More Consensus That Streaming Is An Inferior Format & Not High End?

[ddk]

Even if we manage to survive with a "couple of hundred records"it is an hunt activity. Most of the time these substantial record collections are filled with distortion, click and pops, as they have been played by well worn vestiges of stylus.

Sure but that doesn't mean there aren’t a lot of good ones out there too, after all we're not the first generation audiophile there were many before us.

My point was simply you will not find most music recorded after the middle 80's in vinyl.I was addressing time of recording, not musical quality. Should we expect audiophiles to listen just to the same music that was listened by their parents and grand parents?

I really have no expectations for anyone nor do I care what and how people listen. This is an audio forum and we discuss this stuff otherwise I don't think others care either. My new record collection post 2000 is entirely different from what I had, I didn't have much of the old music as you put it before. I also have several thousand CDs and continue to buy them regularly but hardly any of it is new music. I buy what I want and enjoy and it’s mostly old records including old shellac 78s more than what I procure today, both in terms of music and even sound quality. I guess I found my latest and greatest in the past.

david

PS going through those pops & clicks is another way of discovering music you'd never come across otherwise!

 

[andromedaaudio]

I think Wadax has upped the streaming quality quit a bit .
It may be has its flaws but tape and LP arent flawless either .
It depends on the type of music as well as to which format i prefer personally

 

[PeterA]

I think this is is a well made point: "Should we expect audiophiles to listen just to the same music that was listened by their parents and grand parents?"

New music is very expensive on vinyl and isn't most of it recorded on digital?

I don’t see the point, well-made or otherwise. No one is expecting audiophiles to listen to particular music. It is a diverse landscape out there and should be celebrated for its diversity. Listeners can make their own choices about what they listen to and that often influences source components. I don’t see anyone telling others they have to listen to their parents’ and grandparents’ music choices.

If one wants to be inclusive, he can have both a turntable and a streamer. If he wants to be exclusive, he can choose one or the other. I don’t see the expectations. Listeners seem free to choose for themselves at least while alternatives exist.

 

[DMcVey]

I don’t see the point, well-made or otherwise. No one is expecting audiophiles to listen to particular music. It is a diverse landscape out there and should be celebrated for its diversity. Listeners can make their own choices about what they listen to and that often influences source components. I don’t see anyone telling others they have to listen to their parents’ and grandparents’ music choices.

If one wants to be inclusive, he can have both a turntable and a streamer. If he wants to be exclusive, he can choose one or the other. I don’t see the expectations. Listeners seem free to choose for themselves at least while alternatives exist.

The point is quite obvious: are audiophiles not supposed to listen to new music? New music on vinyl is limited. If one does not have access to streaming, one cannot listen to it.

Period.

 

[bonzo75]

I think this is is a well made point: "Should we expect audiophiles to listen just to the same music that was listened by their parents and grand parents?"

Jeez no. I expect very less of audiophiles their parents and grandparents will be ashamed of what most of them listen to

 

[microstrip]

so why should we listen to Beethoven, Bach, and the 60s and 70s rock groups or the older blues and jazz? What is this random argument for age? Do you think Beethoven Vs Britney is an age thing or maturity thing?

We will listen to what’s good. Only as we grow older we understand better what’s good. At least, some of us progress. Classical comes from many hundred years before, rock and jazz from a few decades before, recordings from a few decades before. My speaker drivers come from that similar period, my digital from now, analog will be from now, SETs from now though generally based on design from some decades before, the Valves on amps from decades before, and so on. You are the one picking an era, we are cherry picking quality from the period it was available.

I can't understand what is your main message in the B's 60' and 70's. What I think is clear - some recorded music coming from the last forty years has high quality, both recording and performance, and audiophiles should not be deprived from it, particularly because sometimes the recording quality is really fabulous and/or because the digital media does not add the vinyl artifacts some of us we enjoy so much.

Surely I completely disagree with your ending insinuation that there is no quality in modern recordings. BTW, I pick both areas - digital transcriptions of old recordings also sound fabulous.

 

[PeterA]

The point is quite obvious: are audiophiles not supposed to listen to new music? New music on vinyl is limited. If one does not have access to streaming, one cannot listen to it.

Period.

That is true of course, but I think we are talking past each other. I do not think audiophiles are "supposed" to listen to a particular music. I think they can and should listen to whatever they want. Who are we to expect anything of them?

"If one does not have access to streaming..." That "IF" is the quite a qualification. Of course, he he chooses not to have multiple sources, he will be limited to the the music he can play on the source he has. I think one should chose the music he wants, and then pick the right player for that music. That might mean both a record player and a streamer/DAC, or just one of them.

Still, no expectations as to what audiophiles are "supposed" to listen to from me.

 

[microstrip]

I don’t see the point, well-made or otherwise. No one is expecting audiophiles to listen to particular music. It is a diverse landscape out there and should be celebrated for its diversity. Listeners can make their own choices about what they listen to and that often influences source components. I don’t see anyone telling others they have to listen to their parents’ and grandparents’ music choices.

If one wants to be inclusive, he can have both a turntable and a streamer. If he wants to be exclusive, he can choose one or the other. I don’t see the expectations. Listeners seem free to choose for themselves at least while alternatives exist.

Peter,

We are not writing manuals or religious guides. Posts must be read and understood as comments or answers to previous posts. No one was addressing freedom of choice. Just discussing the consequences of a particular advice.

 

[PeterA]

Peter,

We are not writing manuals or religious guides. Posts must be read and understood as comments or answers to previous posts. No one was addressing freedom of choice. Just discussing the consequences of a particular advice.

Someone asked if we are to “expect” audiophiles to listen to a particular type of music. I responded with my answer being no. I went on to explain why.

 

[dminches]

Someone asked if we are to “expect” audiophiles to listen to a particular type of music. I responded with my answer being no. I went on to explain why.

Actually, that is not what DMcVey wrote. You turned his “ are audiophiles not supposed to listen to new music” into to “audiophiles are supposed to listen to something.” He was asking if audiophiles are supposed to avoid new music since new music is mostly digital. Those 2 notions are very different.

 

[KeithR]

so why should we listen to Beethoven, Bach, and the 60s and 70s rock groups or the older blues and jazz? What is this random argument for age? Do you think Beethoven Vs Britney is an age thing or maturity thing?

We will listen to what’s good. Only as we grow older we understand better what’s good. At least, some of us progress. Classical comes from many hundred years before, rock and jazz from a few decades before, recordings from a few decades before. My speaker drivers come from that similar period, my digital from now, analog will be from now, SETs from now though generally based on design from some decades before, the Valves on amps from decades before, and so on. You are the one picking an era, we are cherry picking quality from the period it was available.

I think it’s more that audiophiles have a limited musical palette as @Jazzhead likes to say. Most are boomers and listen to what they grew up on. Hence the 60s/70s focus. Nothing wrong with any musical choice of course, but that’s the gravitation. Ironic you use Britney Spears as she peaked 20 years ago.

 

[PeterA]

My point was simply you will not find most music recorded after the middle 80's in vinyl.I was addressing time of recording, not musical quality. Should we expect audiophiles to listen just to the same music that was listened by their parents and grand parents?

I think this is is a well made point: "Should we expect audiophiles to listen just to the same music that was listened by their parents and grand parents?"

New music is very expensive on vinyl and isn't most of it recorded on digital?

Actually, that is not what DMcVey wrote. You turned his “ are audiophiles not supposed to listen to new music” into to “audiophiles are supposed to listen to something.” He was asking if audiophiles are supposed to avoid new music since new music is mostly digital. Those 2 notions are very different.

Actually, I was responding to the second post which was quoting Francisco. He asked a simple question about expecting listeners to listen to a particular type of music which he described his parents and grandparents music.

I answered the question he asked. For me the answer is no. I went on to criticize the comment because I do not think it is a point well-made. There is old music and there is new music and we all know you can listen to both depending on your source equipment and where the recordings are. Or you can choose some combination. And there are no expectations on my part.

dminches, do you expect listeners to listen to a particular type of music? Perhaps you think a different point was made. And if we interpret the comment as meaning different things, then the point was not well-made in my view.

 

[dminches]

dminches, do you expect listeners to listen to a particular type of music?

Of course not and I don’t care what others listen to.

 

[bonzo75]

I think it’s more that audiophiles have a limited musical palette as @Jazzhead likes to say. Most are boomers and listen to what they grew up on. Hence the 60s/70s focus. Nothing wrong with any musical choice of course, but that’s the gravitation. Ironic you use Britney Spears as she peaked 20 years ago.

I know some of the guys here are pretty old, but who grew up in the classical and renaissance era?

I did not grow up in Led Zep and classic rock days. I stopped listening to my generation music and MTV top 20 before I turned 18, and turned to classic rock to groups that started playing before I was born. So I don't listen to Madonna, Michael Jackson, Wham, etc which I grew up with, at all.

 

[PeterA]

Of course not and I don’t care what others listen to.

Then you and I agree and answer Francisco‘s question in the same way.

 

[dminches]

Then you and I agree and answer Francisco‘s question in the same way.

I didn’t translate Francisco’s question (which was more of a statement) the same way you did.

Doesn’t matter either way. Unless I am misunderstanding people’s comment I don’t think anyone is saying audiophiles are expected to listen to a particular type of music. People are saying that audiophiles aren’t expected to be limited to a particular type of music.

 

[DMcVey]

Actually, that is not what DMcVey wrote. You turned his “ are audiophiles not supposed to listen to new music” into to “audiophiles are supposed to listen to something.” He was asking if audiophiles are supposed to avoid new music since new music is mostly digital. Those 2 notions are very different.

Thank you, you are more eloquent that I.

 

[bryans]

So I don't listen to Madonna, Michael Jackson, Wham, etc which I grew up with, at all.

WHAT no "Lucky Star"

LOL

 

[treitz3]

It's a little hard for me to take Paul McGowan at his word without knowing what streaming gear he uses and how it's hooked up/configured. Also, when he is comparing CD quality to streaming, what is his CDP/DAC setup? Without knowing this, we don't have a baseline or any knowledge whatsoever as to what kit(s) he is comparing.

I would say, even if he is listening to the same source recording.... but that leads me to this question.....but how do we know exactly if it's the same version/recording/release? It's not like Tidal or Qobuz have verifiable SKU numbers by the sides of the albums we listen too when streaming. We have some information but not 100% verifiable information to know that is the same exact version.

Here's my take. It's a hit or miss with streaming being what some would consider high end or lesser than a high end format. Streaming has the potential to be phenomenal, especially at higher streaming rates but sometimes the "remastered" crap (even at a higher bit rate) sounds a lot worse than the regular CD version before remastering. Unfortunately, both Tidal and Qobuz do not always pick the best version to stream. For example, Pink Floyd. It sounds like crap streamed but when I put in physical media? It sounds refreshing and everything bounces back to where it should be.

Other songs/albums on streaming can sound unreal. With streaming, you seemingly have three factors instead of two. Not only is a selection recording dependent, it is also the offered version dependent and then bit rate dependent. Streaming has the potential to best physical media when all three criteria are met.....and in that case? It can sound like/be better than physical media and has the potential (key word there) to sound phenomenal.

This is obviously not the case with every song/album Tidal and Qobuz offer.

Most times, when I am listening to an album/song streaming and I am left wanting something, I'll listen to the same song on CD or vinyl. Ah, much better. That's a case of the streaming version missing one, two or all three of the aforementioned criteria.

My problem with streaming isn't the format. I'll enjoy all of the attributes (as well as all of the deficiencies) just as I do with vinyl and CD's. If I had a R2R setup? Same thing. I simply enjoy each for what they have to offer and listen to the best recording/version/playback mechanism available to me at that given time.

I don't care if any "consensus" or empirical data suggests that streaming is an inferior format for high end. To some, vinyl is an inferior high end format. I do not in any way agree with that but on the same token, I don't agree with Paul and the others whom joined in on said "consensus" either.

Tom

 

[microstrip]

(...) . People are saying that audiophiles aren’t expected to be limited to a particular type of music.

Yes, but my original nuance was on music recorded at specific periods of time, not on the type of music - classical, for example, spreads along the vinyl and digital periods.