[bigshot]

Because both have decent data rates. At some point sound quality reaches audible transparency, and adding more data rate won’t make it sound any better.

 

[gregorio]

... I was expecting to hear a significant difference based on the file size compared to Spotify. Can anyone explain to me why there is no percievable difference?

Simply put, file size does not correlate with audible difference. Lossy codecs (such as MP3 and AAC) achieve significantly smaller file sizes by removing frequencies (thereby reducing data) that cannot be "heard" by human hearing (mainly due to "masking").

Of course, we can reach a point beyond which reducing the file size further does have an audible impact because the codecs will have to start removing freqs that can be heard. With most modern lossy codecs that point is around 128kbps, EG. With some recordings an audible difference might be detectable at that bit rate. However, 320kbps (or 256 VBR) is beyond that point and therefore there is no "perceivable difference", no matter how much larger the file size/bit rate!

G

 

[Paddy]

Because both have decent data rates. At some point sound quality reaches audible transparency, and adding more data rate won’t make it sound any better.

So the data file of spotify's 320kbps seems to be the sweet spot. Small enough to not take up too much room but also large enough to make sure all the auidable quality is there. Well i'll not lie I wish lossless was better. I'm always on the lookout to improve audio quality especially if it's not going to cost me $1000 lol

 

[Sam L]

Hey guys my setup is a Hifiman edition X V2 and a ifi XDSD Dac. I've been using spoitfy for years as we get it free here with most phone plans. I'm trying out Tidal which costs $30 a month and I was expecting to hear a significant difference based on the file size compared to Spotify. Can anyone explain to me why there is no percievable difference?

I had a similar experience after trying tidal, primephonic and idagio for classical music. I'm back to Spotify family plan.

 

[Paddy]

I had a similar experience after trying tidal, primephonic and idagio for classical music. I'm back to Spotify family plan.

The funny this is there are some who say there are huge differences yet i have pretty decent gear and ears that can hear pretty well and i'm just not hearing it. I'll give it more time but so far after 30 days i will be going back to Spotify

 

[bigshot]

So the data file of spotify's 320kbps seems to be the sweet spot. Small enough to not take up too much room but also large enough to make sure all the auidable quality is there. Well i'll not lie I wish lossless was better. I'm always on the lookout to improve audio quality especially if it's not going to cost me $1000 lol

Once you've achieved audible transparency, the best way to get better sound quality is to listen to better engineered music.

 

[Sam L]

The funny this is there are some who say there are huge differences yet i have pretty decent gear and ears that can hear pretty well and i'm just not hearing it. I'll give it more time but so far after 30 days i will be going back to Spotify

Yeah, I attribute people saying they hear night and day differences to younger ears. I'm older now so I figure if I can't hear the difference, then I'm good with lossy formats

 

[bigshot]

I think it's expectation bias more than age.

 

[castleofargh]

In the list of possible causes for perceived differences, high bitrate lossy is way down the list. While being biased by the higher price and talks of losslessness is demonstrably at the very top along with poorly controlled listening tests. If someone decides to obsess over the unlikely while pretending that the likely doesn't exists, that's his prerogative. But we as a community should know better than to take what that person claims seriously. IMO TBH AFAIK etc. Just my opinion.

 

[bigshot]

I think this community does. Can't speak for others!

 

[gregorio]

So the data file of spotify's 320kbps seems to be the sweet spot. Small enough to not take up too much room but also large enough to make sure all the auidable quality is there. Well i'll not lie I wish lossless was better.

Actually, 320kbps is slightly higher than the sweet spot and if we're talking about VBR it's quite a bit higher. However, there's relatively little additional "room" to save by going lower and 320 offers the peace of mind of being a little higher than necessary.

G

 

[gimmeheadroom]

So the data file of spotify's 320kbps seems to be the sweet spot. Small enough to not take up too much room but also large enough to make sure all the auidable quality is there. Well i'll not lie I wish lossless was better. I'm always on the lookout to improve audio quality especially if it's not going to cost me $1000 lol

This is kinda support for MQA though I considered the compression dumb in the 21st century.

 

[dazzerfong]

Has anyone ever done this test?: https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

I've gotten 5/6, so I think there is some merit to FLAC vs 320, or maybe I just got lucky.

I got 6/6, and it was easy.

How, you might ask? Simple: FLAC takes the longest to load!

 

[bigshot]

I have a test that doesn't have that issue if you are interested dazzerfong. I'd be happy to share it with you. It lets you rank ten different samples ranging through three codecs at three data rates along with lossless. If you would like to take the test, let me know.

 

[PointyFox]

Could lower bitrates sound better? What if the extra information in higher bitrate files causes the headphone driver to interfere with other frequencies?
Imagine a hearing headphones reproduce a song, then again the same song but with a 25 kHz tone played the whole time. I'd imagine the reproduction without the tone would be more accurate if you ignore the extra tone.
Also is the missing information even important? Does it degrade the sound like pops on a record? I'd imagine it would depend on the recording.