Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Amazon Music Adds Lossless Streaming Tier for $14.99/Month ($12.99 for Prime)
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Third time in this thread you’ve mentioned laughing at or mocking people while making incorrect statements yourself. Your experience has nothing to do with lossy encoding, and it’s well known that encoders struggle with lower frequencies (MP3 more than AAC, but still an issue).
Further listening, sounds great.. Unfortunately, the lack of gapless playback is a major stumbling block ( for me, ymmv)and the UI isnt a patch on spotify imo.
Shame, as the improvements over spotify are easily heard.
Shame, as the improvements over spotify are easily heard.
Last edited:
Personally, I think this argument is for 2005. We discussed which format was best 128k or some other format. The consensus at the time was 128k was “CD quality”. This was the argument to keep you from spending a thousand bucks for a terabyte. Now hard drives are cheap and most people are archiving with lossless for their homes.
When streaming first became a thing, we were hampered by slow internet speeds. You couldn’t stream lossless if you wanted to. I really don’t see a need for not offering lossless these days. Most services can compress the lossless stream on the fly when you are short of bandwidth. They can also give you an option for a compressed file when you are on cellular and lossless on wireless at home.
Most of us couldn’t tell the difference between the Mona Lisa and a replica, but people still want the original. Trying to convince them that they are essentially identical to the eye goes against human nature to want the original product.
As for your engineer buddies and their expertise, I believe they know how to make fine records (assuming they aren’t guilty of the loudness wars issues...subject for another day), but I don’t go to a sound engineer when I have hearing issues. I go to the experts, not a guy making Britney Spears albums.
Where did I say it did? I was interested to see if you had experience with recording technicaly demanding purely acoustic music
You may have confused this with my earlier reply to your statement that power supplies do not affect audio quality.
What microphone techniques did you use when recording the orchestra? Type/placement etc.
There are also plenty of mix engineers that aren’t good too. Listen to the new Strung Out album vs some of their previous.
Aside from that, I do noticed a difference between a 1/4” plug vs balanced cables to my MrSpeakers headphones coming out of my THX 789 amp. I think there are certain cases where cables do make differences when you have the hardware support for it
Something I never said - not sure where you've pulled that from (or misunderstood)
No it wasn't - no one ever said 128kbps was "CD quality" - it's very obviously easy to hear 128kbps as poor compression, especially in pre LAME MP3 days. We knew this in 1998. It was "good enough" at the time because most people had dial up and couldn't download 20mb files, so files were 3mb instead.
No it isn't - and if you think this you have no idea how lossy encoding works. Take a 256kbps AAC and the lossless original, low pass them both with the same filter to 800hz and then align them and flip the phase and you'll see they null perfectly, (or even easier, do it with a sub bassline) because the bottom frequencies are not touched. By it's mere nature the idea of lossy files is that it gets rid of frequencies over 22khz.
Ah yes, two different types of connection could affect the signal. The psuedo science comes when audiophiles start spending $150 on a balanced cable and saying it sounds "wider, deeper and with most presence" than a $50 balanced cable. Utter nonsense. I've even read once one of them say that her upgraded his ethernet cable that connected his hard drive of audio files and the music sounded better. Yeah - it really upgrade those binary 1's and 0's 🤣🤣
We have different definitions. I classify the instrument via the low fundamental frequency. A Kick drum would fall into that category. But it does not sound like a kick drum in concert unless you get all of its harmonics, which go to ~8K. A 256 Kbps compressed recording is going to sound crippled. We're talking about how lossy tracks sound.
I take it that means that you know some people who can tell the difference?
If the first is true, how do you know that Gilligan's last elephant isn't one of those people who can tell the difference?
Found these interesting tables. Turns out my favorite instruments' (theater organ) fundamental frequencies almost cover the entire spectrum. Rather surprised about the harp.
And just for kicks:
Average Ear Sensitivity Chart
dannys1 Do these look right?
we definitely have a different idea of what was being said back then.
Here is an article with the settings for Music Match software dated 1998 that demonstrates you are wrong:
“...coding techniques allow you to compress at an 11:1 ratio with no audible difference, and at 18:1 with differences that most people would never notice. That’s the claim of MusicMatch JukeBox, one of the highest-rated MP3 encoding and playback programs, using compression software developed by Xing. When used to record tracks from audio CDs (called "ripping" by MP3 folk), the two "CD-quality" options are 128Kbps and 160Kbps”
You referred to people being able to tell difference between power supplies and cables as "idiots".
Perhaps be more specific when replying.
Attachments
Steve Guttenberg is the audio reviewer for CNET. He worked with Chesky records (one of the best high res sources) on the "Ultimate Headphone Demonstration Disk" which has variety of listening experiences, including tracks with various levels of compression. Recorded at 192 KHz, 24 bits, 6577 Kbps.
He has an article "Does lossless audio guarantee good sound?". The answer is no, but not because the original recording was poor, but because of the subsequent compression - soft to loud dynamics.
www.cnet.com
My naive concept of compression was that you'd get this master lossless file which would then be compressed (or not) to the final master.
In a Guttenberg Youtube interview of a recording studio engineer I was surprised to hear the statement "Compression is good". I did not realize how important it is, and how much it happens in the mastering process.
As Dannys1 has implied there is a lot of things that happen to the master recordings before you get the to the final release form. It would be interesting if he would describe that process.
He has an article "Does lossless audio guarantee good sound?". The answer is no, but not because the original recording was poor, but because of the subsequent compression - soft to loud dynamics.
Does lossless audio guarantee good sound?
MP3 files can sound pretty bad, but are FLAC and Apple Lossless really any better? Do they sound good?
www.cnet.com
My naive concept of compression was that you'd get this master lossless file which would then be compressed (or not) to the final master.
In a Guttenberg Youtube interview of a recording studio engineer I was surprised to hear the statement "Compression is good". I did not realize how important it is, and how much it happens in the mastering process.
As Dannys1 has implied there is a lot of things that happen to the master recordings before you get the to the final release form. It would be interesting if he would describe that process.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Using what?
What desktop app? I don't know of any such labeling in iTunes ....
I have a set of Dr Chesky binaural (dummy head) recordings that came with my Fiio x3 player. These are amazing and can create an incredible illusion of placement and space. Asides from actual live band recordings, things like some walking up from behind you and whispering into your ear. Sends shiversSteve Guttenberg is the audio reviewer for CNET. He worked with Chesky records (one of the best high res sources) on the "Ultimate Headphone Demonstration Disk" which has variety of listening experiences, including tracks with various levels of compression. Recorded at 192 KHz, 24 bits, 6577 Kbps.
He has an article "Does lossless audio guarantee good sound?". The answer is no, but not because the original recording was poor, but because of the subsequent compression - soft to loud dynamics.
Does lossless audio guarantee good sound?
MP3 files can sound pretty bad, but are FLAC and Apple Lossless really any better? Do they sound good?
My naive concept of compression was that you'd get this master lossless file which would then be compressed (or not) to the final master.
In a Guttenberg Youtube interview of a recording studio engineer I was surprised to hear the statement "Compression is good". I did not realize how important it is, and how much it happens in the mastering process.
As Dannys1 has implied there is a lot of things that happen to the master recordings before you get the to the final release form. It would be interesting if he would describe that process.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
It clearly says "audio cables" not power supplies. I've no idea where you got power supplies from - perhaps read more carefully before replying.
It was HDFan who mentioned power supplies. You then turned that into meaning power amplifiers which would indeed have an impact on how a speaker performs - however using a different kettle lead for your amp would not and you indeed would be a confused idiot if you thought it did.
[automerge]1569243669[/automerge]
I think even amongst audiophiles there is a debate on what classifies as snake oil.
I wouldn't listen to anything a self proclaimed "audiophile" as to say, they're both probably wrong and don't understand what they're going on about.
Last edited:
Audio compression and file compression only share the word "compression" they have nothing to do with each other.
Audio compression is used in recording mixing and mastering (although mastering will more likely use a brick wall limiter which has a similar process) to reduce dynamic range so that for instance a vocal can constantly be heard in the mix (instead of getting too loud or quiet as a vocalist sings) - and in terms of mastering to make the entire recording louder by reducing its dynamic range.
File compression is just about reducing the megabytes of a file which is what AAC, MP3, OGG etc are and do so by removing data they consider "useless".
Steve Gutenberg's article doesn't mention a really important change in CD players. I got a first generation Philips player in 1983 to work alongside my Linn LP12/Grace tonearm/Supex mc cartridge. I still purchased vinyl as well as CDs. Vinyl was better quality where CDs were more convenient and supposedly indestructable. Audio problem with the first generation CD player was that they sampled at 44k1 and needed a software brick wall filter to removed the sampling frequencies and artifacts from the audio output. 1986 saw the first oversampling CD players which over-sampled at 192k and could use more benign filters to remove sampling artifacts. After I demoed a Marantz CD94 with CDs and vinyl of the same albums, I happily sold my vinyl setup to buy the Marantz.Steve Guttenberg is the audio reviewer for CNET. He worked with Chesky records (one of the best high res sources) on the "Ultimate Headphone Demonstration Disk" which has variety of listening experiences, including tracks with various levels of compression. Recorded at 192 KHz, 24 bits, 6577 Kbps.
He has an article "Does lossless audio guarantee good sound?". The answer is no, but not because the original recording was poor, but because of the subsequent compression - soft to loud dynamics.
Does lossless audio guarantee good sound?
MP3 files can sound pretty bad, but are FLAC and Apple Lossless really any better? Do they sound good?
My naive concept of compression was that you'd get this master lossless file which would then be compressed (or not) to the final master.
In a Guttenberg Youtube interview of a recording studio engineer I was surprised to hear the statement "Compression is good". I did not realize how important it is, and how much it happens in the mastering process.
As Dannys1 has implied there is a lot of things that happen to the master recordings before you get the to the final release form. It would be interesting if he would describe that process.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
You quoted a statement by HDFan
"There are audiophiles who say that they can hear the difference between audio cables, power supplies and cables".
You replied to that quote with a blanket response stating:-
They can't, these people are idiots that the audio industry has been fleecing for years.
If you were not including "power supplies" you should have made this clear.
Further to previous reply, I never turned "power supply" into meaning "power amplifier".
My initial post on the subject clearly stated
"the power supply of an amplifier". Quite different. When referring to audiophiles, it is quite common for capable enthusiasts to upgrade/improve the power supply in their amplifier. Also some high end amplifier manufacturers have sold separate power supply modules/upgrades for their products.
So it would be common to hear an audiophile state that they can hear differences in power supplies.
As a retired electronics engineer, I have never heard anyone, professionally or "the man in the street" refer to a mains cable as a "power supply".
More nonsense. Vinyl has never been "better quality" you might prefer the sound but it's less faithful to the recording than CD by far. It can't accurately reproduce lows, highs or the clarity of an original recording and in fact adds to sound (usually in warmth and static noise) rather than reproducing it accurately. Not to mention you have to fundamentally master a record for vinyl specifically so the needle behaves which already changes it's original intention.
Yes, we can clearly see you're the audiophile here 🤣
(oh by the way your nonsense about "sampling frequencies and artefacts" is absolute twaddle.)
My statement about vinyl "quality" was in relation to 1st generation CD players. I take it you have never had the opportunity to compare an identical vinyl album played back on a high end turntable/arm/mc cartridge combination with the same album in CD format (AAD) on a first gen CD player. First gen players with S&H DACs sampling at 44k1 needed to have the staircase representations of higher frequency waveforms corrected. This is achieved by a very steep (high pole) Analog Low pass filter operating at 20k to eliminate frequencies above the Nyquest frequency. This smooths the waveform to be more like the original. However, very high pole filters have undesirable effects on audio quality.
Affordable 1st gen DACs were also not ideal linear devices.
2nd Gen CD players introduced improved 16 bit DACs and 4x oversampling which greatly reduced the undesirable staircase distortion of high frequency waveforms enabling the use of more gradual, less steep Low pass filters and with less affects on the audio signal. When I demoed the Marantz CD94 (a game changing player) against a Linn turntable setup, using same albums (vinyl to CD) I knew I was happy to move over to CDs from then on with this 2nd gen player. This was around 87/88.
Your comments about RIAA equalisation standards is quite disingenuous. This is a critically controlled, well established technique to allow longer recording times and more reliable playback.
Attached image shows the distortion of high frequency sine waves when there are insufficient samples to correctly replicate. The effect is greatly reduced when a DAC is over sampled with interpolation. A similar sine waveform played back on vinyl would actually be like a sine wave.
Attachments
Yes you're right about that first gen CD players had awful D/A converters and by 88 they'd got a lot better.
The example about the sinewave isn't totally correct though - bare in mind that the signal is already digitised on the CD. It's already been captured - it can't be made "smoother" afterwards, thats like trying to zoom in on a digital image. What you're talking about is oversampling at the end of the DAC chain, the sinewave example is talking about capturing. Most records aren't even tracked at higher frequency rates, the industry decided it was basically a waste of resources and that you could get the same benefit with plugins individually by super sampling within the signal chain (similar to your DAC example). This didn't change the file tracked at 44.1khz but the theory is that it would capture the processing of the plugin effect itself in more detail instead. In same cases it offers other undesirable results though, it's not universally declared to be a good thing.
It seems like you did a bit of a Google inbetween this post and the last one because you were talkings some crazy stuff about CD players having software brickwall limiters in them 🤦♂️ this time it makes a lot more sense.
Even though this is vastly off topic from original point. I still know you can't do any of those blind tests posted earlier with any DAC you want to use in the world and get better than 50% (eg a guess) because I know you can't hear the different, like me, or anyone else in the world.