Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ua20s wrote

But you’re listening to Spotify…

−22

GLikesSteak OP t1_j5uajoy wrote

So? The difference between Tidal HiFi and Spotify Premium is so tiny that I am more than willing to sacrifice that "downgrade" in quality for a user interface that I much prefer. I'm not here to pick apart tiny nuances in music 24/7, I'm here to enjoy music.

23

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ublnq wrote

It’s really not. There’s a marked difference between Apple Music and Spotify that you can tell on earbuds and that’s before you get into lossless downloads

−18

ultra_prescriptivist t1_j5uhy63 wrote

Bruh, do I have just the thing for you.

I recorded a series of samples from Spotify and compared them to others taken from Apple Music, Tidal, and Qobuz.

Before you go any further, I would suggest you head over to the link below, download and listen to a few of them and see for yourself how that "marked difference" vanishes when you don't know which one you're listening to.

https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/ymk4fj/curious_to_see_if_apple_music_tidal_qubuz_really/

6

chnch0 t1_j5ujlgo wrote

I tried AB-ing Apple lossless and Spotify before. While I do believe there’s an audible difference between the two, I wouldn’t label Spotify as an inferior streaming service. Their algo in making playlists is topnotch, and their interface is much more user friendly and appealing compared to AM. And at the end of the day, I concur with OP - you’re there to listen and enjoy the music.

1

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5uil7x wrote

Dude I’ve already tested CD vs Spotify vs Apple Music.

Question is what did you record them on?

−9

ultra_prescriptivist t1_j5uj30u wrote

Tested how? Listened to them side by side while jumping back and forth, or an actual blind ABX test?

You can see details of my methodology in the link above.

I've had about a dozen people message me so far and none of them were able consistenly tell Spotify apart from any of the other services.

5

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ujj67 wrote

You haven’t heard of alt tab I’m guessing?

−2

ultra_prescriptivist t1_j5uk2wz wrote

Lol knew it.

You have the unmerited confidence of someone who hasn't actually attempted a blind ABX test of Vorbis @320 versus FLAC.

I genuinely suggest you try it.

6

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ukemm wrote

Again you haven’t heard of alt tab which allows you to do a blind ABX test?

−2

ultra_prescriptivist t1_j5ukuy6 wrote

No I haven't.

Do go on and explain it to me in your own words

4

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ulmra wrote

So ABX test would be listening to two sources and then randomly listening to one of them again to see if you can distinguish if it was A or B. You can open two windows, stay with me here, listen to the same point in a song on each tab then resetting to the start without looking using Alt tab to skip between tabs and then, here’s the tricky part, you can HOLD alt tab for a period of time which causes it to rapidly jump windows, randomising the window you land on. Then you can listen for a third time and then draw conclusions.

0

ultra_prescriptivist t1_j5une9k wrote

Lol it's not a proper blind test if it's you that's controlling things, regardless of whether you squeeze eyes shut or not.

Plus did you do that at least 10 times per song to rule out the possibilty that you simply guessed the right answer out of sheer luck?

While I admire your inclination to test it out in the first place, I'm afraid that any results you obtained by the method you described above are not reliable whatsoever.

I have included details of how to conduct a proper double-blind ABX and provided links to freely available tools in the link above, should you want to give it a proper go.

Or at least you can simply listen to the samples I recorded side by side and see how they are incredibly hard to tell apart when you don't know which is which.

4

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5uoliy wrote

Um… you just don’t look at the display? You don’t control where the alt tab lands because you have no way of knowing. You do it at the start so you don’t know what A or B is and and you don’t know what X is. That like saying a randomisation algorithm isn’t random because you pressed go.

5 consecutive results is what a 3% chance of guessing all 5 correct?

Kinda are though. Unless you think someone can count in hundredths of a second to know what tab they’re currently on?

−1

ultra_prescriptivist t1_j5uowsm wrote

Mate, your method fails on multiple levels.

You haven't done an actual blind test.

You don't get to act with this level of arrogance when you haven't even done that much.

4

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5uptb0 wrote

I don’t think you know what a blind test is. So you believe that if you listen to two sources, and you do not know what either of those two sources are, you then listen to one of those again after a process after which you have no way of knowing which source you’re listing to isn’t random? It doesn’t matter who presses the button. If you have no way of knowing there’s no way of knowing. You’ve just got caught out

0

RayceManyon t1_j5ub2kc wrote

Don't "source shame".

11

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ubqoq wrote

Just seems dumb to spend money on headphones and amps to then put in shit it. As the saying goes shit in shit out

−12

No-Context5479 t1_j5ubr83 wrote

There is no way you're talking down on Spotify... bruh some people in this space are insufferable

10

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ubv02 wrote

It’s a shit platform for audio quality? Not really a secret.

−13

No-Context5479 t1_j5uc92o wrote

Ain't no way you wrote that with a straight face and hit send on that🤣... If 320 kbps is shit then your ears must be that of a bat (which I know it's not) and needs that good"Hi-Res" or whatever it is straight from the studio... Funny

14

GLikesSteak OP t1_j5ue1dl wrote

He must have them GOLDEN EARS /s Or you know, just a gatekeeping snob.

9

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ucj86 wrote

It’s Oggs so yes it is. Codec matters

−1

No-Context5479 t1_j5udw74 wrote

OGG isn't the codec... The codec is called Vorbis. OGG is the container like MQA, FLAC. With Vorbis being the codec used to store data in OGG container.

Also Vorbis is a very efficient codec, much better than mp3 and generally able to maintain a higher level of audio quality at lower bitrates meaning less data used for the same fidelity.

MQA is trash and also lossy like OGG Vorbis but that's a talk for another day... Have a good day

12

PetersenIsMyDaddy t1_j5vlt0q wrote

FLAC is a codec, it’s literally in the name

1

No-Context5479 t1_j5w7y79 wrote

FLAC is both a container and the codec... Yes I should've been more specific in that regard but you can store .wav files in a flac container... Same as lossy files being polished as flac files when they're not lossless files

2

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5uevt1 wrote

It’s ogg Vorbis, I was shortening it.

It’s efficient but it doesn’t sound good vs other options that offer lossless audio streaming

0

No-Context5479 t1_j5ufuuj wrote

The only objectively "better" service would be Apple's Hi Res Lossless Option for streaming, AmazonHD's Hi-Fi, Qobuz, Deezer Hi-Fi but in the end most people can't tell the difference unless they're actively listening for differences... I can tell the differences but honestly for most times I'm not looking for which pin dropped in the studio Spotify is near identical when actually enjoying music and not trying to not pick. I have lossless CDs and stuff saved through Qobuz but I use those rarely and would cancel my Qobuz subscription soon.

What even is better is getting a well mastered and dynamic range checked piece of music... If it's lossy, doesn't matter, that would sound far better than a terribly mastered and dynamic range squashed recording that is in lossless form.. but hey, "lossless" is better I guess.

7

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ugh8f wrote

Generally lossless files are mastered better. That’s why apple has its digital masters or “mastered for iTunes” badge as they’re mastered for lossless playback

−1

No-Context5479 t1_j5uhbcj wrote

I can list so many lossless albums with terrible dynamic range and shit mastering but yes generally Lossless albums should have more fidelity honestly

6

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5uhhes wrote

And if they can’t master for lossless then they’re not going to be able to do it for sub CD quality either will they?

1

No-Context5479 t1_j5uhprl wrote

Reason why I said mixing and mastering is actually more important than fussing over if something is lossy... I'd take a genuinely good master at 256kbps over some jumbled mess of a dynamic range read at 1411 kbps

6

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ui288 wrote

Point was that the masters of a particular song will be the same regardless so the same file in FLAC vs say MP3 will have the same bad master. The FLAC will still sound the better of the two

1

No-Context5479 t1_j5uiqtv wrote

I think we'd have to end it here... I'm just of the view 320kbps OGG Vorbis is very capable and .flac or .alac files will be "better" but not by a humongous margin that will call for people to overhaul their listening services. You're on Apple Music, kudos. Someone too is on Spotify, more power to them. Another loves their .wav offline stuff, they can carry on and be satisfied regardless.👍🏾

3

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5uj2um wrote

Again it’s more that you’re spending money on headphones, DACs and amps. Why use lossy audio formats? You’re literally wasting money on the amps and DACs at that point

1

NecroFantasy9 t1_j5ud4a9 wrote

Another "FLAC sounds much better" cultist or just a troll?

7

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5uf9rr wrote

Lossless is better? That’s well established. But even then I’m not saying everyone should have a library of 24 bit FLAC files it’s just competing services have lossless audio if you want it as standard. Buying hugest end equipment and not using the service that has the better audio uplift just seems a bit dumb

−1

NecroFantasy9 t1_j5uffuq wrote

I said "much better", not just "better" about sound quality. In some scenarios it can be better of course, but I don't think that better sound quality in lossless can be detected every time. And it can't be "MUCH better" than Spotify

2

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ugu3f wrote

If you did a blind test between oggs and a lossless file like a FLAC or ALAC people would be able to tell. Point is if you’re spending money on shit you don’t need like amps why would you not just get a better source when it’s readily available.

−1

NecroFantasy9 t1_j5uhd05 wrote

Ok, maybe it is just your brain that tries to pretend it (the big difference in sound quality)

5

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5uhita wrote

Dude Spotify isn’t near the same as FLAC. It’s worse than AAC at a lower bitrate

−1

NecroFantasy9 t1_j5ui4ee wrote

I use Spotify 24/7 and also have LDAC library. Can't find much difference and Spotify is just comfortable.

Also, it is pointless to argue with you. Either it's your brain or you are just trolling.

3

chnch0 t1_j5ukeav wrote

Isn’t AAC only at 256kbps max? Btw, YouTube Music’s quality is also at 256kbps, max. AB’d Spotify and YTM, can’t tell the difference.

Let people enjoy their music, man. And maybe be more respectful in giving your opinions.

2

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ul3p7 wrote

Sample rate isn’t everything. Layman’s terms lossy codecs strip bits of the file away to keep the “important” part but reduces file size by getting rid of less import parts. Different codecs do this in different ways meaning you can get one that sounds better at a lower sample rate.

1

npalnpal t1_j5ujcab wrote

🤡 Downvoted on every comment, let the man/woman enjoy their music.

3

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ujos4 wrote

People don’t like common sense I guess

−3

chnch0 t1_j5ujxmj wrote

Nah dude, people don’t like snobs and jerks

6

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5uka9q wrote

Yup, saying that there’s no point spending a bunch on a dac and amp when you’re using a lossy source is being snobby.

−1

chnch0 t1_j5ukjwr wrote

Being snobby isn’t on the message, it’s on the delivery of said message. Carry on.

5