• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

The Loudness Wars has invaded the streaming services.

mSpot

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2018
Messages
404
Likes
519
All MQA I've came across barely make it to 2000kbps. I have no idea where there getting that fucking 9216kbps figure from.
They are including the 2X to 8X (lossy) expansion from MQA unfold/upsample.
 

dmac6419

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 16, 2019
Messages
1,246
Likes
770
Location
USofA
I found more tidal bullshit.
View attachment 113506
I'll talk about each one

Standard: Techinally there not wrong but they don't tell you that there's files going under 320kbps. AAC is better than MP3 thats a plus I guess.
View attachment 113509

Lossless: The "1411kbps" is the standard of wav not flac, I don't know whos behind this marketing. Techinally there is fake flacs running around on Tidal as we seen before.

Master: I believe Tidal is starting be ashamed of having MQA, they don't even say it anymore. Techinally its a lossy codec and its literally being broken up. All MQA I've came across barely make it to 2000kbps. I have no idea where there getting that fucking 9216kbps figure from.

There is one thing they didn't talk about on there home page: Dolby Atmos.
Tidal using DD+ for Dolby Atmos, I wouldn't mind that if the mixes were good, there not. They felt like cheezy 5.1 upscales (like my alan jackson dvd). They barely used my Height speakers. Techinally DA (packing into a DD+) stream should be possible with chromecasting but its not and I don't know why. With my receiver its only gets the hifi version. Luckily I can get the direct files so I'm not worried. The problem is that you can't send a Dolby Atmos (any kind) over HDMI using Tidal (on pc) and thats stupid. Tidal does not plan to add that feature, so you have to go and out and buy a firestick, firecube or apple tv. The whole Dolby Atmos music thing reminds me of DTS 5.1 CDs and MP3Surround. Its pretty much a gimmick at this point. The movie side of DA is amazing. If you want a true DA experience you gotta watch the John Wick movies.
Than pay for Qobuz, or something else,stop F ing complaining, there's no gun to your head now is there.
 

Atanasi

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
713
Likes
792
They are including the 2X to 8X (lossy) expansion from MQA unfold/upsample.
The next question is why they don't count the lossy expansion of AAC into CD-quality PCM similarly.
 
OP
ThatM1key

ThatM1key

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 27, 2020
Messages
1,048
Likes
882
Location
USA
Than pay for Qobuz, or something else,stop F ing complaining, there's no gun to your head now is there.
I would get Qobuz but as you see, both platforms having terrible DR versions of music I like.
 

L5730

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
667
Likes
434
Location
East of England
Streaming platforms will have internal loudness scanning and user side options to auto level the music on playback ala ReplayGain.
What they won't do is to go all the way through all versions and masterings of material and source the very best, or commission special premium remasters (think MFSL, Audio Fidelity) for their platform.

By and large you are going to get the latest remaster or the typical one just before it.

HDDs are cheap. Most pre-owned CDs are cheap. A Raspberry Pi based NAS shouldn't be too expensive to build. Make your own streaming platform at home.
 

dmac6419

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 16, 2019
Messages
1,246
Likes
770
Location
USofA
Streaming platforms will have internal loudness scanning and user side options to auto level the music on playback ala ReplayGain.
What they won't do is to go all the way through all versions and masterings of material and source the very best, or commission special premium remasters (think MFSL, Audio Fidelity) for their platform.

By and large you are going to get the latest remaster or the typical one just before it.

HDDs are cheap. Most pre-owned CDs are cheap. A Raspberry Pi based NAS shouldn't be too expensive to build. Make your own streaming platform at home.
That's what I did and I use Jriver Media Center to stream my music no matter where in the world I'm at.
 

earlevel

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
545
Likes
776
Another session coming up—for the Dynamic Range Day Award (best album):

 

Taketheflame

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2020
Messages
31
Likes
33
The thing with streaming is that you're at the mercy of whichever masters the record labels send to the streaming services.

Sometimes it's the original master (more likely from a less popular release/something never reissued in my experience), but there are also some crappy loudness war style remasters too, which seems to be more common with titles that have been re-released many times over the years.

Not all remasters are bad of course. But sometimes the only way around a bad loudness-war master is to get ahold of an original issue CD (or FLAC rip of it). Of course, all bets are off if it's something that never had a good mastering job in the first place.
 

Hg201

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
8
Likes
39
ime with Spotify you have the choice between masters of famous titles at least
Can you explain where and how to find and choose this information in Spotify?
Perhaps you could give an example of a track or album?
 
OP
ThatM1key

ThatM1key

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 27, 2020
Messages
1,048
Likes
882
Location
USA
Michal Jackson - Billie Jean has 6 versions on SPotify for example. from 6 albums
Like the poison album just because there's different versions doesn't mean there different. There the same files just copied and pasted. If the song is featured in a different album, its mostly likely a different version of that song.
 

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
4,208
Likes
2,673
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
Like the poison album just because there's different versions doesn't mean there different. There the same files just copied and pasted. If the song is featured in a different album, its mostly likely a different version of that song.

they are diferent. the song apeared on various "greatest hits" albuns after the original album. some are even called "remaster". take one of those remaster version and compare only the first seconds to the Thriller album version. they are very obviously diferent
 

jsrtheta

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
936
Likes
991
Location
Colorado
I don't use any streaming service for a few reasons, but primarily because I believe artists should be paid. For that reason, I buy new music from the artists themselves.

An English friend of mine, whose music is on Spotify, has to sell about 10,000 downloads to realize ten quid.

As in just about every other artistic endeavor, the modus operandi remains screw the creator. Well, screw that.
 
OP
ThatM1key

ThatM1key

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 27, 2020
Messages
1,048
Likes
882
Location
USA
I don't use any streaming service for a few reasons, but primarily because I believe artists should be paid. For that reason, I buy new music from the artists themselves.

An English friend of mine, whose music is on Spotify, has to sell about 10,000 downloads to realize ten quid.

As in just about every other artistic endeavor, the modus operandi remains screw the creator. Well, screw that.

Some artists let youtube (and other platform free platforms) have the full song and then artists bitch about money and piracy. Then these music companies get mad at people for recording/downloading these songs that were basically given away for free. If the artist only has there music on bandicamp and paid-for streaming services, then sure they can complain about there earning rates.
 

jsrtheta

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
936
Likes
991
Location
Colorado
Some artists let youtube (and other platform free platforms) have the full song and then artists bitch about money and piracy. Then these music companies get mad at people for recording/downloading these songs that were basically given away for free. If the artist only has there music on bandicamp and paid-for streaming services, then sure they can complain about there earning rates.

He doesn't provide his stuff for free. And his spotify numbers are what other artists have claimed as well. It's a ripoff, IMHO.

Would you want to average about $45.00 per quarter for your annual salary?
 

Taketheflame

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2020
Messages
31
Likes
33
He doesn't provide his stuff for free. And his spotify numbers are what other artists have claimed as well. It's a ripoff, IMHO.

Would you want to average about $45.00 per quarter for your annual salary?
This is one big reason (aside from liking having physical media) I don't rely solely on streaming for music. The vast majority of what I stream is stuff I already own a physical version of, and a lot of the time I use streaming to discover new music - and I'll buy a physical copy of new discoveries that I enjoy enough to want it. I figure it's two revenue streams for the artist that way...

Yes, I realize I'm probably an exception to the rule these days, but the economics of streaming stink for artists. I might even go as far to argue that it's not sustainable for the long haul - even if the counterargument from others might be that music just isn't "worth" what it used to be to most people (aka - the low payouts from streaming are simply "what the market will bear").
 

jsrtheta

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
936
Likes
991
Location
Colorado
This is one big reason (aside from liking having physical media) I don't rely solely on streaming for music. The vast majority of what I stream is stuff I already own a physical version of, and a lot of the time I use streaming to discover new music - and I'll buy a physical copy of new discoveries that I enjoy enough to want it. I figure it's two revenue streams for the artist that way...

Yes, I realize I'm probably an exception to the rule these days, but the economics of streaming stink for artists. I might even go as far to argue that it's not sustainable for the long haul - even if the counterargument from others might be that music just isn't "worth" what it used to be to most people (aka - the low payouts from streaming are simply "what the market will bear").

Yeah, except the market belongs to the streamers. It used to be an artist toured to promote their new CD or LP, because they made the real money off the disc. Now the artist tours to pay the rent. Selling the music via streaming brings in nothing.

Hard to build a career when you have to have at least one "second" job to survive. This is not a sustainable business plan. At all.
 

firedog

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
378
Likes
642
I say this again (for the n'th time on all forums) a true audiophile streaming service would curate the good masters for us to enjoy .
But that entails manual work and research which costs money .
Do any streaming actually covering their costs these days ? at all ?
They are contractually prevented from doing this in many cases. They don't have eternal rights to stream a specific version of an album.
The labels/distributors can simply switch the version or time limit/limit number of steams for the rights. Then it's stream the version we want you to, or don't stream it at all.
 
Top Bottom