Spotify Lossless?

[jayvis]

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

Why should he if he already knows that he can hear the difference? For some reason, you believe that no one can hear things that you can't. I can think of some possible reasons other than hearing issues, but you'll probably have a hard time believing that too. A good test for you would be to visit an audio dealer and listen to a modern high-end system in a dedicated listening room for a while. Tell the salesperson what you want to compare using the same streamer and DAC. And I'm not talking about a sub $1500 streamer/DAC. If you can't hear any difference (good or bad), chalk it up to one of the many mysteries of life and call it a day. No one else will really care.

 

[spark1]

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?



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.

There was an AK member several years ago who insisted on trying to convince others that ABX testing is the only valid way to determine a difference. To the point of being obnoxious about it. Then he disappeared.

Were you a member previously, under a different name?

I believe in the scientific process, but I also believe that compressed music is not as enjoyable nor as satisfying over extended listening.

In any case, why is this such a hot button for you? I used to be able to "win" ABX tests with more heavily compressed files, but never with 320K. Science, in its current state, says that this means I should be just as satisfied with 320K as with lossless.

But I'm not.

Anyway, enjoy the music...

 

[GChief]

insisted on trying to convince

 

[Gigantic]

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.

and here you've completely shown your hand and demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about. Back in the 90's, I ran an independent record label and played in indie bands, one of those bands had a contract with Sire/ Warner Bros. To this day, I still have friends who are working musicians, booking & artist agents, promoters and A & R reps. Unequivocally, artists do not have it better today because of Spotify. Back in the day, if an artist got signed to a major label, they got an advance on their contract. Yes, it was a loan of sots gain they future earnings and if the band fizzed and didn't perform, they got dropped; however, it allowed the band to hire a decent producer to record their record, which to a certain degree, would ensure a quality product. Along with that contract and advance, came liable support: A & R reps to groom the band, media placement, promotion to radio stations, tour support and etc, all to ensure that the label received a return on their investment. Now, one may debate whether that was actually good for the music, but back in the day, bands got pair really money to make music. Even with indie labels, bands might have to pony up to make the recording and fund the initial run of records, but they also received merch to sell and clear the cost of the investment, while the label placed the records in stores, handled media and college radio placement, leaving the bands free to make music and tour.

Thanks to Spotify, those things no longer exist. Yeah, it's cheaper to record music, but are the recordings better? Spotify pays something on the order of $0.001 per play or less, while its executives rake in handsome salaries. The payouts, along with spotify's "recommendations" make it barely more viable than playing for "exposure" and neither will put food on the table of the average independent artist. It's actually only the larger artists who make a significant amount of money with Spotify and the bigger artists receive a bigger percentage of payout from them. Granted, the music industry has always been, to a certain extent, a machine that exploits artists for profit, but with spotify, that's even more the case.

 

[Gigantic]

Why should he if he already knows that he can hear the difference? For some reason, you believe that no one can hear things that you can't. I can think of some possible reasons other than hearing issues, but you'll probably have a hard time believing that too. A good test for you would be to visit an audio dealer and listen to a modern high-end system in a dedicated listening room for a while. Tell the salesperson what you want to compare using the same streamer and DAC. And I'm not talking about a sub $1500 streamer/DAC. If you can't hear any difference (good or bad), chalk it up to one of the many mysteries of life and call it a day. No one else will really care.

the point that I tried to make previously, that he conveniently ignored or simply refuses to understand is that "hearing" and "listening," while related, are not the same thing. someone might miss subtle difference in sound, even with perfect hearing, because they're not trained to listen for them. He's talking about hearing, but he's not listening. perhaps my explanation is lacking because it sounds like a zen koan, but the two concepts are quite different.

 

[GChief]

the point that I tried to make previously, that he conveniently ignored or simply refuses to understand is that "hearing" and "listening," while related, are not the same thing. someone might miss subtle difference in sound, even with perfect hearing, because they're not trained to listen for them. He's talking about hearing, but he's not listening. perhaps my explanation is lacking because it sounds like a zen koan, but the two concepts are quite different.

From being involved in studies about this exact thing and teaching a course developed from them...

100% QFT

Lots of people can hear great, some can actually listen.

Guessing "my" studies from a renowned Physics Lab, and the decades of application are lesser than some ABX testing

 

[WillVT]

and here you've completely shown your hand and demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about. Back in the 90's, I ran an independent record label and played in indie bands, one of those bands had a contract with Sire/ Warner Bros. To this day, I still have friends who are working musicians, booking & artist agents, promoters and A & R reps. Unequivocally, artists do not have it better today because of Spotify. Back in the day, if an artist got signed to a major label, they got an advance on their contract. Yes, it was a loan of sots gain they future earnings and if the band fizzed and didn't perform, they got dropped; however, it allowed the band to hire a decent producer to record their record, which to a certain degree, would ensure a quality product. Along with that contract and advance, came liable support: A & R reps to groom the band, media placement, promotion to radio stations, tour support and etc, all to ensure that the label received a return on their investment. Now, one may debate whether that was actually good for the music, but back in the day, bands got pair really money to make music. Even with indie labels, bands might have to pony up to make the recording and fund the initial run of records, but they also received merch to sell and clear the cost of the investment, while the label placed the records in stores, handled media and college radio placement, leaving the bands free to make music and tour.

Thanks to Spotify, those things no longer exist. Yeah, it's cheaper to record music, but are the recordings better? Spotify pays something on the order of $0.001 per play or less, while its executives rake in handsome salaries. The payouts, along with spotify's "recommendations" make it barely more viable than playing for "exposure" and neither will put food on the table of the average independent artist. It's actually only the larger artists who make a significant amount of money with Spotify and the bigger artists receive a bigger percentage of payout from them. Granted, the music industry has always been, to a certain extent, a machine that exploits artists for profit, but with spotify, that's even more the case.

I used to feel that way about Spotify, and streaming music in general, but I now think there are some other factors at play. Namely the sheer amount of music being produced these days. Most barriers to creating music have effectively disappeared. There is SO much music being created. In 2022, Spotify estimated that there are 60,000 songs added to their platform every day. With the glut of music, the money going to artists is spread pretty thin.

I shared this article in another thread, but I think it's a really good take on what's happening in music right now.
https://rockthepigeon.com/2022/01/31/spotify-and-streaming-are-not-the-problem-too-much-music-is/
.

 

[GChief]

I used to feel that way about Spotify, and streaming music in general, but I now think there are some other factors at play. Namely the sheer amount of music being produced these days. Most barriers to creating music have effectively disappeared. There is SO much music being created. In 2022, Spotify estimated that there are 60,000 songs added to their platform every day. With the glut of music, the money going to artists is spread pretty thin.

I shared this article in another thread, but I think it's a really good take on what's happening in music right now.
https://rockthepigeon.com/2022/01/31/spotify-and-streaming-are-not-the-problem-too-much-music-is/
.

I have a simple take on it, and the people I know trying to scratch a living from it tend to agree.

At the end of the day "you" signed the bottom line.

 

[Retro_Pete]

Why should he if he already knows that he can hear the difference? For some reason, you believe that no one can hear things that you can't. I can think of some possible reasons other than hearing issues, but you'll probably have a hard time believing that too. A good test for you would be to visit an audio dealer and listen to a modern high-end system in a dedicated listening room for a while. Tell the salesperson what you want to compare using the same streamer and DAC. And I'm not talking about a sub $1500 streamer/DAC. If you can't hear any difference (good or bad), chalk it up to one of the many mysteries of life and call it a day. No one else will really care.

Well. Because it's proven that you have an exceptional good hearing if you can tell the difference and hence it's unusual if you do. And if one persists on having an extraordinary capability it's often good practice to actually prove it to raise credibility.
You seem to believe that I haven't or have not had high end systems. That is not true. I've had it all.
I've had top of the line Yamaha amplifiers from modern to vintage. Onkyo's, NAD Master, Sony ES. Fed by CD, FLAC, MP3 from PC server with Subsonic and Plex
Speakers I've owned are among others System Audio top of the line at the time, Jamo R707, B&W DM7, CM5, Infinity kappa 7, 8, 9. I've had single sub and double sub systems integrated via. REW, rePhase, miniDSP and Dirac Live.

And I can tell you there is no correlation between price and performance to me and if you seek it out, measurements and human tests tell the same story.

One could ask to counter; why do you care so much that I'm stating this?

 

[Retro_Pete]

and here you've completely shown your hand and demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about. Back in the 90's, I ran an independent record label and played in indie bands, one of those bands had a contract with Sire/ Warner Bros. To this day, I still have friends who are working musicians, booking & artist agents, promoters and A & R reps. Unequivocally, artists do not have it better today because of Spotify. Back in the day, if an artist got signed to a major label, they got an advance on their contract. Yes, it was a loan of sots gain they future earnings and if the band fizzed and didn't perform, they got dropped; however, it allowed the band to hire a decent producer to record their record, which to a certain degree, would ensure a quality product. Along with that contract and advance, came liable support: A & R reps to groom the band, media placement, promotion to radio stations, tour support and etc, all to ensure that the label received a return on their investment. Now, one may debate whether that was actually good for the music, but back in the day, bands got pair really money to make music. Even with indie labels, bands might have to pony up to make the recording and fund the initial run of records, but they also received merch to sell and clear the cost of the investment, while the label placed the records in stores, handled media and college radio placement, leaving the bands free to make music and tour.

Thanks to Spotify, those things no longer exist. Yeah, it's cheaper to record music, but are the recordings better? Spotify pays something on the order of $0.001 per play or less, while its executives rake in handsome salaries. The payouts, along with spotify's "recommendations" make it barely more viable than playing for "exposure" and neither will put food on the table of the average independent artist. It's actually only the larger artists who make a significant amount of money with Spotify and the bigger artists receive a bigger percentage of payout from them. Granted, the music industry has always been, to a certain extent, a machine that exploits artists for profit, but with spotify, that's even more the case.

I disagree. There are many more artists today than there has ever been. -Would there be if it wasn't profitable?

 

[GChief]

Well. Because it's proven that you have an exceptional good hearing if you can tell the difference

Not really, you do not need 20-20k to hear differences,

Hearing differences is the knowing how to listen part, it is, for the most part a learned/trained capability.

 

[WillVT]

I disagree. There are many more artists today than there has ever been. -Would there be if it wasn't profitable?

Profitable? If that was the only reason to be an artist (of any kind) there would be significantly fewer artists. I think most do it because they love it. I would say the vast majority of artists don't make a living at it. The commodification of music is a very recent phenomenon.

 

[Retro_Pete]

From being involved in studies about this exact thing and teaching a course developed from them...

100% QFT

Lots of people can hear great, some can actually listen.

Guessing "my" studies from a renowned Physics Lab, and the decades of application are lesser than some ABX testing

Are those studies related to music though?
I mean, would you ask a house wiring electrician to fix your surround receiver or write code for a PLC on an assembly line?

Not really, you do not need 20-20k to hear differences,

Hearing differences is the knowing how to listen part, it is, for the most part a learned/trained capability.

That's also what I've written before; that you need to be a trained listener or have better than average hearing. Either capability is not what you would call usual.

 

[Retro_Pete]

Profitable? If that was the only reason to be an artist (of any kind) there would be significantly fewer artists. I think most do it because they love it. I would say the vast majority of artists don't make a living at it. The commodification of music is a very recent phenomenon.

Perhaps they don't. Perhaps they will. They have the opportunity though. That's what I like about the streaming of today.
Back in the day most of them would have zero chance of success. Today that chance is not zero because of the accessibility of streaming platforms.

 

[Gigantic]

Not really, you do not need 20-20k to hear differences,

Hearing differences is the knowing how to listen part, it is, for the most part a learned/trained capability.

my fiancé has nearly perfect hearing and can hear the high frequency noise maker installed outside of public buildings, intended to ward off loitering teens; I can't hear that, but I can har many other things that she can't, simply because I've trained myself to listen. My hearing is demonstrably bad, yet I hear her phone ringing when she doesn't or the fire alarm chirping well before she does, merely because I'm attuned to listening. Listening isn't the sole domain of hearing, attention and attunement are co-equal components of the practice; hearing is innate, but listening is a skill that we develop.

 

[Retro_Pete]

I use the word "hearing" and "listening" as the same and interchange them randomly. I'm not a native English speaker but I know what you mean when you describe the different meanings of the words. I'll try to pick the right one more carefully..

 

[jayvis]

One could ask to counter; why do you care so much that I'm stating this?

I really don't. It's not my problem.

 

[GChief]

Are those studies related to music though?

If you knew how sound and the brain work, you would understand how irrelevant that is, sounds is sound, you hear it and the brain processes what you are hearing.

The only relevance might be that a love of music makes an individual listen more intently without realizing it. But either way, manmade sounds or music... which maybe manmade sounds also ... one has to be able to process what they are hearing at that level. From teaching over 2500 people the majority can't get there.

 

[GChief]

I use the word "hearing" and "listening" as the same

They are 2 different things.

 

[Retro_Pete]

If you knew how sound and the brain work, you would understand irrelevant that is, sounds is sound, you hear it and the brain processes what you are hearing.

The only relevance might be that a love of music makes an individual listen more intently without realizing it. But either way, manmade sounds or music... which maybe manmade sounds also ... one has to be able to process what they are hearing at that level. From teaching over 2500 people the majority can't get there.

Listening to identify sounds is not the same as listening for compression artifacts and distortion. Both require training but surely the things you are trained to listen for is not the same at all. Would a trained harman listener or an audiophile golden ear excel at the job you talk about?

I think you mix two related things and jump to false conclusions on this one.