spotify quality vs "hi-fi" lossless options, i cant tell a difference.

[MikeyinUk]

I enjoy Spotify, it has a great user interface and for general, everyday listening works fine and it is reliable. But regarding lossless, it very much depends on your listening environment. No one will ever tell the difference on headphones, but on a 100k HiFi system lossless sings. So for fun I use Spotify, for those quiet nights in I use FLAC.

 

[unpluggged]

but on a 100k HiFi system lossless sings

Wrong forum.

 

[Zapper]

Me too. I've done other ABX tests. Hi-def vs CD. WAV vs Bluetooth SBC vs Bluetooth APT-X. It all sounds the same to me. Which is great! The promise of digital music reproduction is realized across a range of low cost and extremely convenient media. So I can save money on the electronics and music services and spend it on speakers, where I still CAN hear differences.

 

[Philipp]

but on a 100k HiFi system lossless sings

Great opening with dark sarcasm instead of a boring „hello my name is Mike and I accidently spend a way to big amount of money on my HiFi system…“ … it is sarcasm right? … please let it be sarcasm!

On topic: I think I can hear a difference, sometimes, but I can‘t tell a difference, but I keep on trying. There are some threads where a methodical way to hear a difference is described, so you could train for it I guess, but do you have to?

 

[fatoldgit]

Maybe I am "special" but I can hear a difference when streaming the Qobuz CD quality tier (dont see the need for hi-res)... noting all my other "stuff" is CD rips, so no lossy files.

Occasionally I will hit a Qobuz album that just doesnt sound right so I will record a sample, break out SPEK and in every case (numbering around 30 now) its a munted MP3 album that sneaked in the back door.

Never bothered to test myself in a CD v OGG v MP3 bake off... even if I couldnt hear a difference it wouldnt compel me to rerip my FLAC file as OGG/MP3 nor make me move from Qobuz to Spotty.

Peter

 

[markanini]

Don't visit this site I you want to get good at recognizing lossy artifacts: https://web.archive.org/web/20111005054145/http://ff123.net/training/training.html

 

[kemmler3D]

A lot of smart people worked hard (and did many listening tests) to get lossy audio to be as good as it is. It is perceptually indistinguishable from lossless almost every time.

I think the only track I know of that I'd put forth as one that challenges lossy algorithms is this:

The main synth lead uses a unipolar waveform, i.e. the wave only goes up, not down. Since this is highly unusual, extremely unnatural, and has a very high bandwidth, I think it screws up certain lossy algorithms. I'd wager a few bucks I could tell 256 MP3 from lossless on this one. Not a lot of bucks. YMMV.

 

[kemmler3D]

No one will ever tell the difference on headphones, but on a 100k HiFi system lossless sings.

I seriously doubt that something you can't pick out on $1K+ headphones can be picked out in-room on any neutral speaker system. Maybe if you've got the treble boosted so high your ears start to bleed, dunno.

 

[eddantes]

I enjoy Spotify, it has a great user interface and for general, everyday listening works fine and it is reliable. But regarding lossless, it very much depends on your listening environment. No one will ever tell the difference on headphones, but on a 100k HiFi system lossless sings. So for fun I use Spotify, for those quiet nights in I use FLAC.

 

[markanini]

IDK about 100k, Koss KSC 75 clip on headphones have a hi-passed bass and hyperfocus on the treble range. It may be considered cheating, because lossy algorithms assume a balanced playback system in a sense. But that's the stock response of a real product that's extra revealing of lossy artifacts, for $25.

 

[kysa]

You are not alone in this Sir. I can’t tell the difference either. However, I still maintain the higher quality subscription services like Tidal and Apple and Amazon. Therefore, I am committed to my delusion and remain firmly rooted in denial. I really need to cancel at least one of the 3.

Exactly! I failed 256 kbps+ LAME and 320 kbps mp3 ABX tests miserably, but just knowing i listen to a lossy version of a song makes me feel bad and less satisfied. There’s just no way around it

 

[dasdoing]

lossless streaming is just a new cash-cow. 20 years ago it would have made sense...

 

[NiagaraPete]

I'm not surprised, though I have no experience with Spotify.

I was given a Apple Music account prior to Apple going lossless. I typically listened to it 9 hours a day in my store. I always thought it was fatiguing. When Apple went to lossless I've never had the same feeling. Its probably my imagination.

 

[Galliardist]

Depends on access method to an extent, AAC is used as well https://support.spotify.com/us/article/audio-quality/

I've come to that conclusion on Spotify going lossless, don't think most care and why spend on more bandwidth when they already have financial challenges?

That’s interesting. I’ve found odd recordings where I can tell the difference with Spotify Premium. The villain, as so often, is the harpsichord. Given that doesn’t happen with other services for me, I’ll have to check the web player for it.

 

[markanini]

This one should be fairly easy to ABX.

 

[Chrispy]

That’s interesting. I’ve found odd recordings where I can tell the difference with Spotify Premium. The villain, as so often, is the harpsichord. Given that doesn’t happen with other services for me, I’ll have to check the web player for it.

What devices do you normally use?

 

[Cbdb2]

A lot of smart people worked hard (and did many listening tests) to get lossy audio to be as good as it is. It is perceptually indistinguishable from lossless almost every time.

I think the only track I know of that I'd put forth as one that challenges lossy algorithms is this:

The main synth lead uses a unipolar waveform, i.e. the wave only goes up, not down. Since this is highly unusual, extremely unnatural, and has a very high bandwidth, I think it screws up certain lossy algorithms. I'd wager a few bucks I could tell 256 MP3 from lossless on this one. Not a lot of bucks. YMMV.

Unipolar? According to https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Sound_Synthesis_Theory/Modulation_Synthesis
its just DC added to the waveform. Do you mean something else? Sounds like a square wave.

 

[Steven Holt]

My advice to the OP would be to go with the least expensive streaming service that has the most music that you like, and don't pay any attention to this 'lossy/lossless' nonsense, and to avoid MQA at all costs. To me, most of this stuff is simply marketing. But if you insist on the highest possible quality, that's fine. Just buy the CD.

 

[kemmler3D]

Unipolar? According to https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Sound_Synthesis_Theory/Modulation_Synthesis
its just DC added to the waveform. Do you mean something else? Sounds like a square wave.

I looked at the waveform once and it looks like they rectified a basic saw wave. So maybe unipolar isn't the right terminology here, I don't know, but in picture-book terms, the sawteeth of the saw only point up, not up and down like normal.

 

[Axo1989]

lossless streaming is just a new cash-cow. 20 years ago it would have made sense...

I guess, except the Apple Music price didn't change with lossless/high def so more of a marketing differentiator. I avoid Spotify for other reasons in any case.

When I did Tidal and Apple back in the latter's 256 AAC days I didn't have sonic issues, but did notice bass on certain music (Tricky for example) sometimes seemed better on Tidal. No blind testing by me and too many variables in play to attribute definitively to lossless (I spoke to Apple people at the time and they said yes, oddly enough, but also that they adjusted sonics to AAC then).