![]() The rule of thumb is that your internet download speed should be about twice the size of the most data-intensive files you’re streaming, or you might have issues. Many of the music services offer some content at 24-bit/192 kHz, which requires approximately 9216 kbps (9.216 megabits per second, or Mpbs for short) to stream in what we perceive as “real” time. Lossless codecs like FLAC (short for Free Lossless Audio Codec) ren’t able to cut the file size as much but still can shrink down a WAV file by 50 to 70 percent. An MP3 can often shrink a WAV file by 90 percent. Though they provide lesser sound quality, lossy codecs are better at decreasing file size. ![]() Lossy codecs discard some audio information in order to accomplish that goal, while lossless codecs reduce file size without removing any data. Completely uncompressed audio at CD quality (16-bit/44.1 kHz) and better (24-bit/48 kHz up to 352.8 kHz) results in audio files that are too large to stream easily.Ī codec (short for code/decode) algorithm is used to shrink digital audio files. The tricky part of streaming high-res files is that the better the quality (that is the higher the bit resolution and sampling rate), the bigger the file size and the faster the internet download speed required. Here’s a guide to the lossless options available out there. Some charge more for the privilege, while others make it available in all their paid plans. These days, most streaming music services offer lossless options. For those with keen enough ears to notice the reduction of quality inherent in music that utilizes a “lossy” codec like MP3 or AAC, this was a significant breakthrough. The main reason though that I'm going to stick with Tidal is because to me, Qobuz doesn't have enough of the jazz albums I've been enjoying on Tidal the selection just isn't there.Almost ten years ago, TIDAL became the first streaming music service to offer music encoded with lossless compression. I've been using Qobuz for nearly three weeks now with Roon and I've compared fully unfolded Tidal MQA files to Qobuz Hi-Res files and to me there's not enough of a difference to warrant me switching from Tidal to Qobuz. Will Qobuz become permanent (is it here to stay?) and should I invest in the one time annual payment or go on the monthly pay-as-you-go. OTHER ISSUES - I hate sifting through dozens of albums on Tidal that I will never ever listen to. MIGHT be a nice to have but there is always HD Tracks. COST - Qobuz is more expensive $300 a year versus $240 for Tidal but offers the ability to purchase at a discount directly from their app. AVAILABILITY of the best recordings - early days but Tidal clearly has more of what I like to listen to. Therefore the decision on which I keep is based on: Neither was better to my ears than the other. I have found differences but they were only that. Not a scientific test but they both sound good. That means Tidal MQA 24/96 as that is the best I can get from my non-MQA system. I have been playing around with Qobuz for a few days and made a Roon playlist with many tracks from both Qobuz and Tidal - trying as best I could to compare the same resolution and source recording from both companies.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |