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

[pablolie]

.. So with lossless, the treble is better since nothing is cut....

Lossy 320k does 20.5kHz easily, not sure why anyone thinks it cuts off high frequencies, it simply is an uniformed myth, sorry. If you're looking only for high frequencies to tell lossy and lossless apart, you are looking for the wrong thing.
It's not the zzss, it's the clean tss-tzzzs, so to say. Transients, not highs. Pick tracks with castanets, not piccolo flutes.

 

[Mr. Swordfish]

Lossy 320k does 20.5kHz easily, not sure why anyone thinks it cuts off high frequencies, it simply is an uniformed myth, sorry. If you're looking only for high frequencies to tell lossy and lossless apart, you are looking for the wrong thing.
It's not the zzss, it's the tss-tzzzs, so to say. Transients, not highs.

Yes. The over simplified version is that lossy algorithms trade off timing/phase for flat frequency response. So transients get smeared in time while retaining their spectral balance. Sometimes called the "castanet effect" where a single impulse turns into multiple tightly spaced impulses. I notice this at low bitrates but don't notice it at higher ones.

 

[pablolie]

Yes. The over simplified version is that lossy algorithms trade off timing/phase for flat frequency response. So transients get smeared in time while retaining their spectral balance. Sometimes called the "castanet effect" where a single impulse turns into multiple tightly spaced impulses. I notice this at low bitrates but don't notice it at higher ones.

At 320k LAME or OGG I get it right 75% of the time with a very specific track, but you'd have to pay me to try again... extremely unrewarding exercise.

 

[Sal1950]

At 320k LAME or OGG I get it right 75% of the time with a very specific track, but you'd have to pay me to try again... extremely unrewarding exercise.

You and me should try to a trip to Los Vegas.

 

[Leporello]

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

We do not know if you actually can tell the difference. Now, I am sure you think you can.

 

[antcollinet]

We do not know if you actually can tell the difference. Now, I am sure you think you can.

The "fairly easy" is actually a tell that perceptive bias is in play. Real differences are *very* hard to detect if at all. Biases cause "night and day" differences.

Forgive me @ThatM1key if you have verified this with well controlled double blind ABX testing. It would be most convincing if you were to post your results from one of the available online tests such as:

ABX Lossless vs Lame MP3 test list

A set of browser-based ABX tests to compare Lame MP3 encoded and lossless music samples

abx.digitalfeed.net

Is your audio system really ready for lossless?

Do an ABX test in your browser, and see if you can tell the difference between lossless and 128kbps Opus audio

abx.digitalfeed.net

Is your audio system really ready for lossless?

Do an ABX test in your browser, and see if you can tell the difference between lossless and Spotify-compression quality audio

abx.digitalfeed.net

 

[beagleman]

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



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.

But you are forgetting my teen daughter had NO ability to tell it apart. And I mean on some demanding classical and violins and cymbals.

I spent a lot of time with some fantastic headphones, a daughter and myself with very demanding classical music, not pop/rock only, and STILL neither of us could determine which was which with any certainty.

Are you saying you are able to hear this FAIRLY EASY, but most of us are completely/barely unable to based on ???

 

[beagleman]

We do not know if you actually can tell the difference. Now, I am sure you think you can.

I used to belong to the S.H. Forums, a somewhat well known mastering engineer, or was well known years ago.

Many posters would argue about "Hi Res" audio the same way. And it always came down to

1. My hearing is just better

2. I know what to listen for

3. My system is just more "resolving"

 

[beagleman]

The "fairly easy" is actually a tell that perceptive bias is in play. Real differences are *very* hard to detect if at all. Biases cause "night and day" differences.

Great post. I have to agree, if something was fairly easy to hear, one could conclude that most people could easily hear the difference AND the person claiming it was "Fairly easy", could easily pass an ABX test and
easily demonstrate this.


I prefer to remain towards modest and unsure claims, as there "may" be some possible audible differences, but thinking they are quite hard to discern, and maybe only on specific tracks or things one learns to notice, not typical listening.

My gold standard is: Can I walk into a room and simply tell when I hear the music?

 

[pinger]

And even if you could hear a difference who is to say one is better than the other or the difference is so subtle as to be essentially meaningless

 

[ThatM1key]

Everybody is so against me haha.

You guys are correct that 320k MP3 does have data above 16K. I guess I was thinking of 128K.

Are you saying you are able to hear this FAIRLY EASY, but most of us are completely/barely unable to based on ???

I wouldn't say it fairly easy but in a good setting, I can. I just think OGG is good enough to have an enjoyable experience. Since I got a good setup why wouldn't I use lossless audio?

I can't tell the difference between "Hi-res" and CD quality. I think CD quality is enough (The peak for me.)

The jump from 320K MP3 to CD is like 1080p to 1440p. While CD to Hi-Res is like 1440p to 4K.

The "fairly easy" is actually a tell that perceptive bias is in play. Real differences are *very* hard to detect if at all. Biases cause "night and day" differences.

Forgive me @ThatM1key if you have verified this with well controlled double blind ABX testing. It would be most convincing if you were to post your results from one of the available online tests such as:

ABX Lossless vs Lame MP3 test list

A set of browser-based ABX tests to compare Lame MP3 encoded and lossless music samples

abx.digitalfeed.net

Is your audio system really ready for lossless?

Do an ABX test in your browser, and see if you can tell the difference between lossless and 128kbps Opus audio

abx.digitalfeed.net

Is your audio system really ready for lossless?

Do an ABX test in your browser, and see if you can tell the difference between lossless and Spotify-compression quality audio

abx.digitalfeed.net

I've done AB testing before , I'll be honest it's hard to tell the difference between OGG 320k to 500k & lossless CD quality. With MP3 320k, it's a bit easier.

I'm not saying it's not and day difference but it's there. For me it's not "very hard", it ranges from Medium to Hard for me.

 

[pablolie]

The methodology I used in these experiments is very easy:

1. Select a track you like a lot, are very familiar with, has great recording quality, and pick wisely. I use a 90 second section of Kevin Mahogany's "Never Can Say Goodbye" (album is "Pride and Joy"). I pick the percussion solo towards the end. And put it into WAV.

2. Transcode to FLAC and LAME (MP3) 320k.

3. Create a playlist that contains 6 tracks of each.

4. Shuffle it a few times and play.

5. As you listen, write down which track is MP3 and which track is FLAC.

6. Check for results.

I'll leave it to your imagination to make sure there are no visible differences in what your equipment shows you on its display(s), and how to make sure you know which is which when you correlate at the end. I just have to look up the bitrates in the Lyrion Music Server after the test, the file names I see on the Squeezebox Touch are all identical, I can't tell as I am listening.

I get it 72% right via speakers, and 75% via headphones. But it is a silly exercise, because they both sound fabulous when one listens to the song, not the artifacts. But the level of attention to such minuscule detail differences is utterly unenjoyable. Ugh. Do it once and be honest to yourself as to how much it matters in enjoying music. Anyone that claims it's "easy" is bluffing unless they have some sort of trick up their sleeve, IMO, whether it's intentional or not.

For me, the difference between 320k and lossless is mostly really relevant for archival purposes. But like someone else said, if I have the FLAC, why not?

PS: And yes, the sequence above is heavily curated to the listener's advantage. And yet I'll get it wrong 1 out of 4 times. Mix up many different tracks etc and the odds will get tougher and tougher.

 

[antcollinet]

I've done AB testing before

Then not double blind (and properly controlled/level matched) ABX?

 

[ThatM1key]

Then not double blind (and properly controlled/level matched) ABX?

Yeah with the ABX plugin for Foobar2000.

 

[masterhw]

I’ve used that plug-in too, and my main takeaway was actually how excellent and usable modern codecs (namely Opus) are at even 96kbit/s. But with very focused listening at higher volumes than I’d usually prefer, I could reliably distinguish using the percussion to Do It Again - Steely Dan even at 320kbit/s. Fairly unrealistic listening conditions though.

 

[Tell]

The jump from 320K MP3 to CD is like 1080p to 1440p. While CD to Hi-Res is like 1440p to 4K.

I'd say 320kpbs MP3 to CD is like 4K to 8K, and CD to hires is 8K to 16K.
I personally would be able to see a difference between 4K and 8K doing some things on my 32" computer monitor, but for general use 4K really is great while 8K for most intends and purposes is at the limit of what anyone will ever need. Well except for some extreme cases like IMAX projection or VR where people miiight be able to tell the difference between 8K and 16K seeing it fills almost all your field of view.

Though I dont get the hi-res term, I mean since when is CD low or even medium res? No I'd say that even CD is hi-res!

 

[SonnySide]

Hello. New member here. The couple of "snake oil" threads that I have been reading have been wildly entertaining (and informative) and keep bringing me back, so thanks for that.

I was Spotify for years but switched to Qobuz to get Hi Res audio. I never compared the sound quality and just assumed that Qobuz was superior. The other day, Spotify offered me two free months to come back. I liked Qobuz but putting up with some inconveniences:

1) With Qobuz Connect, you cannot control play/pause/skip from the phone's lock screen. One must unlock the phone and navigate to the Qobuz app.

2) General glitchiness: songs/playlists not starting and stopping while playing.

4) The default when listening to an album/playlist was set to "repeat" instead of continuing with random related music at the end ("Autoplay"). This is a feature that I appreciate, but it is rendered useless unless I clicked off "repeat" which I always forget to do.

5) The recommendations were very wonky. "Daily Q" occasionally was just a bunch of generic current Top 40 which I never listen to. Also, if I listened to some Lee "Scratch" Perry one day, the "Daily Q" would become entirely reggae. Same type of issues with "Weekly Q". Also, too many artist/song repeats. They have added "Artist Radio" but these are just a few random, very narrow thirty song playlists so not really "radio." IMO, Qobuz isn't very useful as a recommendation platform.

So I have been playing Spotify exclusively since I res-signed, and have had a seamless experience. No glitchess whatsoever. Also, there is now a ton of recommendation vehicles, many more since I left, and they are playing a much bigger variety of much better music than Qobuz. Being able to now start a "radio station" based on an individual song is also very nice (Pandora-like).

And now that they have "Lossless", I don't even need to worry about whether or not I can tell the difference!

Sorry to blather on in my second ever post here. TL;DR: Spotify ftw.

 

[pablolie]

...

Sorry to blather on in my second ever post here. TL;DR: Spotify ftw.

Great inital post, keep going. Same here, I love Spotify because I have discovered great new music there. I'd never found the artist if it wasn't for Spotify magic (they have always been good at it, not sure why they claim it's AI now, but everybody overrotates now).

 

[SonnySide]

Great inital post, keep going. Same here, I love Spotify because I have discovered great new music there. I'd never found the artist if it wasn't for Spotify magic (they have always been good at it, not sure why they claim it's AI now, but everybody overrotates now).

Thanks for the kind words of welcome.

 

[Tell]

5) The recommendations were very wonky. "Daily Q" occasionally was just a bunch of generic current Top 40 which I never listen to. Also, if I listened to some Lee "Scratch" Perry one day, the "Daily Q" would become entirely reggae. Same type of issues with "Weekly Q". Also, too many artist/song repeats. They have added "Artist Radio" but these are just a few random, very narrow thirty song playlists so not really "radio." IMO, Qobuz isn't very useful as a recommendation platform.

Yeah I've use Spotify for years now but tried Qobuz a few months ago and the recommendations and radio functions where so bad that Ijust stopped using it and went back to Spotify. I really wanted to love Qobuz with its better artist payments and the ability to buy and download music, but I quickly realised why I was paying more for "less" sound quality with Spotify, it was those algorithmz!