for classical music, as subscibers of Gramophone will testify.
Sorry for sounding dim, but I don't really understand. What is there to compete and why does streaming not compete?
 

nopiano

Well-known member
Feb 15, 2009
559
336
19,270
cheeseboy said:
cse said:
Streaming doesn't even come close to competing wth CD/CACD for classical music, as subscibers of Gramophone will testify.
Sorry for sounding dim, but I don't really understand. What is there to compete and why does streaming not compete?
I suspect cse means that streaming from Spotify or similar has a smaller library that buying from a specialist on CD. This presumably ceases to be relevant if you have the time and inclination to rip all your CDs, which I for one do not!
 

Sliced Bread

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2010
360
25
18,895
relocated said:
I didn't think I would enjoy streaming. I thought I would miss the physical media and player ritual but I very soon realised that I wasn't missing it at all. In fact it is much better, I listen to a far more varied selection of my tunes than when I played cds. It's so easy to have everything in the palm of your hand, I love it.
+2

I'm late to the party for streaming as I thought it would sacrifice sound quality...but I havn't used a CD since spotify connect.

Oddly, airplay doesn't sounds as good as spotify connect. It has a completely different tonal balance. Weird.
 

davedotco

New member
Apr 24, 2013
20
0
0
Sliced Bread said:
relocated said:
I didn't think I would enjoy streaming. I thought I would miss the physical media and player ritual but I very soon realised that I wasn't missing it at all. In fact it is much better, I listen to a far more varied selection of my tunes than when I played cds. It's so easy to have everything in the palm of your hand, I love it.
+2

I'm late to the party for streaming as I thought it would sacrifice sound quality...but I havn't used a CD since spotify connect.

Oddly, airplay doesn't sounds as good as spotify connect. It has a completely different tonal balance. Weird.
I thought that on a very brief listen in a shop, though I have not been able to try Connect at home.

Be interested if you have the time to expand on this, have you tried any direct comparisons?

For what it is worth I find Premium, streamed via Airplay, to be a little 'shut in' compared to a wired connection, however a tiny bit of HF boost seems to help with that.
 

ellisdj

New member
Dec 11, 2008
377
1
0
cheeseboy said:
ellisdj said:
There are a lot of streaming soluitions that use pico power supplies fed from smps at the wall.

Will this sound better than a CD with proper power supply design - Generally I would say No.
conversely it's also possible to run certain streamers off battery, thus negating any power supply issues and theoretically get a better sound, just as say the new chord dac allows.
I have had good success with batteries at 5v level. There are some very good battery solutions from bakoon and paul pang for 5v / 6v also higher.

I use batteries to power my ssd's. my spdif to usb convertor also and not all battery supplies are created equal. If you can make cables you can use mobile charging batteries such as Anker to power low consumption devices such as SSD's for example

However a lot of people report that batteries have loss of dynamics when compared to linear power supplies, I found this initially until I made a proper cable from the battery to the device its powering
 

cse

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2008
97
5
18,545
Streaming doesn't even come close to competing wth CD/SACD for classical music, as subscibers of Gramophone will testify.
 

cse

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2008
97
5
18,545
cheeseboy Sorry for sounding dim said:
Most new classical releases are not available via streaming devices. New releases on CD/SACD are generally of an outstanding quality and incude all the necessary sleve notes.
 

TrevC

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2013
361
163
19,070
I can't detect any tonal differences between Spotify premium and a CD playing, so for those that hear major differences I would suggest a new DAC for the computer. No need to spend a fortune, the Behringer UCA202 is the one I use, and that really was night and day different to the onboard computer DAC.
 

cheeseboy

New member
Jul 17, 2012
245
0
0
cse said:
cheeseboy said:
Sorry for sounding dim, but I don't really understand. What is there to compete and why does streaming not compete?
Most new classical releases are not available via streaming devices. New releases on CD/SACD are generally of an outstanding quality and incude all the necessary sleve notes.
ok, cool, was not aware of this, thank you :)
 

cheeseboy

New member
Jul 17, 2012
245
0
0
ellisdj said:
However a lot of people report that batteries have loss of dynamics when compared to linear power supplies, I found this initially until I made a proper cable from the battery to the device its powering
ahh of course, it's all about the cables ;p (tongue in cheek btw) :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS