Any evidence of dynamic range compression from Spotify, Qobuz el al ?

[henrysibley]

For Classical Music.

There's a growing discussion of this going on in Pop / Rock music. See:

https://magicvinyldigital.net/

Here's a couple of examples:

Bad:
https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/06/18/dire-straits-money-for-nothing-review-lp-cd-qobuz-1988-remastered-2022/#Part2

https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/09/08/madonna-finally-enough-love-review-vinyl-2-lp-qobuz-hi-res-tidal/#Part2


Good:
https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/04/15/the-police-greatest-hits-review-lp-qobuz-amazon-tidal-and-cd/#Part2



With this cursory information, it appears that Spotify, Qobuz et al
don't do this to "all" recordings, making it seem like the
(un)compressed music they stream arrives from the record company /
studio this way. Good or bad. The millions of ear-bud-wearing jogger
customers probably prefer highly compressed music.

Thanks for any info. :^)

Hank

[mINE109]

Spotify has user settings for reducing dynamic range, too. There is the
problem that the listings aren't necessarily for the specific mastering
implied by the name. I discovered this years ago searching for 'mono'
tracks.

I'm confident of my ability to discern if the result qualifies.

[Pluted Pup]

On 9/13/22 8:35 AM, henrysibley wrote:
> For Classical Music.
>
> There's a growing discussion of this going on in Pop / Rock music. See:
>
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/
>
> Here's a couple of examples:
>
> Bad:
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/06/18/dire-straits-money-for-nothing-review-lp-cd-qobuz-1988-remastered-2022/#Part2
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/09/08/madonna-finally-enough-love-review-vinyl-2-lp-qobuz-hi-res-tidal/#Part2

Dire Straights and Madonna have been remastered. Generally, the highest quality
release is the basic original CD release. This goes for all 1980's music vs.
remasters. As in so much things in the marketplace, the best version is often
the cheapest, even though it can only be bought used, as whenever the remaster
comes out the original recording is deleted. Though a lot of un-remastered CDs
carry a high price because the remasters are so weak.

> Good:
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/04/15/the-police-greatest-hits-review-lp-qobuz-amazon-tidal-and-cd/#Part2

The Police apparently hasn't been remastered; Popular Music remastering is compression + noise reduction.

> With this cursory information, it appears that Spotify,

The reviews don't mention Spotify. I'd like to know if Spotify and the
other streaming companies compress the music just like radio stations
compress their music. These reviews don't address that.

> Qobuz et al don't do this to "all" recordings, making it seem like the
> (un)compressed music they stream arrives from the record company / studio
> this way. Good or bad.

If the original recording has been remastered, the record companies
delete the original and only allow the remaster to be licensed. So
how good the streaming versions are depend on how big name the artist
is, the more popular the artist, the more likely for their recordings
to suffer from remastering.

> The millions of ear-bud-wearing jogger customers probably prefer highly compressed music.

I make sure the popular music in my car is un-remastered, never have
I ever heard it and decided I need to have the loud notes reduced in
volume by compression, though I often also have those remastered versions
that I was cheated into buying.

That's what compression is, muffling the loud notes while noise reduction
is the muffling of quiet notes.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <97ecnWhA6dhHRb7-...@giganews.com>,

Pluted Pup <plut...@outlook.com> wrote:
>I'd like to know if Spotify and the other streaming companies
>compress the music just like radio stations compress their music.

It seems to depend, e.g. on how much effective bandwidth they're
getting between them & you. They definitely adjust. And they're
vague about this, because they don't want to promise anything. I
doubt there's anything definitive. (And even if there is, I'm sure
they reserve the right to change their practices at a moment's
notice.)

One way to avoid it is actually to download the music, and then you
know what you have....

[mswd...@gmail.com]

I had suspicions about Spotify but wired up an internal recording loop on my Mac (used to be easy- a royal pain in the current OS) and compared the waveforms to a disc rip. They were the same. (OK, yes, the Spotify is 320 kbps compressed, but that's not what we are talking about. Data compression does not necessarily include dynamic compression.) I think the disc was a Arabella Steinbacher release, but it was over a year ago and I don't remember. I dislike their interface enough that it will never compete with my personal collection, no matter what. But the streaming can be pretty reliable as a substitute or way of sampling things. Or just a pleasure to listen to if that space is comfortable to you and you like the price.

The other fact of this conversation is that I love Chicago's WFMT, and at least some of the content on it is dynamically compressed- like the CSO broadcasts (not messed with if streamed form their site). But I still value them a lot and listen to them.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <eba91bb0-172d-4049...@googlegroups.com>,

mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>OK, yes, the Spotify is 320 kbps compressed, but that's not what
>we are talking about. Data compression does not necessarily include
>dynamic compression.

The latter is certainly true, but personally, I was talking about
any kind of lossy compression....

[mswd...@gmail.com]

I'm all for extraneous points, but obviously the question was "I'd like to know if Spotify and the other streaming companies

compress the music just like radio stations compress their music."

Sticking to the original question, the sad fact is that some radio stations who stream their broadcast over their web page provide the same dynamically compressed product that goes out over the airwaves.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <3be380ee-8ae7-49a5...@googlegroups.com>,

mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm all for extraneous points, but obviously the question was "I'd
>like to know if Spotify and the other streaming companies compress
>the music just like radio stations compress their music."

So I don't know if it's "just like," but as stated, they do compress,
and they don't guarantee anything.

[Néstor Castiglione]

I'd be more concerned that the "lossless" or "Hi-Res Audio" that some streaming services offer aren't simply transcoded from lossy originals. A number of recordings downloaded from there and other commercial websites, then disseminated on What.CD were later determined to have been transcoded from mp3s. My guess is that this probably happens a lot more than some may care to think.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <ded5a301-5c0a-49d8...@googlegroups.com>,

Néstor Castiglione <castiglio...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'd be more concerned that the "lossless" or "Hi-Res Audio" that
>some streaming services offer aren't simply transcoded from lossy
>originals.

Yes, the higher bandwidth products offer the possibility of better
sound, but there are few guarantees. I tend to be more trusting
of recent recordings, which are often engineered for hi-res, but
with older recordings, it's really hard to know in advance. (Many
are just adding empty bits.) Even with newer recordings, some just
aren't engineered to make meaningful use of more bandwidth.

I keep offering these caveats, though, and sometimes I guess it
seems to give the impression that higher bandwidth recordings have
nothing to offer. On the contrary, the sound can be quite noticeably
better. And with far more dynamic range, as far as the specific
topic -- to the point that people complain that they're too loud
(as I believe has been mentioned here). Even without higher sample
rates, listening more often to 24bit recordings can make the former
digital standard of 16 bit sound very thin timbrally/compressed
dynamically.

[henrysibley]

Thank You for that report on your personal testing. :-) That's a
bummer that some WFMT content is dynamically compressed... ugh.

Quality of streaming Classical radio is another thing, because most
streaming radio is "lossy" due to bandwidth realities for broadcaster
and listener.

Here are KUSC's available Classical streams:

https://www.kusc.org/radio/how-to-listen/

AAC encoding is pretty common. KUSC & Concertgebouw streams use it,
and other Classical stations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Efficiency_Advanced_Audio_Coding

While I've not done any specific testing on this, I'd believe that an
AAC (-HE) stream of a good, *not-dynamically-compressed* Classical
recording would sound just fine, for not-critical listening.

Hank

[Pluted Pup]

You might be comparing particular 24 bit and 16 bit recordings that
have been mastered differently, which is why you notice it. CDs,
or 16 bit, have an extremely high dynamic range, it's just that
mastering engineers do not use that available dynamic range,
especially in pop music.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <S4Scnbv0BbpdAbX-...@giganews.com>,

Pluted Pup <plut...@outlook.com> wrote:
>You might be comparing particular 24 bit and 16 bit recordings that
>have been mastered differently, which is why you notice it.

Apples to apples comparisons are indeed difficult. As more albums
are released in 24bit, though, the "average" impression gets to be
quite different though.

(I'm not sure why no one seems to be sending review copies at
multiple digital resolutions, just for this sort of purpose. Maybe
it happens in some speciality situations, but generally not. Since
2020, almost all review copies are digital, but you get one resolution,
usually CD quality. If they really want to sell the high-def
versions, clearly they should be encouraging reviewers to compare,
but I digress....)

>CDs, or 16 bit, have an extremely high dynamic range, it's just
>that mastering engineers do not use that available dynamic range,
>especially in pop music.

It's true that e.g. pop music tends not to use as much dynamic
range, but the higher bandwidth recordings are -- at least some of
them -- in another league. As noted, some people are complaining
they're too loud....

[Pluted Pup]

Many of high rez recordings are far more compressed than the original
1980's or 1990's recording on CD, because they have the same
compression that the remastered CDs have. Sometimes the high bit
recordings have the same compression as the remastered CDs but have
been set several decibels lower in volume than the CD so it sounds
"quieter".

https://dr.loudness-war.info/

I don't like how compressed recordings are called "loud", they have
the loud notes reduced in volume so how can it be called loud?
Listening to compressed recordings is frustrating, because the
loud notes are muffled and no matter how high you turn the
volume the loud notes remain muffled.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <4WadnRxuMdu2OrX-...@giganews.com>,

Pluted Pup <plut...@outlook.com> wrote:
>Many of high rez recordings are far more compressed than the original
>1980's or 1990's recording on CD, because they have the same
>compression that the remastered CDs have.

To be clear, I'm talking about new recordings.

With older recordings, I would be more skeptical.... Obviously it
depends, in part, on how the recording was engineered in the first
place.

But today, more are engineered for the higher bandwidth, and the
versions are released at the same time. So the "CD" version is
already a compressed version, including dynamic compression compared
to the studio master.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <4WadnRxuMdu2OrX-...@giganews.com>,

Pluted Pup <plut...@outlook.com> wrote:
>I don't like how compressed recordings are called "loud", they have
>the loud notes reduced in volume so how can it be called loud?

I am not calling a compressed recording "loud." I am calling a
recording with greatly increased dynamic range "loud" -- and I'm
not personally calling it loud either, but some people do: If one
sets the volume of an orchestral recording as one normally would,
such that the quiet passage are of a similar volume, in a 24bit
recording with a big dynamic range, the loud passages will be very
loud. In fact, someone might be quite startled, and/or annoy their
neighbors. This is what I'm talking about, not compression at all.
The opposite.

[Pluted Pup]

Now you seem to be conflating dynamic and data compression but if you
mean that they are releasing high bit as less dynamically compressed
than CD, that's perfectly possible, but it is measurable. They've often
done that with LPs, releasing a CD with brickwall compression while
releasing the LP of the same recording as normal sound with scratches
added. But these are entirely the deliberate decisions of the record
companies, and not done for technical reasons. The CD, is in no way a
"compressed format".

[Pluted Pup]

Those loud notes are loud not because it's 24 bit but because the
loud notes haven't been compressed away. CDs, also called Lossless,
have an extremely high dynamic range, so high that no one uses the
entire 96 decibels of dynamic range, so an extra high bit rate is
not necessary.

Usually when there are complaints about compressed recordings, the
apologists for compression say that "compression makes it louder"
so they using the term "loud" in the opposite sense.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <S1OdnYeb1uaSMLX-...@giganews.com>,
Pluted Pup <plut...@outlook.com> wrote:
>Now you seem to be conflating dynamic and data compression ...

Dynamic compression is one way to do data compression.

>The CD, is in no way a "compressed format".

It's a lower bandwidth format. One can now buy digital recordings
with more detailed sound, including bigger dynamic range. Simple
as that.

[mswd...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 1:24:27 AM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> On the contrary, the sound can be quite noticeably
> better.

There's nothing you can point to where this can be shown to be objectively true, outside of the possibility that a hi-res mastering has other qualities that make it better in a way that would also be better in a Redbook format. I certainly accept that you believe it is a significant difference, but I would love a list of examples where you claim a high-res version really is superior to a standard-def master, where we can sample both of them.

Even without higher sample
> rates, listening more often to 24bit recordings can make the former
> digital standard of 16 bit sound very thin timbrally/compressed
> dynamically.

I think this is also bunk. Assuming you were happy with a lower mean volumn level in 16-bit, you could offer an exceedingly wide dynamic range. And some manufacturers did offer product that was often very difficult to listen to- BIS was an obvious example. People complained about it- they couldn't hear the quiet parts and then the loud parts were blasting. On a CD. The fact that high-res offers more mathematical room for dynamic range does not mean that we were somehow deprived of it before- what stopped there form being greater dynamic range is that it wasn't valued.

Again, if you want to offer some examples, go ahead. There ought to be some way to elevate the claims of audio superiority from "I hear the difference" into a zone that is measurable and repeatable.

[mswd...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 8:19:03 AM UTC-5, henrysibley wrote:

> Thank You for that report on your personal testing. :-) That's a
> bummer that some WFMT content is dynamically compressed... ugh.

I'm not complaining. I listen in my car more often than not, and I'm not paying premium dollars for dead silence in the cabin. I need that compression to hear the music. It is a practical choice, and it really doesn't impact enjoyment all that much.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <cbb7ddc2-5045-411d...@googlegroups.com>,

mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>There's nothing you can point to where this can be shown to be
>objectively true, outside of the possibility that a hi-res mastering
>has other qualities that make it better in a way that would also
>be better in a Redbook format.

Your statement is certainly put definitively. Suit yourself. I'm
not going to beat my head against a brick wall on yet another stupid
topic.

[mswd...@gmail.com]

You're attacking the style of my assertion and making that grounds for fleeing the topic? Doesn't that prove my point? It bothers me that there's no evidence at all out there supporting the claims of the High Res industry. Sure, it probably has value in the mastering process, but for a final product, you have no evidence at all that a high-res file sounds better than a 16-bit of the same. Where are the double-blind listening tests where everyone picks high-res? It's not like they aren't possible, and it's not like anyone with a high-res file couldn't set it up themselves. They don't exist? What? After all this time? Seriously.

You've flat-out claimed that you lose dynamic range and detail with 16-bit. Back it up. Absent proof, it is just a belief system.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <9ea3cac1-bd9c-4418...@googlegroups.com>,

mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You've flat-out claimed that you lose dynamic range and detail with
>16-bit. Back it up. Absent proof, it is just a belief system.

"Lose" relative to what? You can get more with more bits.

Anyway, regarding this topic and your insistence on proof or
what-have-you, do you even have a proper decoder for 24bit/96khz
music? I have no idea. Have you ever listened to any? Yet here
you are making strong assertions. So no, I don't respect your
presentation (style). And guess what, it doesn't make me want to
interact with you. What am I possibly going to get from this?

[mswd...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:02:04 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <9ea3cac1-bd9c-4418...@googlegroups.com>,
> mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >You've flat-out claimed that you lose dynamic range and detail with
> >16-bit. Back it up. Absent proof, it is just a belief system.
> "Lose" relative to what? You can get more with more bits.

The value of that fact is entirely unclear. What is the threshold of human perception where extra bits becomes something that just doesn't matter? That's a question ripe for scientific investigation, and one that could be answered with certainty. You could easily come up with subsets of listeners who could consistently hear the difference and on X equipment. But this is not a question that the high-res industry has any interests in answering. Why would that be? Because the industry is not interested in proof or the truth. Value in the audio industry is simply what someone is willing to buy and love. And heaven forbid that scientific testing should get in the way of claims of the positive benefits of anything that can be sold. Thousand dollar power cables? Yeah, someone's going to value that and believe in it, even if it has no benefit at all, objectively speaking.

> Anyway, regarding this topic and your insistence on proof or
> what-have-you,

"...or what-have-you"?? Are you unclear about what would clearly support your faith that "more bits are better"?

do you even have a proper decoder for 24bit/96khz
> music? I have no idea. Have you ever listened to any?

That's not relevant. I am open to the idea that high res could be better. I am bothered by the fact that nobody really wants to know if it is true. You are the believer here, and you've got nothing to point to. And you think it is my job to prove the prudence of my scepticism?
For the record, I own a DAC with a SINAD of 106 that supports 24/384. I generally listen on headphones that have near-zero distortion and which are EQ'd. And I don't hear the value in high-res files. But, again, not relevant. The burden of proof should be on the believer, the one who makes positive assertions. Give me some example files. Prove your case!

Yet here
> you are making strong assertions.

There's a difference between strong assertions and persistent skepticism in the absence of evidence.

So no, I don't respect your
> presentation (style). And guess what, it doesn't make me want to
> interact with you. What am I possibly going to get from this?

Taking such a crude question seriously, there's always the possibility i could save you money... :-)

[Frank Berger]

Which is why FM radio compresses the music as much FM listening is done in the car. My Dodge Caravan had a switch to turn on dynamic compression that helped tremendously with wide-range CDs. I had at least 2 different portable CD players (I may still have them, I have about 15 of them dating to the 1980's) that had the same compression option. This is not to be confused with Sony's volume limiting which is a different thing entirely.

[Frank Berger]

This will not be the first time someone has run out of arguments and rather then admitting it or re-considering his position, backs out on the grounds he doesn't have time to talk to stupid people.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <7ae24ee2-f1f1-4086...@googlegroups.com>,

mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"...or what-have-you"?? Are you unclear about what would clearly
>support your faith that "more bits are better"?

First of all, I've said each & every time this arises that more bits
includes the possibility of a better recording, not a guarantee.

As far as what you will believe, I really don't know. And I don't
care either.

>And you think it is my job to prove the prudence of my scepticism?

It's certainly not my job to prove anything to you. Do as you like!

Your notion that the broad industry trend toward 24bit/96khz is
"bunk" is noted, though. I've filed it appropriately.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <7ae24ee2-f1f1-4086...@googlegroups.com>,
mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Taking such a crude question seriously, there's always the possibility
>i could save you money... :-)

I'm going to take this remark seriously, on the off chance that
clarifying an earlier statement will actually aid communication.

I remarked on a 16bit recording sounding "thin" next to 24bit
recordings. I know I've remarked in the past that I might listen
to 10 new recordings of new music in a row some days. Recently, I
think for this first time [*], most were 24bit recordings, prompting
that remark. But don't tune out here. I received them only as
recordings, i.e. FLAC files. (And I'm basically just listening for
impressions. I usually have no idea what I'm going to hear.) They
were simply "the download" with no resolution specified, nor do I
(usually) look.

In other words, no (difference in) money was involved.

* Partly a coincidence, I'm sure, but do I think this is part of a
trend? Yes, I do. Glad you asked.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <tgb607$732$1...@hope.eyrie.org>,

Todd M. McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
>* Partly a coincidence, I'm sure, but do I think this is part of a
>trend? Yes, I do. Glad you asked.

Then per the streaming topic, what do these services do with the
higher bit (and maybe higher sampling rate) recordings? Qobuz --
also in the Subject line, I note -- does offer a "studio sublime"
streaming subscription for high-res recordings. But what do they
do in terms of throttling for bandwidth limitations? I don't know.

Regarding Bandcamp, where most of the music of interest to me gets
released these days, you very well might get a high-res download
without comment (as opposed to Qobuz or Presto, which always(?)
have separate prices), but the "streaming" part doesn't appear to
be high-res. At least not sometimes.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <tgb9g5$9fa$1...@hope.eyrie.org>,

So, even if I were to tell someone that I just heard such & such a
high-def recording there (e.g. _Harbors_ that I posted about in
last month's WAYTL thread, without noting that it's a 24bit
recording...), (1) they wouldn't be able to hear it in high-def
without buying it, and (2) I have no idea if every DAC that nominally
supports 24bit (etc.) actually uses the extra information meaningfully.

[mswd...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 4:23:52 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <7ae24ee2-f1f1-4086...@googlegroups.com>,
> mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As far as what you will believe, I really don't know. And I don't
> care either.

> It's certainly not my job to prove anything to you. Do as you like!

I don't think I said it was your "job". I think it is reasonable that anyone offering a positive claim of performance should be prepared to back it up with something more substantial than personal experience or be prepared to recognize that one can legitimately classify such a report as merely a subjective reporting of faith. You clearly don't like this, but you can't address it head on- you'd rather dismiss me for one or another tangential reason. (I'm rude, I don't have the equipment, you're disinterested, have no obligation, etc.).

> Your notion that the broad industry trend toward 24bit/96khz is "bunk" is noted, though. I've filed it appropriately.

Sorry, but the growing market niche for high-res audio does not amount to proof of product quality, technological superiority or comparative value. and bringing it up like it matters is silly. What filing system am I now part of?

[mswd...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 8:45:48 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <7ae24ee2-f1f1-4086...@googlegroups.com>,
> mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I remarked on a 16bit recording sounding "thin" next to 24bit
> recordings.

You might try to define "thin" which to me sounds like a drop of mid to lower frequency range. But the claim deserves evidence, because on its face it is preposterous. The bit rate is not adding to the harmonic juiciness of the track.

I know I've remarked in the past that I might listen
> to 10 new recordings of new music in a row some days. Recently, I
> think for this first time [*], most were 24bit recordings, prompting
> that remark. But don't tune out here. I received them only as
> recordings, i.e. FLAC files. (And I'm basically just listening for
> impressions. I usually have no idea what I'm going to hear.) They
> were simply "the download" with no resolution specified, nor do I
> (usually) look.
>
> In other words, no (difference in) money was involved.
>
> * Partly a coincidence, I'm sure, but do I think this is part of a
> trend? Yes, I do. Glad you asked.

It "could" be a coincidence, but then you say "well, I still think it is more than that." Yeah, there is your confirmation bias.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <47a4f775-cd39-40e3...@googlegroups.com>,

mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What filing system am I now part of?

Stupid things people say on the internet.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <272d8383-afaf-4f28...@googlegroups.com>,

mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It "could" be a coincidence, but then you say "well, I still think
>it is more than that." Yeah, there is your confirmation bias.

That's nice, but I hope you did note to what that starred comment
actually referred. The other nice thing, then, is that I'll certainly
find out soon enough whether most releases end up defaulting to
24bit going forward....

[mswd...@gmail.com]

Yep, you've sunk so low that for pointing out your weak rhetorical tricks, I get called stupid. I really thought you had it in you to argue better than this.

[mswd...@gmail.com]

Why would that matter? Are you confusing popularity with quality?

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <4314237e-1a12-48a5...@googlegroups.com>,

mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yep, you've sunk so low that for pointing out your weak rhetorical
>tricks, I get called stupid. I really thought you had it in you to
>argue better than this.

I should really stop replying, but I guess I still want to note a
few things, starting with the mixed messages here -- which I've
noted before: Express disdain for what I have to say, and when I'm
consequently ready to stop, insist I need to keep posting....

So... I didn't call you stupid, but what you said, a distinction
I've noted in the past. (I also have zero interest in "arguing"
and usually tune out when someone takes that approach.)

And now for my impressions of thia interacton:

I posted some experiences around the topic, but they weren't specific
enough to dynamic range for you. Fair enough, but I also think
it's worth thinking of data formats & resolutions & compression in
a general way, especially if we're trying to predict future
behavior.... Well you didn't like this, and then I ended up noting
that high-def recordings can have more dynamic range, and this
really set you off. Next thing I know, you're making demands &
assigning me chores for you. I openly wondered at that point, what
is my incentive to follow your demands? You evidently found such
a response to be strange. Which also confuses me, pace mixed
messages noted above.... Providing some reason I might actually
want to do as you say simply never entered into it.

So hey, whatever. I've definitely seen enough from you at this
point.

[mswd...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 1:11:36 AM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> So... I didn't call you stupid, but what you said, a distinction
> I've noted in the past. (I also have zero interest in "arguing"
> and usually tune out when someone takes that approach.)

You think that is a defense of what you said? Wow.

> And now for my impressions of thia interacton:

I think "impressions" is the operable word here. You've read everything I wrote as expression of emotion and nothing more. Perhaps I'm a horrible writer, but it seems more likely that you're not really thinking so much about any idea I raised so much as reacting emotionally. Thinking emotionally is one my concerns with high-res audio and most of what gets sold as "audiophile": the critical language around it is a cloud of non-objective poetry that will not cohere into anything solid that would tolerate testing, measuring, documenting, and so forth. It is a belief system.

This means you can decide that:
a. more bits means greater potential dynamic range (theoretically true)
b. since that range is wider than CD specifications, that's good (doubtful- some CDs already had dynamic ranges that people found difficult, and BIS marketed their recordings on the dangers of their dynamic range)
c. because it is a difference you can consistently hear (no evidence of that)
d. greater dynamic range is good (not necessarily so)
e. more bits means more detail that is audible to a listener (completely unproven)
f. and more bits means other sonic "improvements". I don't think I caught you making any clear assertions in this area, but they are made

If all this were really true and for the better then you would have an easy time proving it. And I'd love to see it. I would even be open to tamping down my skepticism. But the very fact that some people still think LPs are the superior product proves the difficulty here:
people can believe whatever they want. So at this point the question of whether high-res is worth money for listening has no evidence in its favor that I'm aware of. But if you like spending your money this way, go for it. I think it is actually perfectly fine to be wrong and to waste money. Just don't try to sell me the habit.

> So hey, whatever. I've definitely seen enough from you at this point.

Please feel no obligation to reply.

[henrysibley]

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/recordings-with-dynamic-range-warnings-on-them.912658/


Ah, the famous Telarc 1812 Overture recording... with the warning. :^)

I wonder how Qobuz streams that? LOL

Hank

[gggg gggg]

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:35:37 AM UTC-7, henrysibley wrote:
> For Classical Music.
>
> There's a growing discussion of this going on in Pop / Rock music. See:
>
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/
>
> Here's a couple of examples:
>
> Bad:
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/06/18/dire-straits-money-for-nothing-review-lp-cd-qobuz-1988-remastered-2022/#Part2
>
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/09/08/madonna-finally-enough-love-review-vinyl-2-lp-qobuz-hi-res-tidal/#Part2
>
>
> Good:
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/04/15/the-police-greatest-hits-review-lp-qobuz-amazon-tidal-and-cd/#Part2
>
>
>
> With this cursory information, it appears that Spotify, Qobuz et al
> don't do this to "all" recordings, making it seem like the
> (un)compressed music they stream arrives from the record company /
> studio this way. Good or bad. The millions of ear-bud-wearing jogger
> customers probably prefer highly compressed music.
>
> Thanks for any info. :^)
>
> Hank

This is off-topic, but could a person get into trouble for uploading something from Spotify onto Youtube?

[mswd...@gmail.com]

I'm not seeing Henry's original; post so here's a reply to both:
- There's no evidence in the posts from Magic Vinyl that any of the bad masters streamed by the high-res sites are due to choices made by those entities. Rather, I think, they are playing what they are given. Spotify, for instance, plays a lot of RVG Blue Note releases, and the mastering on those is dreadful. But you can find the same music on the CDs.
- And you can see that the devotion to original-release vinyl at least has the benefit of avoiding the "compression wars" masterings of years later.

Could you get "in trouble"? Assuming you could capture something from Spotify and post it to youtube, there is every likelihood that Youtube would automatically silence the portion of the upload that contained the music. Only people with permission status on file can reliably post audio. I once posted a video there intended for a hardware distributor I'd done business with showing the behavior of a bad DA converter in a multi-channel amp. Music would play fo ra few seconds, then cut out, then cut back in at random intervals. The chunks of audio were enough for the full span of the test to be silenced once the test was uploaded to Youtube.

[gggg gggg]

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:35:37 AM UTC-7, henrysibley wrote:
> For Classical Music.
>
> There's a growing discussion of this going on in Pop / Rock music. See:
>
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/
>
> Here's a couple of examples:
>
> Bad:
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/06/18/dire-straits-money-for-nothing-review-lp-cd-qobuz-1988-remastered-2022/#Part2
>
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/09/08/madonna-finally-enough-love-review-vinyl-2-lp-qobuz-hi-res-tidal/#Part2
>
>
> Good:
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/04/15/the-police-greatest-hits-review-lp-qobuz-amazon-tidal-and-cd/#Part2
>
>
>
> With this cursory information, it appears that Spotify, Qobuz et al
> don't do this to "all" recordings, making it seem like the
> (un)compressed music they stream arrives from the record company /
> studio this way. Good or bad. The millions of ear-bud-wearing jogger
> customers probably prefer highly compressed music.
>
> Thanks for any info. :^)
>
> Hank

(The following from QUORA may be of interest):

Can you hear a difference in quality between Spotify's 320 kbps stream and TIDAL's HiFi lossless audio stream?
Profile photo for Dave Samwell
Dave Samwell
·
Follow
Worked in the music industry internationally as a sound engineer and midi tech6y
Originally Answered: Is Tidal's high-quality streaming noticeably better than Spotify's 320kbps stream?
I cannot really answer this question specifically, but I can tell you about 320kbps quality in general.

As a professional sound engineer I would say my ears are fairly highly trained. I have some very high quality pairs of headphones and speakers, some of which cost as much as a second hand car.

I cannot tell the difference between 320kpbs and CD quality for most recordings. Especially pop/rock or electronic music which is very dynamically compressed.

I have, if listening very very closely, noticed a few artefacts on very quiet sections of classical recordings on ridiculously high quality listening equipment. I have only noticed this when specifically trying to listen out for them when playing about with MP3 encoders.

On normal consumer listening equipment to the normal listener 320kpbs will be absolutely indistinguishable from anything any higher.

If anyone claims they can tell the difference, offer them a large cash sum to be able to reliably pick the higher quality one with a variety of recordings. I guarantee you your money will be safe.

[mswd...@gmail.com]

This matches the reports of other "golden ear" experts who haven't bought into industry hype. I've read that you can tell the difference between 320, lossless and high-res, but only by boosting track fadeouts by many decibles and comparing playback quality at these near-inaudible levels. This may reveal the differences between the tracks, but it is a completely unnatural way to listen. Outside of this there is no chance a blind listen at normal levels could consistently identify the different tracks.

[gggg gggg]

(The following from the COMMENTS section of the link below may be of interest):

- Being an audiophile has always been a niche endeavor.
Submitted by avanti1960 on September 27, 2022 - 4:21pm
The differences between the sound of a finely tuned audiophile system and a basic home theater setup are in fact subtleties to most people (not audiophiles of course).
It takes keen hearing, a willingness to learn and an appreciation of the spatial and tonal differences to become an audiophile. Skillsets that do not grow on trees......

https://www.stereophile.com/content/music-problem

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <tgb9g5$9fa$1...@hope.eyrie.org>,

If anyone else is interested in these formats....

I've been paying a little more attention to exactly what the DIY
new music community is putting out, whether over Bandcamp, or sending
directly to me for review, and there's variety in both the 16bit &
24bit resolutions. (I haven't seen anything but 16bit or 24bit
recently, although I believe the height of the CD era saw some 20bit
releases, if I recall correctly....)

I'm continuing to see a majority of 24bit, and most of the sampling
rates are 48khz. This is unsurprising, since that is the nominal
resolution of both the Iphone & Google Pixel. But I've also seen
e.g. 44khz at 24bit (not 44.1! but also 44.1...) & of course 96khz
(not 192 outside classical...). There was also a 16bit recording
with 96khz sampling, a strange choice. And now a 16bit at 48khz
(i.e. very similar to CD, but not).... This was all since this
thread, within the past couple of weeks....

And while DIYers put out music at the resolutions they want, we can
probably expect "major labels"/classical to continue to milk it for
whatever money they can squeeze....

[mswd...@gmail.com]

Isn't that what I was arguing? I'm not saying high-res doesn't have uses for recording purposes, but my argument was that there is no evidence that paying to procure a high-res file is getting you anything you can hear, and the prevalence of these formats in the market was about what people would pay for and nothing else.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <6d3c5594-69da-4b01...@googlegroups.com>,

mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 4:06:58 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
>> If anyone else is interested in these formats....

*anyone else*

>Isn't that what I was arguing?

Boggle.

[mINE109]

I'd guess the variety of formats has to do with inexpensive recording
equipment available, ie, Zoom H4 at 24/96 and intended use. Anything
heard through an AVR will be bottlenecked at 48 kHz no matter what the
original is.

[Todd M. McComb]

In article <thhear$1pbj$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

mINE109 <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'd guess the variety of formats has to do with inexpensive recording
>equipment available, ie, Zoom H4 at 24/96 and intended use.

It's become a lot easier for "an ordinary person" to make a good
recording....

[mswd...@gmail.com]

You've finally named something that has clear value .