I dispute your assertion that local file storage is of lesser quality compared to CD. The absence of real-time read of spinning physical media, and interpolative error correction in the event of read errors is a distinct advantage for local file storage, as is the capability to store higher resolution files. As far as ethernet connections are concerned, that depends how susceptible the ND555 is to interference such as RF contamination of the data feed (DACs are known to potentially suffer modulation problems with RF superimposed on the signal, or via ground plane, with some immune or near-immune, others not, with a range between - I don’t know about the ND555). Even with a susceptible DAC it also will depend on the network connected and the local electromagnetic environment. I don’t use an ND555, instead my store and renderer are in the same box, no network involved, which is another way to eliminate any need to consider ethernet effects.
I thought that theoretically there is supposed to be no difference!
This may be worth a read:
Surprisingly I do find ripped and locally stored CDs can sound just as good as, and frequently better than, 24bit, 96kHz streams from Qobuz. I cannot stream at 192kHz, which might sound better, owing to my slow broadband.
This is from Qobuz, which I use, showing the difference in resolution between HiRes — CD — MP3.
When I had my CD5 SX, I did find the the same track on Qobuz Hi-Res was definitely better than the CD version.
DG…
Of significance of course is whether the same mastering - it is not uncommon for a CD and a subsequently released hi res file to have different mastering, rather than the CD simply downsampled from the same hi res file, in which case you’d be primarily hearing the difference between masterings.
@Innocent_Bystander Thank you, but why do you say that there is supposed to be no difference? If I’m not mistaken you wrote this a while ago so the difference exists. Maybe it’s just not worth considering.
By the way I’m aware of the mastering problem and that can create a huge difference. I didn’t know that it’s normal practice to use different masters for CDs and Hi-Res streaming platforms. I do care more about the mastering quality, but I was wondering about the real difference between the Hi-Res file and the same downsampled CD version.
Is there a way to spot the use of different masters before buying a CD?
@Clive Thanks! Generally speaking I prefer local streaming as well.
Sorry, I should have added a smiley! The theory of the CD standard of 16/44 is that it conveys all the human ear can hear/discern, and that is what I meant in saying it is there is “supposed to be” no difference. On the basis of commentary by a multiple people from their experience with 16/44 and higher resolution files believed or understood to be from the same master would appear that higher resolutions may actually convey something more, albeit maybe not in the form of additional musical detail as such, though it may depend on the quality and content of the original recording.
For clarification I didn’t mean to suggest that it is normal practice as such, particularly where both are produced at the same time for marketing - I don’t know whether or not that is the case, and suspect it may depend on the music type and whether “loudness war” practices are employed for the CD - however I believe it is quite common, or certainly not uncommon, where music previously released digitally only on CD is then made available as hi res.
No worries, at last now it makes sense!
From my personal experience I perceive 192/24 has - maybe but not always - more airiness and precision. However in the end the quality of the recording and a proper mastering are the most important thing in my opinion.
Recently I listened to a Hi-Res version of Abraxas by Santana on Qobuz. At first I was surprised by the sound quality but then I remembered I had the same CD, bought 20-30 years before. So I compared the two and my initial surprise started to fade away quite quickly, they sounded kind of identical, I didn’t feel any plus except the Hi-Res logo.
How do you arrive at this conclusion, or is it just an assumption?
You can use locally attached storage on a USB drive mounted directly on a streamer USB port, accessed by the built in UPnP server on the ND555. Compare this to Tidal or a server on your LAN and you’ll be able to draw your own conclusions based on listening tests.
Having said that, there is potential for some noise to be generated by an internal drive or a USB drive as well as an Ethernet or WiFi connection.
In addition, all streamers have active network connections, and if you’re concerned about this being a potential source of EMI pollution, playing from an internal drive will not eliminate it unless you turn off WiFi and unplug the network cable. Then you have no control app.
I’ve found the same, if ripping a CD in WAV on my Uniti Core. Also, a hi-res download in WAV is consistently better and more engaging than the same versions streamed on-line with my NDX2/555PS.
In many cases my CD rips sound as good as or in some cases better than Hi Res recordings.
But I have been building up a collection of Hi Res recording that sound so much better than the CD version.
Here’s a starter - Carly Simon’s No Secrets in 192kHz Hi Res it is just awesome.
@Mike_S Do you prefer WAV to flac? If so, why?
@AndyP if you can compare the same album in Hi-Res and CD quality, it’s easy to know what to choose. If not, what do you do? By the way that album sounds good!
I’ve just found that in my set-up it presents more organically and natural, maybe as the Core is optimised for WAV into the NDX2?
I thought that could be the case, even thought I think I’ve read somewhere that the NDX 2 prefers WAV files in general. Maybe as flac files need to be decoded (and that stresses the CPU), it could slightly degrade the perceived audio quality. By the way I’ve been streaming flac files in most cases, so far the quality has been excellent. I should try WAV too, just out of curiosity.
Streaming hi-res FLAC on Qobuz sounds excellent in my system too, though the local WAV streaming has the edge in being more engaging and complete in its presentation.
I did a number of back to back trials between WAV and FLAC and was unable to detect any difference. I recall that it used to be said that WAV sounded better on the first generation streamers, but with the current units it’s more a matter of convenience. Following the trials I converted all my ripped CDs to FLAC. It also saves some space if that’s a concern.
@Mike_S maybe it’s Qobuz applying some EQ on audio, have you thought so? In my personal experience Qobuz sounds always punchier compared to local streaming (and I mean with the same album purchased directly from Qobuz). It’s a bit annoying to hear these differences in my opinion. Local streaming always seems a touch less lively, but more organic; maybe it also offers a more correct presentation.
@Clive I think I’ve tried that once and couldn’t really tell the difference as well, but why not trying again after a long time, just out of curiosity. However I also chose flac because space is much better to manage. What software did you use to rip your CDs?
I ripped most of my CDs on my NS01, so it was done using Naim’s proprietary software. Before that the first 250 or so discs were ripped using a UnitiServe. I originally ripped to WAV, but converted them all to FLAC, which was something that was available on the NS01. It took about a week though, in batches of genres, which was how @ChrisSU suggested (sensible suggestion given how long it took).
I don’t really know. I see this all as a quirk with streaming to be honest, all the different file types and potential for interference through noise introduced through delivery and processing and affects on timing. Not like vinyl, where a grooove is a grove and it’s just processed through the TT to the amp.
I always ripped to WAV, as the dealer set the Uniti Core up the way. Before then, I ripped on my Mac to the Apple format, the Core has always been better than that. Local rips and downloads sound really good on my system. Qobuz is also excellent and if its a favourite, well recorded and available in hi-res, then I’ll grab a WAV download.
A ripped CD sounds as good as a CD played through my bluray player, or better. But, interestingly, a well recorded bluray concert in hi-res in the LPCM format sounds better than anything else! It’s all a bit of a mystery to me.
We did the same testing with NDX2 and found zero discernible difference.
When we had the SuperUniti/272 in the house there WAS an audible difference and we set Asset uPNP to transcode our FLAC on NAS to WAV for consumption.
We’ve since reverted that, which means the office system isn’t performing optimally as the SU is receiving FLAC, but the lounge system is quite happy.