Spotify to launch 'Hi-Fi' CD Quality Tier.

[antcollinet]

I think it's here in optimum_bandwidth() in lame.c:

    const band_pass_t freq_map[] = {
        {8, 2000},
        {16, 3700},
        {24, 3900},
        {32, 5500},
        {40, 7000},
        {48, 7500},
        {56, 10000},
        {64, 11000},
        {80, 13500},
        {96, 15100},
        {112, 15600},
        {128, 17000},
        {160, 17500},
        {192, 18600},
        {224, 19400},
        {256, 19700},
        {320, 20500}
    };

This defines the start of the stop-band. Later it is rounded up to one of the 32 band-buckets that lame is using. For example for 17000:

17000 * 2 / 44100 = 0.771
23 / 31 = 0.742
24 / 31 = 0.774

therefore stop-band starts at:
24 / 31 * 44100 / 2 = 17071

and transition-band starts at:
(24 - 0.75) / 31 * 44100 / 2 = 16538

To verify:

]$ lame -b 128 test.wav test.mp3
LAME 3.100 64bits (http://lame.sf.net)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
...

I love this place.

I'm not sure there are many other places than ASR, where someone will quote C source code to answer a question that is NOT about coding.

Thanks - fantastic.

 

[pablolie]

These discussions always go down the rabbit hole of bits per second.

Let's make it clear:

(1) Start with a GREAT, FAMILIAR recording, if you are even remotely trying to make this a successful experiment.
(2) Even better if the recording has sharp percussion, ideally something like castanets. Every time someone claims they hear "fuller bass" when listening to "uncompressed" shows they don't know what they are talking about.
(3) Realize 90% of recordings do not merit anything over 256k, because they are already compromised in some way.
(4) If you are not very familiar with the original version of a great recording, you are wasting your time.
(5) If you can't enjoy great music and recordings at 320k, you are sabotaging yourself.

Spotify have said they have run experiments to see if users are more engaged with "uncompressed", and that the results were that it doesn't make a difference. And I believe them, once I measured the bandwidth and saw it was higher than usual, in fact clocking in at 20/96 or so for about 30 minutes. I didn't measure because I heard a difference, it was just a coincidence I was measuring the bandwidth consumption of different apps at the time.

With a familiar great recording like Kevin Mahogany's "Pride and Joy" I *can* accurately tell apart 256k from CD 100% of the time, 320k goes down to 80%ile except with one song, which I nail every time because I know exactly which part to pay attention to. But as a rule, I hate the exercise and I'd rather never do it, it's silly and obsessive. It's like saying that, because 350hp in a car is fun, 5000hp must be even better. The law of ridiculous overkill has not yet registered for many audio fans. Guess what else is compressed? Your very ears. Ask your dog or cat.

 

[Sal1950]

I love this place.
I'm not sure there are many other places than ASR, where someone will quote C source code to answer a question that is NOT about coding.

ROTFLMAO

 

[Jeromeof]

ROTFLMAO

I work as a Software Architect / Engineer and I remember years ago some manager wanting me to document everything we were doing on a very technical project and I told him the source code was the ultimate documentation. He was not very impressed

 

[Timcognito]

These discussions always go down the rabbit hole of bits per second.

Let's make it clear:

(1) Start with a GREAT, FAMILIAR recording, if you are even remotely trying to make this a successful experiment.
(2) Even better if the recording has sharp percussion, ideally something like castanets. Every time someone claims they hear "fuller bass" when listening to "uncompressed" shows they don't know what they are talking about.
(3) Realize 90% of recordings do not merit anything over 256k, because they are already compromised in some way.
(4) If you are not very familiar with the original version of a great recording, you are wasting your time.
(5) If you can't enjoy great music and recordings at 320k, you are sabotaging yourself.

Spotify have said they have run experiments to see if users are more engaged with "uncompressed", and that the results were that it doesn't make a difference. And I believe them, once I measured the bandwidth and saw it was higher than usual, in fact clocking in at 20/96 or so for about 30 minutes. I didn't measure because I heard a difference, it was just a coincidence I was measuring the bandwidth consumption of different apps at the time.

With a familiar great recording like Kevin Mahogany's "Pride and Joy" I *can* accurately tell apart 256k from CD 100% of the time, 320k goes down to 80%ile except with one song, which I nail every time because I know exactly which part to pay attention to. But as a rule, I hate the exercise and I'd rather never do it, it's silly and obsessive. It's like saying that, because 350hp in a car is fun, 5000hp must be even better. The law of ridiculous overkill has not yet registered for many audio fans. Guess what else is compressed? Your very ears. Ask your dog or cat.

Well put. I too can hear differences but only with single or dual instrument closely miked recordings. Best done with headphones excluding the room effects. But that kind of reinforces there are no differences except in the meticulous recording techniques and environments where dramatic differences can be found

 

[gags]

I work as a Software Architect / Engineer and I remember years ago some manager wanting me to document everything we were doing on a very technical project and I told him the source code was the ultimate documentation. He was not very impressed

Actually, it’s unit tests.

Now back to work!

 

[dkinric]

Spotify: "Guys, we are really, really close this time, no cap for realz, pinky swear"

Spotify leaks suggest lossless audio is almost ready

And possibly with a new name and device compatibility checker.

www.theverge.com

 

[Dumdum]

The Amazon Music Unlimited tier includes 16-bit 44/48 kHz (“HD”) and 24-bit 96 kHz (“Ultra HD”) for most songs.

Yes but Amazon does all manner of resampling you don’t see unless you know where to look… and the app sucks!

 

[Sal1950]

Yes but Amazon does all manner of resampling you don’t see unless you know where to look…

Evidence please ?

 

[Dumdum]

Evidence please ?

I don’t have android anymore to prove this… suffice to say those who have it can connect a topping d10 and watch the claimed sample rate and the actual on the topping d10… it upsampled everything to 384khz which is the maximum the device can supply…

actually now I’ve written it I can’t recall if it was on Apple… that I can try if I take out a free subscription on a spare email address… it was definitely with a topping d10 and 384khz

 

[Dumdum]

I don’t have android anymore to prove this… suffice to say those who have it can connect a topping d10 and watch the claimed sample rate and the actual on the topping d10… it upsampled everything to 384khz which is the maximum the device can supply…

actually now I’ve written it I can’t recall if it was on Apple… that I can try if I take out a free subscription on a spare email address… it was definitely with a topping d10 and 384khz

So I’ve just downloaded Amazon music to my iPhone, plugged in my topping d10s and sure enough every track is 192khz… which is not accurate even when Amazon is showing 44.1khz…

 

[Dumdum]

at least its correct with Christopher cross which is actually 192khz…

 

[Dumdum]

And 48khz…

 

[Dumdum]

Evidence please ?

Is that enough or would you like me to video the exact setup to prove it’s one and the same device and topping linked by a usb c av adaptor and a printer cable…

The other thing with Amazon is the app, if you add a playlist of 160 songs you then get 160 albums with 1 track in each… horrible app to use!

 

[pablolie]

I would not trust what an app shows, only way to verify the claim is with a third party tool that analyzes if it's truly legitimate CD quality or 24/192. Upsampling is easy.

PS: And if I am listening on my smartphone, 320k is more than plenty.

 

[Jimbob54]

Is that enough or would you like me to video the exact setup to prove it’s one and the same device and topping linked by a usb c av adaptor and a printer cable…

The other thing with Amazon is the app, if you add a playlist of 160 songs you then get 160 albums with 1 track in each… horrible app to use!

Looks to me more like the OS upsampling everything going out to 192.

 

[Dumdum]

Looks to me more like the OS upsampling everything going out to 192.

Except Apple Music and tidal plays everything at its defined playback rate… so no… it’s not the operating system… it’s the Amazon app and its audio layer

 

[mhardy6647]

Spotify: "Guys, we are really, really close this time, no cap for realz, pinky swear"

Spotify leaks suggest lossless audio is almost ready

And possibly with a new name and device compatibility checker.

www.theverge.com

Puts me to mind of this National Lampoon parody, from January 1972.
Cover art by the inimitable R Crumb.
Why do I remember s#!t like this?

(slightly redacted out of deference to tender sensibilities)

 

[pablolie]

Except Apple Music and tidal plays everything at its defined playback rate… so no… it’s not the operating system… it’s the Amazon app and its audio layer

Is that the Amazon Music app? Looks nothing like mine...

 

[antcollinet]

Except Apple Music and tidal plays everything at its defined playback rate… so no… it’s not the operating system… it’s the Amazon app and its audio layer

Do we really care about upsampling though (assuming it is done properly). It will be completely inaudible.


Now if they were advertising 24/96 and outputting 16/44.1 then there might be something to worry over - though it would STILL be inaudible in real world listening.