Does lossless really matter?

[abdo123]

I have been using Tidal (Hi-Fi and Master quality) for almost half a year.

Recently i started using Free Spotify (160 kbps) and it’s surprisingly very good sounding.

There is this soothing sensation behind the imperfections you hear, kind of like of listening to Vinyl.

I feel like the sound with lossless is very technical and can quickly fatigue you.

What are you your experiences?

 

[andreasmaaan]

At 160kbps, there may be subtle audible differences, and these could be perceived as pleasant I guess.

The best way to test it would be to take a lossless file and compress it yourself at 160kbps (ideally you’d find out which algorithm Spotify uses and use that too). Then, you could use Foobar’s ABX comparator to find out whether you can reliably discern a difference.

The thing I’m more curious about, though, is how you can put up with the ads

 

[M00ndancer]

Ninjad by @andreasmaaan

 

[abdo123]

At 160kbps, there may be subtle audible differences, and these could be perceived as pleasant I guess.

The best way to test it would be to take a lossless file and compress it yourself at 160kbps (ideally you’d find out which algorithm Spotify uses and use that too). Then, you could use Foobar’s ABX comparator to find out whether you can reliably discern a difference.

The thing I’m more curious about, though, is how you can put up with the ads

My bank canceled my credit card for no apparent reason, so my Tidal subscription ended. Youtube sounded 'meh' so i gave my old Spotify a try.

Is the 320 kbps premium option scientifically indifferent than lossless?

 

[andreasmaaan]

My bank canceled my credit card for no apparent reason, so my Tidal subscription ended. Youtube sounded 'meh' so i gave my old Spotify a try.

Is the 320 kbps premium option scientifically indifferent than lossless?

It is possible for some people to discern 320Kbps mp3 from lossless under some circumstances. But most can’t, and for those who can, it’s not easy...

Personally I’m happy with 320Kbps and I therefore use Spotify (premium). Considered switching to Tidal but doubt I’d be capable of hearing differences, and can’t be bothered resaving all my collections and playlists etc.

 

[M00ndancer]

Youtube sounded 'meh' so i gave my old Spotify a try

That because of the following reasons, from a earlier post from me:

YouTube Music is a tricky one:
Music video: Opus (251) <=160kbps VBR
Music only: AAC 48/128kbps and 256kbps only for subscribers.

So unless you are a subscriber you wont get the full quality.

 

[M00ndancer]

Personally I’m happy with 320Kbps and I therefore use Spotify (premium). Considered switching to Tidal but doubt I’d be capable of hearing differences, and can’t be bothered resaving all my collections and playlists etc.

Similar here but in my use case YouTube Premium family. (YT w/o ads, YTM AAC 256kbps)

 

[pjug]

A big part of it for me is that lossless is also gapless. However, I understand that Spotify does a pretty good job with gapless. Can Spotify users confirm whether Spotify's gapless is as good as with lossless?

 

[abdo123]

A big part of it for me is that lossless is also gapless. However, I understand that Spotify does a pretty good job with gapless. Can Spotify users confirm whether Spotify's gapless is as good as with lossless?

Gapless has nothing to do with codecs or formats. And yes Spotify can do gapless perfectly.

 

[abdo123]

Similar here but in my use case YouTube Premium family. (YT w/o ads, YTM AAC 256kbps)

256kbps AAC is also iTunes quality right? But i guess Apple’s encoder is better.

 

[JohnYang1997]

I've used Tidal, Google play music, Spotify all the same period. And Spotify stayed.

 

[andreasmaaan]

256kbps AAC is also iTunes quality right? But i guess Apple’s encoder is better.

According to Spotify, they also use AAC encoding.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I've used Tidal, Google play music, Spotify all the same period. And Spotify stayed.

Because of the UI, the catalogue, or for some other reason?

 

[Chrispy]

While I prefer the idea of lossless, and mostly stream such of my own library or play discs that I can't rip easily, I also use Spotify premium and have no issues with it (unless I went looking for one I suppose). I'd trialled both Tidal and Qobuz, but stuck with Spotify mostly due ease of use over a variety of devices, but not any particular audio quality differences. I've also used free Pandora which I do find to have a noticeable difference in quality, but not by a lot, and at normal volumes not remarkable; the suggestions made by Pandora have been very good and it also is easy to use across a variety of devices.

 

[abdo123]

According to Spotify, they also use AAC encoding.

I think they use variable bit rate with vorbis.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I think they use variable bit rate with vorbis.

Not according to their own website that I just linked

 

[abdo123]

Not according to their own website that I just linked

That’s the web player, not the app.

 

[JohnYang1997]

Because of the UI, the catalogue, or for some other reason?

It has most of the music I need. Cheaper than Tidal. UI is good, both on PC and Android. I like the playlists. Connection is usually very fast. Overall just very well rounded.
It doesn't mean it's perfect, the PC client is not very stable and updates a lot. Some specific albums are still not on Spotify.

 

[andreasmaaan]

That’s the web player, not the app.

Ah, weirdly presented data. I had interpreted it differently. But you're right

 

[andreasmaaan]

It has most of the music I need. Cheaper than Tidal. UI is good, both on PC and Android. I like the playlists. Connection is usually very fast. Overall just very well rounded.
It doesn't mean it's perfect, the PC client is not very stable and updates a lot. Some specific albums are still not on Spotify.

I feel the same. Almost dropped it a few years back when the updates just seemed absolutely relentless. But that's settled a bit now. And agree with all your other points.