Full CD Quality Streaming Is Already Here & High-Res Coming Later This Year

I started this thread 3 1/2 years ago - since then has anyone tried Hi-Fi streaming and liked it?

Yes. Been streaming Tidal for a while. It’s integrated into Audirvana so it’s easily accessible with all my lossless CD rips.

FYI they offer a military discount for hifi at $11.99/month

I wish Apple would just buy Tidal already
 
I started this thread 3 1/2 years ago - since then has anyone tried Hi-Fi streaming and liked it?

Yes, I've tried both Tidal and Deezer, ended up with just Deezer. First through Sonos, now through Bluesound. I like it, especially for trying new music before I buy.
 
I've been streaming (lossy) since 2012 .. started w/ MOG to Xbox Music to Spotify Premium & RDIO to Tidal Premium.

Switched to Tidal (AAC/320 kbps) due to the military discount $5.99 per month. With every streaming hardware upgrade over the last 6 years, the lossy continues to sound better .. which includes this year (regular Schiit Bifrost) which has been tested but not implemented till after Christmas.

I use the service to listen to modern pop music which to me is 1990 & up mostly. Some occasional Jazz, Classical Music and Classic Rock era albums that I don't own on Vinyl (not much). Guessing .. maybe 60% of my listening time is spent streaming.

Originally intended to use Steaming to try music before I buy it .. but I no longer feel the need to buy modern albums (this will be the first year since 1984 that I have not bought any CD's). Find an album I like … I just add to albums list on Tidal.

I still buy Vinyl … both legacy & new.

The plan was to switch to Tidal Hi-Fi .. MQA looked interesting for a reason (for me) to upgrade to lossless. However with the lack of lower cost hardware & Audiophile support/bickering .. Spotify & Apple dragging their feet etc .. why bother. Think I'll just stick w/ lossy for now .. which sounds good enough to me for it's intended purpose (in bold above).
 
Last edited:
As far as Pandora streaming bit rates .. got this from the following link .. information as of Oct 2016. Not sure if anything has changed as of todays date. I listen to Pandora sometimes on my Dish Hopper app (free user bit rate) .. Sirius XM (satellite channels on Hopper) sound better .. :dunno: maybe software things .. just saying.
  • Pandora via web browser is streamed at 64 kbps for free users and 192 kbps for Pandora One subscribers.
  • Pandora via mobile apps is streamed at up to 64 kbps (but frequently lower if you’re on the cellular network or a poor Wi-Fi connection)
  • Pandora via in-home devices (e.g. smart TVs, boxes, and receivers that can play Pandora) is fixed at 128 kbps.
 
Last edited:
I'm still holding out without a streaming subscription. Qobuz? I'm kinda interested here as it has a download service as well and since I am a collector of music that I know I will want to listen to for years, that continues to be my goal.

What could change that would be for one of the streaming outfits that are on firm financial footing to be accessed by a robust media player such as Roon to where I can play my own music plus online tracks seamlessly. This feature might make me rethink streaming versus buying provided they are reliable. I still would want to buy what I really like however.

I know that Roon and Tidal are now teamed up and if it weren't for the mqa business I might be more inclined to buy in, that and Tidal being on firm financial ground which it doesn't appear to be.

I heard a rumor that qobuz and Roon are in talks, and that does interest me. Meantime I'll sit on the sidelines and wait and see.
 
I know that Roon and Tidal are now teamed up and if it weren't for the mqa business I might be more inclined to buy in, that and Tidal being on firm financial ground which it doesn't appear to be.

Keep in mind that every track that Tidal offers in MQA is also always available in the standard FLAC version as well. If you choose to you can ignore any and all MQA versions (or listen to both and decide for yourself). I don't want to get into the whole MQA thing, I understand the viewpoints of the detractors. But I will say this, IME the MQA version is almost always clearly from a better Master (recording levels, etc.). I don't mind having different versions and selecting the one I think is the best or excluding the ones I want to avoid.

An update to Roon a few months back added a "Versions" tab right next to Track & Credits, that allows you to see all available versions of the album or track you are looking at whether you have added them to your library or not . This was a game-changer for me. It's a very useful feature and simplified the search process.
 
Last edited:
Love to have you over for a listen.
I'd love to be able to take you up on that offer! :beerchug:

I'm glad you're hearing what sounds like Red Book CD quality streaming to you, but unfortunately, the numbers don't lie. If you were to try Tidal HiFi free for a month, you may end up being pleasantly surprised at the improvement in sound quality.
 
I'd love to be able to take you up on that offer! :beerchug:

I'm glad you're hearing what sounds like Red Book CD quality streaming to you, but unfortunately, the numbers don't lie. If you were to try Tidal HiFi free for a month, you may end up being pleasantly surprised at the improvement in sound quality.

I would guess that he is saying he cannot hear a difference between heavily compressed files and CD/redbook with his gear...in other words, that bitrates do not have an impact on sound quality in his experience.
 
Last edited:
To me, between 320kps mp3 and CD, there's no difference (maybe on spotify 320kbs OGG I can hear it in a direct A/B comparison if I focus heavily on cymbals, they sound a tiny bit more muffled and lower in mix on there(still doesn't take away from the good SQ IMO). But an iTune 320kbps AAC sounds indistinguishable)

But the difference between 192kbps and 320kbps is VERY noticeable. The sound of cymbals just straight up falls appart and become a vague, blocky and muffled mess. They loose all definition and sound terrible
 
I would guess that he is saying he cannot tell a difference between heavily compressed files and CD/redbook with his gear...in other words, that bitrates do not have an impact on sound quality in his experience.

Many of my red-book CD's sound no better from my CD player as the same recording streamed from Pandora. Perhaps my stand alone DAC is better than my CD DAC? I agree that bitrates have an impact but so does a highly resolving system. There are many variables to take into consideration and it's more than just numbers.
 
Last edited:
Many of my red-book CD's sound no better from my CD player as the same recording streamed from Pandora. Perhaps my stand alone DAC is better than my CD DAC? So yes bitrates have an impact but so does a highly resolving system. There are many variables to take into consideration and it's more than just numbers.

I certainly agree that it is more than just numbers.

In my own experience, using the same recording encoded at various MP3 bitrates vs the original CD from which I encoded them, and a playback system of reasonable quality, I can reliably distinguish between Redbook vs 128, 160, and 192 (using an ABX plug in in Foobar). I have more difficulty with 256 and 320, usually getting 7-8 of 10 correct. Interestingly, I seem to do better with higher quality recordings (those with good dynamic range).

But in any case, my comment had more to do with your initial claim. I was just trying to clarify that even though you cannot hear a difference between the two, on an objective basis you most certainly are not hearing CD quality when listening to a 192Kbps file.

That's actually good new for you...no need to invest in higher res recordings!
 
Last edited:
I certainly agree that it is more than just numbers.

In my own experience, using the same recording encoded at various MP3 bitrates vs the original CD from which I encoded them, and a playback system of reasonable quality, I can reliably distinguish between Redbook vs 128, 160, 192 and 256 (using an ABX plug in in Foobar). I have more difficulty with 320, usually getting 7-8 of 10 correct. Interestingly, I seem to do better with higher quality recordings (those with good dynamic range).

But in any case, my comment had more to do with your initial claim. I was just trying to clarify that even though you cannot hear a difference between the two, on an objective basis you most certainly are not hearing CD quality when listening to a 192Kbps file.

That's actually good new for you...no need to invest in higher res recordings!

Actually I am invested in SACD gear and with that format I can tell a difference vs red book and anything I've streamed.
 
If all the streaming services I have pandora is the worst quality wise. I use it a lot since I have a free premium account via T-Mobile. They do a great job of playing songs that are on point with the stations I choose.

By itself the quality isn’t terrible but compared to Apple Music & Tidal (both my paid for subs), Pandora is last
 
I have an SACD-capable player and about a dozen SACD discs. Some sound a bit better, but I have no way of knowing whether it a function of the SACD format or different/better mastering.

I decided to pursue high-res recordings and streaming as my approach to getting the best sound from digital, given SACD's current state.
 
I have an SACD-capable player and about a dozen SACD discs. Some sound a bit better, but I have no way of knowing whether it a function of the SACD format or different/better mastering.

I decided to pursue high-res recordings and streaming as my approach to getting the best sound from digital, given SACD's current state.

If it's a hybrid you can compare the two layers.
 
If it's a hybrid you can compare the two layers.

My understanding is that this does not mean that they are the same recording (they can be, and often are, different masters).

If I was trying to create a market for SACD, I would not include the version remastered for SACD when sellling hybrid discs. Instead, I would want to assure that the two versions sound different.
 
Back
Top Bottom