[Triggaaar]

Forgive me god, for I have sinned (and will continue to do so).
 
Hey, I'm not perfect, get over it.
 
So for those times when I'm sinning, and listening to Spotify on my PC, how much difference can a good setup make? Or put another way, at what price point are you wasting your money when your source is Spotify?
 
a) Headphones
b) Amp
c) DAC

 

[atarione]

  Forgive me god, for I have sinned (and will continue to do so).
 
Hey, I'm not perfect, get over it.
 
So for those times when I'm sinning, and listening to Spotify on my PC, how much difference can a good setup make? Or put another way, at what price point are you wasting your money when your source is Spotify?
 
a) Headphones
b) Amp
c) DAC

 
I listen to spotify quite a lot at on my computer... using Fidelify client  (WASAPI and ASIO output options) generally using PC > FiiO D3 > DarkVoice 336 > Beyer DT880 Premium 250Ohms..
 
I have some NOS USA tubes in the DV quite pleased with the results.. most of the time.
 
got the DV for $240~ (tubes $10ea)  headphones were a gift and the FiiO was like $20 or something... and like $10 for the optical cable I guess.
 
if you use chrome and the web player you could also sent it to your stereo with a chromecast audio (which I have also) that works pretty nicely ... I think it sounds pretty good using this method as well.

 

[Strauss95]

I use Spotify premium exclusively for all my music listening. Yes, flac and or other hi-res files are a bit better but I just love the endless library of music Spotify provides me. I have been a premium member for almost 4yrs now. To me the difference is not worth the price of going out and buying all my music in hi-res format. I also tired a hi-fi Tidal membership and A/B'd the same songs on both and the difference when noticeable was very, very small. 
 
I use plenty of nice gear, and it all sounds great to my ears. Spotify will not "dumb down" any nice headphone gear IMO.

 

[PL4Y3R 0N3]

Spotify isn't bad, but if you said YouTube you would have some serious repenting to do.
So now the question isn't how much before Spotify is your limiter, but how much are you willing to spend?

 

[Triggaaar]

if you said YouTube you would have some serious repenting to do.

Please show a little respect for fellow forum members

 
 

Spotify isn't bad, but if you said YouTube you would have some serious repenting to do.

So now the question isn't how much before Spotify is your limiter, but how much are you willing to spend?

I'm looking at getting an Audio-GD NFB28/29 to go with my HD650 and HE400i (and any future friends). I have a few hundred (modest I know) CDs in FLAC, but I'm on Spotify more, and I just wondered whether I'd be wasting money on an NFB28/29. I could easily go for the NFB11 instead, I don't exactly need the power of the NFB28/29.

 

[obobskivich]

Honestly the biggest "issue" with digital streaming (or any other digital distribution that doesn't come off some commercial lossless format (e.g. CD, SACD, DVD-A, etc)) is that you can run into pretty aggressively compressed audio depending on the bandwidth limits on the distribution (satellite radio probably being the absolute worst example). Higher end gear will more readily reveal this to you (and its very audible - this isn't some mythical "inner detail" thing - compression artefacts are annoying and consistently audible). This YouTube video (make whatever ironic comment you want) has examples as you go up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53tdYmJuUmM

The "ringing" will go away with less compression. Satellite radio is something like 20-30k if memory serves, so its pretty egregious, while a lot of more contemporary digital streaming services will be towards the upper end of that example's spectrum.

With lesser fidelity equipment, hearing the various artefacts from the "mid-range" (e.g. lets say 96-160k) material, especially if the material is simple enough that the compressor can work well at those bitrates (yes, what is being compressed matters - spoken word can be crushed into a lot lower bitrates than complex music) will become harder, or you'll be contending with the gear sounding bad on its own. Conversely, better gear will do a better job of "getting out of the way" - so higher quality sourcing is always appreciated, but I'd rather worry about having good sounding headphones and 320k audio than fighting about 320k vs lossless vs ultra-bitrate lossless on $10 PC speakers. If that makes sense.

As far as giving you a "price point are you wasting your money" - nope. Not gonna happen. Price has no good relationship to performance - there's plenty of excellent cheap gear, and rancid expensive gear. Generally speaking nicer gear costs more, but that isn't a hard and fast rule, and you can't do something like "well a $300 headphone is twice as good as a $150 headphone" (or even quip back at me "well its diminishing returns but its still progressively better in some smaller logarithmic way")).

I'll also further add that differences (on the same headphone or speaker) between amplifiers and sources (as in the actual machine that provides the audio signal, like a DAC or CD player, not sources as in the multimedia content being played, like an album) are usually more subtle. There are of course exceptions and explanations why those exceptions exist, but for example swapping from one good performing DAC to another good performing DAC will yield a good performing system. It may have some subtle variation on how it sounds (or it may not, or it may not be perceptible, etc - it's these things that usually lead to the biggest and nastiest fights) but its not like "oh this one is so good and that one is unlistenable." It isn't like in the olden days of all analog systems where, for example, changing between tape decks could make a huge difference in quality. Amplifiers can do a bit more as their interaction with the headphone(s) can have a more measured impact on frequency response, but if that's out of the question (e.g. because the headphone just isn't very reactive - like planar magnetics, or because the amplifiers have relatively similar output impedance, etc) or otherwise minimized, again its probably down to personal taste if you're comparing one good performing amplifier to another good performing amplifier (I hate car examples but I'll use one here: you're given a choice between a Porsche and a Ferrari - no matter how you decide, you'll end up with a fast car).

So to answer your question in a really roundabout way: no there probably isn't a good reason not to upgrade because you use a streaming service, if you actually have a good reason to upgrade (e.g. you want a more powerful amplifier, you need different connectivity, whatever).

 

[Triggaaar]

 
Thank you for the very detailed reply.
 
Quote:

I'd rather worry about having good sounding headphones and 320k audio than fighting about 320k vs lossless vs ultra-bitrate lossless on $10 PC speakers. If that makes sense.

As far as giving you a "price point are you wasting your money" - nope. Not gonna happen. Price has no good relationship to performance - there's plenty of excellent cheap gear, and rancid expensive gear. Generally speaking nicer gear costs more, but that isn't a hard and fast rule, and you can't do something like "well a $300 headphone is twice as good as a $150 headphone" (or even quip back at me "well its diminishing returns but its still progressively better in some smaller logarithmic way")).

 
It's that "Generally speaking nicer gear costs more" point I'm referring to. Of course we could just waste money on something expensive that isn't very good, but let's assume we do our research to see what's the best available at each price point. And I certainly agree about your first point above.
 
 
 

I'll also further add that differences (on the same headphone or speaker) between amplifiers and sources (as in the actual machine that provides the audio signal, like a DAC or CD player, not sources as in the multimedia content being played, like an album) are usually more subtle. There are of course exceptions and explanations why those exceptions exist, but for example swapping from one good performing DAC to another good performing DAC will yield a good performing system. It may have some subtle variation on how it sounds (or it may not, or it may not be perceptible, etc - it's these things that usually lead to the biggest and nastiest fights) but its not like "oh this one is so good and that one is unlistenable." It isn't like in the olden days of all analog systems where, for example, changing between tape decks could make a huge difference in quality. Amplifiers can do a bit more as their interaction with the headphone(s) can have a more measured impact on frequency response, but if that's out of the question (e.g. because the headphone just isn't very reactive - like planar magnetics, or because the amplifiers have relatively similar output impedance, etc) or otherwise minimized, again its probably down to personal taste if you're comparing one good performing amplifier to another good performing amplifier

 
Yes, it's those subtle differences I'm thinking of. If you're comparing decent equipment, with subtle differences, are those differences still going to be apparent when your source is 320k,
 
or to put it another way:
There are many discussions here about which DAC/Amp sounds best. Obviously you need an amp that's powerful enough for your headphones, but once you're there, different DACs and amps can give you different results. Are all those points and arguments just as valid when your source is 320k instead of lossless etc?
Or are you wasting your time looking at multibit and R2R DACs when your source files are compressed?

 

[theveterans]

  Forgive me god, for I have sinned (and will continue to do so).
 
Hey, I'm not perfect, get over it.
 
So for those times when I'm sinning, and listening to Spotify on my PC, how much difference can a good setup make? Or put another way, at what price point are you wasting your money when your source is Spotify?
 
a) Headphones
b) Amp
c) DAC

 
a) $450 for a pair of Yamaha HS7
b) $349 for Schiit Saga with 1961 RCA 6SN7GTB Tubes
c) $600 for Schiit Bifrost Multibit
 
Except for Yamaha HS7 which is "entry-fi", all of them are mid-fi level price point.
 
The sound from spotify out of that setup = incredible IMO.

 

[Triggaaar]

   
c) $600 for Schiit Bifrost Multibit  
The sound from spotify out of that setup = incredible IMO.

 
Have you compared the same setup with a more affordable DAC and noticed an improvement?

 

[theveterans]

   
Have you compared the same setup with a more affordable DAC and noticed an improvement?

 
Yep. I was using Meridian Explorer 1 back then. Bifrost easily beats it on all categories. As for my portable DAC/amp, Chord Mojo, Bifrost sounded slightly better with the Yamaha HS7s IMO while Mojo sounded a bit "closed" where instruments sounded a bit closer to each other than Bifrost. As for DAC quality, they are equal for me, but I don't want a battery powered DAC for home use. If there's a Mojo DAC without the battery, I would've gone that route too for my desktop setup since Mojo sounded less harsh than Bifrost. Therefore, Mojo is exclusively used for my IEM (Sony XBA-1) and car stereo (aux input). 95% of my source is Spotify while the rest are uncompressed high res WAVs and CDs.

 

[Triggaaar]

   
Yep. I was using Meridian Explorer 1 back then. Bifrost easily beats it on all categories. As for my portable DAC/amp, Chord Mojo, Bifrost sounded slightly better with the Yamaha HS7s IMO while Mojo sounded a bit "closed" where instruments sounded a bit closer to each other than Bifrost. As for DAC quality, they are equal for me, but I don't want a battery powered DAC for home use. If there's a Mojo DAC without the battery, I would've gone that route too for my desktop setup since Mojo sounded less harsh than Bifrost. Therefore, Mojo is exclusively used for my IEM (Sony XBA-1) and car stereo (aux input). 95% of my source is Spotify while the rest are uncompressed high res WAVs and CDs.

Perfect, thanks.

 

[obobskivich]

It's that "Generally speaking nicer gear costs more" point I'm referring to. Of course we could just waste money on something expensive that isn't very good, but let's assume we do our research to see what's the best available at each price point. And I certainly agree about your first point above.




Yes, it's those subtle differences I'm thinking of. If you're comparing decent equipment, with subtle differences, are those differences still going to be apparent when your source is 320k,

or to put it another way:
There are many discussions here about which DAC/Amp sounds best. Obviously you need an amp that's powerful enough for your headphones, but once you're there, different DACs and amps can give you different results. Are all those points and arguments just as valid when your source is 320k instead of lossless etc?
Or are you wasting your time looking at multibit and R2R DACs when your source files are compressed?

It's not an "if then" thing where you "conquer" one aspect of the system and then are "promoted" to the next. Everything moves together. So "those points are just as valid" is absolutely true, but if the source material is garbage, better gear usually lets you know about it, conversely if its good, better gear usually scales better. That's why there isn't a quick, linear answer to your question, especially with a dollar value or some other monovariate thing.

 

[Triggaaar]

That's why there isn't a quick, linear answer to your question, especially with a dollar value or some other monovariate thing.

It sounds like the answer to the way I originally tried to explain my question is
a) A good setup can still make a difference even if your source is spotify
b) Using a 320k source doesn't change the point at which you're wasting your money on gear

 

[buke9]

It sounds like the answer to the way I originally tried to explain my question is
a) A good setup can still make a difference even if your source is spotify
b) Using a 320k source doesn't change the point at which you're wasting your money on gear

I think your getting it. It is not always true but most times it is. I don't listen to Spotify much as I have Tidal HiFi but even good mp3's at 320 are hard to tell the difference so I say better gear is always the way to go as you might find better sources someday and then you'll be set.

 

[obobskivich]

It sounds like the answer to the way I originally tried to explain my question is
a) A good setup can still make a difference even if your source is spotify
b) Using a 320k source doesn't change the point at which you're wasting your money on gear

Basically. You will hit a point of diminishing returns both in terms of what you personally feel is a good value (e.g. lets say hypothetically you don't find anything wrong with Sennheiser HD 555s, and while you know the HD 650 are "better" you just don't feel its worthwhile), and in terms of what's actually available (as in, you can only get so perfect or so low distortion or so [whatever]), and there's also the secondary discussion about the quality of what you're listening to - not just in terms of "oh well its 320k mp3" but also in terms of "well it was recorded like crap to begin with." A lot of modern music is very heavily compressed so dynamic range unfortunately becomes a less significant factor in playback, conversely the noise floor in modern recordings is usually a lot lower than older recordings, so elimination of noise/distortion is a more significant factor. If you're listening to old EPs or LPs or tapes, you may be listening to stuff that was recorded with huge dynamic range (I've sampled random old LPs, tapes, etc that have better than >30 dB of dynamic range - most modern music is like 2-3 dB), but the noise floor may be at like -40 dB so there's low level hiss that permeates the recording (whereas conversely modern stuff can usually get the noise floor below audible thresholds).

And remember also that what's being encoded makes a difference as well. Some content really isn't that complex, and the encoder can very efficiently reproduce it with not very much bandwidth, and some is, and accordingly requires more space for the same perceived quality (that is, no ringing, no artifacts, preservation of dynamic range, etc).