Higher quality music streaming

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, NextG said:

Cables and connectors do make a difference. Though there is probably a point we’re the difference is negligible. 
I just changed my cable, as I had to use an adapter to make it compatible with the system I’m using. Removing the adapter from the equation has improved the sound noticeably. Bass is more defined and tighter; easier to follow and enjoy. I’m a bassist, so these things are important for me. Overall sound and depth improved. The cable cost me perhaps 50 baht. It doesn’t need to be high end, as it’s just a stopgap system for when I’m ‘travelling’. It just needs to be enjoyable, reproducing the essence of the music. 

Sure, cables and connectors make a difference. But mostly it's about using a big enough copper cable and gold-plated connectors. Lots of fancy cables are just eye candy.

Luckily my system is all digital up to the active speakers (with digital input). The cables with XLR connectors cost a couple of hundred THB. 

[Troy Tempest]

On 7/2/2023 at 8:32 AM, ozimoron said:

I'm considering buying a pair of KEF LSX ii speakers and paying for a Tidal subscription to stream FLAC format music. Tidal has a superior service which allows streaming of MQA at twice the price. I think the difference between FLAC and mp3 is enormous, especially for a decent set of speakers.

 

The KEF speakers possibly don't justify the additional expense for the MQA format. I can buy them for 46,900 from Piyanas in Pattaya which is 5,000 under the listed prices from online sources.

 

<snip>

 

Does anyone have any experience with these services and formats? I'd appreciate comments.

 

 

Can someone please explain what this means in  English???

 

 

 

 

 

[masterpasser]

I have gone through this over the past 3 years.

 

Recommend ROON + Qobuz . Tidal will be ending its association with MQA as the company is no longer solvent . MQA was lossy anyway.

Many ways to stream , but I have settled for a laptop running a debloated

Windows is noisy so AOhttps://www.highend-audiopc.com/audiophile-optimizer  and Fidelizer Prohttps://fidelizer-audio.com/fidelizer-feedback/  assist in making windows less noisy.

MQPlayer software is a must for upscaling and filters- Requires a substantial CPU to run this software at extreme settings.https://www.signalyst.com/

One last piece of software that enhances the SQ - Trusted clean .

 

[FriendlyFarang]

Before trying to improve audio quality through esoteric stuff like super expensive cables, or thinking about which audio format is the best, everybody should start with these points, they have much more impact:

1. Put carpet in the room

2. Move the speakers a meter or two away from the walls and make sure you sit in a stereo triangle

3. No windows or doors behind or in front of the speakers

 

To put this in numbers, the impact on the sound is probably something like this:

20% quality of speakers/amp

74% your room (and most of this are the three points mentioned above, followed by acoustic panels etc.)

5% source material

1% cables etc

[scottiejohn]

35 minutes ago, FriendlyFarang said:

Before trying to improve audio quality through esoteric stuff like super expensive cables, or thinking about which audio format is the best, everybody should start with these points, they have much more impact:

1. Put carpet in the room

2. Move the speakers a meter or two away from the walls and make sure you sit in a stereo triangle

3. No windows or doors behind or in front of the speakers

 

To put this in numbers, the impact on the sound is probably something like this:

20% quality of speakers/amp

74% your room (and most of this are the three points mentioned above, followed by acoustic panels etc.)

5% source material

1% cables etc

What about the quality of the original and or source/download?

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

What about the quality of the original and or source/download?

A long time ago, when disk space for mp3 files was still an issue, I listened to file in 128kbps, 192kbps and higher.

On "normal speakers" in normal environments (like AC running in the background), I couldn't hear a quality improvement with better compression.

With expensive headphones (about 3oo USD at that time) I could hear a difference.

 

The source only becomes and important issue if you have a high-end setup, especially speakers. 

 

[bangkok19]

There is so much negativity out there on Audiophile websites regarding MQA.

If you're using TIDAL you're better off using the lossless HI-FI option.

If you're seeking "quality" sound from a streaming service, it all starts from the source, if your MQA version is from a crappy over compressed remaster, you're not getting what you think you're paying for!

Nothing wrong with KEF speakers, I own a pair myself. I hope you have a DAC that is MQA ready.

Also, not all titles are available in MQA. Go to the Steve Hoffman Audiophile website and in the top RH cnr, type MQA into the 'search' and read all the for's and against.

[sharksy]

I have a hi end HiFi system, probably spent over £50,000 on it.

Not sure I am an audiophile as such, maybe it's a long time hobby, but at this level, improvements get expensive.

Anyway, Tidal or Qobuz is good, I switched to Qobuz from Tidal as it had more HiRes files, although a smaller catalog.

Didn't know Qobuz is available in Thailand, didn't work for me a year ago on my subscription from the UK.

 

I would suggest trialling something like an all-in-one system, like Kef LS60, Devialet Phantom(gold is good), possibly even a Devialet soundbar - my mate is using this for all TV and music - its very good, but not audiophile.

I have a Phantom Gold in my garage, it rocks!

 

Other things you can do to improve the sound, again trial it first, is an audiophile hub.  This made a huge difference to my system, but, the better the system, the more noticable these upgrades are.  There are other upgrades beyond this, but that's out of scope here

[scottiejohn]

6 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

A long time ago, when disk space for mp3 files was still an issue, I listened to file in 128kbps, 192kbps and higher.

On "normal speakers" in normal environments (like AC running in the background), I couldn't hear a quality improvement with better compression.

With expensive headphones (about 3oo USD at that time) I could hear a difference.

 

The source only becomes and important issue if you have a high-end setup, especially speakers. 

 

Garbage in garbage out!

[FriendlyFarang]

11 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

What about the quality of the original and or source/download?

To some degree yes, which is why I assigned 5% to it.

With a slightly decent setup you can hear a difference between 128kbit and 256kbit mp3.

But to hear a difference between 256kibt and FLAC.... probably not, even with a high end setup. And I can assure you that having carpet vs. no carpet in your room makes a much bigger difference than 256kbit vs FLAC.

 

Way more important than the bitrate is by the way how it was mastered, but this is not so easy to compare. Due to the loudness war ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war ) many masterings are bad, and you have to look specifically for good masterings of songs. A good mastering in 128kbit probably sounds better than a bad mastering in FLAC.

[Lite Beer]

4 hours ago, sharksy said:

I have a hi end HiFi system, probably spent over £50,000 on it.

Not sure I am an audiophile as such, maybe it's a long time hobby, but at this level, improvements get expensive.

Anyway, Tidal or Qobuz is good, I switched to Qobuz from Tidal as it had more HiRes files, although a smaller catalog.

Didn't know Qobuz is available in Thailand, didn't work for me a year ago on my subscription from the UK.

 

I would suggest trialling something like an all-in-one system, like Kef LS60, Devialet Phantom(gold is good), possibly even a Devialet soundbar - my mate is using this for all TV and music - its very good, but not audiophile.

I have a Phantom Gold in my garage, it rocks!

 

Other things you can do to improve the sound, again trial it first, is an audiophile hub.  This made a huge difference to my system, but, the better the system, the more noticable these upgrades are.  There are other upgrades beyond this, but that's out of scope here

Qobus not available in Thailand.

Apple Music now has Hi Res music.

 

[NextG]

10 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

A long time ago, when disk space for mp3 files was still an issue, I listened to file in 128kbps, 192kbps and higher.

On "normal speakers" in normal environments (like AC running in the background), I couldn't hear a quality improvement with better compression.

With expensive headphones (about 3oo USD at that time) I could hear a difference.

 

The source only becomes and important issue if you have a high-end setup, especially speakers. 

 

That is just crazily wrong ☺️ The source is the most important thing.

I’m just shocked that you couldn’t hear the difference between the different bitrates. The roll-off is glaringly noticeable and things are just missing. Even my 320kbps rips are disappointing to me, but we made for playing in the car before we used our Smartphones via Bluetooth. 
Rubbish in, rubbish out. 

[NextG]

2 hours ago, FriendlyFarang said:

To some degree yes, which is why I assigned 5% to it.

With a slightly decent setup you can hear a difference between 128kbit and 256kbit mp3.

But to hear a difference between 256kibt and FLAC.... probably not, even with a high end setup. And I can assure you that having carpet vs. no carpet in your room makes a much bigger difference than 256kbit vs FLAC.

 

Way more important than the bitrate is by the way how it was mastered, but this is not so easy to compare. Due to the loudness war ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war ) many masterings are bad, and you have to look specifically for good masterings of songs. A good mastering in 128kbit probably sounds better than a bad mastering in FLAC.

Sorry, but the above is just ridiculous. The source is paramount and you are possibly partly deaf or at least tone deaf. 

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, NextG said:

That is just crazily wrong ☺️ The source is the most important thing.

I’m just shocked that you couldn’t hear the difference between the different bitrates. The roll-off is glaringly noticeable and things are just missing. Even my 320kbps rips are disappointing to me, but we made for playing in the car before we used our Smartphones via Bluetooth. 
Rubbish in, rubbish out. 

If the source is very bad, then obviously nothing will make it good.

But 128kbps MP3 is already good. Not excellent, but good. Nobody would have used it for years if it would have been so bad.

 

When MP3 emerged about 30 years ago lots of people compared files with different bitrates. And people tried to save disk space. Most people at that times were happy with 128bkps. This is why lots of files are in that format. I am sure also today most listeners wouldn't be able to hear a difference with ordinary speakers in ordinary rooms (maybe with AC running).

There are only few people who have the high-quality devices and the hearing to differentiate between good and very good. 

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, NextG said:

Sorry, but the above is just ridiculous. The source is paramount and you are possibly partly deaf or at least tone deaf. 

It seems you think you can hear the difference.

So just to confirm, you say you will hear the differences between 128kbps and 256kbps MP3 and FLAC (lossless), correct?

Do you hear that with any setup? Or just with very good headphones? Or 5k speakers? Any music? Or only your favorite tracks?

 

I agree these days there is no reason for compression anymore, disk space is cheap, and bandwidth is no problem. But is that a reason to delete all those old mp3 files and start from scratch? Personally I don't think so. 

 

[NextG]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If the source is very bad, then obviously nothing will make it good.

But 128kbps MP3 is already good. Not excellent, but good. Nobody would have used it for years if it would have been so bad.

 

When MP3 emerged about 30 years ago lots of people compared files with different bitrates. And people tried to save disk space. Most people at that times were happy with 128bkps. This is why lots of files are in that format. I am sure also today most listeners wouldn't be able to hear a difference with ordinary speakers in ordinary rooms (maybe with AC running).

There are only few people who have the high-quality devices and the hearing to differentiate between good and very good. 

128kbps is bad. I don’t need a high quality nor high end device to hear that. Now I’m beginning to wonder if I have great hearing or if so many here are just not particularly discerning. I’m not joking. I can hardly believe that even more than one person is suggesting that these low quality compressions sound good to them ????

People used 128kbps out of necessity; to get their selections into a limited space. 
I think that it’s time for me to leave this thread; it’s not serious. We are on different pages altogether. 

[NextG]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems you think you can hear the difference.

So just to confirm, you say you will hear the differences between 128kbps and 256kbps MP3 and FLAC (lossless), correct?

Do you hear that with any setup? Or just with very good headphones? Or 5k speakers? Any music? Or only your favorite tracks?

 

I agree these days there is no reason for compression anymore, disk space is cheap, and bandwidth is no problem. But is that a reason to delete all those old mp3 files and start from scratch? Personally I don't think so. 

 

I can hear and feel clear differences between 320kbps and FLAC. I don’t have anything less in my collection. 320kbps is only if I don’t have a Lossless option or it was made for a car player. 

[sharksy]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems you think you can hear the difference.

So just to confirm, you say you will hear the differences between 128kbps and 256kbps MP3 and FLAC (lossless), correct?

Do you hear that with any setup? Or just with very good headphones? Or 5k speakers? Any music? Or only your favorite tracks?

 

I agree these days there is no reason for compression anymore, disk space is cheap, and bandwidth is no problem. But is that a reason to delete all those old mp3 files and start from scratch? Personally I don't think so. 

 

My father is half deaf.  He came with me to pick up my system I had demo's about 100 miles away.

 

When I got to the HiFi shop, the system was setup in the downstairs main hall.  It sounded terrible.  Even my dad said so.  I had to query why am I spending nearly £20,000 on this with the shop, as the system I demo's before was night and day different.

Turned out, they were using the DAC inside a £10,000 CD player (which was not part of my system), and had replaced this with a Linn Magic, entry level streamer.  The DAC in this streamer was causing these problems.  I told them, I'm not spending all that money on that sound.

After a bit of headscratching, they came up with a Linn Klimax streamer, top of the range at around £16,000, but an older iteration in a plane box, know as a "renew".  Absolute bargain at £2,500.

 

The system lit up instantly, my dad could sort of understand why I was buying it now.  And I have to speak to him 3 times usually for him to understand me.

It's not all about the highs and lows.  It's about dynamic impact, slam.   Don't need great hearing for this.

Unless you've heard a really good system, hard to describe.

But source material is the most important.

[recom273]

2 hours ago, NextG said:

I can hear and feel clear differences between 320kbps and FLAC. I don’t have anything less in my collection. 320kbps is only if I don’t have a Lossless option or it was made for a car player. 

I don't like to get into these discussions, however, just to stand with you. The difference between 128 / 320 CBR / FLAC is very noticable.

 

I never even used 128 back in the day, I would rather have had less albums than use low bitrate. It sounded like a cat inside tin can.

 

I now stream FLAC from a Navidrome server (no transcoding) to my truck, sometimes the power goes at home and I'm forced to listen to 320 CBR stored on my phone, the difference is clear even on my standard, but pretty decent Toyota factory head unit.

[FriendlyFarang]

2 hours ago, NextG said:

I can hear and feel clear differences between 320kbps and FLAC. I don’t have anything less in my collection. 320kbps is only if I don’t have a Lossless option or it was made for a car player. 

According to this study only 1 out of 580 people could hear a difference between 256kbit and lossless: https://cdvsmp3.wordpress.com/cd-vs-itunes-plus-blind-test-results/

Maybe you just belong to the 0.1% who have golden ears, but then you should not generalize.

[sharksy]

6 minutes ago, FriendlyFarang said:

According to this study only 1 out of 580 people could hear a difference between 256kbit and lossless: https://cdvsmp3.wordpress.com/cd-vs-itunes-plus-blind-test-results/

Maybe you just belong to the 0.1% who have golden ears, but then you should not generalize.

Depends on quality of equipment

[FriendlyFarang]

1 minute ago, sharksy said:

Depends on quality of equipment

The guy above says he can hear the difference between 320kbit to lossless on the stock speakers in his Toyota...

Many people claim that they can hear the difference, but if you would actually let them do a blind test they wouldn't, it's just in their imagination.

Same with people who "feel" the extra power in their car if they use premium fuel.

[NextG]

3 minutes ago, FriendlyFarang said:

The guy above says he can hear the difference between 320kbit to lossless on the stock speakers in his Toyota...

Many people claim that they can hear the difference, but if you would actually let them do a blind test they wouldn't, it's just in their imagination.

Same with people who "feel" the extra power in their car if they use premium fuel.

Looks as if you are generalising…

This is a thread on supposedly high quality music reproduction. It’s seems quite a few have no idea what that is. 
They’ll perhaps just turn play around with an equaliser and thinks it sounds fine. 

[sharksy]

8 minutes ago, FriendlyFarang said:

The guy above says he can hear the difference between 320kbit to lossless on the stock speakers in his Toyota...

Many people claim that they can hear the difference, but if you would actually let them do a blind test they wouldn't, it's just in their imagination.

Same with people who "feel" the extra power in their car if they use premium fuel.

Now we are onto premium fuel too?  Yup, can feel Premium Unleaded on my Aprilia Tuono 1100cc 190BHP motorbike AND in my Mercedes AMG

[rbkk]

I qualified as an audio engineer in the 1980's. I produce music now. To keep trim I go to the gym! https://www.soundgym.co/

[ozimoron]

On 7/4/2023 at 7:53 PM, FriendlyFarang said:

Before trying to improve audio quality through esoteric stuff like super expensive cables, or thinking about which audio format is the best, everybody should start with these points, they have much more impact:

1. Put carpet in the room

2. Move the speakers a meter or two away from the walls and make sure you sit in a stereo triangle

3. No windows or doors behind or in front of the speakers

 

To put this in numbers, the impact on the sound is probably something like this:

20% quality of speakers/amp

74% your room (and most of this are the three points mentioned above, followed by acoustic panels etc.)

5% source material

1% cables etc

1. Check, or at least a large rug and very large sofa and long drapes.

 

.2 About 750 mm. I can't get them much further away without buying stands.

 

3. I can't really comment on cables but reviews seem to think good cables add clarity and improve the soundstage. I disagree that source makes little difference. .

 

On 7/5/2023 at 4:37 AM, sharksy said:

I have a hi end HiFi system, probably spent over £50,000 on it.

Not sure I am an audiophile as such, maybe it's a long time hobby, but at this level, improvements get expensive.

Anyway, Tidal or Qobuz is good, I switched to Qobuz from Tidal as it had more HiRes files, although a smaller catalog.

Didn't know Qobuz is available in Thailand, didn't work for me a year ago on my subscription from the UK.

 

I would suggest trialling something like an all-in-one system, like Kef LS60, Devialet Phantom(gold is good), possibly even a Devialet soundbar - my mate is using this for all TV and music - its very good, but not audiophile.

I have a Phantom Gold in my garage, it rocks!

 

Other things you can do to improve the sound, again trial it first, is an audiophile hub.  This made a huge difference to my system, but, the better the system, the more noticable these upgrades are.  There are other upgrades beyond this, but that's out of scope here

I had a Tidal hifi sub but don't like it much. They seem to be introducing (or were) MQA into their cd quality stuff as well as the hi-res. I investigated Qobuz but it's not available in Thailand. They don't like VPN's either. Qobuz and Tidal HiFi Plus are quite expensive. I switched to Amazon music. For $10.99 a month you get 24 bit / 192 hi-res flac. Tidal probably has a bigger library but Amazon will catch them up.

 

On 7/5/2023 at 2:36 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

If the source is very bad, then obviously nothing will make it good.

But 128kbps MP3 is already good. Not excellent, but good. Nobody would have used it for years if it would have been so bad.

 

When MP3 emerged about 30 years ago lots of people compared files with different bitrates. And people tried to save disk space. Most people at that times were happy with 128bkps. This is why lots of files are in that format. I am sure also today most listeners wouldn't be able to hear a difference with ordinary speakers in ordinary rooms (maybe with AC running).

There are only few people who have the high-quality devices and the hearing to differentiate between good and very good. 

At present I have a Fender Monterey with a Topping D30 pro DAC / preamp for 12,990 baht. I hear a huge different between mp3 or YT aac and the Amazon flac files. I can also hear a significant difference between Tidal's lower hifi offering and Amazon Music. I can hear a slight improvement in clarity between a downloaded flac file (96 KHz) and Amazon's 192 KHz flac. The Fender is a good speaker but it isn't special so I was surprised how much difference I could really hear in my late sixties. I shelled out for the Audioquest golden gate rca plugs. I don't think they would make much difference. I kind of wished I'd just bought the KEF LSX ii speakers for 46k baht but I'm happy with what I have.

[ozimoron]

I finally got to the stereo I want without selling the farm to get it. 37,000 all up.

 

Triangle Borea Bro3 (100 watt, French made) bookshelf speakers from HD HiFi. Arrived yesterday 14,700 baht. The other speakers under serious consideration was the ELAC B6.2 bookshelf speakers at 12,900 from Piyanas.

 

Topping from Holysai.

- D30 pro DAC / preamp. 12,900 baht

- PA3s power amp. 4,490 baht. This amp produces 37 watts into 8 ohms at < 1% THD. That's easily enough power to push these speakers. Decent class D amps have made them really affordable.

- Female XLR to Male TRS cables (DAC to power amp). 3,190. I had a decent pair of RCA cables which would have done the job but the preamp manual says the output voltage rises from 2V to 4v and is balanced instead of single ended when using the RCA cables. I don't even know what that last bit means really but doubling the output seems worth it

 

Piyanas Pattaya

- Speaker cables. 1,250 baht

- Audioquest Forest audio quality USB C cable. ~2,000 baht

 

Music source Amazon Music hi-res flac 24 bit / 192 KHz. $10.99 per month for non prime members.

.

The sound quality is exemplary for the money. I'm very happy. The first serious stereo I bought was in 1982 when I bought Bose 901 speakers, Crown D150A, 150 watt rms class A amp and Crown Straight Line One preamp, Technics turntable, Shure cartridge, Nakamichi cassette player. Most bought in Singapore. They cost a lot more than what I have just paid, especially taking into account the 40 years to now.

 

I can say that I hear the difference at every step between BT vs wired, Spotify / YouTube / Tidal vs Amazon. I previously bought a Fender Monterey on sale at just under 8,000 baht. That was an impulse buy. It's a great speaker but not in the same leage as the Triangles, obviously. Mainly due to the lack of a sound stage in the Fenders. And the clarity. I'm going to gift the Monterey to my gym trainer.

[NextG]

23 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I finally got to the stereo I want without selling the farm to get it. 37,000 all up.

 

Triangle Borea Bro3 (100 watt, French made) bookshelf speakers from HD HiFi. Arrived yesterday 14,700 baht. The other speakers under serious consideration was the ELAC B6.2 bookshelf speakers at 12,900 from Piyanas.

 

Topping from Holysai.

- D30 pro DAC / preamp. 12,900 baht

- PA3s power amp. 4,490 baht. This amp produces 37 watts into 8 ohms at < 1% THD. That's easily enough power to push these speakers. Decent class D amps have made them really affordable.

- Female XLR to Male TRS cables (DAC to power amp). 3,190. I had a decent pair of RCA cables which would have done the job but the preamp manual says the output voltage rises from 2V to 4v and is balanced instead of single ended when using the RCA cables. I don't even know what that last bit means really but doubling the output seems worth it

 

Piyanas Pattaya

- Speaker cables. 1,250 baht

- Audioquest Forest audio quality USB C cable. ~2,000 baht

 

Music source Amazon Music hi-res flac 24 bit / 192 KHz. $10.99 per month for non prime members.

.

The sound quality is exemplary for the money. I'm very happy. The first serious stereo I bought was in 1982 when I bought Bose 901 speakers, Crown D150A, 150 watt rms class A amp and Crown Straight Line One preamp, Technics turntable, Shure cartridge, Nakamichi cassette player. Most bought in Singapore. They cost a lot more than what I have just paid, especially taking into account the 40 years to now.

 

I can say that I hear the difference at every step between BT vs wired, Spotify / YouTube / Tidal vs Amazon. I previously bought a Fender Monterey on sale at just under 8,000 baht. That was an impulse buy. It's a great speaker but not in the same leage as the Triangles, obviously. Mainly due to the lack of a sound stage in the Fenders. And the clarity. I'm going to gift the Monterey to my gym trainer.

Not many audiophiles left here ????

[ozimoron]

Just now, NextG said:

Not many audiophiles left here ????

I see what you did there ????

[ozimoron]

I added an Elac SUB-1020 subwoofer today, 8,900 baht from Piyanas in Pattaya. The sound is much improved now. All up the system cost 50,000 baht including decent cables. Nothing is top end by any means but the sound quality is excellent. I hadn't bought a stereo system for many years. One thing that struck me is that there aren't tone controls anywhere, much less an equalizer but I don't think it needs tweaking anyway.