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

[Multicore]

Ok. Thanks. I'll see how I get on with that.

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.

Similar? Recently I put on Ginastera, J.G. Thirlwell, J. S. Bach, James Blood Ulmer, Pain Killer, Glass Beams, Ligeti, K. K. Null, Thelonious Monk, The Ronettes, ..., my own choices. I'm unsure you want to make a playlist or mix like that. I guess you'd have to pick one or two and then go similar from those.

 

[RickS]

The discourse on this thread has taken a bad turn and am getting complaints. It is taking a break while I sort it out.

 

[RickS]

I think I see where things went awry here and will take some time to clean it up. So hoping the break has allowed some cool down and have issued some advice. Will re-open for now and please be respectful. Thanks!

 

[obsessive9119]

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.

This is what I do. I use Qobuz as a way to browse and explore. Anything I really like, I buy - on Bandcamp if I can, otherwise on Qobuz.

99.5% of what’s in my flac collection is also on Qobuz steaming, but I like knowing that I’ll have the music that matters to me even if I stop paying the subscription (or the service enshittifies).

 

[obsessive9119]

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.

This seems like a needlessly complex and incomplete way to define lossiness. There is a precise technical definition - why not use it rather than a heuristic based on bitrate?

 

[beagleman]

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.

I have wasted countless hours doing A/B comparisons, even with the help of my teen daughter switching between HDMI input ONE and TWO, corresponding to the CD version and Spotify version on music I verified for sure is the same exact title and masterings.

My conclusion, if there is some "tiny" difference in sound, good or bad, I can not for sure hear it, nor can my teen. And I really tried to, after reading all the bashing about streaming audio.

As usual, seems something very overblown and exaggerated, as most arguments in audio tend towards.

Excuse me for not reading ALL the multiple pages here first.

 

[ThatM1key]

I have wasted countless hours doing A/B comparisons, even with the help of my teen daughter switching between HDMI input ONE and TWO, corresponding to the CD version and Spotify version on music I verified for sure is the same exact title and masterings.

My conclusion, if there is some "tiny" difference in sound, good or bad, I can not for sure hear it, nor can my teen. And I really tried to, after reading all the bashing about streaming audio.

As usual, seems something very overblown and exaggerated, as most arguments in audio tend towards.

Excuse me for not reading ALL the multiple pages here first.

From my setup and probably my young age, I think lossless is better. The treble response is better and everything is spaced out a bit better because of that extra detail. In my Spotify settings I did turn off "Normalize Volume". Most people tell me to leave it on but why should lossless audio have the volume normalized?

I think it's worth it for ~1970s music to now. Some 1960's music sounds good with lossless but most you'll probably won't notice.

I like it for my phone also because instead of doing a lossy (320kbps OGG) to lossy conversation (Bluetooth AAC), it's now a ;ossless to lossy conversation, so it sounds better in my car. I could get a cheap LDAC adapter off of amazon but I don't trust the DAC on those and ADC on my headunit. I would lose steering wheel controls when in AUX mode. Streaming lossless does eat up data but mobile plans are so cheap nowadays and come with so much data.

I would say if you want a mind blowing lossless comparison, I would try 1980's music. Most of it has been untouched by the loudness wars.

 

[obsessive9119]

From my setup and probably my young age, I think lossless is better. The treble response is better and everything is spaced out a bit better because of that extra detail. In my Spotify settings I did turn off "Normalize Volume". Most people tell me to leave it on but why should lossless audio have the volume normalized?

I think it's worth it for ~1970s music to now. Some 1960's music sounds good with lossless but most you'll probably won't notice.

I like it for my phone also because instead of doing a lossy (320kbps OGG) to lossy conversation (Bluetooth AAC), it's now a ;ossless to lossy conversation, so it sounds better in my car. I could get a cheap LDAC adapter off of amazon but I don't trust the DAC on those and ADC on my headunit. I would lose steering wheel controls when in AUX mode. Streaming lossless does eat up data but mobile plans are so cheap nowadays and come with so much data.

I would say if you want a mind blowing lossless comparison, I would try 1980's music. Most of it has been untouched by the loudness wars.

I’d do an ABX between 320kbs and lossless before I lost any sleep over this. I did years back, and could barely pick between 192kbs and lossless. At 320 I had no chance.

I still use flac for all my music, because why not, but there’s no audible difference.

 

[beagleman]

From my setup and probably my young age, I think lossless is better. The treble response is better and everything is spaced out a bit better because of that extra detail. In my Spotify settings I did turn off "Normalize Volume". Most people tell me to leave it on but why should lossless audio have the volume normalized?

I think it's worth it for ~1970s music to now. Some 1960's music sounds good with lossless but most you'll probably won't notice.

I like it for my phone also because instead of doing a lossy (320kbps OGG) to lossy conversation (Bluetooth AAC), it's now a ;ossless to lossy conversation, so it sounds better in my car. I could get a cheap LDAC adapter off of amazon but I don't trust the DAC on those and ADC on my headunit. I would lose steering wheel controls when in AUX mode. Streaming lossless does eat up data but mobile plans are so cheap nowadays and come with so much data.

I would say if you want a mind blowing lossless comparison, I would try 1980's music. Most of it has been untouched by the loudness wars.

Just curious, you say you "Think" lossless is better? What are you actually comparing?

Treble response is "Better", meaning what exactly.??

Not doubting you, but I and my teen daughter who is quite into music and audio, spend countless hours, and both literally struggled to hear ANY differences.
I am referring to Spotify (256 AAC) on a good sound system compared to Standard Redbook CD.

I have also compared Spotify "Lossless" against their own 256AAC, and again was never sure which was which.

 

[beagleman]

I’d do an ABX between 320kbs and lossless before I lost and sleep over this. I did years back, and could barely pick between 192kbs and lossless. At 320 I had no chance.

I still use flac for all my music, because why not, but there’s no audible difference.

Kinda where I am also!

Even my Teen Daughter, with super great hearing still, can discern no difference. I elected her, assuming my older ears were limiting me in some way, but alas, even after demonstrating to her what to listen for, she says it sounds identical in all ways.

She is actually a violinist and on classical with violins, again no difference!
We kept thinking maybe we are not using the right music or just not sure what would be different, but...........
I keep wondering "What" people are hearing that makes them say lossless is audibly better.....??

 

[SonnySide]

Even when your tablet is in the kitchen!

He didn’t hear it at first but his wife detected it immediately. From the kitchen of course!

 

[Joe Smith]

I don't really hear any difference, but I was glad to see Spotify finally come through with their "promise" from 2021. Back then, I did some A/B listening comparing tracks between Spotify and Tidal/Qobuz and thought I could perceive some slight differences using headphones, but that was definitely unscientific/unmeasured.

 

[DVDdoug]

My conclusion, if there is some "tiny" difference in sound, good or bad, I can not for sure hear it,

This is why there are blind ABX tests If you can identify "X" 10 out of 10 times (or even 9 out of 10 times) you can be pretty sure you ARE hearing a difference. If you only "guess right" half of the time, you can't reliably hear any difference.

From my setup and probably my young age, I think lossless is better.

Well it is lossless so digitally it's perfect. Lossless audio CAN sound perfect but the digital data is obviously altered so it MIGHT not sound the same.

Most people tell me to leave it on but why should lossless audio have the volume normalized?

Normalized audio is still "lossless" but it's not "bit perfect" since the volume is lowered digitally. It's not "harmful" and it's no different than any other digital volume adjustment.

 

[pablolie]

Some discussions never die.. it is very well documented.

You have to be both trained and need to pick the right tracks to reliably hear differences between 320k and lossless.

And it is a silly exercise to sacrifice one's valuable time on those experiments, the music remains thoroughly enjoyable in either case.

 

[obsessive9119]

Some discussions never die.. it is very well documented.

You have to be both trained and need to pick the right tracks to reliably hear differences between 320k and lossless.

And it is a silly exercise to sacrifice one's valuable time on those experiments, the music remains thoroughly enjoyable in either case.

Disagree - doing the experiment yourself is useful and good practice for how to think about audio scientifically. ABX-ing mp3 compression was one of the first things I did that made me start to question all of the woo in audio.

 

[Sal1950]

Some discussions never die.. it is very well documented.
You have to be both trained and need to pick the right tracks to reliably hear differences between 320k and lossless.

That pretty much says it all, lossless has been a blessing in the streaming apps. Depending on music type/style, compression codec used, the listeners hearing&training, more, the lossless streams can definitely be heard, sometimes.
The only way to go beyond this is to add multich to your life and some streamers have added Atmos and Multich, now there's a difference you really can hear. I'm currently hoping and lobbying for them to change from the Dolby Digital + lossy system they now use to a lossless Dolby TrueHD codec. The demand for Atmos is catching and spreading thru the streamer services, here's hoping the demand for lossless Atmos will spread like it did in 2ch.

 

[ThatM1key]

Just curious, you say you "Think" lossless is better? What are you actually comparing?

I'm in my early 20s, It's fairly easy to tell the difference.

Treble response is "Better", meaning what exactly.??

Not doubting you, but I and my teen daughter who is quite into music and audio, spend countless hours, and both literally struggled to hear ANY differences.
I am referring to Spotify (256 AAC) on a good sound system compared to Standard Redbook CD.

I have also compared Spotify "Lossless" against their own 256AAC, and again was never sure which was which.

Lossy algorithms trim the fat of treble anything above about 16khz because of human hearing. So with lossless, the treble is better since nothing is cut. OGG has come a long way and I think its a good replacement for MP3. I would say OGG is enough for most people, its got a good algorithm that I wish was supported more on devices.

I think cymbals is probably the easiest to tell between lossy and lossless.

On my setup, it was fairy easy to spot, it really depends on your setup. I would say 1950's doesn't benefit much from lossless but 1980's music does. If you can't tell the difference, so be it. I enjoy lossy audio in my car and I think it's fine.

 

[obsessive9119]

I'm in my early 20s, It's fairly easy to tell the difference.

Try an ABX test (there are some online, or I believe a foobar plugin) and see if it’s still so obvious.

 

[Mr. Swordfish]

You have to be both trained and need to pick the right tracks to reliably hear differences between 320k and lossless.

Years ago (early to mid 90s) when bit rate reduced audio was becoming a thing I went to a number of training sessions to teach broadcast engineers to hear the anomalies that come with lossy audio. All the usual anomalies we used to deal with in the analog (hum, buzz, RFI, frequency response errors, harmonic distortion, etc.) went away with ISDN and similar digital technologies, but other anomalies arose that we never encountered before in the analog world. So, I learned to hear the problems with 128k and lower lossy audio. Once you learn what to look for, it becomes apparent, sort of like knowing how a magic trick is done. MPEG layer 2 sounded better than layer 3 at 128k, but layer 3 did a better job at lower rates, hence it's market dominance.

Anyway, I'd recommend that folks not learn to listen for these anomalies. You will be happier.

Now, some 30 years later, storage and bandwidth is sufficiently cheap and available that I don't see a good reason to use lossy compression, but I can't say I can hear the difference between 256k lossy and flac/wave. YMMV,

 

[Mr. Swordfish]

One more thing: I don't think there is much to be gained by higher sampling rates or more bits per sample for consumer audio.

24bit 96k audio is great for the recording process since it leaves more room for error - there were times when I really wish I had a 17th bit - but I'm skeptical that it's going to make an audible difference in the final product.