advertisement


Putting Spotify Hi-Fi To The Test

This talk about Spotify 'Hifi' has been going on for years. I lost all but interest for it and have long abandoned Spotify because of it using competitors.

When and will it indeed happen?
 
IME, it's only possible to blind ABX 320 / lossless if you have trained ears or use specific recordings where the lossy encoding shows up. And it goes without saying you need a very transparent system.

There are however sometimes differences in the software players (and/or mastering?) which is often the reason for service X sounding better or worse than service Y.

Tidal sounds different by design due to MQA and it's thus a matter of opinion whether that difference is better or worse...
 
Music choice is arguable. I want unprocessed, classical or jazz music with an atmosphere from a venue to make up my mind - hi-fi, in a word.

Daft Punk really?
I know Hotel California well though. I repeatedly couldn’t spot any differences between A and B.
My 40-year old LP sounds good too. Better?

I got 48% by the way. Which is to say there is nothing to it. Most of the time I chose by chance.
Like John above.
 
I dont rate ‘CD quality’ from a typical pop/rock CD let alone a lossless format that promises sound quality that equals it, I am sure it would. Even mp3 on a variety of music is very close that its not worth worrying about.

IMO, ‘CD quality’ should really be regarded in a commodity context. A standard that all mass produced digital audio devices and services are expected to deliver - it’s nothing special or premium about it.
 
I tried this test last week but gave up after the first test for two reasons. Firstly they chose a Killers track which is of very questionable audio quality and clearly has a lot of amplitude compression to start with and secondly because the test is the same track over and over again so listening fatigue sets in pretty quickly. I was hoping some better recorded music would come up on subsequent tracks to make it easier and a decent variety of music.
I know from experience that the difference between Spotify premium and a FLAC or CD of the same track can be very noticeably different (mostly in soundstage and bass definition/agility) but it needs the right recording to show it. This test if nothing else shows that if you're going to listen to mainstream compressed rock music then its not worth bothering.
However I'm looking forward to the new service assuming it won't cost a premium if you're already a paid subscriber.
 
Heckyman said:
IME, it's only possible to blind ABX 320 / lossless if you have trained ears or use specific recordings where the lossy encoding shows up. And it goes without saying you need a very transparent system.

There are however sometimes differences in the software players (and/or mastering?) which is often the reason for service X sounding better or worse than service Y.
Click to expand...

Yes, which by implication means that 320kbs is going to be near as dammit the same as lossless for nearly all listeners, including audiophiles and music producers.

My take on this having had subscriptions to Tidal, Amazon HD and Qobuz over the past month and compared them at length is that the beneift over Spotify 320 is usually innaudilbe, and where it does exist it's extremely suble - and sometimes the lossy version is preferable. I mean, vinyl is incredibly lossy and yet it sounds superb so you won't be hearing any demand for absolute transaparency from me :)

The reason I found the video particularly interersting is that the participants produce music in a studio using professional equioment in a treated environment. If they struggle, well.

But as has been said a thousand times on here, mastering is king.
 
Anh said:
I dont rate ‘CD quality’ from a typical pop/rock CD let alone a lossless format that promises sound quality that equals it, I am sure it would. Even mp3 on a variety of music is very close that its not worth worrying about.

IMO, ‘CD quality’ should really be regarded in a commodity context. A standard that all mass produced digital audio devices and services are expected to deliver - it’s nothing special or premium about it.
Click to expand...

That's too harsh a view IMO.
The vast majority of recorded music was made on equipment well below the standard of CD, and many of those recordings sound spine-tinglingly superb.
 
I read it’s just an added value with no change in pricing. Squeezing competitors comes to mind. Spotify comes from tiny Sweden so I’m sticking with it. Support the underdog and starve China/America into behaving themselves...
 
Robert said:
That's too harsh a view IMO.
The vast majority of recorded music was made on equipment well below the standard of CD, and many of those recordings sound spine-tinglingly superb.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I am being harsh, but I have a low opinion on platforms such as Spotify havinh tried it twice in a space of 10 years, but the demographic it panders too just will mean the majority of music will be at best ‘CD quality’ samples of music mastered to be loud and chrome plated.
 
Thanks to our wee virus overlord, I've been working from home for the last year -- the one-year anniversary of my home confinement is coming up in a couple days! Anywho, much to my wife's chagrin, I've been listening to FIP Paris all day long - more or less - for a year. FIP streams in 192kbs AAC, and I think I like the lossy versions of songs via FIP better than the lossless equivalents of the same tracks via Tidal. The Tidal versions sound subjectively louder and in some cases "edgier" than the lower-spec streams.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm way into LPs!
 
joe9407 said:
Thanks to our wee virus overlord, I've been working from home for the last year -- the one-year anniversary of my home confinement is coming up in a couple days! Anywho, much to my wife's chagrin, I've been listening to FIP Paris all day long - more or less - for a year. FIP streams in 192kbs AAC, and I think I like the lossy versions of songs via FIP better than the lossless equivalents of the same tracks via Tidal. The Tidal versions sound subjectively louder and in some cases "edgier" than the lower-spec streams.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm way into LPs!
Click to expand...

I wonder if FIP add any EQ to the music. Lots of stations do and that could explain why you prefer it.
 
joe9407 said:
Thanks to our wee virus overlord, I've been working from home for the last year -- the one-year anniversary of my home confinement is coming up in a couple days! Anywho, much to my wife's chagrin, I've been listening to FIP Paris all day long - more or less - for a year. FIP streams in 192kbs AAC, and I think I like the lossy versions of songs via FIP better than the lossless equivalents of the same tracks via Tidal. The Tidal versions sound subjectively louder and in some cases "edgier" than the lower-spec streams.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm way into LPs!
Click to expand...


I have always liked the old 128 kbps mp3 fip but spoil myself now with Logitech Media Server:)



ronnie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top