Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CertainlySomeGuy t1_je1zxfo wrote

I use Spotify and Bandcamp for the library and and if a song is available on tidal, I listen to it there. You might find everything you need on tidal - some of my favorite bands are just a little bit too obscure.

I don't use or pay for master quality though. MQA is a hoax.

I am very surprised that a lot of comments here say that Spotifys Sound Quality is enough. I can tell the difference as long as I am listening on my better gear...

7

dpalma9 OP t1_je21jjy wrote

I couldn't tested yet but, on paper, Spotify shouldn't listen like Tidal or Quboz or even Apple Music.

1

ultra_prescriptivist t1_je2ab73 wrote

"On paper", sure, but to our ears? The vast majority of people, u/CertainlySomeGuy included (most likely), can't tell high bitrate lossy from lossless in a blind test.

It's relatively easy to set one up for yourself - check this out if you're interested and have ten minutes to spare.

Or, if you can't be bothered to select your own tracks, convert them etc., check out this online test instead.

3

dpalma9 OP t1_je2azlo wrote

Thanks for the answer. I'll check those links.

I understand what you say but, it that was so, how are there that many expensive headphones (and it's accesorios) aside the music? I guess you have to tell some difference, right? Even if there aren't "that much".

1

ultra_prescriptivist t1_je2c4ra wrote

Again it comes down to there being a difference on paper but not to our ears. Human hearing has numerous blind spots that lossy codecs can use to cleverly remove audio data that is either 1) outside of the audible range to begin with, or 2) too quiet or drowned out by other sounds in the mix. As such, it doesn't really matter if you have very expensive gear or not, your ears will always be the bottleneck.

Expensive gear exists simply because it generally does make music sound better, regardless of whether it's lossless or lossy. What matters far more to our enjoyment of that music is how well it was recorded, mixed, and mastered. File formats and bitrates/samples rates etc, have nearly no impact past a certain point.

3

CertainlySomeGuy t1_je3x3og wrote

I can't tell the difference if the time of comparison is reasonable far apart. In tests like you mentioned, there are songs where I notice the difference and some where I don't. I guess what makes it even more confusing to some people is bit perfect playback, that can actually make a (small) difference.

1

ultra_prescriptivist t1_je3xiw5 wrote

>I can't tell the difference if the time of comparison is reasonable far apart.

What do you mean, sorry?

>In tests like you mentioned, there are songs where I notice the difference and some where I don't.

So in which songs did you notice the difference and how many times were you able to correctly identify them?

1

CertainlySomeGuy t1_je44tdd wrote

Sorry, English is not my first language. I meant that a direct comparison is easier when listening to the song in higher and lower def without a longer pause in-between. It should be obvious, but I just meant it to show how close of a gap it is between high and low def.

I listened to a wide variety of genres and have not testet it with specific songs.

1

RB181 t1_je43guk wrote

I agree that the difference between lossy and lossless does not exist/matter to most people.

I disagree with your pretentious pointing at a person and claiming that the person in question is full of BS because they don't agree with everything you said.

0

ultra_prescriptivist t1_je46l7p wrote

>I disagree with your pretentious pointing at a person and claiming that the person in question is full of BS because they don't agree with everything you said.

Huh?

They never agreed/or disagreed with anything I said to begin with, plus I ever accused them of talking BS.

Many people don't realize just how powerful perecption bias is until they try a blind test for themselves. That was just my way of responding to OP but also including CertainlySomeGuy so I didn't have to write two comments instead of one.

3

RB181 t1_je47hbj wrote

Maybe it wasn't intended that way, but I thought your comment was just rude. If CertainlySomeGuy says they can hear the difference between lossy and lossless, who are we to argue? Anyone who has spent some time in this sub knows about the deal with blind testing and the placebo effect, and you don't have to remind them every goddamned time.

−1

ultra_prescriptivist t1_je47wvn wrote

Well, he seemed confused as to why people were recommending Spotify, despite the common perception that it's not "Hi-fi". Perhaps I came off as a little brusque, but my intention was just to indirectly let him know why.

2

RB181 t1_je48o6g wrote

Fair enough, and for the record I disagree with the Spotify recommendation, even without regard to audio quality. As a fan of a number of lesser-known musical artists, I consider Spotify's low payout to artists as a major reason to avoid it (at least Tidal and Apple Music pay better according to this account from last year). And while Spotify used to have other advantages over the competition (catalog size, interface, cross-platform compatibility, price), the competition has very much caught up to those by this point.

0

KilgoretheTrout55 t1_je7rwgf wrote

I did not get that level of hostility in his post. Are you responding to the right person?

1