"Testing" Qobuz vs Amazon Music HD vs Spotify Premium vs Youtube Music Premium vs Youtube video vs CD

[Brian Hall]

I picked a song that is on all 5 services and that I also own on CD. "The Last Home" on the album "The Deep and the Dark" by "Visions of Atlantis". The song has a female vocalist with piano, strings and percussion. (Percussion is only in the last 1/4 of the song).

Qobuz version - 24/44.1 khz
Amazon version - Ultra HD (probably the same as Qobuz)
Spotify version - 320 kbps Ogg vorbis
YouTube music version - 256 kbps Opus
YouTube video - 256 kbps Opus
CD - 16/44.1 khz.

3 source devices:

Asus Chromebox using Android apps for all output to USB
Wiim Pro Plus using the Wiim app for Qobuz and Amazon, Spotify Connect and the cast option for YouTube, output to coax
Onkyo C-7030 CD player using optical output

All outputs to Schiit Modius E dac -> Schiit Lokius (with bypass on) -> Schiit Midguard -> Sennheiser HD800 S.

No A/B testing or blind testing. Just played the same song halfway on each, then switched to the next service. Started over for the last half of the song on each.

I understand that all Android apps on the Chromebox "normalize" audio output to 48 khz.

I have that song memorized now.

All sounded great to me and identical other than very slight volume differences. I don't see any advantage to "HiRes" on Qobuz or Amazon over even Youtube's 256 kbps Opus which most would say is the worst.

I was slightly surprised at not being able to tell any difference at all between YouTube Music and Qobuz. I could hear the singer's breath intakes equally on all. The same for the piano notes.

No "Golden Ears" Trophy for me. The main outcome is that I am more impressed with Youtube music's sound quality. Maybe I'm just lucky that my setup isn't "sufficiently resolving" to subjectively hear the supposedly massive superiority of "HiRes" music.

 

[Brian Hall]

This is the video version of the song I used:

 

[DarkKoala]

ohh those guys still exist ….

and the insanity continues. on their home page they have 100 special limitted edition versions of the same thing….
I mean is fun … but when everyone goes overboard is just craziness… I guess I‘m not buying their new stuff

Just popped in a Trinity, haven’t listened to that for years. Is still good, the guys back then looked more normal, just a glimpse of overacting … the new pictures look terrible they went all way with the pirate stuff.

 

[EJ3]

This is the video version of the song I used:

That is a GREAT VIDEO & SONG.
I, like you, can't tell the difference in my home. But my home also has a bit more background noise than average.
I think that it allows me to just enjoy music more, as I know that I (myself) can only get a certain amount of resolution without making major changes to my home that I am just unwilling to spend the money to do.

 

[fieldcar]

Youtube's 256 kbps Opus

If you click the stats for nerds on that video, you get:
Codecs : av01.0.08M.08 (399) / opus (251)

If you play the song in the youtube music client, you get:
Codecs : 0 / mp4a.40.2 (141)

Opus, unfortunately, maxxes out at 160Kbit on youtube, and the "higher quality" bitrates of 256Kbit is used by AAC exclusively. Absolutely lame. I find that Opus and xHE-AAC absolutely wrecks every other lossy codec. I guess it's really not that big of a deal, as I can't really tell them apart either. I get fooled by a 128Kbit CBR lame encoded Mp3 during those ABX tests.

All I want is a streaming service that offers higher bitrate Opus and doesn't try to obfuscate the lossy stream quality.

Code​	Container​	Audio Codec​	Audio Bitrate​	Channels​	Still offered?​
139​	MP4​	AAC (HE v1)​	48 Kbps​	Stereo (2)​	Rarely, YT Music​
140​	MP4​	AAC (LC)​	128 Kbps​	Stereo (2)​	Yes, YT Music​
(141)​	MP4​	AAC (LC)​	256 Kbps​	Stereo (2)​	No, YT Music*​
249​	WebM​	Opus​	(VBR) ~50 Kbps​	Stereo (2)​	Yes​
250​	WebM​	Opus​	(VBR) ~70 Kbps​	Stereo (2)​	Yes​
251​	WebM​	Opus​	(VBR) <=160 Kbps​	Stereo (2)​	Yes​
256​	MP4​	AAC (HE v1)​	192 Kbps​	Surround (5.1)​	Rarely​
258​	MP4​	AAC (LC)​	384 Kbps​	Surround (5.1)​	Rarely​
327​	MP4​	AAC (LC)​	256 Kbps​	Surround (5.1)​	?*​
338​	WebM​	Opus​	(VBR) ~480 Kbps (?)​	Quadraphonic (4)​	?*​

source:

Youtube Format IDs

Youtube Format IDs. GitHub Gist: instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

gist.github.com

 

[kemmler3D]

If you want to stress test lossy codecs vs. lossless, I only know of one song that even kind of works well:

The lead bass synth uses a rectified waveform (unipolar, the waveform only goes up, not below zero) with a lot of nearly pure impulses, which is highly unnatural and IMO stresses lossless codecs in a way they're not designed for. I don't think it's possible to generate a waveform like that except via synthesis.

Voice, guitar, piano? They're designed for normie crap like that.

 

[Smarty]

Oh man that's not music but noise I can't really stand it. Perhaps that's why I'm not a golden-eared audiophile

 

[kemmler3D]

Oh man that's not music but noise I can't really stand it. Perhaps that's why I'm not a golden-eared audiophile

This is not a listening-for-pleasure exercise... test tones would work better, but this is close.

 

[Count Dacula]

I use YouTube constantly, no complaints. It offers way more than a music streaming service, Ill leave it at that.

 

[Count Dacula]

I mean YouTube "Premium" ad free everything it's the best $15 you can spend

 

[Ken Tajalli]

For casual listening, all would do.
If you had a well room equalized, highest res system, perhaps on some tracks you could tell a 48kHz track from an mp3.
16 bit is sufficient, so 24 is overkill.
48kHz sampling, can push the HF well beyond audiblity.
HOWEVER!
Hires tracks are from different masters to CD masters, and that can make a difference.

 

[beagleman]

For casual listening, all would do.
If you had a well room equalized, highest res system, perhaps on some tracks you could tell a 48kHz track from an mp3.
16 bit is sufficient, so 24 is overkill.
48kHz sampling, can push the HF well beyond audiblity.
HOWEVER!
Hires tracks are from different masters to CD masters, and that can make a difference.

I have found not knowing the source, for most intents makes one not able to tell what the source is.

On all types, mastering changes are easily audible, and the original recordings quality is even more evident.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

I have found not knowing the source, for most intents makes one not able to tell what the source is.

On all types, mastering changes are easily audible, and the original recordings quality is even more evident.

The point was, that a lot of hires material on offer, are remasters too! (try Floyd's Animals)
And recent remasters, are released on hires. So some, believe Hires is inherently superior, to the point that get their DAPs to output in DSD or 24/768 to their DACs, thinking it improves sound quality.
If anything, it just pushes the HF filter further away.

 

[Count Dacula]

People used to think I was crazy when I told them various copies of songs were less-than other ones. People really believed that, before they heard about the Loudness Wars. Even so, record club CDs and vinyl were not the same. For CDs, the West German made ones were the best transcriptions and physical construction. I'm preoccupied at the moment, but have a media bombshell thing for you later.

As a side thought, home studios did a lot to wipe out the need for access to vinyl markets. Hitting the studio and coming out with a digital copy of exactly what you need is where it's at. With your virtual mix, it's a done deal...just distribute it with a click instead of dealing with a bunch of industry a-holes. Pretty close to Factory Records' Confusion model of taking the warm studio reel-to-real strait to the dance hall.

A "nobody owns it" type contract.

I was a hangers-on at Warner Bros NYC for a little while, more fun than business for me, that's how I like it. Not that I didn't learn anything...

I don't even like Rap, but my friends had like five top ten at once.

Ruffhouse Records - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Count Dacula]

here's a preview...

 

[Count Dacula]

Someone's going to have to tell me to stop.

 

[EJ3]

here's a preview...

I have listened to some of the others and flat out did not like them.
I only listened to this one, hoping that I would like it & I did (all through my headphones, which is NOT my favorite way to listen).
I also watched the screen of my computer some as it was playing. It all melded together well.
I looked at some that you tube suggested & gave up on finding another good one.

 

[Count Dacula]

I have listened to some of the others and flat out did not like them.
I only listened to this one, hoping that I would like it & I did (all through my headphones, which is NOT my favorite way to listen).
I also watched the screen of my computer some as it was playing. It all melded together well.
I looked at some that you tube suggested & gave up on finding another good one.

Yez, exactly my thoughts too. I selected that one because it popped up recently and has the congruent mix deck graphics. It's relevant in another way too, I'll pop back in later to explain.

This Ambispheric mix has a nice twin turntable skin as well, but the music is more mature....Alan Watts? These guys should know who that is...

Alan Watts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If someone listens to this whole mix and still tells me that DJ 12" did not save vinyl, I'll send them $20

 

[Count Dacula]

omg I replied to the wrong thread. I wanted to talk about Playstation created Drum and Bass as both a genre and a format mover. It's complex.

 

[LtMandella]

Someone's going to have to tell me to stop.

View attachment 387797

Not that long after cassette decks were arriving on the scene, I Remember the record companies testifying before the U.S. congress claiming that cassette player/recorders would destroy the music industry due to LP copying. What a gang of knee-jerk fools they were...