Spotify Preparing to Launch Long-Awaited Lossless Audio Tier on iPhone

[lotones]

If the master was created at 44.1, then yes it is (with the caveats of my posts above). “Master” is not a fixed quality, it is whatever quality the producer created.

192 and 96, but yes.

Thanks. I didn't have my contacts in... 😅

 

[Velli]

Ok, that makes sense, but I don't believe anyone is suggesting that testing method to determine the optimal bitrate. I would test each bitrate compared to uncompressed, and choose the last one where I couldn't tell the difference.


I actually did that test recently on a blind abx comparison site, and couldn't easily and reliability tell the difference on the clips they chose. I have lost much of my hearing above 10Khz, and have some (mild?) tinnitus. I used a pair of $100 headphones (Sony MDR 7506) plugged into my PC motherboard.
I can assure you that I can still very much enjoy music at 96 kbps, and it's bigoted of you to suggest that I shouldn't be listening to music because I don't have golden ears.

Fair enough. I rephrase my comment to “shouldn’t participate in discussions about which bitrate is sufficient for other people”.

 

[Velli]

Who is comparing bitrate quality in this way?! The simple test is: for any given encoding mechanism, how does it compare to the best source that you have.

So if you can’t tell the difference between lossless and 320 kps, that means that 320 kps is a high enough bitrate for your listening needs and any higher bitrate than that is a waste of storage/data bandwidth/money.

Similarly the comparison between lossless and 256 kbps. Or lossless and 192 kbps. You pick the lowest bitrate at which you can’t hear any difference to lossless.

Do that under ideal listening conditions, using your best equipment, and then that bitrate will suffice for all listening conditions. If you are paying for lossless when you can’t hear a difference, then you are wasting your money. (If you can hear a difference - and this might be because lossless has been mixed assuming a higher quality of playback equipment and quieter listening environment rather than because of the compression algorithm) then it is money well spent.

I was explaining what I meant by breaking up the differences in chunks, clearly not very well. As a concept, I agree with your argument of comparing the whole rather than comparing each step. That was my argument. My point is, just because you can’t demonstrate a difference - such as between lossless and 320 kbps - does not mean that that difference doesn’t matter. You also can’t hear the compression of Bluetooth. But you’re piling the two together, and then maybe you can.

I’m trying to argue that if you want the best possible end result, you can’t go right to the edge of undetectable deterioration of the sound in every step.

In the computer world, it would be equivalent to saying that more RAM doesn’t matter much. 10% faster CPU doesn’t matter much. 10% faster SSD doesn’t matter much. 10% faster GPU doesn’t matter much. But if you put it all together, it matters a whole lot.

 

[AdamInKent]

I was explaining what I meant by breaking up the differences in chunks, clearly not very well. As a concept, I agree with your argument of comparing the whole rather than comparing each step. That was my argument. My point is, just because you can’t demonstrate a difference - such as between lossless and 320 kbps - does not mean that that difference doesn’t matter. You also can’t hear the compression of Bluetooth. But you’re piling the two together, and then maybe you can.

I’m trying to argue that if you want the best possible end result, you can’t go right to the edge of undetectable deterioration of the sound in every step.

In the computer world, it would be equivalent to saying that more RAM doesn’t matter much. 10% faster CPU doesn’t matter much. 10% faster SSD doesn’t matter much. 10% faster GPU doesn’t matter much. But if you put it all together, it matters a whole lot.

Thank you for further explaining the point that you are making, and I see what you are saying. In hi-fi terms, I would equate using lossless when not being able to hear the difference to buying a £1000 turntable and pairing it with £100 speakers. It doesn’t matter that the expensive turntable is able to extract fine details from the record, you will never hear them through those speakers, so it was not a good use of money.

Perhaps the sensible approach is to find the bitrate that works for you, then step up a level from that to give some headroom? For example, if 256 kbps AAC sounds perfect, then use 320 kbps, but know that you’re unlikely to benefit from paying extra for lossless.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

24-bit at 44.1 kHz isn't lossless.
You gotta go to 24-Bit 194 kHz to get lossless.
This 44.1kHz doesn't even put them in the Hi-Res category.
Just lying. Using words that have a meaning and making them meaningless.

I think your definition of lossless is different than others. Isn't a CD (16-bit, 44.1Khz) lossless? It may not be what some call "Hi-Res", but it's lossless.

 

[lotones]

I think your definition of lossless is different than others. Isn't a CD (16-bit, 44.1Khz) lossless? It may not be what some call "Hi-Res", but it's lossless.

yes, 16-bit 44.1 is considered "lossless". but I think at this point it's been proven that it's not. The standard was set when equipment and audio standards were based on analog. It's accepted now that 24-bits and at least 48kHz raises filter distortion above human hearing range, which allows flatter frequency response (better timbre and decay), and allows more headroom for natural harmonics (more high frequency psychoacoustic detail). Those are the losses with 16-bit 44.1

To be fair, 16-bit 44.1 can be done extremely well, especially now. But that standard is 45 years old. We can do better now with virtually no effort.

 

[Jensend]

Fair enough. I rephrase my comment to “shouldn’t participate in discussions about which bitrate is sufficient for other people”.

Should anyone participate in that discussion? I'm not claiming that a bitrate that is sufficient for me is sufficient for everyone.
I'm suggesting a test for determining sufficient bitrate, and speculating about the percentage of people who can discriminate between the current maximum Spotify bitrate and cash CD-quality lossless. My speculation may very well be be wrong. What percentage of people do you suspect could tell the difference between 320kbit/s and CD quality lossless on the best equipment they use? (Excluding people who only listen through wireless devices where additional compression is added)

I tend to care much more about video/display quality over audio quality, and I've seen plenty of wildly inaccurate claims about display quality, so it's very possible that I'm the equivalent when it comes to audio. I bought an OLED TV because I care about image quality, but use the built-in speakers, with are fine for me except for weak/distorted bass. I share a wall with a neighbor, so I can't really turn up the bass much anyways.

 

[AdamInKent]

yes, 16-bit 44.1 is considered "lossless". but I think at this point it's been proven that it's not.

I think that the confusion here is that you are using the term “lossless” in an unconventional way.

When talking about music files, lossy and lossless refer only to the file compression algorithm (ie whether the audio is deliberately degraded by the compression algorithm to reduce the file size / bitrate). So MP3 and AAC are examples of lossy file formats; WAV and FLAC are examples of lossless formats.

Conventionally, lossy/lossless are not used to refer to losses resulting from digital audio sampling rates (eg 44.1 kHz) and precision (eg 16 bit), as you are doing.

If you think about if, using your definition, the only lossless format is analogue. (As soon as the audio signal is digitised, audio information is lost, no matter what the sampling rate and precision. So, by your definition, all digital formats are inherently lossy.)

 

[djphat2000]

I totally agree with your opinions, I have an ATV hooked up to a modest 5.1 theater system with tower main speakers, I turned on the lossless on the ATV, at low levels it was not that noticable, but turn up the volume to about 60-65 db (according to my Apple Watch) and it was quite noticeable in the genres that you mentioned. I also have the original lightning AirPods Max and was disappointed when only the USB-C AirPods Max obtained lossless while teathered to the iPhone by USB-C cable, but I did get a Beats Pro for Christmas and the claim was that it also could play lossless by USB-C cable, I tried it out and could not tell the difference from wireless.

This movie in my view is a great test for your system. Once you get to the Neve console. And all the music they play during this. You'll hear it. 🙂 Considering it's compressed for YouTube. If you can find it on Netflix (HD) or some other medium it would be better.

Anything BT or wireless isn't going to be good enough. Somethings just need a wire.

 

[lotones]

I think that the confusion here is that you are using the term “lossless” in an unconventional way.

When talking about music files, lossy and lossless refer only to the file compression algorithm (ie whether the audio is deliberately degraded by the compression algorithm to reduce the file size / bitrate). So MP3 and AAC are examples of lossy file formats; WAV and FLAC are examples of lossless formats.

Conventionally, lossy/lossless are not used to refer to losses resulting from digital audio sampling rates (eg 44.1 kHz) and precision (eg 16 bit), as you are doing.

If you think about if, using your definition, the only lossless format is analogue. (As soon as the audio signal is digitised, audio information is lost, no matter what the sampling rate and precision. So, by your definition, all digital formats are inherently lossy.)

Actually I think it’s the opposite re. magnetic tape vs digital. Tape has both a higher noise floor and can be easily saturated, so usable dynamic range is inherently limited. Useable digital dynamic range at higher sampling rates is vast. Think about trying to record thunder, or big waves on a beach. Digital has a much better chance of accurately recording that huge dynamic range.

And that’s not even considering mechanical issues with recording on magnetic tape, however minute. Even something ubiquitous as environmental factors can effect magnetic recording, but are benign digitally.

Magnetic tape has its charm, but so does a light tan 1972 Buick Skylark with a green vinyl roof. It will get you where you’re going, but there are a lot more convenient and efficient ways to get there now.

 

[AdamInKent]

Actually I think it’s the opposite re. magnetic tape vs digital. Tape has both a higher noise floor and can be easily saturated, so usable dynamic range is inherently limited. Useable digital dynamic range at higher sampling rates is vast.

Dynamic range has nothing to do with sampling rates: it is a property of digital word length / precision - ie 24 bit digital has a higher dynamic range than 16 bit digital because it encodes a much larger range of possible values. (I studied audio as part of my engineering degree.)

Regardless of the noise floor, tape is inherently less “lossy” because it has - at least theoretically - an infinite sampling rate and infinite precision.

Think about trying to record thunder, or big waves on a beach. Digital has a much better chance of accurately recording that huge dynamic range.

I agree, digital potentially provides a higher dynamic range, given sufficient bits. That said, tape has the advantage of saturating much more gracefully than digital (ie is more forgiving of incorrectly set levels for sounds that are louder than unexpected). But we are getting off track 😉

And that’s not even considering mechanical issues with recording on magnetic tape, however minute. Even something ubiquitous as environmental factors can affect magnetic recording, but are benign digitally. Magnetic tape has its charm, but so does a light tan 1972 Buick Skylark with a green vinyl roof. It will get you where you’re going, but there are a lot more convenient and efficient ways to get there now.

At no point did I advocate tape over digital formats (though it should be noted that the quality of tape is very much dependent on tape width and speed and it has its advocates)… I never even mentioned tape. (Tape is an analogue recording format but it is not what I mean by analogue.)

When I say that, by your definition, the only lossless format is analogue, I do so because the moment a signal is digitised, information is lost because of the inherent nature of digitisation. An analogue wave has an infinite number of samples at infinite resolution. A digital signal has a finite number of samples at a finite resolution. Therefore, by your terms, all digital is inherently lossy.

All that said - conventionally - lossy and lossless refer to the type of file compression algorithm rather than the sampling rate and precision.

 

[MrRom92]

Dynamic range has nothing to do with sampling rates: it is a property of digital word length / precision - ie 24 bit digital has a higher dynamic range than 16 bit digital because it encodes a much larger range of possible values. (I studied audio as part of my engineering degree.)

Regardless of the noise floor, tape is inherently less “lossy” because it has - at least theoretically - an infinite sampling rate and infinite precision.

I agree, digital potentially provides a higher dynamic range, given sufficient bits. That said, tape has the advantage of saturating much more gracefully than digital (ie is more forgiving of incorrectly set levels for sounds that are louder than unexpected). But we are getting off track 😉

At no point did I advocate tape over digital formats (though it should be noted that the quality of tape is very much dependent on tape width and speed and it has its advocates)… I never even mentioned tape. (Tape is an analogue recording format but it is not what I mean by analogue.)

When I say that, by your definition, the only lossless format is analogue, I do so because the moment a signal is digitised, information is lost because of the inherent nature of digitisation. An analogue wave has an infinite number of samples at infinite resolution. A digital signal has a finite number of samples at a finite resolution. Therefore, by your terms, all digital is inherently lossy.

All that said - conventionally - lossy and lossless refer to the type of file compression algorithm rather than the sampling rate and precision.

Audio engineer in big agreement with everything here. I will add to this that the dynamic range of high bit-depth digital is theoretical, in practice I have never seen any perform notably better than professional tape recorders, even the best studio grade converters costing thousands of dollars.., and in reality it is limited by the SNR of all the analog equipment it is hooked up to anyway

 

[lotones]

Dynamic range has nothing to do with sampling rates: it is a property of digital word length / precision - ie 24 bit digital has a higher dynamic range than 16 bit digital because it encodes a much larger range of possible values. (I studied audio as part of my engineering degree.)

Regardless of the noise floor, tape is inherently less “lossy” because it has - at least theoretically - an infinite sampling rate and infinite precision.

I agree, digital potentially provides a higher dynamic range, given sufficient bits. That said, tape has the advantage of saturating much more gracefully than digital (ie is more forgiving of incorrectly set levels for sounds that are louder than unexpected). But we are getting off track 😉

At no point did I advocate tape over digital formats (though it should be noted that the quality of tape is very much dependent on tape width and speed and it has its advocates)… I never even mentioned tape. (Tape is an analogue recording format but it is not what I mean by analogue.)

When I say that, by your definition, the only lossless format is analogue, I do so because the moment a signal is digitised, information is lost because of the inherent nature of digitisation. An analogue wave has an infinite number of samples at infinite resolution. A digital signal has a finite number of samples at a finite resolution. Therefore, by your terms, all digital is inherently lossy.

All that said - conventionally - lossy and lossless refer to the type of file compression algorithm rather than the sampling rate and precision.

Audio engineer in big agreement with everything here. I will add to this that the dynamic range of high bit-depth digital is theoretical, in practice I have never seen any perform notably better than professional tape recorders, even the best studio grade converters costing thousands of dollars.., and in reality it is limited by the SNR of all the analog equipment it is hooked up to anyway

Thank you both for the knowledge. yes, I'm aware that the terms "lossy" and "lossless" refer the the compression algorithms, I was just using them to describe recording methods. And I (re)understand that that dynamic range is tied to bit-depth and not sampling rate (I actually knew this but forgot...). But if noise floor and tape saturation are a thing (and they are), and if, as MrRom92 says, digital is limited by the SNR if analog equipment (which would includes professional tape recorders and the tape itself, as some folks record on tape for warmth then convert to digital for mixing), how can pure digital high bit-rate recording not be superior?

Also, I understand and agree when AdamInKent says "digital is inherently lossy", but more so than magnetic tape (which I refer to because it's the only analogue recording medium I'm aware of) at the extreme bass and treble frequencies?

Thanks again for the enlightening conversation.

 

[MacFarmer]

I wish spotify all the worst..