>- There is really a two-fold problem here, being Deezer not HiRes and Deezer not bit perfect. But HiRes only makes sense with bit perfect playback, so I decided that these problems kinda entail one another.

True, but they still are two distinct factors. It's always best to isolate them and tackle them individually in my experience.

>- On the same master recording I commented under another comment (shortly, I just used modern recordings that probably don't have many masters)

I dunno, I see several tracks on there that have had multiple remasters and reissues over the years, and even 2020s music can occasionally be issued as different masters to different streaming services. You can't just rely on faith that they are probably the same.

Again, it's all about narrowing down to what you are trying to establish. Using different streaming apps when you haven't ruled out that the tracks you are listening to are not the same just introduces too many unknown factors, IMO.

For instance, if your goal is to establish whether or not it's better to use exclusive mode rather than the Windows mixer, it would be better to 1) use the same music app for both so you are not introducing additional, unforseen points of failure by using two, and 2) use local files instead of streaming services.

Perhaps you could use an app like Foobar2000 that allows you to switch between WASAPI exclusive mode and Windows Directsound. By using the same app and same track, that would eliminate a couple of your unknowns - the potentially different masters being used on streaming services and the volume disparity issue.

I'd definitely also shorten the list of tracks and do multiple trials (at least 5) per track.

Either way, let us know if you do any more follow-up tests!

Appreciate the effort that went into this - I do like to see it when people go the trouble of actually testing these things out rather than just blindly (!) following the internet consensus.

That said, there a few possible issues with this test.

Firstly, what exactly were you trying to establish - A) that Hi-Res tracks sound better than CD quality tracks, B) that exclusive mode sounds better than the system mixer, or C) that Qobuz sounds better than Deezer?

There are a lot of potentially confounding variables here, so establishing what your specific goal is is essential in order to control for those variables.

For example:

• Did you ensure that both services were using the same master recording for each track on the playlist? If so, how?

• Shouldn't the DAC have been set to 44.1 KHz
  instead of 48KHz in system settings, seeing as that is the native sample rate used by the music playing through Deezer?

• Why didn't you use an electronic level meter to precisely match the playback volume levels of each app? Even a very slight disparity here could have affected your decisions.

• Doing only 1 trial per track doesn't sufficiently rule out the possibility that you were simply guessing. When doing blind ABX tests, for example, it is customary to do at least 5 for each A/B comparison because you already have a baseline 50% chance of getting the answer right if you only do 1. So your result of getting 10/14 correct isn't really much better than the 7/14 you would have gotten simply by flipping a coin.

So, while I most certainly applaud you for setting all this up, I think narrowing your focus to achieve more reliable results would have been a good idea.

If you hear a difference in EQ balance, then you could either be listening to different master recordings of that specific album or there's a disparity in volume between the apps that is making you perceive the music differently.

Streaming music services don't have inherently different sound signatures, though - if all variables are equal, they sound the same.

You're the one who keeps trying to make this all about Tidal, but that's not the reason why I responded to your initial comment.

You started by sayin:

>Qobuz is better than both ... So, if you want the best sound quality and don't listen to a lot of obscure bands or genre, Qobuz is the pick.

Now you're saying

>But yes, once you remove Tidal, the files largely are the same. Then it comes down to which UX, algorithm, additional features you prefer.

That's quite a shift in stance, don't you think?

Tidal aside, it is absolutely true. Amazon, Deezer, Qobuz, and Apple will generally be using the exact same files.

But yes, Tidal is the one exception.

That said, the distortion introduced by MQA is apparently not significant enough to be audible. In a blind test, people seem unable to tell them apart. While the philosophy behind MQA may be objectionable, it doesn't seem to adversely affect the sound in a noticeable way.

>Qobuz is better than both ... So, if you want the best sound quality and don't listen to a lot of obscure bands or genre, Qobuz is the pick.

You know there is no inherent difference in sound quality between lossless streaming services, right? All the apps do is download the files they have on their servers and play them.

If the files are based on the same master recordings, which they generally are (especially if the album was released in the past twenty years or so), then they will be the same regardless of which streaming service you happen to be using.

FLAC, but then converted it from 24-bit/96K to 16-bit/48K.

Yeah, honestly it was hard just picking one album- his entire back catalogue is pretty epic.

The Glowing: Final Cut, Conditioned Air, and Causality Violations are all also on my regular rotation.

I know - you were the guy who got me onto them 😄

We had that discussion maybe a month ago (?) comparing the FLAC to YouTube.

I liked the album so much I went and bought it.

>I have checked and it has the second highest artist payout after Tidal, quite close actually.

The topic of artist payouts is honestly pretty murky and hard to pin down. Contrary to what you often hear, it's not as simple as different streaming services offering different fixed per-stream rates. So what you see one artist being paid might be totally different to another, based on their specific situation. What does seem to be universal, though, is that buying whole tracks pays the artist a whole lot more, so if supporting them is a chief concern then buy albums you like through Bandcamp, HD Tracks, or Qobuz, etc.

>The only alternative I'm considering is Tidal at 4.99 as well but it's slightly lower audio quality because that's their Standard plan, not the Studio one.

As far as digital formats goes, it doesn't make much difference to be honest. The actual improvement from "Standard" > "CD Quality" > "Studio Quality", or whatever the marketing terms are, pales into insignificance when compared to how well the music itself was recorded, mixed, and mastered. Seeking better quality master recordings for the album/tracks you listen to is key when it comes to better sounding music.

Also, take any comments that claim one service sounds inherently different/brighter/bassier than another with a massive pinch of salt - they don't.

>I'd use it on Android and Windows so no Apple devices

I haven't had much experience using AM through the new Windows app, but I hear it's... temperamental.

The best way is to take some free trials and see which service ends up working out giving you the best user experience.

• Vacant - Nocturnal | Genre: Electronic / Future Garage | LINK

• Kauan - Sorni Nai | Genre: Prog metal / Folk / Doom | LINK

• Vega Trails - Tremors in the Static | Genre: Minimal Jazz | LINK

• Hello Meteor - Pantropic | Genre: Electronic / Dreamwave | LINK

A Red Dwarf fan, I see.

I'm showing you what the HD25 look like versus a headphone that actually has no bass, you turnip.

The different HD25 versions haven't changed that much over the years, though. The older HD25-1 did have a slightly more pronounced midbass hump than seen in the graph above, by not by a huge amount.

Here are some older plots done by Tyll Herstens some years ago that feature the version you have against the K701 again.

https://i.postimg.cc/69cdk1DM/FR-HD25-1-vs-K701.jpg

> The HD 25's have fuck all bass

That's objectively not true - they do, but it's not over-emphasized. Here's the HD25 versus an actual bass-light headphone:

https://i.postimg.cc/hGFk8t0t/hd25-vs-K701.jpg

What you mean to say is that there isn't enough bass for your liking.

Seeing as you like the B&W, you must like more of a v-shape/bassy sound signature.

Lol I wouldn't go that far myself, but I agree that they're very content-dependent.

They're great as a pair of lightweight monitors and for listening to certain genres of music. I can happily listen to electronic music and metal all day on these things, but they are my last pick for classical/jazz due to the complete lack of soundstage.

> so what chance do individuals have at providing evidence any kind of evidence you would accept? What would that even look like?

As I have often pointed out, proving it is actually fairly easy and pain-free. People who are willing to give up maybe ten minutes of their time and a little effort can use free software tools such as Foobar2000's excellent ABX comparator plugin (installation and usage instructions here) to conduct their own test using their own lossless source files on own their own setup.

The log that results from the test can be saved as .txt and can be verified using Foobar's ABX signature checker to confirm that the results are legitimate. It's not perfect, but it goes a long way to showing that people can actually hear what they claim to hear.

Plus, even more importantly that the result itself, the process of blind testing actually shows to people how small the difference actually is when they don't know which is which and how little it generally matters in the grand scheme of things.

Sure, the large scale test data has some pretty obvious limitations but it's better than nothing. Official scientific literature on the subject is seriously scarce but what little data there is is heavily weighed in favour of people not being able to tell the difference, which also lines up with what my own personal testing has shown.

If people who claimed otherwise could actually provide some evidence to back it up rather than just anecdotal, subjective testimony, that would actually be a great help!

>No interest in the blind AB testing. That’s not how we listen to music.

That's not really relevant if the goal is to confirm whether or not we can spot a difference between two sources, though.

>And I’m gonna be honest, it’s blatantly obvious on some tracks.

If that's the case, blind testing it would be a breeze, no?

>There’s no myth to what I and many other people hear just because the science hasn’t been able to pinpoint what’s going on.

The science is actually pretty clear - if you think the difference is "blatantly obvious" but you still can't pass a simple listening test, then it's the placebo effect.

>What I do know is that one sounds much fuller and less compressed than the other.

That's the placebo effect.

>Also, as a matter of principle, I think when you have high performance gear it’s worth having the best quality source.

That's perfectly reasonable. You don't have to invent all the other stuff just to rationalize this, though.

>And you're suggesting that, within that niche of a niche, that a small group of people saying "I don't hear anything" is proof that there's nothing to hear?

>Come on. If we're going to science, let's science. But as long as we can't actually do good science, let's stop pretending like it's already been done well. Because it hasn't.

So let's weigh up the evidence, then.

In the "most people can't hear it" camp we have:

• Scientific studies which show that people can't tell Hi-Res audio lossless from "regular" 16/44 lossless.
• Large scale blind tests such as this one which show that regardless of age, musical training, or expensive equipment, the vast majority of people can't tell the difference between lossless and MP3
• My own extensive testing which showed that not only can I personally not consistently hear any differences between Spotify and lossless streaming services, but none of the dozen or so people who contacted me with their test results could either
• Various encounters that I have had with members of audiophile Reddit subs who challenged my findings, agreed to conduct their own ABX tests to provide some actual evidence for their claim but then mysteriously disappeared and never contacted me again.

And in the "can hear a difference" camp, we have:

• A metric ton of people who claim they can but then offer no evidence whatsoever
• Some people who actually managed to pass one of the flawed, easymode online tests such as the NPR one and, to a lesser extent, the digitalfeed.net one.
• The handful of people who know the specific tells of lossy audio codecs and can genuinely ABX them consistently. These are super rare and I've maybe only seen one in my entire time on Reddit.

So, as you can see, the weight of evidence leans heavily towards the former rather than the latter group.

>If you have to listen back and forth many times to hear a difference, the difference isn’t worth it. It should be obvious.

Totally agree with this.

However, there are a few things I'd like to address elsewhere in your comment.

>For one, tidal isn’t even lossless, so it has its own “color”.

While MQA technically isn't lossless, that doesn't mean that people can easily tell between Tidal and any other streaming service. In fact, all evidence points to the fact that MQA sounds the same as standard FLAC in blind listening tests.

> On high quality recordings, the differences are very obvious.

This is actually something of a myth - lossy audio codecs do not adversely affect dynamic range, nor do they affect "high quality" genres more than others. In fact, at low bitrates, imperfections may be more audible in genres that are more sensitive to time domain artifacts (such as electronic music) than with, say, classical music.

>At some point with the right gear and the right recordings, it will be extremely obvious.

Again, this is a common misconception that isn't actually true. Blind tests have shown that owning expensive gear doesn't really make much of a difference when it comes to discerning higher bitrate msuic from lower bitrate. Here's a CD vs Hi-Res study, and here's a more informal but still well conducted test for CD vs MP3.

The reason being that lossy audio codecs base their algorithms on psychoacoustic models of human hearing to determine what audio data human ears can and can't hear. So while you may be able to drop $20K on audio equipment, you still have to live with the same old ears you had before!

Absolutely. It also really helps narrow down which parts of the audio chain are worth fussing over and which aren't, so resources can be allocated most effectively.

I think a lot of audiophiles are genuinely afraid of it, as if by admitting that two things aren't audibly different is going to get them disbarred and stripped of their Golden Ears Club membership status, or something.

Ah, so you meant use Apple Music and EQ together. Gotcha.

I have no idea about Apple stuff, so I was just surprised.

Wait, are you saying that 1) iPads can't use Apple Music, and 2) there's no app on iOS that lets you apply a parametric EQ?

>More than a handful of people have made this claim, and it seems there may be some truth in the matter

I believe that they think they can, however actually being able to is quite another matter.

>also the fact that it's know certain file formats, when processed, decompressed, transmitted, etc., can have different sound due to variances in the processing itself

>To make the assumption that just because you're playing "bit perfect" files, you're actually getting every bit, unaltered, through every part of your chain, is widely accepted as a bad assumption to make.

>So, if a certain lossless file format gets "colored" one way through your setup, and a different filetype is colored differently, then you may actually notice a difference.

Aside from the fact that there a few pretty dubious claims here, I'm not sure how this changes the fact that the vast majority of people cannot discern a difference between a high bitrate lossy file and the lossless original in a blind test. If your "coloration" theory were correct then it should make such a test much easier!

>Note that u/coconutbrown123 isn't saying one is better than the other. They're just saying they notice a difference.

Agreed - they are two different things, however having the preconception that one source is supposed to sound better than another often leads to a difference being perceived either way.

>I'd say, due to the fact that you're not saying it's impossible, plus what I've head, read, and seen - I'm going to conclude they very well could be hearing a difference, and any further time devoted to debating it is just a waste of our lives.

I don't know what you have heard, read, or seen, but in fact all the evidence points towards the likelihood that they cannot. Most people who think they can hear a difference actually can't when their brains don't know which source is which.

Funnily enough, I too wish this debate could finally be brought to an end. If people would just drop the obsession with lossless formats for their own sake and focus on things that really matter to sound quality, like better recording, production, and mastering, then I would consider that progress.