LMS with HI-end Streamer+Dac

[cfuttrup]

I bet in a proper blind comparison where the two are from the same mastering, you couldn't.

Hi cliveb

Once you know what to listen for, it's not that difficult.

With 44.1 kHz sampling frequency there is a compromise when it comes to the reconstruction of the analog waveform. You can choose minimum phase, linear phase, or something in-between. These will affect in particular high-frequency sounds, like the 'ding' from a triangle. Warning - once you get it, it can no longer be unheard. There are lots of tracks to choose from with bad sounding triangles, like for example Tracy Chapman (her debut album), track number 6 = Mountains o' Things. It goes ding - ding - ding throughout the entire track. Go explore, enjoy ... if you dare to.

Just stepping up to 48 kHz makes a significant improvement.

Cheers,
Claus

[slartibartfast]

I’m not getting involved in the main thrust of this but on the 24bit audio vs CD, Blu-ray vs DVD point I think the media companies might just see it as a means of extracting more cash from us consumers rather than just the technical difference. I believe new Cassettes are even starting to reappear and surely no one can claim that they are doing so for audiophile reasons.

Yes and they use different masters for the SACD versions to give the impression that the format is better 🤣

[mooblie]

I love, sgmlaw, how you "love how naysayers do that very first thing...".

I feel you doth protest a might too much. Not sure here who is demonstrating too much insecurity?

Bit rude of you, I feel. Anyway, each to their own - believe what nonsense you like.

[sgmlaw]

I love, sgmlaw, how you "love how naysayers do that very first thing...".

I feel you doth protest a might too much. Not sure here who is demonstrating too much insecurity?

Bit rude of you, I feel. Anyway, each to their own - believe what nonsense you like.

If someone is going to cloak themselves in all manner of expert qualifications, and then express a bald contrary opinion without more, they should be prepared for the probing conversation that is likely to follow.

So far, you have answered two questions (not just from me) asking for specifics supporting your statements with “protest”, “rude” and “nonsense”.

Your original statement and your response once questioned speaks volumes. In conference speak, it’s called a “hit and run”.

[mooblie]

No, the expression you're thinking of is "Don't feed the troll".

[cliveb]

There's been a lot of stuff said here about how early CDs were rubbish.
It's a long time ago now, but my recollection was that a large number of pop/rock CDs did indeed sound poor back in those days.

And yet, there were plenty of classical releases that sounded (and continue to sound to this day) spectacularly good.
One example that immediately springs to mind is the Maazel/Cleveland recording of Pictures at an Exhibition on Telarc.
This was an early digital recording from 1979, first reissued on CD in 1983. It is still a reference recording.
For sure, CD players did improve after a while, but some of the early players were pretty decent. The Philips 104 was only a 14 bit machine, but it still sounded good.

What this suggests to me is that CD always was capable of great results, just that many early releases failed to capitalise on the potential.
Lots of pop/rock CD issues in the early days were sloppily transferred from Nth generation copy tapes in a hurry to get product out as quickly as possible to cash in, so it's hardly surprising they lacked something.
But let's not blame the format for the shortcomings of the recording companies' first attempts to exploit it.

Since the onset of the loudness wars and accompanying hypercompression, the sound quality of recorded music has been held back far more by incompetent mastering than the shortcomings of any digital format. I'd rather listen to a decent mastering on 128kbs MP3 than some of the garbage coming out these days on 24/96. What's the point of 24 bit when the dynamic range of the recording is about 30dB (if you're lucky)?

[SamY]

I'd rather listen to a decent mastering on 128kbs MP3 than some of the garbage coming out these days on 24/96.

Now that's something I think we can all agree on!

[garym]

Since the onset of the loudness wars and accompanying hypercompression, the sound quality of recorded music has been held back far more by incompetent mastering than the shortcomings of any digital format.

I couldn't agree more!

[P Nelson]

I claim to be no expert in audio recording or being a professional musician. Now that is out of the way, below is my perspective of the CD format.

I brought a CD player in the mid-1980s and there was a local independent record store that sold mostly CDs so there was plenty of content for the new format. I don’t recall in general CDs sounding worse than the vinyl. I thought CDs sounded better as there were no more pops or hiss. Maybe I was young, and I did not know better. However, what I do remember is how much easier the CD format was to play music. No more having to clean an album. No more pop or hiss sounds. No more having to worry about accidently dropping the needle. The CD took up much less space, which made moving my music collection while in college much easier. Switching a CD on the player compared to an album was much quicker. Skipping tracks was a press of a button. For me, the CD was great compared to vinyl, and I have no interest in going back despite the current trend of new albums being offered by some musicians.

I bought quite a few jazz CDs from the GRP label and they sounded good to me. Dave Grusin and Larry Rosen saw the opportunity to sell music on the CD format and they produced content that sounded good. There were a handful (not GRP) of CDs that sounded okay, but I noticed they came from analog masters and I assumed the recording lacked the detail to create a good CD. Now I realize it may have just been sloppy production from the music company to sell older music on the new format. Unfortunately, the loudness war reduce dynamic range.

Perhaps my musical ear was not embedded into a vinyl transmitted through a tube amplifier sound, so that anything that sounded different was inferior. Something to consider.

My friend introduced me to the squeezebox system. I put all my music on the server and it created more convenience while still sounding great. The Slimdevices classic, and then the Touch, replaced my expensive CD player in the Hifi system. (Later, the digital output of the Touch went into the DAC in a newer Rotel preamp.) Being able to create play lists and switch music from my couch is awesome, and I have no interest in going back to vinyl. Even if I could hear some improvement from vinyl in MY system, I doubt it would be so significant I would want to buy turntable and maintain a vinyl collection. What is defined as an improvement is subjective and matters to ME and not someone else.

Now for my view on higher resolution (HiRes) formats, which I will define as above the CD standard. While HiRes allows more detail that COULD be heard by some people on revealing system, in my opinion a lot of it is an upsell attempt. It is marketing taking advantage of the claim that more resolution must be better, so people will buy it. After spending the extra money, it is natural that you will want to hear an improvement. There is diminishing returns on the ability to hear more detail from increasing higher resolutions.

I will not deny that some people can hear the differences if these high resolution formats. However, being a person that support science a person should be able to identify the differences when subjected to double blind ABx tests. (An ABx test is when two samples are the same, for example A and x, and the person correctly identifies that A and x are the same and B is different.)

I recall tasting differences between two bottles of wine that were the same vintage. Others thought they tasted the same and challenged me to prove it. I took an ABx test and passed. A person pointed out, I could have been lucky and guessed. I took the test again and passed.

[SamY]

I recall tasting differences between two bottles of wine that were the same vintage. Others thought they tasted the same and challenged me to prove it. I took an ABx test and passed. A person pointed out, I could have been lucky and guessed. I took the test again and passed.

Your wine-tasting methodology is obviously more refined than mine. I would have finished the bottles on the first test. 😁

[spacecase-25]

Many streamers will not support squeezebox, but will support upnp, roon, and their own apps primarily.

currently i am using an intel nuc running a very spartan install of Debian with squeezelite as well as upmpdcli + mpd for UPNP streaming (my current preference). Other than that, personally, choose something like the Holo Red. It does support squeezebox as well as UPNP, roon, hqplayer, and many others. It also has the advantage of being Pi based, so you can run any Pi or linux distro on it and really customize the experience. Seems the most future proof to me while being built for sound quality.

its basically a PiAES in a nicer package.

i also give my vote to separate components. Every box in my system serves exactly one purpose.

im also a huge fan of the UNIX philosophy, and that may just be a personality trait ha! Do one thing, do it well, dont complicate things more than they need to be.

[d6jg]

Wasn’t familiar with Holo Red. That’s one hell of a price tag for a Pi4 and a lump of aluminium. And you still need a separate DAC

[Jeff07971]

Its actually a CM4 but take your point !

Do like the Holo Audio gear, as an electronics engineer the layout and construction of their gear is electronics porn

Jeff

[d6jg]

Its actually a CM4 but take your point !

Do like the Holo Audio gear, as an electronics engineer the layout and construction of their gear is electronics porn

Jeff

The software suite is the interesting bit for me.

[Redrum]

I love this forum for how an initial query morphs into a related but completely different, very interesting discussion. Especially when allot of us have lived through the history. I have really enjoyed reading the various perspectives on the technology. I appreciate the time that all of you have taken for your very detailed (and long) reflections.

In reading, I am realizing that much of my disappointment of the highly anticipated "perfect" CD format was due to a greedy effort to rush older music onto the format to generate more sales. I used the example of Clapton's 461 Ocean Blvd. Probably still one of my favorites of his. I had it on Vinyl when I bought it on CD. I was so disappointed. I think I now have a "remastered" CD which sounds a bit better. But now that I am thinking about it, I think I still have the vinyl copy, I'll have to look for it and pull it out.

Jim