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

[Brian Hall]

To be fair though that is (I think) showing amazon's display of how the track is encoded. This may or may not be the same as what is sent to the DAC depending on the streaming device/app.

I don't believe it is just Amazon's display. I just played the same two songs on the Wiim Pro Plus with coax output to an Eversolo DAC-Z8 which is only a DAC. It showed the same sampling rates as the DMP-A6.

 

[Brian Hall]

Please see my examples… the device states it is giving one sample rate (track, device capability’s and what is being output) just as yours does… and external check says otherwise… you are taking amazons word for it blissfully unaware of what’s possibly happening, I even screen shotted my iPhone just like you have done with your eversolo, how is that hard to grasp?

The DAC-Z8 which is only a DAC shows the same sampling rates for those two songs as the DMP-A6. No upsampling to 192.

 

[antcollinet]

The DAC-Z8 which is only a DAC shows the same sampling rates for those two songs as the DMP-A6. No upsampling to 192.

Which is fine - it just means your streamer/device/app is not doing any upsampling. That doesn't mean others can't.

 

[Dumdum]

Why are your apps looking different from each other, are you using their dedicated app or a web-based player?

My app screenshots were all of amazons apple app…

Is that the Amazon Music app? Looks nothing like mine...

View attachment 367427

click on the three dots and then look at the audio quality on an Apple device and you will find exactly what I showed

 

[Dumdum]

Why are your apps looking different from each other, are you using their dedicated app or a web-based player?

My app screenshots were all of amazons apple app… and all 3 looked identical, not sure what you’re referring to?

 

[Dumdum]

First - you are repeatedly stating your point over and over. It is not necessary.


Second - it is not an "issue". If Amazon/the device/the app is upsampling, that is not taking anything away from what you have paid for : A lossless or higher res recording. Whatever resolution the file is encoded at - you still have that, embedded in a higher resolution bit-stream.

I was replying to people who picked holes… explaining my method to find upsampling…

 

[Brian Hall]

I was replying to people who picked holes… explaining my method to find upsampling…

It sounds like an issue with using Apple stuff instead of something better.

 

[pablolie]

click on the three dots and then look at the audio quality on an Apple device

Nope. That said I am just Prime, but I buy music on the Music Download store (which is over 256k vbr). And that's the Amazon Music app. No "audio quality" insights. Maybe there's a different app if you subscribe for the HD stuff.

 

[Dumdum]

It sounds like an issue with using Apple stuff instead of something better.

And yet it plays bit perfect with every other music app that is capable of cd quality or hi res… I love how android guys try to deflect it’s the Amazon app… Jerez you guys are a hard crowd

 

[goat76]

My app screenshots were all of amazons apple app… and all 3 looked identical, not sure what you’re referring to?

Sorry, I meant that your screenshot seems to look different from the one @pablolie has, so I was wondering if you were maybe using your iPhone’s browser and a web-based player of Amazon Music of some sort. Something like that could possibly have explained the 192 kHz stream if a web browser was involved, but I have now seen that more people than you have reported the same thing with Amazon Music upsampling everything.

It's just strange why Amazon would do it like that as it must mean unnecessarily high bandwidth for their users.

 

[Dumdum]

Sorry, I meant that your screenshot seems to look different from the one @pablolie has, so I was wondering if you were maybe using your iPhone’s browser and a web-based player of Amazon Music of some sort. Something like that could possibly have explained the 192 kHz stream if a web browser was involved, but I have now seen that more people than you have reported the same thing with Amazon Music upsampling everything.

It's just strange why Amazon would do it like that as it must mean unnecessarily high bandwidth for their users.

Ah I see, He is using a free service bundled with Amazon prime, I took out a free trial to the paid version and used the iPhone app

 

[Miguelón]

Long thread, more than 3 years after Spotify keep on its 320 kbps… I think if they still have the same or more success they will continue like that or there are new rumors?

Probably is just an economic decision, if the portion of listeners concerned about looseless quality were high enough to motivate a economic loose they would did it years ago…

So probably Spotify will continue loosy for loseless financial, if I can do the joke.

 

[Brian Hall]

If Spotify sounded "bad" I would not be paying for the service. I am happy with their current sound quality. I alternate between listening to ripped CDs, Amazon HD, Qobuz, Youtube Music Premium and Spotify Premium.

I still have Qobuz only because I paid for a one year sub. I won't be renewing it. No real advantage and the majority of their home page recommendations do not align with my taste. I will be keeping Spotify (whether they "upgrade" or not), Youtube Music and Amazon HD.

 

[Miguelón]

If Spotify sounded "bad" I would not be paying for the service. I am happy with their current sound quality. I alternate between listening to ripped CDs, Amazon HD, Qobuz, Youtube Music Premium and Spotify Premium.

I still have Qobuz only because I paid for a one year sub. I won't be renewing it. No real advantage and the majority of their home page recommendations do not align with my taste. I will be keeping Spotify (whether they "upgrade" or not), Youtube Music and Amazon HD.

It depends on the sensibility to the quality of the music, vast majority of people can’t perceive the difference. I have spotify always and Qobuz or Tidal depending on the month.

There are online blind tests, to check if that matters to you or not, for me it is important on classical music and jazz as is quite noticeable the difference. Not really a huge difference on most of pop, rock and other genres.

I prefer the easiness of the app and playlists suggestions, friends playlists to share and local music that can find on Spotify and cannot on other services.

But if they upgrade to CD quality will just paid 10€/ month instead of 20, I think for them could be an advantage to capture more clients but if they didn’t change is probably because cost/ potential benefits it doesn’t worth for the company.

 

[Chrispy]

It depends on the sensibility to the quality of the music, vast majority of people can’t perceive the difference. I have spotify always and Qobuz or Tidal depending on the month.

There are online blind tests, to check if that matters to you or not, for me it is important on classical music and jazz as is quite noticeable the difference. Not really a huge difference on most of pop, rock and other genres.

I prefer the easiness of the app and playlists suggestions, friends playlists to share and local music that can find on Spotify and cannot on other services.

But if they upgrade to CD quality will just paid 10€/ month instead of 20, I think for them could be an advantage to capture more clients but if they didn’t change is probably because cost/ potential benefits it doesn’t worth for the company.

That makes little sense as far as identical content aside from resolution goes so I suspect it's simply other differences, perhaps simply level differences.

 

[Miguelón]

That makes little sense as far as identical content aside from resolution goes so I suspect it's simply other differences, perhaps simply level differences.

Nope, as mentioned you can do online blind tests where the track are presented in various qualities and levels equally matched.

One can sustain by consistent arguments that Hi-Res does not improve CD quality, but 320 kbps is audible different than CD looseless by some proportion of audience. I don’t think it only depends on sensibility but also on the music style. I’m pianist and I don’t last more than 5 or 6 seconds to guess which is the best quality track from blind AB samples, if is orchestra I last a little longer and pop I can miss some tracks.

One of the tests I do has 6 tracks with 3 audio options, I usually guess 4/6, 5/6 depending on the moment. If I repeat the same tracks (they will randomly permuted after test), I can distinguish 6/6 soon. You can train your ears in music quality if there are audible differences, giving consistent results.

Conversely, I guess if you listen to mp3 all time you will be okay a logic brain adaptation, I listened to iTunes discs (256 kbps aac files) for some years when iPod an iPhone appears, but returning for CD was a pleasure without doubt!

 

[antcollinet]

One of the tests I do has 6 tracks with 3 audio options, I usually guess 4/6, 5/6 depending on the moment. If I repeat the same tracks (they will randomly permuted after test),

Can you post a link to these online tests? Would be interesting to try.

But bear in mind - 4/6 is not much more significant than random guessing.

 

[Miguelón]

Can you post a link to these online tests? Would be interesting to try.

But bear in mind - 4/6 is not much more significant than random guessing.

They are many of them, I don’t remember now the link of what I used more times (the 6 tracks one, it has one of Mozart piano concertos by Murray Perahia which was the easiest one for me). It was posted by one of the members in a discussion thread about hi-res if I remember well.

In this case, the test offers 3 different options, only one is looseless. So probability of 4/6 is combinatory number (6,4) times 1/3 ^ 4 times 2/3 ^ 2 which gives 15 * 1/81 * 1/9 and this is 2 % roughly.

Is true than one of the offered qualities is 128 kbps, much easier to distinguish from CD loseless.

I will try to find it again, I was searching them for my girlfriend who wanted if she can distinguish also.

But as I tell before, once made a couple of times I can guess all the tracks, so is clear for me that is audible. It was clear before also, in acoustic piano tracks the mp3 or vbr files give some messy low mids and bizarre rounded mid highs (lack of harmonics I think) and is quite noticeable. Again I can live without it, but now with Tidal subscription 11€/month the choice is easy for me!

To the matter of hi-res a did another testing, even if was controlled by my girlfriend and non matched levels, I cannot differentiate CD for 24 / 96 or 24 / 192 at all, nothing, zero, niente

 

[danadam]

Conversely, I guess if you listen to mp3 all time you will be okay a logic brain adaptation

I'm not sure if you are saying that listening to mp3 may affect your preference (which I can agree) or your ability to distinguish between lossless and mp3 (which I don't see why/how it could).

Can you post a link to these online tests?

They are many of them, I don’t remember now the link of what I used more times (the 6 tracks one, it has one of Mozart piano concertos by Murray Perahia which was the easiest one for me).

This one has Mozart by Murray Perahia:

How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?

A hi-def test for your ears (and your audio equipment): Listen to these songs and see if you can tell the difference between an MP3 and an uncompressed audio file.

www.npr.org

 

[bodhi]

It's quite a feat to reliably tell 320kbps from lossless, but whole another thing would be to do that while just listening as usual and somebody switches the bitrate when a new track begins. There was a high end show in town earlier and in some room they accidentally played mp3 instead of lossless: nobody said anything during the whole thing. Of course, when this was later revealed a few people commented hearing this and that but just didn't mention about it.

EDIT: but if it is audible I'm not saying it's wrong getting it right. Not a huge cost or trouble.