spotify quality vs "hi-fi" lossless options, i cant tell a difference.

[zaraki]

I have used spotify for years now and was wondering if going above mp3 spotify quality would make a difference, and have tested to see if i can hear a difference every now and then

I have tried apple lossless and tidal and that abx blind test online

i cannot tell a single difference, i have used lcd-2 and hd 800-s headphones with a thx 788 dac/amp and kef ls50 meta speakers with my denon x1700h avr and i cannot tell a difference on any of those options

am i along in this? i keep reading how much better the lossless hi-fi tiers are in streaming and audio in general but it all sounds the same in the abx test and compared to spotify

i even got a hearing test semi recently for a potential medical related issue ( i was fine in the end medically) and they said my hearing had no issues

 

[eddantes]

Welcome to the "save your $$ and your bits" club. We are a very happy bunch, probably because we drink more booze with the bucks we save. But - seriously - even trained golden ears have a hard time A/Bing between 320K and lossless... So... welcome to the club and be sure to post in the "what are you drinking" thread.

 

[DVDdoug]

Lossy compression can be very good. I've never done any ABX tests but I have an iPod full of MP3s ("V0") and every time I thought I was hearing a compression artifact, the CD has turned-out to have the same "defect".

I have heard some lousy sounding low-bitrate MP3s. I chose V0 because it's the "best" variable bitrate setting and it seemed good enough. I could probably get-by with more compression but I have enough storage and I don't need to squeeze-down the file size.

I probably should have made a FLAC archive but when I started ripping CDs for the iPod
I don't think I had the extra disk space. Nowadays there's usually no need for lossy compression unless you are streaming and trying to save Internet bandwidth.


I don't think that Spotify uses MP3. Some of the "newer" compression schemes are supposed to be better but it also depends on the amount of compression (bitrate) and once you can't tell the difference between the lossy copy and the original you can't say that another format is "better".

 

[unpluggged]

mp3 spotify quality

Spotify does not use MP3.

 

[FrantzM]

Spotify uses ogg-vorbis, which is also a lossy codec, but the OP experience is shared by many, I would venture to say, by most. I am in the camp of not being able to tell 320 from lossless and I repeatedly fail at 256 Kb/s too, unless it is well known pieces and even then.
You're not alone!

Spotify knows this and has been announcing a lossless tier for years ... My money is that they won't bother.

Peace.

 

[jcarys]

Were you listening to pop music or something else? Over the years I have found that the lossy encodes for most pop albums have gotten very good. However, if you move over to jazz or classical, I can very quickly tell the difference. Particularly at home in a quiet atmosphere, it's even more obvious. When I'm outside the house, either running or at the gym, I doubt I would notice anything.

 

[pablolie]

I need an excellent recording I am extremely familiar with *and* which features high pitched percussion to be able to tell a difference - but it takes such attention to detail it completely ruins the fun of listening said track. The difference -which doesn't exist ever with 99% of recorded music, imo- is not worth the bother to me.

In fact -even though I have collected some 192/24 recordings- these days I tend to listen to my Spotify playlists - and thoroughly enjoy them. And Spotify easily allows one to establish whether something is a great recording or not.

So yes, count me fully into the "320k-is-thoroughly-great club".

 

[Chrispy]

I trialed both Tidal and Qobuz but went back to Spotify myself, plus already had a good library and comfortable with user interface (far better than Tidal at the time), and the number of my devices that already had Spotify built-in was nice, too. I suspect many who claim they hear significant differences wouldn't be able to in a proper test, either.

 

[Chrispy]

Spotify uses ogg-vorbis, which is also a lossy codec, but the OP experience is shared by many, I would venture to say, by most. I am in the camp of not being able to tell 320 from lossless and I repeatedly fail at 256 Kb/s too, unless it is well known pieces and even then.
You're not alone!

Spotify knows this and has been announcing a lossless tier for years ... My money is that they won't bother.

Peace.

Depends on access method to an extent, AAC is used as well https://support.spotify.com/us/article/audio-quality/

I've come to that conclusion on Spotify going lossless, don't think most care and why spend on more bandwidth when they already have financial challenges?

 

[Timcognito]

I need an excellent recording I am extremely familiar with *and* which features high pitched percussion to be able to tell a difference - but it takes such attention to detail it completely ruins the fun of listening said track. The difference -which doesn't exist ever with 99% of recorded music, imo- is not worth the bother to me.

I agree, a good recording will trump almost anything else on reasonably good playback gear, especially with head phones. That said, some types of music on good recordings lends itself to discernible differences such as closely miked small acoustical combos or a solo voice as opposed to music that was amplified and played though a speaker.

 

[AdamG]

am i along in this?

You are not alone in this Sir. I can’t tell the difference either. However, I still maintain the higher quality subscription services like Tidal and Apple and Amazon. Therefore, I am committed to my delusion and remain firmly rooted in denial. I really need to cancel at least one of the 3.

 

[pablolie]

I agree, a good recording will trump almost anything else on reasonably good playback gear, especially with head phones. That said, some types of music on good recordings lends itself to discernible differences such as closely miked small acoustical combos or a solo voice as opposed to music that was amplified and played though a speaker.

But so barely so it does in no way impede my ability to fully enjoy the music, which is my goal when I listen to music. I do havea sizeable collection of FLAC files and continue to do so for my favorite music, but the consideration isn't SQ - it's ease of mind, it's for archival purposes, and what if Apple acquires Sportify and effs it up etc... The problem with online content is that its availability is subject to unilateral change by the provider. No online music service guarantees your fav music will stay available forever. In fact stuff disappears regularly, and several important artists do not want their content on an online service.

I buy CD-quality music from my fav artists because of that, and because I want to support them.

 

[khensu]

I was literally just discussing this with my son. He was lamenting the fact that everyone has lossless except Spotify (which is what the fam uses… I mostly listen to my Roon library). I told him the same thing. Why would they bother when most people can’t tell the difference and those who can have to be listening specifically for that purpose? I’m perfectly fine with Spotify’s sound quality when I do use it.

 

[Timcognito]

But so barely so it does in no way impedes my ability to fully enjoy the music, which is my goal when I listen to music. I do havea sizeable collection of FLAC files and continue to do so for my favorite music, but the consideration isn't SQ - it's ease of mind, it's for archival purposes, and what if Apple acquires Sportify and effs it up etc... The problem with online content is that its availability is subject to unilateral change by the provider. No online music service guarantees your fav music will stay available forever. In fact stuff disappears regularly, and several important artists do not want their content on an online service.

I buy CD-quality music from my fav artists because of that, and because I want to support them.

Yes and used CDs are a bargain unless they are extremely rare.

 

[Timcognito]

I was literally just discussing this with my son. He was lamenting the fact that everyone has lossless except Spotify (which is what the fam uses… I mostly listen to my Roon library). I told him the same thing. Why would they bother when most people can’t tell the difference and those who can have to be listening specifically for that purpose? I’m perfectly fine with Spotify’s sound quality when I do use it.

And you might add that there is a good chance his taste will change and expand over time if he truly is a music lover.

 

[Chrispy]

I was literally just discussing this with my son. He was lamenting the fact that everyone has lossless except Spotify (which is what the fam uses… I mostly listen to my Roon library). I told him the same thing. Why would they bother when most people can’t tell the difference and those who can have to be listening specifically for that purpose? I’m perfectly fine with Spotify’s sound quality when I do use it.

Did he come around or still wants lossless?

 

[khensu]

Ha! I'd be lying if I claimed his "audiophile tendencies" didn't come from me, but I think it's more the mental exercise for him... wondering why Spotify doesn't also offer lossless.

He's autistic. Very bright and infinitely curious, if that provides some context. He's also the only one of my kids that gets excited about trying out new audio gear. It warms my heart

 

[Zensō]

Your results are as expected. Numerous blind tests have shown that for nearly all people, high bitrate lossy sources (256 AAC, 320 Ogg) are indistinguishable from lossless in normal listening. Here are a couple:

Blind Test Results

The file size of an iTunes song is only a fraction of its CD counterpart because it has been compressed discarding data in the process. Is the audio quality degraded? More than a year ago I devised…

cdvsmp3.wordpress.com

High Bitrate MP3 Internet Blind Test: Part 2 - RESULTS

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

 

[pablolie]

Your results are as expected. Numerous blind tests have shown that for nearly all people, high bitrate lossy sources (256 AAC, 320 Ogg) are indistinguishable from lossless in normal listening. Here are a couple:

Blind Test Results

The file size of an iTunes song is only a fraction of its CD counterpart because it has been compressed discarding data in the process. Is the audio quality degraded? More than a year ago I devised…

cdvsmp3.wordpress.com

High Bitrate MP3 Internet Blind Test: Part 2 - RESULTS

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

To me, it is bizarre there has been so much evidence of this for so many years, and yet it still keeps being a top (losing) discussion point in audio forums.

Personally, I think anyone that adamantly claims they can hear a difference between Red Book 16/44 and 192/24 belongs in a straight jacket. :-D And while I think there can be, on occasion with a great recording etc etc, it is *possible* to hear a difference between 320k and full uncompressed 16/44... I dispute it stands in the way of anyone ever enjoying the musical performance they want to enjoy to the fullest.

 

[bodhi]

To me, it is bizarre there has been so much evidence of this for so many years, and yet it still keeps being a top (losing) discussion point in audio forums.

It seems perfectly normal human behavior. Normal people do X but us advanced people do Y. If it doesn't make sense to you then you are not advanced enough.

I have a buddy that has claimed forever how he can hear this and that because he's passionate music listener, never has he agreed to prove it. At last I understood that it's not at all relevant if the claim is true or not, it's just a way to show you belong to the club. So, now he dials things back a bit if we talk about audio and I keep my mouth shut about measurements.