[dazzerfong]

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.

No need - I know that I can't tell between 320kbps and FLAC, are rarely between 320kbps and 128kbps. It only gets consistently easy at around 96 kbps for me.

Thanks for the offer though.

 

[Paddy]

So if people generally can't hear the difference between Flac and 320kbps why would anyone pay for Tidal over Spotify? Peace of mind? Also the amount of reviews you get from the big audio sites that talk about how much better Tidal is than Spotify in terms of audio quality baffles me

 

[bigshot]

Could lower bitrates sound better? What if the extra information in higher bitrate files causes the headphone driver to interfere with other frequencies?

I would think that transducers don’t get messed up by complex sound. Our brains might be slow to interpret, but a transducer just reproduces. Your theory is probably anthropomorphism. In audible frequencies are inaudible. You hear with your ears.

 

[Yuurei]

So if people generally can't hear the difference between Flac and 320kbps why would anyone pay for Tidal over Spotify? Peace of mind? Also the amount of reviews you get from the big audio sites that talk about how much better Tidal is than Spotify in terms of audio quality baffles me

Maybe because it's creating an illusion, that if you payed for something and all the important audio reviewers are saying that something sounds better that something else then it really sounds better, even if you don't hear any difference. But you don't want to be worse than others so you buy better streaming subscription, invest in hi-res files and better sounding power cables
For me, the only reason I would choose one streaming platform over other is music catalogue and UI/UX. Same goes with every other audio equipment except headphones/speakers. So I'm sticking to Apple Music playing from my iPhone and I'm very happy with how it sounds

 

[gregorio]

[1] Could lower bitrates sound better?
[1a] 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.
[2] 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.

1. That's not an easy question to answer because exactly how the lower bitrates are achieved varies between different codecs (LAME, Fraunhofer, etc.), depends on how low the bitrate, the settings applied and even the version of the codec. For example, by the time we get to 128kbps and lower, pretty much all the different codecs will discard everything above about 16kHz or lower (as far as I'm aware), but this might not be the case at 192kpbs and might vary with VBR or ABR.
1a. Yes, that is a potential issue. IMD (Inter-Modulation Distortion) is quite common and typically occurs when a driver (or other device) responds non-linearly to very high or ultrasonic frequencies by producing spurious tones (within the audible frequency range). Lower bitrate MP3's would reduce that possibility and even lossless 16/44.1 would eliminate the specific example you've given (as all freqs above 22kHz are removed).

So, in answer to your question; "Yes lower bitrates could sound better" but requires a specific set of circumstances, for example: A lossless recording that contains significant very high/ultrasonic content, a reproduction chain that produces audible IMD in response to that content and an MP3 encoding/bitrate that removes those freqs but doesn't otherwise affect perceived sound quality. This set of circumstances is certainly possible and does occur but I don't know if it's common.

2. The whole point of perceptual lossy codecs (such as MP3, AAC, etc.) is that the missing information is NOT at all important to our perception, it can't be perceived/heard. However, at very low bitrates then there's no choice but to start discarding information that can/could be perceived BUT, it all depends on what we are encoding, the complexity of the music or sound. In those circumstances where data compression artefacts are audible, they don't sound like pops on a record, they typically sound like: Pre-echoes, a metallic ringing, warbling, bird chirps and/or hiss but there are some others.

[1] So if people generally can't hear the difference between Flac and 320kbps why would anyone pay for Tidal over Spotify? Peace of mind?
[2] Also the amount of reviews you get from the big audio sites that talk about how much better Tidal is than Spotify in terms of audio quality baffles me

1. It's not that people "generally" can't hear the difference, they can't EVER hear the difference! The only exceptions I'm aware of is a very small number of recordings and if it's been encoded to 320 a long time ago or with an old MP3 encoder (15 years or so). The only valid reasons I can think of for someone preferring one service over another are: Price, user interface options/functionality and choice of available recordings.

2. It baffles everyone, with the exception of those mislead by marketing into believing that more data always means more/better (audible) sound quality.

G

 

[magicalmouse]

So if people generally can't hear the difference between Flac and 320kbps why would anyone pay for Tidal over Spotify? Peace of mind? Also the amount of reviews you get from the big audio sites that talk about how much better Tidal is than Spotify in terms of audio quality baffles me

Can anyone verify from testing that spotify sounds just as good as tidal/qobuz from the same masters, i have found it impossible to tell as the aural memory will not survive the time taken to switch.
d

 

[Paddy]

Can anyone verify from testing that spotify sounds just as good as tidal/qobuz from the same masters, i have found it impossible to tell as the aural memory will not survive the time taken to switch.
d

I have about 20 more days of Tidal, using a Ifi Xdsd Dac that can play MQA. No difference between Spoitify and Tidal (MQA). I've A,B'd them for a few days, I had them literially playing a second apart and again no difference.

 

[magicalmouse]

I have about 20 more days of Tidal, using a Ifi Xdsd Dac that can play MQA. No difference between Spoitify and Tidal (MQA). I've A,B'd them for a few days, I had them literially playing a second apart and again no difference.

Could you ell me what equipment you used for the test?

thanks

d

 

[Paddy]

Could you ell me what equipment you used for the test?

thanks

d

Hifiman Edition X V2. Connected to desktop pc or note 10 via USB connection to a ifi xDsd Dac/amp

 

[iFi audio]

I have about 20 more days of Tidal, using a Ifi Xdsd Dac that can play MQA. No difference between Spoitify and Tidal (MQA). I've A,B'd them for a few days, I had them literially playing a second apart and again no difference.

If you have magenta LED with those MQA tracks played from both Spotify and Tidal, they should be indistinguishable. Or have I missed something important about MQA ?

 

[bigshot]

I had an old SACD deck that had a placebo button. All the manual said was when you pushed the button, the sound became "purer". When you pushed the button, a lovely purple light lit up. I tried many times to discern a difference between button in and button out, and eventually decided to leave it on because the purple light was nice. I bet magenta is something like that.

 

[Paddy]

If you have magenta LED with those MQA tracks played from both Spotify and Tidal, they should be indistinguishable. Or have I missed something important about MQA ?

Spotify led is green and Tidal goes magenta only when i play MQA however for the rest of Tidal's lossless tracks the led is also on green.

 

[omegaorgun]

For me 320 has compression, you need the ear and equipment to hear it.

FLAC all day long.

 

[bigshot]

For me 320 has compression, you need the ear and equipment to hear it.

Would you like to test that? I have a sample FLAC file that contains samples of three different codecs at three different data rates, along with a lossless sample. All you have to do is listen to them and rank them from 1 to 10. Feel free to use the best equipment and ears!

 

[omegaorgun]

Would you like to test that? I have a sample FLAC file that contains samples of three different codecs at three different data rates, along with a lossless sample. All you have to do is listen to them and rank them from 1 to 10. Feel free to use the best equipment and ears!

Your FLAC test means nothing! I trust my own ears, files and gear not anybody else's. If you're not into high quality recordings then why bother be in this hobby at all?
Not every recording will have as noticeable difference and there is certainly more compression in a lower bit-rate file that has been greatly reduced in size.

If you have something that is badly mastered like thrash metal from the 90's or something similar then you probably won't hear much difference, crap recording is just crap and no bitrate can fix that.

Go on Show me the test! The fact we are arguing about this on an audiophile website is worrying enough.