Spotify to launch 'Hi-Fi' CD Quality Tier.

[PristineSound]

Lossy, yes, Low bit rate, no. If you choose high quality it's 320kbs

Most music, anything less than 500kbps is lossy for 16bit, 44.1kHz or higher. As such, while no hard limit, but anything less than 500kbps would arguably be considered low bit rate.

I’m not sure, but they do have staff, who seem to do a pretty good job of curating interesting music.

Have you used their recommendation engine, it's virtually non existent. But if you like it, by all means.

 

[Ste_S]

A big point (for me) is that Spotify has a good native Linux client and Spotify Connect works well with almost everything. I do like the music discovery feature on Spotify and Youtube Music. I have found a lot of new groups I like from both. I've liked / added enough on both to let their algorithms know what I like.

As a recent convert to Linux, it's annoying that Spotify is the only streaming service with a native client. But then, it's giving me the incentive to look at trying to stream my own local files.

 

[PristineSound]

Most music, anything less than 500kbps is lossy for 16bit, 44.1kHz or higher. As such, while no hard limit, but anything less than 500kbps would arguably be considered low bit rate.

Admittingly, some distinguish anything higher as lossless.

 

[obsessive9119]

Most music, anything less than 500kbps is lossy. As such, while no hard limit, but anything less than 500kbps would arguably be considered low bit rate.

What does that even mean? 320 (or 500kbps) mp3/vorbis is by definition lossy - they’re lossy compression schemes.

What is considered “low bit rate” depends entirely on the compression scheme.

Have you used their recommendation engine, it's virtually non existent. But if you like it, by all means.

As I mentioned earlier, I dislike algorithmic recommendations and find new music through people with similar tastes.

 

[PristineSound]

What does that even mean? 320 (or 500kbps) mo3/vorbis is by definition lossy - they’re compression schemes.

What is considered “low bit rate” depends entirely on the compression scheme.

Compression doesn't have to be lossy. I.e. FLAC

To-date, there are no lossless compression that can achieve below 500kbps for a typical musical passage.

As such some would categorize anything lossy as low bit rate. But I regularly see the category "lossless" used to describe bit rate of anything that is not lossy. And then categorize lossy 320 kbps as high bit rate. Which I personally disagree with.

As I mentioned earlier, I dislike algorithmic recommendations and find new music through people with similar tastes.

Just because you don't like it, it doesn't magically make Qobuz primitive recommendation engine good when compared to other services.

 

[obsessive9119]

Compression doesn't have to be lossy. I.e. FLAC

Yes, I missed the word “lossy” in my reply initially. I fixed but you must have quoted beforehand.

As such some would categorize anything lossy as low bit rate.

Those people do not know what they’re talking about.

But I regularly see the category "lossless" used to describe bit rate of anything that is not lossy.

Um, yes - lossless means not lossy. Like, by definition.

And then categorize lossy 320 kbps as high bit rate. Which I personally disagree with.

Why? High and low are relative terms. For lossy audio compression like mp3, 320 is high.

Just because you don't like it, it doesn't magically make Qobuz primitive recommendation good when compared to other services.

I literally have never said Qobuz has a good recommendation engine. I said it doesn’t matter to me.

 

[masterhw]

As such some would categorize anything lossy as low bit rate.

I don't regularly see that, I think the most common convention is low bitrate is anything below transparent, and high bitrate is anything past transparent. 320kbps is solidly high bitrate lossy. Obviously this is still lower bitrate than lossless, but that is not the bar for lossy.

 

[PristineSound]

Why? High and low are relative terms. For lossy audio compression like mp3, 320 is high.

Not when you have regularly 1gbps fiber optic to your house broadband.

I literally have never said Qobuz has a good recommendation engine.

You are correct.

 

[PristineSound]

I don't regularly see that, I think the most common convention is low bitrate is anything below transparent, and high bitrate is anything past transparent.

You might be right on this.

 

[obsessive9119]

Not when you have regularly 1gbps fiber optic to your house broadband.

Strangely, that doesn’t not have any effect on compression schemes.

 

[PristineSound]

Strangely, that doesn’t not have any effect on compression schemes.

No, my point is just that with the broadband speed today, 320kpbs isn't considered high at all.

I can stream high def movies on 4 device at once in my house with overly abundant of bandwidth to spare.

 

[masterhw]

No, my point is just that with the broadband speed today, 320kpbs isn't considered high at all.

I can stream high def movies on 4 device at once in my house with overly abundant of bandwidth to spare.

I agree with you but this is far into other fields like engineering and products, not science. The science is unflinching that 256kbps on a modern codec is all anyone who isn't a trained listener allowed ideal test conditions would ever need. Everything afterward is a different realm that isn't science. Its still relevant to gaining some sense of satisfaction from your audio, but you're not going to win the fight against the science.

 

[PristineSound]

I agree with you but this is far into other fields like engineering and products, not science. The science is unflinching that 256kbps on a modern codec is all anyone who isn't a trained listener allowed ideal test conditions would ever need

I completely agree, although, I don't know what that limit is, but I do know that limit is low.

Everything afterward is a different realm that isn't science. Its still relevant to gaining some sense of satisfaction from your audio, but you're not going to win the fight against the science.

It's still science, but it's irrelevant science in all practical sense.

 

[Chrispy]

You can easily hear the difference with good headphones or studio monitors.

So should be easy to demonstrate that claim....

 

[Chrispy]

Currently Spotify is lossy, yes? Lossy is lossy, you lose information, period, end of story, case close.

There is an audible difference between high res vs CD quality, let alone CD quality vs lossy format.

Anyway, I stated my point and provided the evidence, should one choose not to evaluate the evidence, I cannot help with that. My last comment on this topic.

What evidence?

 

[PristineSound]

What evidence?

Use the search feature on this thread.

 

[Chrispy]

Use the search feature on this thread.

I've read the thread. I haven't seen but your claims....as well as equating mp3 and other codecs let alone particular bitrates. When you did compare, how did you do the blind/level matching thing?

 

[sigbergaudio]

No, my point is just that with the broadband speed today, 320kpbs isn't considered high at all.

I can stream high def movies on 4 device at once in my house with overly abundant of bandwidth to spare.

Comparing the bitrate of a lossy codec vs the bandwidth to your house doesn't make any sense.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Compression doesn't have to be lossy. I.e. FLAC

To-date, there are no lossless compression that can achieve below 500kbps for a typical musical passage.

As such some would categorize anything lossy as low bit rate. But I regularly see the category "lossless" used to describe bit rate of anything that is not lossy. And then categorize lossy 320 kbps as high bit rate. Which I personally disagree with.

To my knowledge there are no lossless compression that can achieve below 900kbps for a typical musical passage.

It sounds a bit like your perceived definition of lossy is "sounds worse than the original", while what it actually means is that data has been permanently removed from the uncompressed source. It's a binary definition of the type of compression being used. Is data lost (lossy) or not (lossless) when reconstructed. It is not connected to bitrate. Either it's lossless or it isn't, irrespective of the bitrate.

So to talk about high or low bitrate for a lossy format, does not related to the bitrate of a lossless format. It's comparing apples to pears.

A lossy format can have a low bitrate (meaningful amount of data is lost in such a way that it is audible or high bitrate (we can't discern it from the lossless source).

A lossless format can either be uncompressed, then the bitrate is what it is. Or it can be compressed, then we get 20-50% compression depending on the music, and bitrate varies throughout the track.

 

[Palladium]

To my knowledge there are no lossless compression that can achieve below 900kbps for a typical musical passage.

Nah its pretty easy to compress below 900kbps on FLAC if the track doesn't contain much >10KHz energy.

Still a moot point anyway since >200kbps on AAC/Vorbis is completely transparent for anything. Modern lossy codecs are so much better than ancient MP3 and latter on LAME is already borderline transparent on 192kbps VBR.