The end of my discovery…. Please read

[merifon]

I don't trust anyone's ears, nor impressionistic reviews. As for the rest, I don't pretend that others can trust mine... When you want to capture subtle differences in listening, it is certainly necessary to prepare a setup that allows you to quickly switch from one source to another, during the synchronized reproduction of the same editions. As far as I'm concerned, in the comparison between a famous compressed-only streaming service and an uncompressed one, in some cases (not always) I noticed differences in favor of the uncompressed one. In the end, since the price was identical, this was enough for me to choose. High resolution, as already mentioned, is essential in the production phase but if it can be achieved without particular efforts, even on the end user, I don't see why not to go with it.

 

[The WiiMer]

Indeed, the best upgrade I ever made to my hifi was when I first had my ears syringed. (The second was getting a WiiM).

Once every seven days I use a battery-powered ear irrigation system on each ear. It requires water and uses one of five thresholds of pressure akin to a fully automatic machine gun but much less powerful and specialised replaceable tips. I use warm filtered water on its medium power setting three of five. Twice or thrice I used 3% food-grade hydrogen peroxide mixed with filtered water but it irritated the ear canals and that was not good. The process takes ten minutes maximum. It is absolutely not placebo effect when I state every seven days my hearing is refreshed and renewed in such a way that all sonic quality – good, bad, and ugly – hit the eardrums in such a direct manner that it scared and impressed me the first time I used it and continues to be one if not the most satisfactory feelings ever experienced. The machine is not designed ergonomically but thus far is the best thing I have done for my ear canals. Not all ear irrigation systems are created equally and one day perhaps I will find a more favourable machine.

 

[d6jg]

I don't trust anyone's ears, nor impressionistic reviews. As for the rest, I don't pretend that others can trust mine... When you want to capture subtle differences in listening, it is certainly necessary to prepare a setup that allows you to quickly switch from one source to another, during the synchronized reproduction of the same editions. As far as I'm concerned, in the comparison between a famous compressed-only streaming service and an uncompressed one, in some cases (not always) I noticed differences in favor of the uncompressed one. In the end, since the price was identical, this was enough for me to choose. High resolution, as already mentioned, is essential in the production phase but if it can be achieved without particular efforts, even on the end user, I don't see why not to go with it.

I think you will find that all streaming services are compressed. The differential is lossy vs lossless (but both are compressed).

 

[BMoreJazz]

Many people run Marathons but only so many can win Olympic gold. The same applies to resolution. If you don't put in the time you fully understand what you actually hearing, then you can't know what you are missing. The majority of people listen to music because they like what they are hearing. A few listen because they also like the quality of what they are hearing. They can tell the difference between a symbol and a trash can lid when most only care about how the music makes them feel.

 

[merifon]

I think you will find that all streaming services are compressed. The differential is lossy vs lossless (but both are compressed).

I was clearly meaning size compression (lossy or lossless), not dynamic compression. The latter depends from who made the master and what he was thinking about. Generally, the streaming services pass what they receive from productions...

 

[d6jg]

I was clearly meaning size compression (lossy or lossless), not dynamic compression. The latter depends from who made the master and what he was thinking about. Generally, the streaming services pass what they receive from productions...

I was referring to size compression.

Spotify for example is Ogg Vorbis - a compressed lossy format similar to mp3

Qobuz / Tidal are FLAC. Lossless but still compressed. When decompressed it is equivalent to uncompressed WAV/PCM

 

[CrystalGipsy]

I was clearly meaning size compression (lossy or lossless), not dynamic compression. The latter depends from who made the master and what he was thinking about. Generally, the streaming services pass what they receive from productions...

I think he might also be referring to flac compression which is used for all the lossless services. It is better nomenclature to use lossy and lossless as opposed to compressed uncompressed I suppsoe, but easy to forget as I did in my post further up.

 

[merifon]

I was referring to size compression.

Spotify for example is Ogg Vorbis - a compressed lossy format similar to mp3

Qobuz / Tidal are FLAC. Lossless but still compressed. When decompressed it is equivalent to uncompressed WAV/PCM

Ok, I know... The point is that, at same price, Tidal performed better in a back&fort switching comparision, versus same songs at same time code, from Spotify. Not all cases but many of the tested bunch, so I gone with Tidal

 

[merifon]

I think he might also be referring to flac compression which is used for all the lossless services. It is better nomenclature to use lossy and lossless as opposed to compressed uncompressed I suppsoe, but easy to forget as I did in my post further up.

Sure, I'll remember this on future posts...

 

[d6jg]

Ok, I know... The point is that, at same price, Tidal performed better in a back&fort switching comparision, versus same songs at same time code, from Spotify. Not all cases but many of the tested bunch, so I gone with Tidal

No surprise there. Did you compare Tidal vs Qobuz?

 

[merifon]

No surprise there. Did you compare Tidal vs Qobuz?

Yes, anyway less compulsively. I didn't find particular differences and considering I'm not liking Qobuz interface, I left...
Instead sometimes I found quality variations on Amazon Music, even on same album, songs were at different sample rate, exemple on Quadrophenia motion picture soundtrack at least one song was different and worse than others. Also, some songs that on Qobuz were 96khz, on Amazon were at 192khz and sounded different, with widen stereo image than Qobuz or Tidal that sounded very similar among them. Maybe a forced resample done by Amazon. Saying that I don't like Amazon app user interface app also, I stayed with Tidal that at least, has the best lyrics management.
All these checks were done more than a year ago, maybe the situation has changed and my gear is also improved...

 

[d6jg]

That’s exactly my gripe with Amazon. Re-created albums with differing sample rates. That’s why I don’t use it even though it’s cheaper.

 

[CrystalGipsy]

Yes, anyway less compulsively. I didn't find particular differences and considering I'm not liking Qobuz interface, I left...
Instead sometimes I found quality variations on Amazon Music, even on same album, songs were at different sample rate, exemple on Quadrophenia motion picture soundtrack at least one song was different and worse than others. Also, some songs that on Qobuz were 96khz, on Amazon were at 192khz and sounded different, with widen stereo image than Qobuz or Tidal that sounded very similar among them. Maybe a forced resample done by Amazon. Saying that I don't like Amazon app user interface app also, I stayed with Tidal that at least, has the best lyrics management.
All these checks were done more than a year ago, maybe the situation has changed and my gear is also improved...

There are lots of albums on Qobuz or for purchase from Bandcamp that are mastered with different sample rates in them. This is quite common especially when they add bonus tracks. I doubt Amazon is resampling anything, they may have been supplied different masters, Apple often has different resolution to Qobuz on some albums sometmes higher sometime lower, its all down to the deals and rights each one negotiated and what they get given.

 

[Brantome]

Agreed. Same in my view when people say Qobuz sounds better that Amazon Music, or Topaz or whatever - they can’t have got all the best masters…

 

[d6jg]

You may not have seen situations where Amazon has albums made up from different ones with varying sample rates for tracks across the album. I have never seen this on Qobuz

 

[CrystalGipsy]

You may not have seen situations where Amazon has albums made up from different ones with varying sample rates for tracks across the album. I have never seen this on Qobuz

See it all the time, as Roon will show you it has mixed formats. Dua Lipas Future nostalgia for one is mixed.

 

[Yanto]

Why are so many obsessed with high res audio? Don’t get me wrong I was one of them. I read countless reviews on DACs and getting the “best” audio I could. I stream Apple Music/Classical via Airplay 2 to my Wiim Pro Plus. Goes to my Willsenton r8 tube amp then on to my Denton 85th anniversary speakers. Sounds amazing. And yes it’s not high res it’s 16/44.1 cd quality audio. From articles I’ve read cd quality audio covers the entire range of human hearing. Our ears aren’t capable of hearing high res frequencies. 999 people out of a 1000 can’t hear the difference. I still have a Qobuz subscription that doesn’t expire for another week or so. So I did some experimenting with my and my wife’s ears. We switched back and forth from Qobuz and Apple Music playing Pat Metheny’s latest album. Audio quality on Qobuz was 24/96 Apple Music was 16/44.1. She nor I could tell any difference. My wife is no audiophile by any means or am I but she said why pay for something your ears can’t hear. And I kind of agreed with her. Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying I’m right or better than anyone at all. Music and audio systems are a wonderful world/hobby to be in. To each their own. Your money your choice. Basically what I’m rambling about is that I’m happy with what my 52 year old ears can actually hear. Thank you for reading. Listen on.

Silly question. Is Apple Music via Airplay 2 actually 16/44.1?

 

[Wiimer]

Silly question. Is Apple Music via Airplay 2 actually 16/44.1?

I was curious about it too, but I didn't dare mention it here.

As already mentioned in other threads, I don't think it's lossless.

 

[Yanto]

I was curious about it too, but I didn't dare mention it here.

As already mentioned in other threads, I don't think it's lossless.

Just me silly enough to ask then!
I know that when I do use Apple Music via WiiM Pro, my amp tells me I’m receiving 44.1, but I’m sure I read elsewhere that Airplay over WiFi this way does not achieve this resolution and is a much lower lossy format?

 

[Wiimer]

Just me silly enough to ask then!
I know that when I do use Apple Music via WiiM Pro, my amp tells me I’m receiving 44.1, but I’m sure I read elsewhere that Airplay over WiFi this way does not achieve this resolution and is a much lower lossy format?

Yes, I think this is what you saw.

Post in thread 'Integrating Music Services' https://forum.wiimhome.com/threads/integrating-music-services.1452/post-22493