HiFi - Lossless - where are you

Solved!
Reply

Re: HiFi - Lossless - where are you

kenb129
Music Fan

@decooney wrote:

SpotifyForumPic.png


That's a bit misleading. MP3s can have differnet bitrates and whatever quality level you have chosen for Spotify still has an equivalent MP3. 

 

When/if Spotify goes lossless, let's debate about high resolution music and what we can hear, including provenance of the recording.

Re: HiFi - Lossless - where are you

decooney
Gig Goer

@kenb129 wrote:

That's a bit misleading. MP3s can have differnet bitrates and whatever quality level you have chosen for Spotify still has an equivalent MP3. 

When/if Spotify goes lossless, let's debate about high resolution music and what we can hear, including provenance of the recording.

No debate from me or need for Hi-Res comparison on my end. Don't need hi-res IMO, just Lossless CD quality at least, for now.   Most audiophiles I know don't care for ultra hi-res content streaming nor the glare type echo unatural sound produced by oversampling.  Sounds a bit fake and over-processesed, it can be annoying and fatiguing at times.  Will leave that to the bit-perfect engineers to argue.  

 

For a much more natural and musical (end engaging) sound many audiophiles I know who also listen to limited streaming, actually prefer 16 bit non-oversampling digital analog converters (DACs) with older 16 bit chips and early R2R Ladder DAC designs vs. most of the modern hi-rez DACs and content offered today.  16-bit / 44.1kHz / 1.4kbps CD level quality content and streaming capability in FLAC or Lossless along would be great if Spotify could offer it.  Tidal does, today, sounds amazing.  Best of luck on the debate. 

Re: HiFi - Lossless - where are you

decooney
Gig Goer

dup, delete. 

 

Re: HiFi - Lossless - where are you

Pedro43
Gig Goer

For a long time artists record in 24 bits. Studio recordings are not 16 bits. So going back to 16 bits for CD quality removes some of the spectrum and dynamics. There is no question of oversampling.
Historically, even at the time of the smooth band, we try to capture the most signal to the recording. At the time by accelerating the smooth band and having a wide part of magnet, today by sampling as much as possible.
So going from 24-bit to 16-bit is removing some of the sound information from the original. I do not see how it can be better. And I do not see where the oversampling is because you read on the contrary all the bits recorded.

Re: HiFi - Lossless - where are you

decooney
Gig Goer

@Pedro43 wrote:

For a long time artists record in 24 bits. Studio recordings are not 16 bits. So going back to 16 bits for CD quality removes some of the spectrum and dynamics. There is no question of oversampling.
Historically, even at the time of the smooth band, we try to capture the most signal to the recording. At the time by accelerating the smooth band and having a wide part of magnet, today by sampling as much as possible.
So going from 24-bit to 16-bit is removing some of the sound information from the original. I do not see how it can be better. And I do not see where the oversampling is because you read on the contrary all the bits recorded.


If you go to a number of audio shows and listen within each of the listening rooms, you will see and hear a variety of equipment and DACs.  Some of the smoother and more natural sounding systems still run 16 bit.  Two months ago I just came from a 30-day demo of one of the best 32-bit home consumer DACs in the world and many studios use it as well. Compared it side-by-side with a few others at 24/96, 16 bit... Played a bunch of streamed high res stuff. It just sounded edgy with more than 50% of the poorly recorded music content many peope still listen to from the 70s-90s.   Like many do, tried running DAC with a native 16bit chip that can still easily handle music recorded up to 24/96 no problem. The benefit from some fo these older native 16bit chips it takes the edge off, and like many of these original recordings. It's not to say that new recordings in 24bit with all the right equipment won't sound good. This topic of only wanting or needing 16/44/1.44kbs has to do with playing older recordings if that helps to explain the position a little bit better. And, with this setup, most everythign tends to smooth out, sound more engaging, less fatiguing to the ear. Def not my idea, I'm following along with thousands of audiophiles who disovered this long before i did. Sold off all of my prior 24 and 32 bit DACs as a result. Look up high end Audio Note from UK, see what chips/bits they run in their high $ DACs as an example.  

Re: HiFi - Lossless - where are you

Pedro43
Gig Goer

What you call sweetness is certainly simply the filter applied to the DAC. Some offer filters (Short, Bitperfect etc ...) and others do not offer. They are set according to a single filter and this is what gives the character of the decoding, for an equivalent chip. There is also the sync setting that corrects (or not) a lot of things from a psycho acoustic point of view.
For older 16-bit discs, you do not need to output them in 24 bits. For those who have been recorded in 24 bits is where everything takes its interest. For the old discs you are talking about, I suppose recorded "non-computer" if the scanning is done from the original master with a serious remastering work, it takes its meaning too.
Anyway, a badly recorded or badly mastered disc, will never sound good.
I think we must leave the choice to listeners and not say the 16 bit is better, not the 24 bits ... It depends so much on the very nature of the recording and the material.
What is good at Tidal is that with the HiFi subscription, you can listen to 16-bit or 24-bit for the same disc (when it exists in 24 bits) so everyone can find his account and makes his own idea according to his equipment and his tastes.

Limit a service to 16bits, I find it a shame. In any case, I do not buy.

Re: HiFi - Lossless - where are you

kenb129
Music Fan

@Pedro43 wrote:

What you call sweetness is certainly simply the filter applied to the DAC. Some offer filters (Short, Bitperfect etc ...) and others do not offer. They are set according to a single filter and this is what gives the character of the decoding, for an equivalent chip. There is also the sync setting that corrects (or not) a lot of things from a psycho acoustic point of view.
For older 16-bit discs, you do not need to output them in 24 bits. For those who have been recorded in 24 bits is where everything takes its interest. For the old discs you are talking about, I suppose recorded "non-computer" if the scanning is done from the original master with a serious remastering work, it takes its meaning too.
Anyway, a badly recorded or badly mastered disc, will never sound good.
I think we must leave the choice to listeners and not say the 16 bit is better, not the 24 bits ... It depends so much on the very nature of the recording and the material.
What is good at Tidal is that with the HiFi subscription, you can listen to 16-bit or 24-bit for the same disc (when it exists in 24 bits) so everyone can find his account and makes his own idea according to his equipment and his tastes.

Limit a service to 16bits, I find it a shame. In any case, I do not buy.


Limit Spotify to 320k, this is what I find a shame. 

 

Just trying to keep on topic here. If Spotify gave us 16 bits lossless, I'd be happy.

Re: HiFi - Lossless - where are you

decooney
Gig Goer

@kenb129 wrote:

@Pedro43 wrote:

...If Spotify gave us 16 bits lossless, I'd be happy.


 

EXACTLY.  I bet most of the Spotify "Premium" customers would be pleased. Sure, higher-rez could come later.  Just 16-bit Lossless for now would be valuable to many.

 

AND, if they did it, it might just close the gate on people bailing out every day now.  I read posts every day on audio forums all over with folks bailing out going to Tidal now for the sole purpose that they offer Lossless and Spotify does not. Simple as that.   

Re: HiFi - Lossless - where are you

JontheC
Regular

Update to my post. 

Took advantage of the Deezer trial. (I have no connection or affialtion to them other than as a new client). My ears are at peace and my 10 bucks a month is now theirs. Converting playlist S was easy and free via: https://www.tunemymusic.com/Spotify-to-Deezer.php#step1

(no affiliation to tunemymusic either. But thank you.  My playlists were my concern).

The ongoing posts are pointless. As others and I have written Spotify doesn't "hear" us. We've asked for days, months.. years....... Other services are listening! I for one have my headphones on and am enjoying the difference. 

 

 

Re: HiFi - Lossless - where are you (week 8 no update)

hvttvh
Music Fan

Hi Spotify,

 

Week 8 already time is flying by. Next stop update from SPOTIFY? Please review your plans. People are moving faster to streaming but also to better quality as better devices are comming onto the market.

 

Hope there will be a change. And regarding the magic counter what is your number to go into action.

 

 

SUGGESTED POSTS