Amazon launches lossless high-res music service!

[AudioSceptic]

When terms are redefined/expanded/modified to fit social/marketing constructs they just spread confusion and ignorance. Redefining the terms like byte, nibble, lick, bit and sample rate have signficant rammifications. I thought this was a science forum ? You did mention the key word though, "CON".

This. Once you start redefining terms you are on a slippery slope and before you know it, nothing has any meaning.

 

[g29]

Compact Disc is capable of providing a closer to real life experience of music/audio than "HD" video can for images. So I for one don't have a problem with them calling CD-quality "high definition." If DVD was "standard definition," then low to medium bitrate MP3 is standard definition for music. Just because we've had essentially "high definition" audio available for decades doesn't make it crap.

But that is NOT how the terms HD and HR Audio are defined. MP3s are mutilated SD Audio that marketing has convinced its uninformed audience to think otherwise.

 

[audimus]

I think they are clever in their naming to capture the average music listener who associates those terms with TV resolution.

One man’s scam is another man’s clever.

I think this is just to differentiate from the much more common MP3 streaming so far without putting it down as it is still a big part of their service. Just calling it CD quality while technically correct wouldn’t have worked since MP3s have been marketed as just as good as CD, the technical differences wouldn’t be grasped or appreciated by most.

My cheering for this is the Ultra HD part which should lead to more high res mastering and distribution by music producers through other channels than compressing the heck out of the dynamic range to feed mp3s into ear buds as the primary goal.

This is the day CDs officially died.

 

[AudioSceptic]

The technical bit

• Spotify: MP3, 320kbps
• Apple Music: AAC, 256kbps
• Amazon HD: FLAC, 16 bit, 44.1kHz
• Amazon Ultra HD: FLAC, 24 bit, 192kHz

MP3 and AAC are still 16 bit x 44.1 kHz, just at a lower (lossy) bit-rate. Most listeners have difficulty telling those from CD or FLAC when the bit-rate is 192 k or above.

 

[Soniclife]

Just calling it CD quality while technically correct wouldn’t have worked since MP3s have been marketed as just as good as CD, the technical differences wouldn’t be grasped or appreciated by most.

Yep, the existing lies make this lie required, it's a mess.
But given no one can hear the difference between CD and higher it's all sort of irrelevant. It means something with video, but arguably CD delivered the equivalent of 8k from day one.

 

[GrimSurfer]

First it was vinyl. Then CDs came along and were said to be better. Then mp3s. When that myth was dispelled (except for 320 Kbps and higher bit rate mp3s), we were offered streaming. Now it's native 16/44 and 24/192 lossless streaming.

Just as a drug merchant knows how to cut a kilo of smack, the music industry masterfully sells the same product over and over by repackaging it. What the industry hated was having to expend effort in repackaging, which is less of a bother in the digital era.

I can certainly appreciate somebody subscribing to a streaming service for convenience and broader musical access. The reasons for doing so for the purposes of audible fidelity ended some time ago.

 

[Matias]

Streaming is the current big trend.

1990s: "The future is digital!" CD sales booms. Not very practical though.
2000s: "The future is the internet!" Download sales boom. Too troublesome though. Pirate downloads work the same, so overall revenue goes down.
2010s: "The future is streaming!" Streaming sales boom.

https://chartmasters.org/2019/03/streams-shot-the-us-music-industry-to-nearly-10-billion/

 

[AudioSceptic]

But that is NOT how the terms HD and HR Audio are defined. MP3s are mutilated SD Audio that marketing has convinced its uninformed audience to think otherwise.

MP3 and MP4 audio (AAC) might be "mutilated" but most listeners can't tell them from CD/FLAC when the bit-rate is high enough, and that is surprisingly low.

 

[g29]

Many rears ago I made a significant move to work on a new project which included a 16/44 music service. Being into audio, I was excited for the opportunity, but unfortunately my excitement was short lived once the marketing department discovered one could stuff 50 lbs of tripe into a 5 lbs silk sack. Even though the platform that was built could easily handle the 16/44, the resulting audio streams sounded like elevator music due to marketing decisions of quantity over quality.

 

[Deleted member 4987]

As much as I love Neil Young, sometimes you just want to put him against a wall and shoot him.

 

[REK2575]

Compact Disc is capable of providing a closer to real life experience of music/audio than "HD" video can for images. So I for one don't have a problem with them calling CD-quality "high definition." If DVD was "standard definition," then low to medium bitrate MP3 is standard definition for music. Just because we've had essentially "high definition" audio available for decades doesn't make it crap.

Agree. Whether one wants to call it 'high def' or not, CD-quality streaming is a Good Thing. Thus, the main news with Amazon "HD" for me is:

1. Huge library available to stream in CD-quality or better, something that neither Spotify nor Apple Music offer
2. Cheaper than either Tidal or Qobuz, while also avoiding MQA

 

[AudioSceptic]

Yep, the existing lies make this lie required, it's a mess.
But given no one can hear the difference between CD and higher it's all sort of irrelevant. It means something with video, but arguably CD delivered the equivalent of 8k from day one.

Yes, the real problem is that the CD format is rarely properly exploited so we'll get hi-res audio in huge files just to give us the quality that CD can give us already.

 

[Soniclife]

Yes, the real problem is that the CD format is rarely properly exploited so we'll get hi-res audio in huge files just to give us the quality that CD can give us already.

You're are optimist. Is there any evidence hd gives more dynamic range in reality?

 

[audimus]

The irony of this whole thing is that, regardless of whether people can differentiate between HD/CD quality and Ultra HD audio, most equipment with consumers right now won’t be able to do anything better in reproduction than what they can do with 16 bits/48khz. So, whether they can tell the difference is moot. It will be a lifestyle decision to have the greatest.

Not the same in video between HD and UHD (perhaps the same situation between 4k and 8k in the future).

 

[Soniclife]

I can certainly appreciate somebody subscribing to a streaming service for convenience and broader musical access. The reasons for doing so for the purposes of audible fidelity ended some time ago.

What's wrong with the fidelity of streaming?

 

[AudioSceptic]

You're are optimist. Is there any evidence hd gives more dynamic range in reality?

I'm saying that CD can already give us all the DR we need. No one needs hi-res except audio engineers.

 

[maty]

Today, Mark Waldrep wrote:

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6637

 

[AudioSceptic]

The irony of this whole thing is that, regardless of whether people can differentiate between HD/CD quality and Ultra HD audio, most equipment with consumers right now won’t be able to do anything better in reproduction than what they can do with 16 bits/48khz. So, whether they can tell the difference is moot. It will be a lifestyle decision to have the greatest.

Not the same in video between HD and UHD (perhaps the same situation between 4k and 8k in the future).

As we know from ASR, lots of "audiophile" gear can't even achieve CD quality...

 

[Thomas savage]

I'm waiting for a vinyl streaming service, real gains only for these golden ears.

 

[audimus]

I'm waiting for a vinyl streaming service, real gains only for these golden ears.

Simulated pops and clicks included in an optional overlay channel in the stream for those who like a more realistic retro listening experience