RickB
Headphoneus Supremus
Do you have a link for Amazon's lossless plans? That would be a game changer for us poor fools waiting for Spotify to step up.
Schiit Happened: The Story of the World's Most Improbable Start-Up
- Thread starter Jason Stoddard
- Start date
-
- Tags
- schiit audio schiit-audio
Do you have a link for Amazon's lossless plans? That would be a game changer for us poor fools waiting for Spotify to step up.
Roy G. Biv
Headphoneus Supremus
With Amazon's resources, I'd fully expect their Hi-Res tier to be a game changer. I'm watching them very closely.
Roy G. Biv
Headphoneus Supremus
Robert Padgett
500+ Head-Fier
I take exception to the characterization that Amazon is streaming 256Kbps. If they are streaming 256Kbps, then why in a direct A/B comparison with the CD, I could not resolve sufficient evidence to discern a difference. An MP3 @ 256 can be substituted into the comparison, and it CLEARLY sounds different than the CD. Therefore, I think we can safely assume they are integrating the Hi-Res files into the library---or I need to make a video for the YouTube with a sensational title like "MP3@256 IS FLAC quality on Amazon".
RickB
Headphoneus Supremus
When I trialed Amazon Music, it sounded better to me than Spotify, which is 320K Ogg Vorbis.
Robert Padgett
500+ Head-Fier
My first thought was that maybe through a speaker system, it is going to be background music, so I probably could not hear any difference.
Then Headphones were uncanny. I have the Amazon coming in off the internet, and being fed into a ModiMB, same as a file native in the hard disk...and No difference. I am fortunate to be able to time-match the playback of the file with the stream and flip a switch---Amazon flip, a switch CD. I can sit here and randomly flip the switch until I cannot remember which is which. Not so with an MP3 @ 256 Bkps. You hear the data lost to lossy MP3, there is no question of difference.
Nothing more than anecdotal evidence with a small sample size...
RickB
Headphoneus Supremus
My thought wasn't that Amazon was streaming lossless, but that they had better DSP than Spotify.
ScottFree
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2008
- Posts
- 1,355
- Likes
- 1,793
At the end of the day, regardless of whatever format and bitrate it is, if it sounds good to you, that’s all that matters
RickB
Headphoneus Supremus
It does, but my FLAC played locally usually sounds better. I am waiting for a company (that isn't Apple or Tidal) with a reasonably large catalog (and by large catalog I mean as comprehensive as Spotify's) to offer lossless streaming. Qobuz could've been my choice, unfortunately their catalog for indie and alternative music is inadequate.
Roy G. Biv
Headphoneus Supremus
I find it difficult to discern the difference between an MP3/AAC/FLAC/OGG file encoded at 256Kbps to a CD at 44/16. Which is why MP3 has been so popular, I suspect.
I can't reliably tell the difference between between different bit-sample rates of files until we get the to highest/lowest comparisons. Meaning, using the same master of a file sampled at 44/16 vs 96/24 I'm unlikely to be able to distinguish a meaningful difference between the two.
However I can reliably distinguish the difference between a 128Kbps MP3 and a Hi-Res 96/24 version of the same file.
With that in mind, if I can purchase the 96/24 version at the same price, or in the case of being a Qoubz Sublime+ subscriber, a lower price as the 44/16, then I surely will.
Minor point, there isn't any such thing as "FLAC quality" as it is possible to encode music to FLAC that is compressed/lossy all the way up to uncompressed/lossless.
A point to keep in mind is that I've been a pilot for the last 35 years and pilots are notorious for their hearing loss. screw tinnitus, btw. (sorry, is that ringing in my ears bothering you?)
Last edited:
Robert Padgett
500+ Head-Fier
Certainly. If I have a copy of a file, I will use it, but for the obscure early recording of an artist which you pick up from an article--Amazon seems to have it, if I get the search terms right. I sometimes just like the convenience of them playing DJ on a "Station" which features the music I selected. And if they have a DSP that upsamples, and outputs something else, it sure sounds good to me.
Minor point, FLAC is data compressed ( ~65% *) but lossless, it is the "Free LOSSLESS Audio Codec".
* edit: For the sake of completeness - FLAC file sizes depend on the recording, with a brief look at some of my files, I see an extreme compression range of 15% to 85%.
Last edited:
Not all MP3 files are created equally. There is variable bit rate vs. constant bit rate, different encoders, different versions of the same encoder, etc.
You also need to make sure the MP3 was created from the same master as whatever you're comparing to. In one case with Qobuz, the 16/44 streaming version is louder (to the point of clipping) than the 16/44 download version.
Roy G. Biv
Headphoneus Supremus
Fair enough. I'm not equipped to argue the finer points of converting to FLAC. And your point should have been obvious. Thanks.
Last edited:
Roy G. Biv
Headphoneus Supremus
In another Qobuz example, The Who's "Quadrophenia", the master used for the 44/16 transfer is clearly not the same as the master used for the 96/24 version.
Listen to "I'm One" to hear the biggest difference.
In this example, the 16/44, IMO, is the better version.
YMMV.
