I am cancelling my Spotify premium because the sound is not premium. Now I am testing Qobuz which sounds better even with just 16bits CD quality which seems to be the gold standard for music distribution. Qobuz has many albums, even some from 40 years ago, marked as available in 24bits. But if I select the 24bit option it sounds exactly like the 16bit. I am using a Schiit Modi III DAC and Oppo PM-3 headphones.
24Bit promises much better performance than 16bit which is probably improves editing by the recording engineer-artist. But I wondering what gets stuffed in these extra bits when remastering old music from the previous century. Is the high-res badge just a marketing gimmick? A waste of internet bandwidth.
I would like to have some demo recordings where I can hear 24bits better than 16bits and/or MP3.
Here are some relevant links:-
24Bit promises much better performance than 16bit which is probably improves editing by the recording engineer-artist. But I wondering what gets stuffed in these extra bits when remastering old music from the previous century. Is the high-res badge just a marketing gimmick? A waste of internet bandwidth.
I would like to have some demo recordings where I can hear 24bits better than 16bits and/or MP3.
Here are some relevant links:-
24 bits are not to be blamed, there is some real gains with higher bits depth, but for it to happend it have to be present from the first step of production process.
Depending on the kind of production ( the one with $$ had access earlier than poorer ones) let's say it happened early 00's.
For what have been produced before, either it was on analog and mastertapes had not been lost/destroyed/damaged and they could had been rerecorded through 24bits dacs ( and treated digitaly) for the better, either the only remaining masters are 16bits ( sometimes first generation digital even) and so will keep the sound of it.
So yes 90% of time this is just marketing blablabla... ( the same could be said for high fs too).
But 16bit is not horrible if done right, in fact it can sound very good ( as vinyl or tape too each with their own artefacts). Mp3 should not ever be mentioned about quality audio even if low compression ratio can be less detrimental than the 'standard' rates).
So the question is for me: is there a real need to pay again for something i already paid when i bought it in physical format? In fact i consider buying CD again rather than have a monthly payment commitment ( given the price yhey can be bought second hand).
The real issue is for new music, but for anything which was initially released in physical format...
Depending on the kind of production ( the one with $$ had access earlier than poorer ones) let's say it happened early 00's.
For what have been produced before, either it was on analog and mastertapes had not been lost/destroyed/damaged and they could had been rerecorded through 24bits dacs ( and treated digitaly) for the better, either the only remaining masters are 16bits ( sometimes first generation digital even) and so will keep the sound of it.
So yes 90% of time this is just marketing blablabla... ( the same could be said for high fs too).
But 16bit is not horrible if done right, in fact it can sound very good ( as vinyl or tape too each with their own artefacts). Mp3 should not ever be mentioned about quality audio even if low compression ratio can be less detrimental than the 'standard' rates).
So the question is for me: is there a real need to pay again for something i already paid when i bought it in physical format? In fact i consider buying CD again rather than have a monthly payment commitment ( given the price yhey can be bought second hand).
The real issue is for new music, but for anything which was initially released in physical format...
As far as I know, Spotify serves destructively compressed content (MP3). That could explain why other services sound better. Qobuz, Tidal, and Apple Music serve lossless music.
I see Qobuz is now available in Canada. Excellent. I might give them a try. My concern with the streaming services is that they only serve mainstream music and tend to be pretty US-centric. And as we've seen with Netflix content may be removed if Mega Corp decides to do so.
The first CD players had 14-bit DACs. Philips CD104 and the TDA1541 spring to mind. On top of that the DAC was time-multiplexed between the two channels so one single-channel DAC could be used for stereo. DACs were expensive...
Tom
I see Qobuz is now available in Canada. Excellent. I might give them a try. My concern with the streaming services is that they only serve mainstream music and tend to be pretty US-centric. And as we've seen with Netflix content may be removed if Mega Corp decides to do so.
The first CD players had 14-bit DACs. Philips CD104 and the TDA1541 spring to mind. On top of that the DAC was time-multiplexed between the two channels so one single-channel DAC could be used for stereo. DACs were expensive...
Tom
Perhaps MP3 is not root cause of Spotify dullness. Maybe there is some other processing being applied.
I copied some some of my old CDs from WAV to MP3 and they sounded the same to my ears.
I have owned a pair of Oppo-3 for about decade, they are not the most resolving headphones I have heard and have some annoying colorations which can be addressed with EQ. A loaner pair of Verum-1s are much better. (Am waiting for a pair of my own to be delivered, but now thinking I would be better served by a pair of Hifiman Arya Stealth.)
EQ for the PM-3 can be found here courtesy of Jaako Pasanen: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/tree/master/results
Note that the proper EQ depends on the ear cushions fitted. Multiple choices for the Oppo PM-3.
That said I stream mostly 16 bit 44kHz program material on Tidal, some MQA and native 24 bit. The recording, mastering and distribution channels are probably the largest determinant as to whether it sounds good, great or blah. (or worse)
EQ for the PM-3 can be found here courtesy of Jaako Pasanen: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/tree/master/results
Note that the proper EQ depends on the ear cushions fitted. Multiple choices for the Oppo PM-3.
That said I stream mostly 16 bit 44kHz program material on Tidal, some MQA and native 24 bit. The recording, mastering and distribution channels are probably the largest determinant as to whether it sounds good, great or blah. (or worse)
The sound quality of MP3 depends a lot on the bit rate. I'd be surprised if you couldn't tell 128 kbit/s from 320 kbit/s or the original CD. Then again, we all have different tolerance for artifacts.
I wish I could get the original data and not that MQA stuff.
Tom
Yeah. Maybe. I've never subscribed to the premium version of Tidal, but I wonder if I still get MQA data (i.e., garbled baseband data). I recall their copy of Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms" sounded pretty bad. That could be because they serve the remastered version (which is unlistenable), though.
Tom
Tom
I think you are mixing up TDA1541 (16 bit) and TDA1540 (14 bit).
Philips intended CD to be 14 bit, but Sony insisted on 16 bit. Philips then used oversampling and noise shaping to get a 16 bit quantization noise floor out of their 14 bit TDA1540. Nowadays many DACs have much smaller wordlengths, for example 7 bits for an AK4499EX, and a lot more noise shaping.
I don't think Philips used time multiplexing, although other brands did.
I have read quite some papers on this subject from the AES.
If a whole bunch of music/audio experts can't hear the difference between lossless and 256kbps MP3 in a bunch of controlled blind tests, than I am totally missing the point why MP3 at 320kbps would be a problem in any other practical environment?
Btw, 16 bits and CD for music distribution?
It's almost 2024, I hope people realize?
Because Spotify may not be delivering 256 or 320 kbit/s. If they're running 128 kbit/s I bet quite a few would notice.
I don't know which bit rate Spotify uses. I do know that they advertise "unlimited skips" as a feature on their premium service. Since when was skipping to the next song a feature that required payment?
Tom
I don't know which bit rate Spotify uses. I do know that they advertise "unlimited skips" as a feature on their premium service. Since when was skipping to the next song a feature that required payment?
Tom
I was curious about this because my wife has a Spotify Premium subscription. Here's what the internet says.
"There are still differences in sound quality between Free Spotify and Spotify Premium: with Free Spotify, the maximum bitrate you can stream at is 128kbps on the web player and 160kbps on the mobile and desktop apps, whereas Spotify Premium affords you 256kbps on the web player and 320kbps streaming on desktop and mobile."
jeff
"There are still differences in sound quality between Free Spotify and Spotify Premium: with Free Spotify, the maximum bitrate you can stream at is 128kbps on the web player and 160kbps on the mobile and desktop apps, whereas Spotify Premium affords you 256kbps on the web player and 320kbps streaming on desktop and mobile."
jeff
That depends on your settings, just make sure you set (and fix) it to the highest.
Yes, 128 kbps can be nasty, especially when it's also not being converted with the best quality settings.
You're introducing another two variables: remastered and base subscription quality.
Yes, the "remastered" versions do sound different, and not always for the better ( We have the Tidal HIFi family plan ).
Now that they're getting rid of MQA and going to true 24/96 in Tidal HiFi, the quality is getting better. But you can not undo the damage of "remastering".
BTW, right now I'm playing Brothers in Arm, 1985, at "MAX" resolution ( it also says MQA )... over Tidal HiFi... it actually sounds really good. My "DAC" is a Nuforce DDA100. The higher resolution of the HiFi subscription is, IMHO, worthwhile... and you also have to be careful what sources you choose to listen as often they have many versions of the more popular albums. In this track, the drums are realistic, the vocals are nicely layered and the instruments have real good body. BTW, I'm listening near field ( like a 4 foot equilateral triangle at my computer ) to a pair of Acoustic Energy AE1s....
I want my MTV....
@fubar3 If you can't hear the difference between MP3 and WAV then I suggest you'd better get a better DAC. Also, headphone listening is not necessarily the best to hear the soundstage difference... lower bit encoding sounds flat and the treble "splashy". Listen to a well recorded drum kit...
Plus, what are your settings?
As it is, I also have a set of Oppo PM3 -and Grado SR325x- and the sound quality is obvious. Again, I suggest a better quality DAC and perhaps a more powerful headphone amp.
Last edited:
I just turned up Money For Nothing.
Spectacular!!
The best $29.99 a month I've ever spent.
This is all about listening to music, in the highest possible excuse. I don't need to excuses.... sorry... I mean, I don't need to spend $40000 in a Krell amp... but come'on.... $29.99 a month?
Money for Nothing!
Spectacular!!
The best $29.99 a month I've ever spent.
This is all about listening to music, in the highest possible excuse. I don't need to excuses.... sorry... I mean, I don't need to spend $40000 in a Krell amp... but come'on.... $29.99 a month?
Money for Nothing!
I'm curious where you get that from. Tidal still lists MQA as part of their Premium subscription. MQA was recently acquired by Lenbrook. I'd be surprised if they bought it just so they could kill it.
I've never spent $360/year buying CDs... Just saying. And I get to keep the CDs. I hate subscription services. They're just another money suck.
Tom