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

[CDMC]

You are just hard of hearing. If you could hear well, you would be astounded by the differences between high bit rate and sample rate recording, and Spotify, as well as the massive differences to be had by swapping cables and dacs.

Crap, wrong forum, thought I was on IamanaudiophileG-d.com. Yea, I don't hear any difference either. Life is great when you just listen to the music instead of spending hours teasing out that you just heard a slight difference in the 37th snare strike of the same song you have listened to 100 times in a row.

 

[pablolie]

I guess, except the Apple Music price didn't change with lossless/high def so more of a marketing differentiator. I avoid Spotify for other reasons in any case.

When I did Tidal and Apple back in the latter's 256 AAC days I didn't have sonic issues, but did notice bass on certain music (Tricky for example) sometimes seemed better on Tidal. No blind testing by me and too many variables in play to attribute definitively to lossless (I spoke to Apple people at the time and they said yes, oddly enough, but also that they adjusted sonics to AAC then).

The vast majority of the time, when you listen to uncompressed files over the internet you are just wasting network bandwidth. But hey, these days it is cheap to do so in many places.

 

[PowerSerge]

Back in the days of CDs and MP3s being burned on CDs and Winamp was popular I remember I would burn albums on cds using winamp and there was quality settings. Like 128, 192, 256 and 320 mp3 and lossles. Well under 320 mp3 it said (CD quality). So I thought why not have all my Tool albums on one cd that way i dont have to keep taking discs out of my car to change albums. At the time I was really into car audio and had a nice active system. So one day I was listening to that Tool cd in 320 mp3 quality with a friend showing off my system and I noticed it didnt sound as good. I then tested more songs and tested some more at home comparing 320 mp3 to cd quality and I could tell a difference. However this is with the an album Ive heard many times. If I heard a song I never heard before in 320 mp3 Id never know it wasnt lossless. Since then I only have flac in my library.

I will say this, in our living room stereo my wife listens to a lot of music on youtube and I do too sometimes. Some of the songs I have in flac and the funny thing is sometimes I prefer the youtube compression. It doesnt sound like regular mp3. The youtube compression seems like it really takes of some of the very top end which I like. I think modern day compression is just better than what it used to be.

 

[Zensō]

Just for the record, Spotify Premium is 320 Ogg Vorbis on desktop and mobile, and 256 AAC on their web player, not MP3.

 

[Galliardist]

I enjoy Spotify, it has a great user interface and for general, everyday listening works fine and it is reliable. But regarding lossless, it very much depends on your listening environment. No one will ever tell the difference on headphones, but on a 100k HiFi system lossless sings. So for fun I use Spotify, for those quiet nights in I use FLAC.

Welcome to ASR.

As you may have gathered, we don’t put store by the price of a system here but performance and testing. As you may note, I’m being pulled up.

What devices do you normally use?

My setup has changed since testing. The setup I used then was a laptop PC into an Oppo 105 used as DAC, a Moon I-1 amp and Osborne Eclipse Tower speakers. I used a control script to randomly play either a ripped WAV file or from Spotify. Levels could have been better matched, but mainstream rock tracks and the like were indistinguishable.

Some Baroque tracks I could tell apart: these were ensemble recordings with harpsichord continuo. One was my standard test CD, the Jordi Savall/Consort des Nations Rameau suites: particularly, the tracks from Les Indes Galantes, where the CD layer from the SACD release has the harpsichord placed back right, it was a clear placement and instrument, but it was not clearly placed nor the same sound with Spotify Premium.

It was fine with all Tidal settings (though Normal, low res MP3 could still be picked in other ways).

I found a similar issue with various Handel oratorios once I was aware of this. Oddly, though I felt the same about some solo harpsichord recordings, the test results said no.

The script doesn’t work with my current laptop so I can’t repeat the test today, and I only have a Qobuz account now anyway.

No one will ever tell the difference on headphones, but on a 100k HiFi system lossless sings.

Doesn’t cut it here. At tbe very least we want to know the conditions and testing, if you want to claim a difference, or we will at best treat it as anecdotal and move on.

So, do you have evidence?

 

[Chrispy]

My setup has changed since testing. The setup I used then was a laptop PC into an Oppo 105 used as DAC, a Moon I-1 amp and Osborne Eclipse Tower speakers. I used a control script to randomly play either a ripped WAV file or from Spotify. Levels could have been better matched, but mainstream rock tracks and the like were indistinguishable.

More curious if you used the dedicated app on the laptop or the web player?

 

[Axo1989]

The vast majority of the time, when you listen to uncompressed files over the internet you are just wasting network bandwidth. But hey, these days it is cheap to do so in many places.

Interesting to think about how that would pan out (for me). In practice Apple ALAC (lossless) at 16/44.1 is around 3x the size of the same item in 256 AAC (lossy). CD-quality AIFF or WAV is around 10 MB/minute, ALAC is around half that or ~15 MB for a 3-minute song in theory. Head up to 24/96 and we're around 75 MB for that song (ALAC being variable bitrate so sizes depend on the original material).

YouTube (which people who aren't me often use for music consumption) at 720p is lossy of course but around 870 MB/hour (~43 MB for a 3-minute song). You can go up or down from there, their 480p will be around 1/3 of that (so maybe 13 MB for that song, which is CD-quality ALAC territory, but you get fuzzy pictures for free). Their 4K will be 2.7 GB/hour give or take (so ~135 MB for the song).

Most lossless material on Music.app is 16/44.1 but there's a fair amount at 24 bit and some of my stuff comes through at 24/96. Then there's Atmos which I'll ignore for now. If I did YT on the regular I'd generally be doing 720p and up so I'm usually ahead. I expect Spotify 320 Ogg would be similar to 256 AAC, but their regular 128 bit would be way down (if that's what they are doing) so go there if you like. There are many reasons to economise, but not so applicable in my case.

Feels free to contest my numbers if I've made an error or you have better info.

 

[Galliardist]

More curious if you used the dedicated app on the laptop or the web player?

The dedicated app. I suspect I wouldn’t have heard a difference with the web app if it used AAC 256 when I did the tests, since it wasn’t there with my own test AAC rips. I suppose I could rejoin Spotify and check, if I could be bothered, but I’d need a new test protocol as well.

I use lossless most of the time just because I’m that much of a nervous audiophile and for no other reason, to be honest.

 

[pablolie]

Back in the days of CDs and MP3s being burned on CDs and Winamp was popular I remember I would burn albums on cds using winamp and there was quality settings. Like 128, 192, 256 and 320 mp3 and lossles. Well under 320 mp3 it said (CD quality). So I thought why not have all my Tool albums on one cd that way i dont have to keep taking discs out of my car to change albums. At the time I was really into car audio and had a nice active system. So one day I was listening to that Tool cd in 320 mp3 quality with a friend showing off my system and I noticed it didnt sound as good. I then tested more songs and tested some more at home comparing 320 mp3 to cd quality and I could tell a difference. However this is with the an album Ive heard many times. If I heard a song I never heard before in 320 mp3 Id never know it wasnt lossless. Since then I only have flac in my library.

I will say this, in our living room stereo my wife listens to a lot of music on youtube and I do too sometimes. Some of the songs I have in flac and the funny thing is sometimes I prefer the youtube compression. It doesnt sound like regular mp3. The youtube compression seems like it really takes of some of the very top end which I like. I think modern day compression is just better than what it used to be.

You are not alone. In blind tests many people prefer the psychoacoustic model of 320k files. And even though I own a large library of FLACs, I tend to listen to my carefully curated playlists in Spotify very often these days.

 

[Zensō]

You are not alone. In blind tests many people prefer the psychoacoustic model of 320k files. And even though I own a large library of FLACs, I tend to listen to my carefully curated playlists in Spotify very often these days.

The participants with high end gear in Archimago’s blind test actually preferred 320 MP3 over lossless:

“For those who used equipment $6000 and above, we see a similar distribution of preference for Set A, but look at what happened to the proportion for those using less expensive equipment. It appears that those using <$500 actually showed a more balanced preference of A and B - it seems like the participants with more expensive equipment preferred the lossy tracks.”

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]

The participants with high end gear in Archimago’s blind test actually preferred 320 MP3 over lossless:

“For those who used equipment $6000 and above, we see a similar distribution of preference for Set A, but look at what happened to the proportion for those using less expensive equipment. It appears that those using <$500 actually showed a more balanced preference of A and B - it seems like the participants with more expensive equipment preferred the lossy tracks.”

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

Indeed. Also - online libraries somehow do a better job at level marching stuff without me having to try to bother with loudness levels across my library.

 

[Gringoaudio1]

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.

Yes I have a friend like this. Arguing with him about his subjective audio woo woo beliefs
is not a hill for our friendship to die on.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

I have done several tests. I can't tell any difference even with headphones between 320 kbps MP3 vs. lossless nor OGG/Vorbis vs. lossless.

I've trialed Tidal and found the app abysmal compared to Spotify. At the same time I didn't hear a difference. Tidal DOES however have a louder lowest volume than Spotify. I'm sure that can't be a coincidence as we tend to rate louder music higher..

ALso Tidal volume can't be controlled from the phone when the app is in the background or the screen is off. Spotify can.

 

[Axo1989]

The participants with high end gear in Archimago’s blind test actually preferred 320 MP3 over lossless:

“For those who used equipment $6000 and above, we see a similar distribution of preference for Set A, but look at what happened to the proportion for those using less expensive equipment. It appears that those using <$500 actually showed a more balanced preference of A and B - it seems like the participants with more expensive equipment preferred the lossy tracks.”

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

I'm surprised Archi wrote that so sloppily. The (n=27) > $6K group had a stronger preference toward the lossy track set. But none of the groups Archi graphed preferred the lossless tracks. The (n=60) < $500 group had a weaker preference, but still preferred the lossy tracks. We'd assume that group were more likely to be using headphones, and headphone users (n=85) had a weaker preference for the lossy tracks (compared to either > $6K or < $500 groupings) so you'd need to control for that when drawing conclusions about system value vs lossy/lossless preference. I'm sure the "audiophools prefer lossy" narrative has a certain appeal though.

 

[Stu23]

My CD collection all went into storage a few years back. My FLAC rips of them remain untroubled on a hard drive somewhere. I listen to nothing but Spotify at 320mbps. It's been the least of my audio worries for a few years. Every once in a while I listen to something at CD or higher res to make sure I'm not missing out on something. I'm not.

I think I may have finally overcome all the system worries too...

 

[danadam]

YouTube (which people who aren't me often use for music consumption) at 720p is lossy of course but around 870 MB/hour (~43 MB for a 3-minute song). You can go up or down from there, their 480p will be around 1/3 of that (so maybe 13 MB for that song, which is CD-quality ALAC territory, but you get fuzzy pictures for free). Their 4K will be 2.7 GB/hour give or take (so ~135 MB for the song).

youtube will usually send the same audio stream, Opus @ 120-160 kbps, regardless of video quality. At least on non-Safari browsers.

 

[Axo1989]

youtube will usually send the same audio stream, Opus @ 120-160 kbps, regardless of video quality. At least on non-Safari browsers.

Interesting, I recall reading that their HD resolutions had better audio tracks, but that may be entirely wrong, I've never checked.

The gist of my post was comparing extra bandwidth for high-res audio from the usual sources to the common practice of watching music on YT (not comparing sound quality or audio bitrate sans video for YT) contra the contention that streaming hi-rez audio was greedy in that way.

 

[Astrozombie]

I stopped subscribing as I couldn't tell the difference either. I do when I play CD but I kind of wonder if that's just like a dynamic range thing or the sound appears to be louder......

 

[FrantzM]

My CD collection all went into storage a few years back. My FLAC rips of them remain untroubled on a hard drive somewhere. I listen to nothing but Spotify at 320mbps. It's been the least of my audio worries for a few years. Every once in a while I listen to something at CD or higher res to make sure I'm not missing out on something. I'm not.

I think I may have finally overcome all the system worries too...

+1
Me too.
What he says…
Etc…


Peace.

 

[KaeliKoo]

It hasn't been mentioned so I will - I really like nugs.net, it's a great streaming service with unique content. And like Tidal &
Qobuz, the annual plan saves a lot. i.e. Qobuz has several times when the gift card is 30% off and then buy the 1 yr card for $100