I’m was under the impression you didn’t know about the 16/44.1 streaming. Then I thought about it and guessed that you may and were talking about the budget steaming?
I don't use either Apple's or Amazon's HD audio. The sound quality is no different, and it just gets converted to AAC when it gets sent to my bluetooth headphones so what's the point? HD audio is a placebo machine.
Tidal is heavily promoting their Masters MQA processing which they claim is lossless. I'm in no position to test it but few have done just that by uploading their own (hidden test tones) "music" to put that claim to a test. To keep it short, it wasn't lossless and their own processing/compression was applied. What I have noticed that they seem to cheery pick material for their MQA Masters offering. Those are usually, remarkably well mastered recordings to begin with so I'm not sure what the deal is?
Ofcause they charge premium for that "privilege".
One of the reasons they loose subscribers to other platforms. Along with pretty harsh treatment of those who called them out on it. There's a ton of opinions on it. From agitated casual users like myself to sound engineers swearing by it (skin in the game perhaps). Nevertheless, it appears that from so called artist friendly platform they're slowly moving towards making a quick buck. I don't want to open another can of worms so I'll leave it at that.
I don't use either Apple's or Amazon's HD audio. The sound quality is no different, and it just gets converted to AAC when it gets sent to my bluetooth headphones so what's the point? HD audio is a placebo machine.
I actually hear the hi-res audio. I notice always when it’s a good recording? Even live recorded 24bit is noticeable to me? But this isn’t the place to open that can of worms. Again it depends how your listening volume level and the replay equipment.
What......your not even using Apple lossless. Your fully using Apple “AAC” and Bluetoothing it. How? Your never going to notice higher bit-rates that way. You should try and listen to hi-res again!
I don't use either Apple's or Amazon's HD audio. The sound quality is no different, and it just gets converted to AAC when it gets sent to my bluetooth headphones so what's the point? HD audio is a placebo machine.
You don’t hear inaudible frequencies and noise floors far below your normal room tone. You just think you do. And you know that you’re just making it up, because if it was true, you’d be making an effort to prove it. You’re just looking for attention.
I’m afraid this silly routine bores me. Do you have anything else to say, or are you done?
I have no idea why anyone would want an obsolete DAC when a simple EQ high end rolloff would accomplish the same thing, with the added benefit of being adjustable and defeatable.
And an equalizer can be adjusted with precision. You're stuck with however the NOS DAC chooses to roll it off. Even the lousy iTunes equalizer can do a simple high end roll off. A treble control could do it. It isn't expensive.
I actually hear the hi-res audio. I notice always when it’s a good recording? Even live recorded 24bit is noticeable to me? But this isn’t the place to open that can of worms. Again it depends how your listening volume level and the replay equipment.
It's not a can of worms. An empty claim cannot just push psychological biases under the rug. Maybe you do notice differences. Maybe those differences are actually audio. Maybe they're even related to the audio format for a change, instead of difference in mastering or some inadequacies from playback settings/gear. And then again, maybe your impressions have nothing to do with the sonic impact of a hires format.
How could we(or you) know and trust that it is the case without controlled testing?
I totally agree. Last night I was listening to a new album in 48 kHz/24 bit and it seemed to have something? Something in the way that the space was separated and the lower midrange was presented. But of course I never heard it in 16/44.1....so what do I know. So many feel it’s placebo? Still it was one of the recent live recordings that was really special! So I’ll leave it at that, enjoyable, no matter what it was from? Of course I would like to think it was better than a standard bit-rate, but who knows?
It's not a can of worms. An empty claim cannot just push psychological biases under the rug. Maybe you do notice differences. Maybe those differences are actually audio. Maybe they're even related to the audio format for a change, instead of difference in mastering or some inadequacies from playback settings/gear. And then again, maybe your impressions have nothing to do with the sonic impact of a hires format.
How could we(or you) know and trust that it is the case without controlled testing?
None on the playback side, not even dynamic range as 16 bits has a dynamic range (96db) that already exceeds commercial recordings. The advantages of 24bit (and higher) are all on the productions side. Have a read of the OP on the 24bits myth exploded thread.
None on the playback side, not even dynamic range as 16 bits has a dynamic range (96db) that already exceeds commercial recordings. The advantages of 24bit (and higher) are all on the productions side. Have a read of the OP on the 24bits myth exploded thread.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
