Spotify Lossless?

[Retro_Pete]

Well, I suppose no proof is coming anytime soon then. Just more stories.
I recommend all to do the tests. It can be a humbling and eye opening experience.

Anyway, enjoy the music..

 

[GChief]

 

[Crazy Gnome]

 

[jayvis]

 

[cpt_paranoia]

A track from a certain album should be the same track whether on Spotify, Tidal or Amazon

Should, yes.

But they aren't (I trialled the four main services during lockdown).

I'm not taking about EQ or volume levelling. I'm talking about the stream, as delivered by the service. You even acknowledge as much yourself, when you say Tidal is louder at the same volume settings.

It would be great if the services provided a 'pure' stream, from an identified master source, and provided in-app EQ for those who want to playback on earbuds; a modern smart device has plenty of CPU grunt to do that. But they don't; the streams are already 'optimised' (aka soft level compressed; one step down from the worst hard-clipping 'loudness wars').

I'm all for level-matched blind comparisons. But you can't reliably do it with streaming sources. Take a FLAC, compress it yourself, and then do the test. Then you know the provenance of both versions.

 

[Retro_Pete]

Should, yes.

But they aren't (I trialled the four main services during lockdown).

I'm not taking about EQ or volume levelling. I'm talking about the stream, as delivered by the service. You even acknowledge as much yourself, when you say Tidal is louder at the same volume settings.

It would be great if the services provided a 'pure' stream, from an identified master source, and provided in-app EQ for those who want to playback on earbuds; a modern smart device has plenty of CPU grunt to do that. But they don't; the streams are already 'optimised' (aka soft level compressed; one step down from the worst hard-clipping 'loudness wars').

I'm all for level-matched blind comparisons. But you can't reliably do it with streaming sources. Take a FLAC, compress it yourself, and then do the test. Then you know the provenance of both versions.

You can reliably do comparisons if you are careful. Artists don't make 10 different tracks for 10 different services. They make 1 and upload it.
The services normalize the tracks IR to headroom / loudness only.

If you go back and read what I wrote about volume, I wrote that Tidals in-app volume steps don't follow e.g. Spotifys. The slopes are different but the volume at max. is the same.
The tracks are on both services normalized to -14 dB LUFS.
Don't believe me. -Google it.

The EQ thing is a conspiracy theory. Imagine the ****-storm if they did.. Both artists and users would be upset. -No, the differences would be due to different sources for the track.
Now if we speak about older popular tracks where there exists different presses or masters for, all bets are off and the same track could sound different on each service if they didn't label it properly on the service. So comparison between services is probably most consistent with not too old music from "the digital era".
I usually avoid the "Re-mastered" tracks like the plague. I find them almost always to be compressed to hell and EQ'ed with a nasty boost of bass and treble like you would make a smiley on your 31 band EQ when you were young.


EDIT: (Data added)

This is a proper comparison
Tidal Hi-Fi vs. Spotify Very High overlayed-->

Source-->

Tidal vs. Deezer vs. Qobuz vs. Spotify vs. Apple Music

That's easy to spot with DeltaWave. @pkane, could you please help out a bit here? I'm 110% positive that the track from Tidal is identical with the one published on Deezer, just the compression streaming algorithms are different. By looking at the above pics, can you please say some more about...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Bill Ferris]

, When I purchase a CD, or a downloaded file, whether redbook, or hi-res, at least I will know what it sounds like, and that determines if it gets losslessly WAV. ripped to my playback music file storage devices for consistent HQ playback !

With no concern or effects from some internet based music server possibly manipulating it`s SQ whatever reason for internet streaming, because I have total control of the selection and source for media transfer, and its HQ decoding and hardwired distribution playback within my house`s 7 rooms.

I`m damn glad I chose my independent of the internet method starting in 2009 with a 400 CD/SACD/DVD player, and now currently 14,600 WAV. ripped tracks and still monthly growing of multi-genre from Bach to B-O-C, minus disco, rap and country, all day/every day played in the shuffle mode.

I`m not smug, as some folks here have labeled me, but very successful and happy with my method.

Good luck for you folk`s finding your digital music SQ happiness, whatever the method.

 

[spark1]

I'm very happy being able to stream the 12K tracks I've ripped from CD or downloaded. Along with the 100M tracks available from the streaming services.

 

[GChief]

^^^ This

 

[Retro_Pete]

, When I purchase a CD, or a downloaded file, whether redbook, or hi-res, at least I will know what it sounds like, and that determines if it gets losslessly WAV. ripped to my playback music file storage devices for consistent HQ playback !

With no concern or effects from some internet based music server possibly manipulating it`s SQ whatever reason for internet streaming, because I have total control of the selection and source for media transfer, and its HQ decoding and hardwired distribution playback within my house`s 7 rooms.

I`m damn glad I chose my independent of the internet method starting in 2009 with a 400 CD/SACD/DVD player, and now currently 14,600 WAV. ripped tracks and still monthly growing of multi-genre from Bach to B-O-C, minus disco, rap and country, all day/every day played in the shuffle mode.

I`m not smug, as some folks here have labeled me, but very successful and happy with my method.

Good luck for you folk`s finding your digital music SQ happiness, whatever the method.

Well. For example dynamic range varies across CD's as well. So you actually still need to seek out the best sounding one even if you collect physical media.
Examples-->

Other discussions reg. this album-->

Michael Jackson "Thriller" Best Sounding CD?

Which version of Thriller is the best sounding CD so far I've only heard the 25th Anniversary Edition which doesn't sound as good as i thought it would.

forums.stevehoffman.tv

This of course means that we can't know for certain which source for older material is used for streaming platforms as well. Again; comparisons between streaming services should probably be with newer material.

 

[Retro_Pete]

I'm very happy being able to stream the 12K tracks I've ripped from CD or downloaded. Along with the 100M tracks available from the streaming services.

True. The best of both worlds. What I especially think is awesome with Spotify is the "similar" recommendations where I find many new artists and tracks I otherwise wouldn't have found.

 

[cooky]

Isn't this largely irrelevant now, those who didn't care, still won't. Those who did have moved to other services like Tidal long ago.

 

[WillVT]

Isn't this largely irrelevant now, those who didn't care, still won't. Those who did have moved to other services like Tidal long ago.

But if Spotify did actually go to lossless, I think a lot of those who care would come back. Most seem to agree that they have the best discovery algorithms.

 

[spark1]

Isn't this largely irrelevant now, those who didn't care, still won't. Those who did have moved to other services like Tidal long ago.

I disagree.

As I said earlier, if Spotify offered lossless, I would probably dump Amazon and Qobuz because of Spotify's much better discovery algorithms.

Honestly though, I don't know if there are enough users who care about lossless sound quality to justify the increased costs of storage and bandwidth that Spotify would need to recover.

Lossless certainly offers no benefit to those who listen on earbuds, computer/smartphone speakers, etc. This part of the market is much larger than the "audiophile segment"...and even some portion of this much smaller segment is further fragmented into the anti-digital subset and some portion who see (hear) no benefit to lossless vs. lossy.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Well. For example dynamic range varies across CD's as well. So you actually still need to seek out the best sounding one even if you collect physical media.
Examples-->

View attachment 3194548

View attachment 3194552

Other discussions reg. this album-->

Michael Jackson "Thriller" Best Sounding CD?

Which version of Thriller is the best sounding CD so far I've only heard the 25th Anniversary Edition which doesn't sound as good as i thought it would.

forums.stevehoffman.tv

This of course means that we can't know for certain which source for older material is used for streaming platforms as well. Again; comparisons between streaming services should probably be with newer material.

Yes, I`m aware of the often different versions available, hence my statement of checking out (audition) various versions to then decide which gets WAV. ripped into my SS device digital music playback files.
But at least my ripped media resolution is never less than 44.1/16.
As an example, I have a The Best of Marshal Tucker Band CD, and as much as I really like them, this super compressed & level brick walled re-masterbaited garbage version will not ever grace my all day playing digital music files !

 

[cpt_paranoia]

Artists don't make 10 different tracks for 10 different services

Artists don't supply tracks to streaming services, labels do (unless thecartist is independent of label).

The EQ thing is a conspiracy theory

I wasn't talking about EQ, except that it would better to provide in-app EQ for users to fiddle with. My point was about master version ID, and loudness processing, the latter you acknowledge.

The ASR discussion appears less certain about the similarity of tracks across streaming services than you suggest.

My experience of the streaming services was that multiple versions of tracks were often were available, and they were different between services; compared through Audacity. And different to the CD versions I have.

 

[Gigantic]

I'll say it again. I can definitely discern between different file resolutions in my system. If someone can't or doesn't care to in theirs, I don't know what else to tell them other than just MP3 away.

a person doesn't need better than average hearing to discern the difference between lossy and lossless files. My hearing is wrecked from growing up on a farm (tractors and machinery, castrated piglets squealing in your ears) playing in bands for 20 years, US Army 8" howitzers, working as a motorcycle trackday instructor and in pro motorcycle roadracing paddocks for the better part of a decade and a thirty-year career in construction. I have a mass roll-off at 9750 Hz and can't hear anything above that, yet I find my collection of 5k records that I've digitized at 320kbps to be fatiguing compared to the lossless content on Apple Music and find their hi-res content to be better yet. Good hearing is of little value if you don't know how to listen. While my hearing may be wrecked, I still know how to use what I've got left and can discern differences in phase and time alignment in my speakers or the differences between lossy and lossless files. It's not rocket surgery and it doesn't take a golden ear to hear it, you just have to know how to listen and this is something that can be taught to anyone.

 

[Gigantic]

But if Spotify did actually go to lossless, I think a lot of those who care would come back. Most seem to agree that they have the best discovery algorithms.

it would take more than that to bring me back. Spotify pays artists an order of magnitude less than Tidal or Apple Music. As someone who has worked in various creative roles, this matters to me.

 

[Retro_Pete]

a person doesn't need better than average hearing to discern the difference between lossy and lossless files. My hearing is wrecked from growing up on a farm (tractors and machinery, castrated piglets squealing in your ears) playing in bands for 20 years, US Army 8" howitzers, working as a motorcycle trackday instructor and in pro motorcycle roadracing paddocks for the better part of a decade and a thirty-year career in construction. I have a mass roll-off at 9750 Hz and can't hear anything above that, yet I find my collection of 5k records that I've digitized at 320kbps to be fatiguing compared to the lossless content on Apple Music and find their hi-res content to be better yet. Good hearing is of little value if you don't know how to listen. While my hearing may be wrecked, I still know how to use what I've got left and can discern differences in phase and time alignment in my speakers or the differences between lossy and lossless files. It's not rocket surgery and it doesn't take a golden ear to hear it, you just have to know how to listen and this is something that can be taught to anyone.

All studies and statistics say differently. Please go back and read the links I've posted.

Have you done some of the tests I've linked to?

it would take more than that to bring me back. Spotify pays artists an order of magnitude less than Tidal or Apple Music. As someone who has worked in various creative roles, this matters to me.

Up and coming artists have it easier today. They can record it and mix their stuff at home on their PC and upload it. If it's good they'll succeed. Decades ago you would have to pay a lot more to many different people to have a record or a CD put on the market. And if they didn't sell you'd be in debt or the label would break your contract. No such risk for many artists today.
The recommendations and "play similar as" within e.g. Spotify are great for discovering such unknown artists that years ago wouldn't even have had the chance to put a CD or an LP on the market.
The ones who doesn't make as much profit as they probably would have with physical media are the large popular bands and artists.

Bottom line, I see it as a net win for both consumers and small bands and up-and coming artists.

 

[GChief]

Up and coming artists have it easier today. They can record it and mix their stuff at home on their PC and upload it. If it's good they'll succeed. Decades ago you would have to pay a lot more to many different people to have a record or a CD put on the market. And if they didn't sell you'd be in debt or the label would break your contract. No such risk for many artists today.
The recommendations and "play similar as" within e.g. Spotify are great for discovering such unknown artists that years ago wouldn't even have had the chance to put a CD or an LP on the market.
The ones who doesn't make as much profit as they probably would have with physical media are the large popular bands and artists.

Bottom line, I see it as a net win for both consumers and small bands and up-and coming artists.

Helps out older "underground" bands also. I have friends that were making a living at it in the 90's and early 00's. Once they put their already released stuff on streaming services, they have had to order more CDs to sell on their site and have more butts in chairs for live shows.