I'm not a big fan of Hi-res streaming services.

[ThatM1key]

To start off I'm glad that we have services that offer music that's higher quality than MP3-based services. I always wondered where these hi-res services get there music from. The doubtfulness of the sources kind of ruins it for me.

Questions that run through my mind:

• Did these songs come from a quality remastered CD/Source or did it come from a $5 Walmart CD?
• Who mastered/remastered these songs?
• Is these songs affected by the "Loudness Wars"?
• Why is there even karaoke versions of songs?
• If there are multiple albums that contain the same song, do they use 1 source or have different versions?

 

[Jarrett]

I've never used a streaming service, but that's the main thing that turns me off to them: 9 out of 10 times the original disc mastering is the best.

 

[Mnyb]

I don’t think any kind of streaming service checks the provenance of thier files it’s up to the labels to upload to the service and they pick what they see fit . So there is no ripping CD’s ( I hope ).

Audiophiles are impressed by big numbers more bits and more everything and that’s what’s usually sold.

The actual recording and mastering quality transcends the transport media I rather have the MP3 version of the good master than a glorious 24/192 hd tracks version from a compromised loudness war remaster.
Heck I’ll take the cassette in some cases

What I would consider a true audiophile streaming service would have curated content which selects some kind of ultimate version of the recordings and if that streams in 16/44.1 I’ll be happy.
How to do this in practice with a song count up in the millions like streaming services must have is not something I have considered possible?

 

[ThatM1key]

I don’t think any kind of streaming service checks the provenance of thier files it’s up to the labels to upload to the service and they pick what they see fit . So there is no ripping CD’s ( I hope ).

Audiophiles are impressed by big numbers more bits and more everything and that’s what’s usually sold.

The actual recording and mastering quality transcends the transport media I rather have the MP3 version of the good master than a glorious 24/192 hd tracks version from a compromised loudness war remaster.
Heck I’ll take the cassette in some cases

What I would consider a true audiophile streaming service would have curated content which selects some kind of ultimate version of the recordings and if that streams in 16/44.1 I’ll be happy.
How to do this in practice with a song count up in the millions like streaming services must have is not something I have considered possible?

One thing I forgot to mention is that Amazon is pretty guilty of Upscaling music from 16bit/44k to 24bit/48k. I do have to admit it is really neat seeing a dac decoding big numbers like 192k and 384k but I know most actual songs don't even go over 35k unless its super sonic noise or what not.

 

[Fluffy]

Did these songs come from a quality remastered CD/Source or did it come from a $5 Walmart CD?

That I can't answer for sure, but my estimate is that labels are sending over digital files to be stored on the services servers. There is no need to involve physical media like CDs in this process.

Who mastered/remastered these songs?

Information about remasters of albums is available at music database sites like Discgocs. If you have to know, you can do the research for yourself.

Is these songs affected by the "Loudness Wars"?

I hate that term, and there is not one right answer to that question. If you want to know what's the dynamic range of an album, you can look it up at DR database. Waste of time, as far as I'm concerned.

Why is there even karaoke versions of songs?

For people who want to sing karaoke…?

If there are multiple albums that contain the same song, do they use 1 source or have different versions?

If they are exactly the same, then it may be a duplicate. If they're different, they may be remasters or remixes of the original. Every case is different.

 

[koro]

If the original file/cd is affected by “Loudness Wars” the file on the streaming platform will be affected too, the compression/lack of dynamic range originates in the mixing and mastering process, not in the streaming service. Most of them offer normalisation of the tracks, but it’s up to you to activate it or not, and has nothing to do with the origins of LWs

I recommend you watch this

 

[Jimbob54]

That I can't answer for sure, but my estimate is that labels are sending over digital files to be stored on the services servers. There is no need to involve physical media like CDs in this process.

Information about remasters of albums is available at music database sites like Discgocs. If you have to know, you can do the research for yourself.

I hate that term, and there is not one right answer to that question. If you want to know what's the dynamic range of an album, you can look it up at DR database. Waste of time, as far as I'm concerned.

For people who want to sing karaoke…?

If they are exactly the same, then it may be a duplicate. If they're different, they may be remasters or remixes of the original. Every case is different.

I believe amazon and the big storage companies use big data trucks to move data around. Quicker and more reliable than online transmission in those kind of volumes. I assume the major labels /distribution companies will have used similar to get to wherever the streaming servers are.

Like you say, will be the record companies that choose the versions to send, not the streaming companies. They may not be too fussy about which remaster etc of legacy recordings.

 

[KozmoNaut]

What I would consider a true audiophile streaming service would have curated content which selects some kind of ultimate version of the recordings and if that streams in 16/44.1 I’ll be happy.
How to do this in practice with a song count up in the millions like streaming services must have is not something I have considered possible?

I have that by curating my own collection of mostly FLAC files, and by using a cloud storage provider with streaming capability (I use pCloud, but Google Drive also works with the right plugins).

It takes a little bit more effort, but I control the provenance of everything. And my tagging is so much better.

 

[pjug]

One thing I forgot to mention is that Amazon is pretty guilty of Upscaling music from 16bit/44k to 24bit/48k. I do have to admit it is really neat seeing a dac decoding big numbers like 192k and 384k but I know most actual songs don't even go over 35k unless its super sonic noise or what not.

Where are you seeing that they are guilty of doing this?

 

[Thomas savage]

Dynamically compressed ' hi rez' oh thanks so much lol

 

[ThatM1key]

Where are you seeing that they are guilty of doing this?

Amazon Music HD

 

[pjug]

Amazon Music HD

So you are finding them yourself? Can you show some examples with the evidence of the upsampling from 16/44?

 

[sejarzo]

When I listen to a 16/44.1 cut on Tidal and compare the playback volume to a FLAC ripped from the same CD in Foobar, 9/10 times the playback in Tidal is obviously louder. I just checked and reconfirmed that volume normalization is off in my Tidal settings.

I know that my Foobar chain has no attenuation as I have played a 0 dBFS 1 kHz test tone and a DMM always shows 2.0 Vrms, +/- a few hundredths of a volt at the output of the DAC.

 

[Mnyb]

When I listen to a 16/44.1 cut on Tidal and compare the playback volume to a FLAC ripped from the same CD in Foobar, 9/10 times the playback in Tidal is obviously louder. I just checked and reconfirmed that volume normalization is off in my Tidal settings.

I know that my Foobar chain has no attenuation as I have played a 0 dBFS 1 kHz test tone and a DMM always shows 2.0 Vrms, +/- a few hundredths of a volt at the output of the DAC.

What could be the source of that ? Have you tried some music on a really obscure small label , I suppose the big names are up to any kind shenanigans when providing files for streaming services .
Or can it be tidal themself processing stuff to sound “better” ?

 

[maverickronin]

When I listen to a 16/44.1 cut on Tidal and compare the playback volume to a FLAC ripped from the same CD in Foobar, 9/10 times the playback in Tidal is obviously louder. I just checked and reconfirmed that volume normalization is off in my Tidal settings.

I know that my Foobar chain has no attenuation as I have played a 0 dBFS 1 kHz test tone and a DMM always shows 2.0 Vrms, +/- a few hundredths of a volt at the output of the DAC.

What could be the source of that ? Have you tried some music on a really obscure small label , I suppose the big names are up to any kind shenanigans when providing files for streaming services .
Or can it be tidal themself processing stuff to sound “better” ?

I've noticed similar weird things on Pandora. Their version of a track almost always seems to have more dynamic range than my CD rips.

IDK if they have different masters, have a perfect DR expanding DSP, or are just using some other kind of effect I'm not perceiving/describing properly...

 

[majingotan]

I've noticed similar weird things on Pandora. Their version of a track almost always seems to have more dynamic range than my CD rips.

I just find that the volume normalization with Pandora is a lot lower than Spotify, Qobuz, Tidal and Apple Music. However, when the track calls for complex passages, Pandora doesn't have the range to go loud without plateauing on the loudness while the rest of the streaming services can sound very loud without feeling that the sound is lacking drive.

 

[andreasmaaan]

• Did these songs come from a quality remastered CD/Source or did it come from a $5 Walmart CD?
• ...
• If there are multiple albums that contain the same song, do they use 1 source or have different versions?

Generally, it depends on each album/EP/compilation in which the song appears. Each release may (or may not) be mastered differently. The same is true of other formats (CD, vinyl, downloads) too though, of course.

FWIW, a $5 Walmart compilation CD may well be more likely to contain the original master of a song than a box set or other later release with frills, since it costs less to do not remaster than to remaster.

Is these songs affected by the "Loudness Wars"?

As above, i.e. it depends on the particular release.

Who mastered/remastered these songs?

For most releases, discogs contains reasonably accurate info about the engineers and other personnel.

Why is there even karaoke versions of songs?

You'd have to ask the labels who decided to release them

 

[andreasmaaan]

P.S. the bigger concern IMHO is actually watermarking (which FYI may also be present in high-res downloads).

 

[majingotan]

P.S. the bigger concern IMHO is actually watermarking (which FYI may also be present in high-res downloads).

Don't you mean MQA? I've ripped MQA CD's and the ripped files have MQA watermark on it which gets activated by MQA decoder from my DAP.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Don't you mean MQA? I've ripped MQA CD's and the ripped files have MQA watermark on it which gets activated by MQA decoder from my DAP.

I think we seem to be talking about two different things. This is the watermarking I'm referring to.