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

[Sigberg Audio]

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.

I thought the average compression of FLAC was around 900kbps, but my knowledge may be outdated.

 

[goat76]

But as I've said before, I'd way rather have them give me the possibility to pay more where all that money goes directly to the artist instead of some random lossless that no one actually needs.

What you could do instead if you want to support the bands you love is to buy from them directly on Bandcamp from time to time, that way I it's a larger possibility that they will make more money, especially the small independent bands and the ones on “friendly” small record companies.

I sometimes buy music on Bandcamp from my favorite bands, even if they are available on Tidal.

 

[voodooless]

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

By the same logic, everything in your house is low bandwidth, because undersea fiber cables carry up to 400 Tbps.

 

[PristineSound]

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.

Your logic doesn't make sense.

 

[PristineSound]

By the same logic, everything in your house is low bandwidth, because undersea fiber cables carry up to 400 Tbps.

This logic is even worse.

 

[PristineSound]

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

I resent your tone of voice, please be civil.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

Your logic doesn't make sense.

Care to elaborate, or be a bit more specific with regards to which parts you are commenting? I wasn't aware the post had much logic to speak of, it's more like a list of facts.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

I resent your tone of voice, please be civil.

I'm trying my best.

 

[PristineSound]

Care to elaborate, or be a bit more specific with regards to which parts you are commenting? I wasn't aware the post had much logic to speak of, it's more like a list of facts.

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

With today's available lossless compression: It depends on the passage and how dense the information is, if the passage has low information density, it can be 500kbps. And in some extreme cases with very very sparse information density, it can be 300-400kbps or even 100-200kbps. But for a typical musical passage, it's anywhere from 500kbps to 1000kbps.

But the point is, for most music, anything below 500kbps cannot be achieved without being lossy. (EDIT: This assumes typical music tracks recorded on 16bit 44.1kHz)

It sounds a bit like your perceived definition of lossy is "sounds worse than the original",

As I have stated multiple times, it is audible. You can argue how important that is, if it makes a difference in listening sessions, etc., like many other here have. That is not the scientific point that I am making, I am simply making a scientific point that it is audible, whether you like it or not. Plain and simple.

Just like if I were to say that gravity on Earth changes slightly depending on the altitude, you can argue the importance of it in practical terms, but again, whether you like this scientific fact or not, doesn't change the scientific fact that gravity indeed changes slightly depending on altitude.

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.

You misunderstood. Name me one lossless compression that can achieve below 500kbps for typical musical passage. As explained above, it doesn't exist. Hence, if there is anything below this, it's lossy.

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.

It does, as explained above. Name me one lossless compression that can achieve below 500kbps for typical musical passage.

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.

As explained above.

 

[voodooless]

As I have stated multiple times, it is audible. You can argue how important that is, if it makes a difference in listening sessions, etc., like many other here have. That is not the scientific point that I am making, I am simply making a scientific point that it is audible, whether you like it or not. Plain and simple.

Stating it doesn't make it true. Saying that your statement is scientific also doesn't make it so. You've given zero evidence that all lossy codecs are audibly non-transparent.

 

[PristineSound]

Stating it doesn't make it true. Saying that your statement is scientific also doesn't make it so. You've given zero evidence that all lossy codecs are audibly non-transparent.

I supposed you missed the memo too. Post #857. And no, don't ask what timestamp to watch, this video requires a watch in it's entirety. And if you don't want to watch it, then don't keep trying to argue with me. If you do decide to watch it and you still want to argue, don't argue with me, go argue with Amir.

 

[voodooless]

I supposed you missed the memo too. Post #857. And no, don't ask what timestamp to watch, this video requires a watch in it's entirety. And if you don't want to watch it, then don't keep trying to argue with me. If you do decide to watch it and you still want to argue, don't argue with me, go argue with Amir.

He never said anything about all lossy codecs being audibly non-transparent…

 

[PristineSound]

He never said anything about all lossy codecs being audibly non-transparent…

My reply to your statement has already been stated multiple times, please see one instance of the many of my replies:

As I have stated multiple times, it is audible. You can argue how important that is, if it makes a difference in listening sessions, etc., like many other here have. That is not the scientific point that I am making, I am simply making a scientific point that it is audible, whether you like it or not. Plain and simple.

Just like if I were to say that gravity on Earth changes slightly depending on the altitude, you can argue the importance of it in practical terms, but again, whether you like this scientific fact or not, doesn't change the scientific fact that gravity indeed changes slightly depending on altitude.

 

[voodooless]

My reply to your statement has already been stated multiple times, please see one instance of the many of my replies:

That comparison is total nonsense. We have proof that gravity isn’t the same everywhere. We don’t have proof that all lossy codecs are not audible transparent, nor does the video say that this is the case.

The importance is not a point that we’re having a dispute over.

 

[PristineSound]

That comparison is total nonsense. We have proof that gravity isn’t the same everywhere. We don’t have proof that all lossy codecs are not audible transparent, nor does the video say that this is the case.

Can you screenshot for me what I said about audible transparency?

 

[Multicore]

I've never met anyone with similar taste. Especially since Spotify has broadened my taste considerably.

I would appreciate a webinar or some such tutorial. I switched to using Spotify 6 months to a year ago from Amazon Music. I like the way it works with various control and streaming devices. That works great. But showing me music I don't know but like, I can't find it. Dunno where to look. Where is it? Show me, please!

 

[masterhw]

I would appreciate a webinar or some such tutorial. I switched to using Spotify 6 months to a year ago from Amazon Music. I like the way it works with various control and streaming devices. That works great. But showing me music I don't know but like, I can't find it. Dunno where to look. Where is it? Show me, please!

The "Mixes" which can be found from the home page or search bar are decent, and typically have something like 80% songs you know or have saved and 20% new but similar.

Also from Artist pages there are sections toward the bottom for playlists featuring, and "discovered on" which contain yet more playlists containing artists you like.
The AI "DJ" and auto-play (which I typically leave disabled) are the only non-playlist based ways I know Spotify also curates for you. I found auto-play too Payola-like though, but your tastes may differ.

 

[Tell]

What you could do instead if you want to support the bands you love is to buy from them directly on Bandcamp from time to time, that way I it's a larger possibility that they will make more money, especially the small independent bands and the ones on “friendly” small record companies.

I sometimes buy music on Bandcamp from my favorite bands, even if they are available on Tidal.

Yeah that's a good point! Do require a bit more effort though, so I'd still prefer having Spotify hand out cash automagically to those I listen to

 

[voodooless]

Can you screenshot for me what I said about audible transparency?

As I have stated multiple times, it is audible.

It can’t be more clear I would think…

 

[napfkuchen]

Also from Artist pages there are sections toward the bottom for playlists featuring, and "discovered on" which contain yet more playlists containing artists you like.
The AI "DJ" and auto-play (which I typically leave disabled) are the only non-playlist based ways I know Spotify also curates for you. I found auto-play too Payola-like though, but your tastes may differ.

I've tried almost all available streaming services, and Spotify appeals to me the most in terms of usability (on PC and Android) and music recommendations. My account includes more than 5,000 favorite songs and numerous artists I "follow". I regularly receive recommendations from friends with similar musical tastes, songs that Spotify recommended to me much earlier, for example, via release radar.

The era of "golden ears" is over for me. Spotify's sound quality is sufficient; there's no reason to search for something better with hair-splitting arguments. Just sit back and enjoy the music.