I've blind-tested AM vs Spotify with many people over the years on my desktop HiFi system. About 3/4 instantly said Spotify was better. The others said they were close - but would prefer listening to the Spotify stream. That's 100% for the higher bitrate stream. (Dragonfly Red / Arcam DAC's). On my big Hi-Fi rig - it's not even a comparison... the 320 mp3 outshines the 256 AAC in detail and depth. (more information for the Chord DAC to upsample). Tidal lossless blows them both away on most things - Tidal MQA blows everything away. Anyone with decent gear will acknowledge this.
If you are listening with Beats, AirPods or other lo-fi consumer products... sure, it doesn't matter - Lossless means nothing to you. If you are listing on prosumer gear like Marantz, Denon, Yamaha, Pioneer - with sub $2k speakers and Monster Cables... you will notice a small/moderate difference. More if you have a dedicated DAC. If you are listening on HiFi gear... it's night and day.
This move by Spotify will be huge - and threatens Tidal more than Apple. Spotify isn't even thinking about Apple with this move. If Spotify licenses MQA... look out! Spotify has far better curation and larger library than Tidal.
Interesting. Have you tested TIDAL vs Qobuz? Just curious. I’m a huge fan of Qbz and you can definitely hear the difference compared to Spotify/Apple Music, but I haven’t done a deep dive comparison between Qbz/TIDAL even though I have both. Qbz begins at 320kbs (if you want to stream that quality), and gets up to 24-bit HiRes/192 kHz. Most of the content streams at least CD quality. The different from 320 to 196 is life-changing.
Qbz is one of the few I haven't tested - as I'm in Canada. My audiophile buddy in Seattle had it and said it was similar to Tidal - the compression was slightly different and some things maybe sounded a bit better, some not so much. He stuck with Tidal as the catalogue was a bit better and it integrated with his Bluesound Node better.
What I would like to see Apple do, if we're going to cater to a minority of listeners, is support multi-channel audio (at least 5.1 surround) for music. There is no good delivery system, at least for the masses, in place right now.
I agree with this statement and believe that Apple is laying the foundations for it with spatial awareness and Atmos support in the HomePod and their Spatial Audio in the iPhones 11 & 12 and the AirPods Pro & Max. If the upcoming AirPods 3 gain the feature, then I think we can expect it sooner rather than later.
I've blind-tested AM vs Spotify with many people over the years on my desktop HiFi system. About 3/4 instantly said Spotify was better. The others said they were close - but would prefer listening to the Spotify stream. That's 100% for the higher bitrate stream. (Dragonfly Red / Arcam DAC's). On my big Hi-Fi rig - it's not even a comparison... the 320 mp3 outshines the 256 AAC in detail and depth. (more information for the Chord DAC to upsample). Tidal lossless blows them both away on most things - Tidal MQA blows everything away. Anyone with decent gear will acknowledge this.
If you are listening with Beats, AirPods or other lo-fi consumer products... sure, it doesn't matter - Lossless means nothing to you. If you are listing on prosumer gear like Marantz, Denon, Yamaha, Pioneer - with sub $2k speakers and Monster Cables... you will notice a small/moderate difference. More if you have a dedicated DAC. If you are listening on HiFi gear... it's night and day.
This move by Spotify will be huge - and threatens Tidal more than Apple. Spotify isn't even thinking about Apple with this move. If Spotify licenses MQA... look out! Spotify has far better curation and larger library than Tidal.
Interesting. Have you tested TIDAL vs Qobuz? Just curious. I’m a huge fan of Qbz and you can definitely hear the difference compared to Spotify/Apple Music, but I haven’t done a deep dive comparison between Qbz/TIDAL even though I have both. Qbz begins at 320kbs (if you want to stream that quality), and gets up to 24-bit HiRes/192 kHz. Most of the content streams at least CD quality. The different from 320 to 196 is life-changing.
Qbz is one of the few I haven't tested - as I'm in Canada. My audiophile buddy in Seattle had it and said it was similar to Tidal - the compression was slightly different and some things maybe sounded a bit better, some not so much. He stuck with Tidal as the catalogue was a bit better and it integrated with his Bluesound Node better.
Thx for reply. That totally makes sense re the sound comparison being almost negligible between the two. That’s a whole different level trying to distinguish two HiRes streams. Not sure when your friend jumped off the Qobuz wagon, but I joined when they first because accessible in the States (I believe they started in France), and their whole mission statement to make inroads in the US was to have more popular genres since they were primarily classical and jazz at the beginning. I’m more into jazz than classical, but I know for those two genres Qbz is state of the art. They’ve definitely come a long way and do a pretty good job of keeping up with new releases across all genres as well as having a back catalog that matches most of the CDs/vinyl I own. They also have a ton of albums that you simply can’t find anywhere, like live bootlegs of some pretty popular artists (ex. live Jackson Browne radio shows from the ‘70s). Very eclectic selection. Highly recommend trying out a trial. Cheers. Happy listening!
Well, since I was really rather surprised at how terrible Spotify sounds even at highest quality, this is...good news?
You should try listening on speakers and gear worth more than an Oh'Henry bar.
The playback equipment is state of the art.
It was a general impression I had — Spotify's sound quality did not impress me. Will A/B with lossless files directly from the Music app and report back.
Neil Young had the right idea. But there's more than the resolution of the music source involved. Had those people making the comparison been people who typically listen to music performed on natural instruments (acoustic), and who listen with discernible ear using high dollar reproduction equipment, these are the conditions where the difference is very definitely heard. Personally, I use AirPods Max during the day while I'm at my desk - they sound really good and they're certainly convenient. But I listen to Qobuz high res music via a BlueSound Node 2i source to a STAX headphone (ear speaker) system for serious music listening. There IS a difference.
One other point, expense wise there are people who spend big dollars on tricking out their car audio systems. Hey .. That's what they love .. Cool! It's no different for those of us who spend the big bucks on classical / jazz home music systems. That's what we love. That's cool too.
For those that he an interest in trying out lossless audio now and then, it's pretty easy to get 1-3 months of Tidal for a buck a month or so (via trials). Tidal trials are everywhere. I suspect Spotify will not be so generous.
I, for one, am not invested in hi-res audio, but do occasionally want to "play" with it, and I can get by with Tidal trials. For me, certainly not worth the $20/mo.
I have a lot of lossless ALAC files on my iPhone I purchased from about, hdtracks, 7digital, and prostudiomasters. To me I can hear quite a difference in the sound quality from Apple Music to my lossless files. The lossless files just sound better. I have a Apple Music subscription because I like the fact I can stream from my Apple Watch while I am running. I am not saying Apple Music sounds terrible but if you listen to music a lot and have a good stereo system and good headphones you will hear a difference wether it’s cleaner bass or just better clear more detailed sound. If AAC better fits how you listen that’s fine but it would be great to have the option to listen to lossless with Apple Music along with being able to by it from the iTunes Store in a lossless format maybe apple will even revamp the iPod touch with a better dad and more storage. Guess we will have to see.
Humans perceive louder audio as better, even if the difference is so small you don't actually think one is louder than the other. I guarantee that if you correct for minuscule volume differences, you won't have people consistently picking 320 kbit MP3 over 256 kbit AAC, and it will get closer to 50/50. I know this because I have personally run that experiment before, and the effect is extremely widely documented.
As for high-resolution audio ...
44.1 kHz sample rate can reproduce any signal below 22.05 kHz or any combination of signals below 22.05 kHz perfectly, and human hearing doesn't go above 22 kHz (more accurately, the pain threshold is higher than the perception threshold, so higher-frequency signals are physically painful at a lower volume than the volume at which we hear them). There will never be a need for higher sample rates at playback for a human.
16 sample bits per channel means 96 dB of dynamic range above the noise floor. 24 sample bits pushes that up to 144 dB. The human auditory system has a noise floor of about 30 dB (from blood flowing in your ears, the sounds your muscles make as you move and breathe, etc.). Assuming you set the audio system such that the quietest sounds could be heard, a 16-bit signal can accurately represent anything up to 126 dB. 120 dB is enough to immediately cause permanent hearing damage. As for 24-bit, people have died at 160 dB.
24-bit is good for recording, because it leaves more room for rounding errors to accumulate before they reach the threshold of human hearing. High sample rate is also good for recording so you can stretch recordings to a more extreme degree before the limitations become audible. Neither is at all needed for playback. They just waste data.
We get all of that stated but why should these music files just be tampered with over and over again. When an artist releases there music and they want the best sound quality to get out to there fans I’m sure there first option isn’t mp3 or aac. If that were the case at some point I’m sure they would have sold people cd’s that we’re in mo3 format instead of an uncompressed format. Also a lot of people have started to listen to hi res audio and like the fact they can hear the difference. It’s just fun and mp3 and aac isn’t going away either but at least now with the major services offering lossless also everyone can choose which format they want to listen to. It’s all about the fun of it anyway.
Comments
It was a general impression I had — Spotify's sound quality did not impress me. Will A/B with lossless files directly from the Music app and report back.
I, for one, am not invested in hi-res audio, but do occasionally want to "play" with it, and I can get by with Tidal trials. For me, certainly not worth the $20/mo.
As for high-resolution audio ...
44.1 kHz sample rate can reproduce any signal below 22.05 kHz or any combination of signals below 22.05 kHz perfectly, and human hearing doesn't go above 22 kHz (more accurately, the pain threshold is higher than the perception threshold, so higher-frequency signals are physically painful at a lower volume than the volume at which we hear them). There will never be a need for higher sample rates at playback for a human.
16 sample bits per channel means 96 dB of dynamic range above the noise floor. 24 sample bits pushes that up to 144 dB. The human auditory system has a noise floor of about 30 dB (from blood flowing in your ears, the sounds your muscles make as you move and breathe, etc.). Assuming you set the audio system such that the quietest sounds could be heard, a 16-bit signal can accurately represent anything up to 126 dB. 120 dB is enough to immediately cause permanent hearing damage. As for 24-bit, people have died at 160 dB.
24-bit is good for recording, because it leaves more room for rounding errors to accumulate before they reach the threshold of human hearing. High sample rate is also good for recording so you can stretch recordings to a more extreme degree before the limitations become audible. Neither is at all needed for playback. They just waste data.