Lossless audio

Irish_rat

Does anyone else on here try and listen to higher quality audio?

I've had a decent set of headphones for a few years now and the difference is noticeable over Spotify which is still compressed mp3 at 320kbps. Usually I download any fave albums of the year in .WAV through the official websites.

Don't get me wrong Spotify is a great resource for most stuff. But an artist you truly like will get the benefit when you purchase the album. Thoughts?

maccored

The requirement that 'music lovers' have of expecting free music will come back to haunt them in the future if you ask me. Spotify is good for the majors, who have shares in it, but music is moving to a split between individual artists (like Whitey for example) who host their own high quality audio files on places like bandcamp and whose fans support the artist directly, and those using spotify for free and cheap music. It'll end up that you'll need to know of the good bands and where to find them, otherwise you'll be stuck with the bland **** on spotify - so for me buying direct and actually supporting musicians is a better thing for music in the long term.

seachto7

I would buy music, but usually have a habit of buying MP3 even off bandcamp. A bad habit?
To be honest, I don't really hear any difference.

NapoleonInRags

maccored wrote: »

The requirement that 'music lovers' have of expecting free music will come back to haunt them in the future if you ask me. Spotify is good for the majors, who have shares in it, but music is moving to a split between individual artists (like Whitey for example) who host their own high quality audio files on places like bandcamp and whose fans support the artist directly, and those using spotify for free and cheap music. It'll end up that you'll need to know of the good bands and where to find them, otherwise you'll be stuck with the bland **** on spotify - so for me buying direct and actually supporting musicians is a better thing for music in the long term.

Bland **** on Spotify? Seriously? The catalogue is vast and multifarious....

maccored

NapoleonInRags wrote: »

Bland **** on Spotify? Seriously? The catalogue is vast and multifarious....

with far too much ****e to wade through

Arghus

maccored wrote: »

with far too much ****e to wade through

Don't really understand this. The selection of music on Spotify is immense and 99% of the time I can find what I'm looking for, no matter how leftfield it is. It's an amazing and extensive resource containing all sorts.

limnam

Irish_rat wrote: »

Does anyone else on here try and listen to higher quality audio?

I've had a decent set of headphones for a few years now and the difference is noticeable over Spotify which is still compressed mp3 at 320kbps. Usually I download any fave albums of the year in .WAV through the official websites.

Don't get me wrong Spotify is a great resource for most stuff. But an artist you truly like will get the benefit when you purchase the album. Thoughts?

Most people think they can tell the difference but in reality they can't.

I'd say once you go above 128kbps you would struggle to identify the difference in a test.

seachto7

maccored wrote: »

with far too much ****e to wade through

Use the search function?

evolving_doors

I'm using the student account on spotify and download in extreme 320kbps. I've fairly good speakers and headphones so the quality is fairly good. Not losless but good enough to not notice.

But for the plebs who don't want to pay for music then :P
Sure I'd like to support certain artists directly and get Wav files, but I'd have to be searching around then compiling albums on to a platform, and then cos I've paid a bit more I'd have to 'commit' to them a bit more.

So for me, the main selling point of Spotify is the search function and speed of downloading/streaming. I don't have to go scouring the net, going through paypal, registering, forgetting passwords etc.

seachto7

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I'm using the student account on spotify and download in extreme 320kbps. I've fairly good speakers and headphones so the quality is fairly good. Not losless but good enough to not notice.

But for the plebs who don't want to pay for music then :P
Sure I'd like to support certain artists directly and get Wav files, but I'd have to be searching around then compiling albums on to a platform, and then cos I've paid a bit more I'd have to 'commit' to them a bit more.

So for me, the main selling point of Spotify is the search function and speed of downloading/streaming. I don't have to go scouring the net, going through paypal, registering, forgetting passwords etc.

Jesus wept. :rolleyes:

evolving_doors

seachto7 wrote: »

Jesus wept. :rolleyes:

What up bruh

Irish_rat

limnam wrote: »

I'd say once you go above 128kbps you would struggle to identify the difference in a test.

Yes you would unless you have a pair of utterly crap headphones or poor sound system.

beauf

limnam wrote: »

Most people think they can tell the difference but in reality they can't.

I'd say once you go above 128kbps you would struggle to identify the difference in a test.

For me with my current gear (pretty low end) and ears doing A-B blind testing. I can hear 256~320 as better depending on the type of music. Over that I can't hear it. Lossless would be wasted on my with my current set up.

limnam

Irish_rat wrote: »

Yes you would unless you have a pair of utterly crap headphones or poor sound system.

No you won't.

I've a test you can take if you want. Feel free to pm me.

loyatemu

most people can't tell the difference regardless of the equipment they're using, and most are using cheap kit anyway (I do most of my music listening on the Dart).

The history of audio formats demonstrates that 99% of people value convenience over quality, and provided the audio quality is over a certain minimum (say FM radio quality) they're happy with it.

beauf

heres a test

https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/5/15168340/lossless-audio-music-compression-test-spotify-hi-fi-tidal

I got 2/3 first time.

I would say they are poor tracks to compare, as they quite hissy, and also they are busy tracks. Lots of overlapping instruments and vocals. Poor quality tracks despite being in lossless.
The one track I didn't get. The only differences is in the high frequencies which makes sense as I think I'd lost quite a bit of that over the years.

I would generally notice is more classical solo, or acoustic stuff. Some guitar music. A lot of times poor mastering makes it hard to compare, because they destroyed the mids in the mastering, or the levels are too high to make it FM friendly. I started noticing this when I realised prefer the audio casette version of a track because the version I have on CD has been badly produced. I first noticed this when my first portable CD walkman was broken and lost by the repair shop. I could never get any replacement CD Walkman since the to sound good. I preferred listening to other devices. Thats because they stopped producing portables with sound quality as the primary aim, but instead tried to increased battery life etc. The first few generations of iPod were not good either for example. The first Shuffle was though. Ironically.

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/metallica-s-lars-ulrich-breaks-silence-on-death-magnetic-sound-quality-controversy/
http://mastering-media.blogspot.ie/2008/09/metallica-death-magnetic-clipping.html
http://productionadvice.co.uk/loudness-war-secret/

These days though more attention has come back on sound quality and often you can get better versions of CDs

ED E

Irish_rat wrote: »

I've had a decent set of headphones for a few years now and the difference is noticeable over Spotify which is still compressed mp3 at 320kbps. Usually I download any fave albums of the year in .WAV through the official websites.

If you're going to make that argument please enlighten us as to your cans and AMP/DAC.