Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotify announces HiFi, a lossless streaming tier coming later this year

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: Spotify announces HiFi, a lossless streaming tier coming later this year

#61

Post by gltchkrft »

lolpython wrote: post #32
gltchkrft wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but for most codecs, bitrate is variable. For the parts where the higher frequencies are present the codec is free to bump up the bitrate and it can also scale it down for silent parts or parts with low frequencies only.

Sure, if it were encoded at a variable rate. But then it wouldn’t be 320kbps CBR. Normally when I see people refer to 320kbps audio they literally mean constant bitrate. If it’s variable then for LAME mp3 people would specify V0 or V2. At least that’s the taxonomy that I absorbed when I was active on what.cd Edit: you have edited your comment to remove mention of 320kbps so my comment is now moot :)

Sorry. I removed the part about 320 kbps being an average, since I realized it was wrong, but you were faster :D.

Re: Spotify announces HiFi, a lossless streaming tier coming later this year

#62

Post by teilo »

gltchkrft wrote: post #31
Mindless2112 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nyquist is about sample rate and frequency, not bitrate and frequency. Edit: Clearly there is generally a relationship between bitrate and quality, but for compressed audio it is far from "cut and dry".

Bitrate is just samplerate * bit depth. For 44100 and 32 bit float you have 1411200 bit per second.

That's only true for uncompressed audio.

Re: Spotify announces HiFi, a lossless streaming tier coming later this year

#63

Post by teilo »

jmann99999 wrote: post #12

I’m not a Spotify user, but I have upgraded to the HD Music option on Amazon. Amazon provides music at SD (320KB), HD (850KB) and Ultra HD (up to 3700KB) — when available. I’m not an audiophile but it sounds amazing on my AirPods and great on my Echos and in the car. My wife even said she doesn’t want to go back. If Spotify provides bitrates near that, you will want it.

Your Airpods are recompressing everything to 256kbps AAC to transmit over bluetooth. So once again, psychoacoustic bias.

Re: Spotify announces HiFi, a lossless streaming tier coming later this year

#64

Post by teilo »

All I care about is an option for lossless. If by "HiFi" they mean 96K/24-bit (or more), then that's just snake oil. Don't even get me started on Tidal's MQA nonsense.

For most material I cannot tell the difference between lossless and AAC/Vorbis. But I can tell the difference on some metal tracks. Not all. Just some.

Re: Spotify announces HiFi, a lossless streaming tier coming later this year

#65

Post by jareklupinski »

jlelse wrote: post #50

I switched to Deezer. Deezer has an audiobooks app and it's Web UI is much nicer. Spotify also annoys in how they promote podcasts, I don't want to listen podcasts. Deezer shows podcasts (or shows as they call them) in a separate section in the app.

switched to deezer too since spotify would not play through my DAC, their hifi tier is sweet, but deezer doesn't seem to have the more niche soundcloud stuff that spotify seems to have ripped early on

Re: Spotify announces HiFi, a lossless streaming tier coming later this year

#66

Post by Slow_Hand »

nominated1 wrote: post #59
jiofih wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Send me to hell if Spotify is mastering or applying EQ to any tracks. That would be egregious. It’s definitely about compression. Implementations can differ significantly for the same formats, as anyone who remembers the initial MP3 frenzy can tell. The fact you cannot discern two random codecs at their max quality doesn’t mean Apple and Spotify cannot have a meaningful difference with their streaming codecs (both cu…

> Send me to hell if Spotify is mastering… Pack your bags. Just Google it, or you can start here [1]. A relevant quote “This is because Spotify applies Loudness Normalization to your tracks as they're played to listeners” A brief search shows that both Apple and Spotify offer 256kbps AAC. ABX testing these two would be pointless. They’re both above transparent. It’s NOT the codec. Send me to heaven if X would allow f…

It sounds to me as though you're saying that Spotify's loudness normalization is affecting the audio quality of the records. I don't believe this works the way that you may think it is working.

While Spotify IS applying file compression (ala mp3) to every one of their records (and this affects the sound quality) I have not heard any reports of them applying any additional post-EQ or volume compression in the way that, say, a radio station might. I believe you may be mistaken as to what the Loudness Normalization feature is doing.

It is simply turning down the volume of tracks that have been mixed/mastered to excessive loudness levels so that they match the average loudness of more sensibly-mixed/mastered songs. Turning the volume of the louder track down has no effect whatsoever on it's audio quality. The meta-effect, then, is that the normalization disincentivizes the practice of mixing/mastering songs too hot; something which DOES have a negative effect on the audio quality of a song.

Re: Spotify announces HiFi, a lossless streaming tier coming later this year

#67

Post by pbronez »

CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #43
bradstewart wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it make a difference? It certainly sounds different (on my very midrange Audioengine speakers). I certainly can't consistently identify which one is lossless in a blind test, but there is an audible difference between the same song in Vorbis and FLAC. I don't know how useful this distinction is though.

http://abx.digitalfeed.net/ Do you really hear a difference? My setup is probably really bad and I probably really suck but even 96 bit lame was indistinguishable from lossless to me, except for one part in one song.

Wow. I really can’t tell the difference at all. Like, I didn’t bother completing the test because it all sounded exactly the same. To the point where I doubted it was working and checked out the “Validate This Test” link to confirm it worked.

Re: Spotify announces HiFi, a lossless streaming tier coming later this year

#68

Post by lowbloodsugar »

nominated1 wrote: post #14

Purely marketing for the “more is better” pseudo audiophile. ABX testing blew the “lossless sounds better” mantra out of the window nearly 2 decade ago [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec_listening_test

You make a claim, but provide a link to a page that does not support your claim. Specifically, the "public results" section shows the winner of comparisons between compressed codecs, and not whether those codecs achieved transparency.

Re: Spotify announces HiFi, a lossless streaming tier coming later this year

#69

Post by lowbloodsugar »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #68
nominated1 wrote: post #14

Purely marketing for the “more is better” pseudo audiophile. ABX testing blew the “lossless sounds better” mantra out of the window nearly 2 decade ago [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec_listening_test

You make a claim, but provide a link to a page that does not support your claim. Specifically, the "public results" section shows the winner of comparisons between compressed codecs, and not whether those codecs achieved transparency.

Correction: there is one footnote on that page, and it links to a single study performed by a team creating a compression algorithm that found that compression algorithms sound just as good.

Re: Spotify announces HiFi, a lossless streaming tier coming later this year

#70

Post by lowbloodsugar »

All this talk about how compression is just as good as lossless appears to be based on the idea that "we know how the brain perceives sound, so we can remove the bits you can't perceive".

And yet when I google "do all humans perceive sound the same way" the overwhelming response is that, no, humans do not perceive sound the same way. So how can compression work equally well for everyone?

As an audiophile, why risk it?

For myself, I've got Meridian processor and speakers and I can for sure tell the difference. Can I tell the difference when it's playing on a bluetooth speaker? Not so much.

Does it make a difference for AirPods. On the one hand, the AirPods will recompress to AAC, so you get compressed audio anyway. But if the source material is compressed in some other format, then it will have lost information, while recompressing it for AAC will lose different information. So if you have AirPods then you really want lossless to start with: that way you'll only have the AAC losses.

Post reply on HN