When I get back I'll measure both recordings and let you know if one has obvious compression then I'll do a listening test. I seriously doubt there will be a difference unless the processing has influenced it. I'll use the 650 + Chord Mojo and the K702.
Sennheiser HD650 - The classic beauty in a grey dress Appreciation thread!
- Thread starter Ryanr1987
- Start date
Isn't Spotify's free version limited to 160kbps Ogg Vorbis files?
I did try comparing between songs I have stored as FLAC on my hard drive and Spotify but I think Spotify was playing the local files rather than streaming them so I was probably listening to the same files.
I did try comparing between songs I have stored as FLAC on my hard drive and Spotify but I think Spotify was playing the local files rather than streaming them so I was probably listening to the same files.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
All I said was I found it amazing that people still listen to MP3 on high end gear..
That's not all you said though, is it?
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2006
- Posts
- 5,786
Not sure about Spotify and Tidal as I don't use any streaming services myself, but if you compare a properly encoded flac file with a properly encoded 320k mp3 (using one of the modern lame presets), encoded from the same source, played on the same hardware, same player, etc I'd be massively suprised if you could notice a difference immediately under double blind test conditions. Under these conditions I can't notice any difference until I get to very low bitrates like 128kbps and even then, it's because I know the tracks very well and know what bits of the music will sound different with lots of compression.
Put simply, all else being equal, listening to 192kbps mp3 and above (or better still, one of the VBR presets) is going to be virtually indistinguishable to flac for 99% of people under normal listening conditions with high quality gear. It's been shown time and time again, with audio hardware and testing conditions superior to anything anyone is using here.
Despite this the vast majority of my music is encoded in flac, but that is only because storage is cheap and having a lossless audio files provides better flexibility if I need to encode into different formats in the future. When I see people using massive flac files, or worst still, 192kbps/24bit lossless files with their portable gear, I always laugh. I also find it annoying when people call mp3 compression garbage (or any other lossy encoder for that matter). Purely from a technical standpoint it's pretty damn impressive, especially when you learn about the psychoacoustics part of it. It's not mp3 that is garbage, but more likely your flawed testing conditions or poorly encoded music. Using youtube (for example) as a basis for calling lossy compression garbage is stupid, as youtube does way worse things to the audio than using a lossy encoder (AAC in this case). If you're going to call something garbage, you should at least ensure everything else in the chain is the same.
Put simply, all else being equal, listening to 192kbps mp3 and above (or better still, one of the VBR presets) is going to be virtually indistinguishable to flac for 99% of people under normal listening conditions with high quality gear. It's been shown time and time again, with audio hardware and testing conditions superior to anything anyone is using here.
Despite this the vast majority of my music is encoded in flac, but that is only because storage is cheap and having a lossless audio files provides better flexibility if I need to encode into different formats in the future. When I see people using massive flac files, or worst still, 192kbps/24bit lossless files with their portable gear, I always laugh. I also find it annoying when people call mp3 compression garbage (or any other lossy encoder for that matter). Purely from a technical standpoint it's pretty damn impressive, especially when you learn about the psychoacoustics part of it. It's not mp3 that is garbage, but more likely your flawed testing conditions or poorly encoded music. Using youtube (for example) as a basis for calling lossy compression garbage is stupid, as youtube does way worse things to the audio than using a lossy encoder (AAC in this case). If you're going to call something garbage, you should at least ensure everything else in the chain is the same.
Last edited:
So I had Spotify then I changed to tidal lossless
It was easy which sounded better...
Same phone ,same DAC, same headphones
Tidal sounded better than Spotify extreme.
It wasn't a hard conclusion to come to.
Yes but how sure are you that you're not favouring the lossless audio from Tidal because you know it's lossless?
I just listened to Gold Dust Woman by Fleetwood Mac both as a 24/44.1 FLAC and through Spotify as a 160kbps Ogg Vorbis file and couldn't hear any real differences, they both sounded clean, clear and distortion free.
Maybe I'm just deaf
I just listened to Gold Dust Woman by Fleetwood Mac both as a 24/44.1 FLAC and through Spotify as a 160kbps Ogg Vorbis file and couldn't hear any real differences, they both sounded clean, clear and distortion free.
Maybe I'm just deaf
Yes but how sure are you that you're not favouring the lossless audio from Tidal because you know it's lossless?
I just listened to Gold Dust Woman by Fleetwood Mac both as a 24/44.1 FLAC and through Spotify as a 160kbps Ogg Vorbis file and couldn't hear any real differences, they both sounded clean, clear and distortion free.
Maybe I'm just deaf
I got tested the other way around...
A few tracks were chosen and I was asked to say which was Spotify and which was tidal...
so only my ears could tell me
Got tidal every single time...
Just seen this
http://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/plans/music-streaming-subscription
Nobody has mentioned that particular song in this thread lately so no, that is not what I said at all. If Spotify and tida have got their rips off different source masters where the SPotify version isn't as good a master as Tidal then no amount of allowing lossless will change the quality of the Spotify one (or vice versa).
On the same principle, if tidal had the poorer mastered source version as lossless but Sp0otify only offered 320K stream of the better master, then that would sound better.
Regardless though, I was now curious, so signed up to Tidal HiFi (in Chrome of course to get the lossless output) to listen to that song versus the Spotify version.
Thoughts? They both sound identical. Same audio level too and every bit sounds the same from the tinny symbols to the vocals throughout the whole track. If there is a difference, it's so small it's insignificant. I don't know where you got night and day difference from. Placebo must be a hell of a thing!
This leads me to believe both Spotify and Tidal probably have that album from the same master, and as such the quality sounds no different.
If you can somehow hear a night and day difference, then audio gear makers around the globe should be fighting to get you on their payroll.
Last edited:
Ok I've just signed up again for spotify
Listened to track Letting you go by Tom Petty
http://listen.tidal.com/album/4724068
above is night and day compared to Spotify
The Fleetwood mac is very close...
Listened to track Letting you go by Tom Petty
http://listen.tidal.com/album/4724068
above is night and day compared to Spotify
The Fleetwood mac is very close...
By "night and day" do you by any chance mean "placebo" because thats all im getting from this.
No distinguishable difference at all on the new supposed "night and day" songs either.
You can justify your £20 a month or whatever for Tidal any which way you please, but there's no convincing anyone here about this massive difference in audible quality.
You can justify your £20 a month or whatever for Tidal any which way you please, but there's no convincing anyone here about this massive difference in audible quality.
I'm currently listening to Spotify and one of my reference tracks has a very subtle cue that isn't audible on many headphones and it is there clearly just like my FLAC version on Spotify.
I'll sign up tomorrow to Tidal as I'm in a really lazy mood but I'm listening to Tango in the Night on Spotify and there's no compression, slight colouration when I measure the recording which is prob from my Tube Amplifier that is quite warm, euphoric - I doubt I would even notice the difference when playing it uncompressed because there's not going to be any missing information.
I'll sign up tomorrow to Tidal as I'm in a really lazy mood but I'm listening to Tango in the Night on Spotify and there's no compression, slight colouration when I measure the recording which is prob from my Tube Amplifier that is quite warm, euphoric - I doubt I would even notice the difference when playing it uncompressed because there's not going to be any missing information.
Its pretty obvious on the Tom Petty track...
I'm amazed you can't hear the difference.
Have you compared both on spotify and Tidal?
Whats your setup?
I was listening through chrome on tidal and the spotify app using my Oppop HA2 as DAC and HD 650.
I'm really surprised...The spotify Tom Petty Track is nothing like the Tidal one
The Track is Letting you go...
Just listen and compare the opening 10 seconds of each track
Listen to the guitar phrase under the lyric at 32 seconds...
The spotify track is wooly and lacks the sparkle of tidal
Last edited:
Listen via the web player on Spotify, not the desktop app. Versus Tidal (on Chrome for lossless) and Spotify (on Firefox), no difference audible. I've skimmed through various on both services now and have not found a song where the difference between the two is noticeable. I don't claim to have amazing ears, but my hearing is very good for my age all the same :/
Yes compared spotify and tidal with both hd 650 and audioquest nighthawks through a Q-dac. Ive tried comparing lossless to mp3 before and the only thing that i could conclude was that theres either no audible difference or a very very sublte one which may just be placebo. Are you sure youve volume levveled between players.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2006
- Posts
- 5,786
This is the problem with these web streaming services, lossy encoding is the least of your problems. You need to use something like the foobar2000 abx tester and compare a lossy and lossless enconding from the same source.
I did a blind test between Tidal and Spotify across 10 tracks. Using HD650 with Toast Mod™ and Xonar Xense w/o any software enhancements.
I got it right 60% of the time.
I got it right 60% of the time.
I was guessing 100% of the time
Last edited:
Yep,
If you can't hear it then thats fine but don't doubt me...
Maybe I used to minutia due to mixing in my studio.
Last edited: