The Initial Impact of the K22 & K41 On My Life

[KrellFan1]

I have an official complaint to lodge against Antipodes. The company has totally disrupted my video consumption! There are a number of shows and movies on my bucket list I’d hoped to have watched by now. But since receiving (first, about 2 months ago) the K22 player and last Saturday installing the K41 server , all I want to do is listen to music ! Thanks a lot guys!

I promised Mark Cole I wouldn’t render any judgement on the server until I had about 150 hours on it, but after only 30-40 hours of burn in I’m comfortable in saying it is simply remarkable. And among the best features it brings to the party is the absolutely superb support for Squeeze Server which is hands down in a league of its own - and I’m a lifer with Roon, but Squeeze on Antipodes sounds so amazing , Roon hasn’t seen much of me lately.

Once I get over 100 hours on the K41 I’ll try to share some details on what I think makes these components sound so extraordinary.

 

[kennyb123]

But since receiving (first, about 2 months ago) the K22 player and last Saturday installing the K41 server , all I want to do is listen to music ! Thanks a lot guys!

Congrats and thanks for sharing as a number of folks over the years had wondered about this move.

 

[KrellFan1]

Congrats and thanks for sharing as a number of folks over the years had wondered about this move.

Thanks Kenny; I truly hope for the benefit of any wondering still I can state for the record this is absolutely a match made in heaven. Great (no surprise) synergy between the two units to be sure. And tbh it sounds Better than expected with only about 40 hours burn in. It didn’t sound nearly as good after an hour or after 10 hours. But this server now sounds EXPONENTIALLY better after only 40 hours on it. By the time it has 150 hours it’ll sound so good I’m afraid I’ll (gulp) want an Oladra. a huge benefit for me is the superb support the company puts into Squeeze server. Frankly it’s very hard for me to listen to Roon since I discovered Squeeze. Night and day.

And not in any way disparage Grimm and their MU1 or 2, but I am SO glad I didn’t buy the Grimm, as good as it’s purported to sound. Why? Unless I am missing something, they appear to support ONLY Roon. I suppose that’s fine for people who are satisfied with Roon SQ. I confess I was one of them …until I discovered Squeeze which Antipodes embraces and supports so well,, as does Innuous which they market as Sense, but under the hood is Squeeze Server. But to my ears as well as every friend who has done an A/B comparison, there IS no comparison between the two. That alone is worth the cost of admission.

 

[WAVE High Fidelity]

And not in any way disparage Grimm and their MU1 or 2, but I am SO glad I didn’t buy the Grimm, as good as it’s purported to sound. Why? Unless I am missing something, they appear to support ONLY Roon. I suppose that’s fine for people who are satisfied with Roon SQ. I confess I was one of them …until I discovered Squeeze which Antipodes embraces and supports so well,, as does Innuous which they market as Sense, but under the hood is Squeeze Server. But to my ears as well as every friend who has done an A/B comparison, there IS no comparison between the two. That alone is worth the cost of admission.

I had the MU1 on a 3 week home trial and I concluded that Roon was severely strangling its sound quality in the same way that I hear whenever I go back to trying Roon on my Antipodes compared to Squeeze + Squeezelite. Roon usually only lasts at best half of a track before its sound starts to grate on my ears with its congested and smeared sound.

Just as an aside from my own listening I do not think that the Innuos Sense sounds as good as plain vanilla Squeeze.

 

[Rexp]

Thanks Kenny; I truly hope for the benefit of any wondering still I can state for the record this is absolutely a match made in heaven. Great (no surprise) synergy between the two units to be sure. And tbh it sounds Better than expected with only about 40 hours burn in. It didn’t sound nearly as good after an hour or after 10 hours. But this server now sounds EXPONENTIALLY better after only 40 hours on it. By the time it has 150 hours it’ll sound so good I’m afraid I’ll (gulp) want an Oladra. a huge benefit for me is the superb support the company puts into Squeeze server. Frankly it’s very hard for me to listen to Roon since I discovered Squeeze. Night and day.

And not in any way disparage Grimm and their MU1 or 2, but I am SO glad I didn’t buy the Grimm, as good as it’s purported to sound. Why? Unless I am missing something, they appear to support ONLY Roon. I suppose that’s fine for people who are satisfied with Roon SQ. I confess I was one of them …until I discovered Squeeze which Antipodes embraces and supports so well,, as does Innuous which they market as Sense, but under the hood is Squeeze Server. But to my ears as well as every friend who has done an A/B comparison, there IS no comparison between the two. That alone is worth the cost of admission.

Would you be happy just using streaming services? If so, does the K22 sound just as good on it's own?

 

[KrellFan1]

I had the MU1 on a 3 week home trial and I concluded that Roon was severely strangling its sound quality in the same way that I hear whenever I go back to trying Roon on my Antipodes compared to Squeeze + Squeezelite. Roon usually only lasts at best half of a track before its sound starts to grate on my ears with its congested and smeared sound.

Just as an aside from my own listening I do not think that the Innuos Sense sounds as good as plain vanilla Squeeze.

Very interesting that your findings align with my experiences regarding Roon. No doubt it’s a universal “indictment” of the characteristics native to Roon RAAT. One friend and I did conclude that straight up run sounded normally better than Roon/Squeeze for whatever the reason. Perhaps it’s because in this relationship Squeeze is simply an emulator.

And very interesting also that you find Antipodes Squeeze to sound better than Sense. My friend is a significant dealer for Innuous, and I can’t honestly state that he has heard Squeeze through the latest Antipodes units. I have not. He had nothing but kind words to say for Antipodes but now I’m looking forward to having a discussion with him about your perception of squeeze, compared to Innuous Sense.

Linn recently introduced their own app that I did hear while demoing some WA Sasha speakers not long ago. The sales person showed me the interface and it was quite nice and it sounded very nice, similar to squeeze. The unit was close to $40,000 I believe. I can’t stay with certainty, but I’m quite sure it too, is based on Squeeze.

Bottom line , the experience of Squeeze as delivered by Antipodes is nothing short of spectacular.

 

[Rexp]

I had the MU1 on a 3 week home trial and I concluded that Roon was severely strangling its sound quality in the same way that I hear whenever I go back to trying Roon on my Antipodes compared to Squeeze + Squeezelite. Roon usually only lasts at best half of a track before its sound starts to grate on my ears with its congested and smeared sound.

Just as an aside from my own listening I do not think that the Innuos Sense sounds as good as plain vanilla Squeeze.

Currently, I only use Tidal, what have you found gets the best performance out of streaming services? Thanks!

 

[KrellFan1]

Currently, I only use Tidal, what have you found gets the best performance out of streaming services? Thanks!

Honestly I’m not familiar with Tidal as I’ve only used Qobuz. As Einsten argued, it’s all relative. So all I can PROVE is that streaming is great for music discovery and can sound pretty good, but in my empirical and subjective experience, streaming from any service can NEVER sound as good as streaming from a local hard drive. I know that Qobuz streams in FLAC which despite some claims, I find to be a bit lossy as confirmed by attached screenshots. I rip and download all my hi-res files in AIFF, and difference - apples to apples is - to my ears very significant. My music playback software these days is almost exclusively Squeeze. Squeeze server is very well supported by Antipodes and you can compare stream rates found toward to bottom of each file of which I taken a screenshot. I have 3 examples. An Agnes Obel track I downloaded in AIFF at 44/24 along with the same sample rate from Qobuz in FLAC. THE SQ is SUBSTANTIALLY better in each example from my local library. Am also including a track from Eva Cassidy in AIFF V Japanese House track streamed from Qobuz with a significantly lower bit rate also listed as CD quality.

I simply don’t know if Tidal also streams in FLAC and its ”advertised“ but rate is also compromised as it is via Qobuz. Note Eva Cassidy which I ripped from my CD. RedBook as it should be at 1411 kbps. Compare to CD quality Japanese House at only 930 kbps.

Better yet, compare a Beck track I downloaded at 96/24 which plays from my local drive at 4608 kpbs. Contrast this to a current Peter Gabriel track streamed by Qobuz which is also marketed as 96/24, yet the bit rate streamed is only 2835 kbps! And frankly, I prefer listening to the PG RedBook CD I ripped from my CD V the 96/24 Qobuz version. sounds much cleaner and real versus hi-res streamed version.

So while I have a relationship with Qobuz and love their selection of music and am generally ok with the SQ, to my ears it always pales compared to the same “apple“in my local library. I’m sorry I cannot speak to the difference between Qobuz and Tidal. I can only imagine that they are very comparable and the difference would come down to content more than streaming quality. And in either case I don’t believe any streaming service can compare sonically to what a person has in his or her local library.

 

[shawnf]

Honestly I’m not familiar with Tidal as I’ve only used Qobuz. As Einsten argued, it’s all relative. So all I can PROVE is that streaming is great for music discovery and can sound pretty good, but in my empirical and subjective experience, streaming from any service can NEVER sound as good as streaming from a local hard drive. I know that Qobuz streams in FLAC which despite some claims, I find to be a bit lossy as confirmed by attached screenshots. I rip and download all my hi-res files in AIFF, and difference - apples to apples is - to my ears very significant. My music playback software these days is almost exclusively Squeeze. Squeeze server is very well supported by Antipodes and you can compare stream rates found toward to bottom of each file of which I taken a screenshot. I have 3 examples. An Agnes Obel track I downloaded in AIFF at 44/24 along with the same sample rate from Qobuz in FLAC. THE SQ is SUBSTANTIALLY better in each example from my local library. Am also including a track from Eva Cassidy in AIFF V Japanese House track streamed from Qobuz with a significantly lower bit rate also listed as CD quality.

I simply don’t know if Tidal also streams in FLAC and its ”advertised“ but rate is also compromised as it is via Qobuz. Note Eva Cassidy which I ripped from my CD. RedBook as it should be at 1411 kbps. Compare to CD quality Japanese House at only 930 kbps.

Better yet, compare a Beck track I downloaded at 96/24 which plays from my local drive at 4608 kpbs. Contrast this to a current Peter Gabriel track streamed by Qobuz which is also marketed as 96/24, yet the bit rate streamed is only 2835 kbps! And frankly, I prefer listening to the PG RedBook CD I ripped from my CD V the 96/24 Qobuz version. sounds much cleaner and real versus hi-res streamed version.

So while I have a relationship with Qobuz and love their selection of music and am generally ok with the SQ, to my ears it always pales compared to the same “apple“in my local library. I’m sorry I cannot speak to the difference between Qobuz and Tidal. I can only imagine that they are very comparable and the difference would come down to content more than streaming quality. And in either case I don’t believe any streaming service can compare sonically to what a person has in his or her local library.

Antipodes CX owner here. Yes - my experience matches yours.

Initially I was streaming from either Tidal or my NAS using squeeze for both server and playback. Thought it sounded pretty good, certainly better than UPNP or Roon.

Then I got around to buying an SSD and started ripping my CDs and migrating existing FLAC and DSD music from NAS to the SSD for local playback on the CX. The difference was big on my system, certainly not subtle.

Hope that helps.

 

[KrellFan1]

Antipodes CX owner here. Yes - my experience matches yours.

Initially I was streaming from either Tidal or my NAS using squeeze for both server and playback. Thought it sounded pretty good, certainly better than UPNP or Roon.

Then I got around to buying an SSD and started ripping my CDs and migrating existing FLAC and DSD music from NAS to the SSD for local playback on the CX. The difference was big on my system, certainly not subtle.

Hope that helps.

Right There is no question but that streaming will always take a back seat to ripped or downloaded files stored on one internal drives. in fact, Mark Cole from Antipodes went so far as to recommend a specific Samsung SSD he and his people determined sounded better that the SSD from Samsung I had been using.

Until I began to use Squeeze where I could SEE the bitrate of the stream did I see that FLAC files were not equal to AIFF files in quality. Some may argue that the difference between, say 930 Kbps and 1411 Kbps is nominal and barely audible. To my ears the disparity is quite dramatic.

I appreciate the value and economy of streaming. Most people throughout the world stream these days. I reach for a happy medium where I use Qobuz for both music discovery and listening to some titles streamed from the service versus from my local drive. For my favorite titles whose artist I want to REALLY support, I’m happy to purchase the physical media or download the hi-res versions. It both helps the artist and for sure sounds considerably better.

 

[tom539]

a huge benefit for me is the superb support the company puts into Squeeze server. Frankly it’s very hard for me to listen to Roon since I discovered Squeeze. Night and day.

I agree, that „Sueeze-Player with Roon-Server“ and even “Squeeze (Auto)“ sound better then „Roon (Auto)“.

On my K50 and in the setup I would rate the sound of „Roon (Auto)“ to 3 (from 1 as „low“ to 10 as „high“) and „Squeeze (Auto)“ / „Squeeze-Player with Roon-Server“ both to 5.

But you definitly should test the „HQPlayer“ - for me the sound raised to 9 for „HQ-Player with Roon-Server“ and Even to 10 for „HQ-Player (Auto)“ + disable Roon-Server + controll with „HQPDcontroll“-APP from iPAD.

This was for me „Night and day“

atb, Tom

 

[KrellFan1]

I agree, that „Sueeze-Player with Roon-Server“ and even “Squeeze (Auto)“ sound better then „Roon (Auto)“.

On my K50 and in the setup I would rate the sound of „Roon (Auto)“ to 3 (from 1 as „low“ to 10 as „high“) and „Squeeze (Auto)“ / „Squeeze-Player with Roon-Server“ both to 5.

But you definitly should test the „HQPlayer“ - for me the sound raised to 9 for „HQ-Player with Roon-Server“ and Even to 10 for „HQ-Player (Auto)“ + disable Roon-Server + controll with „HQPDcontroll“-APP from iPAD.

This was for me „Night and day“

atb, Tom

Thanks Tom; yes, some, like you, have found great value in the HQPlayer but I have to confess that for me, setup seemed a little intimidating when I looked at the protocols and what is required to get up and running, i.e, room measurements with microphones and such ( as I recall). I supposed at the time when I first considered and even inquired about it with one of the Roon engineers that it really ( in his view) was not worth the effort. As I recall one did need a microphone and a laptop in order to obtain room measurements and I lack a laptop. Im a Mac user with a Mac Studio in the office, and iPad and and iPhone. Trust me, if it were easy, I'd check it out in a heartbeat bc I am all about getting the best SQ myself system provides for.

I am very familiar with and embrace the value if room measurements and Q software as an owner of Lyngdorf MP-60 which deploys RoomPerfect which is BEYOND AMAZING. Now THAT is easy for me to set up and delay. HQPlayer, both, seems "difficult . -

Out of curiosity, when using HQPlayer, what is your interface? In other words, do you use Roon or Squeeze or does it rely on its own interface (GUI)? Seems like it has its own app from the App Store, maybe? If so, how is it? Thanks!

 

[GSOphile]

For FLAC, is not FLAC data compressed for storage/transmission and then expanded to its uncompressed form prior to digital to analog conversion? Which would explain why an uncompressed CD bit stream would show more bits than the same track transmitted in compressed but lossless FLAC format? IMHO differences in SQ between locally stored music and music streamed over the internet are due primarily to noise picked up in the streaming process, not due to lossless compression formats (although some believe that uncompressed WAVE files yield slight but audibly superior results to lossless compression formats like FLAC).

 

[tom539]

@KrellFan1
You don‘t need room measurements to use HQPlayer…

HQplayer can be used in Roon as a player/zone, so interface is still Roon.
Sound of this „Solution“ in the Antipodes-dashboard is up to 9.

I use this also (and at the moment) for my favorite radio-Station „Radio Paradise“ and Qobuz-streaming.

But for intensive listening session I stop Roon and use HQPDcontroll as interface with the local files on the SDD within the K50.

The GUI of HQPDcontroll is simple - but as a complete album listener it works for me:




Maybe helpful is this Thread:
https://antipodes.support/t/hqplayer5-embedded/1533/17

atb, Tom

 

[KrellFan1]

For FLAC, is not FLAC data compressed for storage/transmission and then expanded to its uncompressed form prior to digital to analog conversion? Which would explain why an uncompressed CD bit stream would show more bits than the same track transmitted in compressed but lossless FLAC format? IMHO differences in SQ between locally stored music and music streamed over the internet are due primarily to noise picked up in the streaming process, not due to lossless compression formats (although some believe that uncompressed WAVE files yield slight but audibly superior results to lossless compression formats like FLAC).

You raise a fair point. I’m not 100/% sure but I DO rely on the data I see as expressed by the Squeeze Server as hosted by Antipodes that clearly (in my view) seems to tell the true story by expressing the actual bit rate while steaming. So to me, and to my ears, I see and HEAR a difference. I actually hear more gain coming out of the file in a RedBook CD ripped and stored on my local drive than in streaming the same exact (FLAC) file from Qobuz.

I have a very clean network - optimized by EtherREGEN and high end SFP transceivers, with true gigabit internet coming in from my ISP provider delivered from a fiber modem to an Araknks gigabit switch. There is very little latency when streaming from Qobuz while of course, zero latency when calling g up files from my internal SSD.

So for me personally I DO believe that AIFF files streamed from my local drive sound considerably better whether ripped to the internal drive in AIFF or downloaded from ProStudioMasters.com in AIFF format. And I am not convinced that the disparity in sound quality is a result of streaming over the Internet. As one of my screenshots depicted, a 96/24 bit file streamed at 4608 Kbps v 2850 Kbps for another 96/24 file from Qobuz in FLAC. The 4608 AIFF stream SHOULD sound considerably better…and it does - to my ears.

 

[kennyb123]

So to me, and to my ears, I see and HEAR a difference. I actually hear more gain coming out of the file in a RedBook CD ripped and stored on my local drive than in streaming the same exact (FLAC) file from Qobuz.

I don't think the bit rate differences explain why you favor local playback. Easiest way to do apples-to-apples is to purchase the FLAC directly from Qobuz and compare it to the streamed equivalent. My apologies if you mentioned that you've already done this comparison.

 

[kennyb123]

On my K50 and in the setup I would rate the sound of „Roon (Auto)“ to 3 (from 1 as „low“ to 10 as „high“) and „Squeeze (Auto)“ / „Squeeze-Player with Roon-Server“ both to 5.

But you definitly should test the „HQPlayer“ - for me the sound raised to 9 for „HQ-Player with Roon-Server“ and Even to 10 for „HQ-Player (Auto)“ + disable Roon-Server + controll with „HQPDcontroll“-APP from iPAD.

Depending on your HQPlayer settings, this might not be an apples-to-apples comparison. HQPlayer is essentially a DSP engine. There is no pure passthrough that allows one to put it on equal footing to the other players that allow the DSP to be disabled.

When I set HQPlayer as close as possible to no processing, Squeeze still sounds significantly better to my ears.

 

[KrellFan1]

I don't think the bit rate differences explain why you favor local playback. Easiest way to do apples-to-apples is to purchase the FLAC directly from Qobuz and compare it to the streamed equivalent. My apologies if you mentioned that you've already done this comparison.

OK, so I just performed this exact test at your request. I own a downloaded version from the Qobuz store of the Sevdaliza "Shabrang" album. I played a track off of this in 24/44.1 and playing it via Squeeze I see a Kbps reading of 1518 Kbps and it sounds AWESOME. As you may know, (as far as I know) Qobuz makes available for download ONLY FLAC files. My Mac supports it by converting to an M4a file. It sounds awesome!

I then proceed to listen to the Qobuz version which, rather than streaming at the 1518 bit rate, this same (QOBUZ STREAMED) file plays at 802 Kbps and sounds awful by comparison. The gain variation between the two is easily 50%. FWIW, I do NOT recall this degree of disparity when streaming from Roon, so maybe it is a Squeeze/Qobuz specific issue though hard to explain why it would not be equally supported! - Thx

 

[kennyb123]

. As you may know, (as far as I know) Qobuz makes available for download ONLY FLAC files. My Mac supports it by converting to an M4a file. It sounds awesome!

The Qobuz Downloader app allows you to choose the format. I go with AIFF.

I then proceed to listen to the Qobuz version which, rather than streaming at the 1518 bit rate, this same (QOBUZ STREAMED) file plays at 802 Kbps and sounds awful by comparison.

Something doesn't sound right there. It's as if Qobuz is not configured to stream lossless audio.

 

[KrellFan1]

The Qobuz Downloader app allows you to choose the format. I go with AIFF.


Something doesn't sound right there. It's as if Qobuz is not configured to stream lossless audio.

I agree something must be out of whack here. Makes little sense per my previous post. I did not notice when downloading the few files I bought from the Qopbiz store that I was presented with the option. Perhaps my bad that I overlooked but seems to be it is not presented upon placing into the cart. In any case, here are a few screenshots attached - most importantly one for the Settngs/Qobuz page within Squeeze as supported by Antipodes