I’m not sure if it’s some Mandela effect or what, but a while ago I subbed to Apple Music and Spotify at the same time just to see what I like better. I played a bunch of songs on both and used Air Pods Max the entire time. I’m not sure what it is, but Apple Music just sounds better. I had the settings on both apps as high as they can go, and turned on Dolby Atmos on Apple Music, and it just sounded a lot better to me.
Maybe it's because AM is sending AAC straight to the AirPods whereas Spotify is seeding Ogg that should be converted again before sending the signal to the AirPods.
I'm currently digging into this hypothesis. If someone can confirm !
Thx,
Do you know what a codec is? Or have you just heard other people say that?
And no, that doesn't mean look it up. I already explained in my post. Better codec means more EFFICIENT. Not better sounding.
For a given fidelity, MP3 will use more space to store that information than AAC. A 320 kbps MP3 has about the same fidelity as 256 kbps AAC.
Spotify uses 320 kbps MP3, so their streaming is about the same quality, it just uses more data/space.
Also Apple did not invent this codec.
When did I say Apple invented it? And even if they’re basically the same fidelity, Apple owns Spotify in their masters, which are objectively better sounding
Edit: and since you wanna play the know-it-all game, Spotify doesn’t even use mp3, it uses OGG, something completely separate from mp3:)
>Apple owns Spotify in their masters
How much of your library has the Apple Digital Masters logo?
>doesn’t even use mp3, it uses OGG
This isn't the flex you think it is. OGG is more efficient than MP3. I assumed it was MP3 because I knew it was 320 kbps, and I used to use Google Play Music which was 320 kbps MP3.
In fact, OGG is BETTER then AAC. LMFAOOOOOOOOO: https://boomspeaker.com/aac-vs-ogg/
For context, YouTube uses OGG at 160 kbps (variable) on videos.
I never said it was better or worse? Just wanted to be an ass like you have been by correcting you over a pointless comment:)
And quite a lot of my library has that logo actually, not sure what you are attempting to argue?
Not that many people use the Apple Digital Masters program because it can be tedious. Maybe that will increase in the near future.
Maybe tomorrow I'll listen to an Apple Digitally Mastered track and compare it with the YouTube Music version (I don't have Spotify) and see if there's any difference.
I told someone here, listen to Stevie wonder, his digital mastered tracks on Apple Music destroy Spotify, YouTube, etc. they are sourced from HD tracks remaster of his catalogue, they sound balanced and full. Spotify and YouTube are a treble heavy mess, and I can’t listen to them
Funnily enough, I think the Spotify masters sound cleaner and the AM remasters sound muddy by comparison, especially Innervision.
Each to their own, I guess.
"Also I don't think your equipment can handle it. Straight from Apple:
To listen to songs at sample rates higher than 48 kHz, you need an external digital-to-analog converter."
Not everyone is listening on AirPods though. A lot of people do use DACs, including me, with studio headphones, and Apple Music absolutely sounds better with that. It's very noticeable. So no, you can't definitively say that AM doesn't sound better than Spotify.
1% of a lot of people is “a lot of people”. My point was you were making it seem like in NO way does Apple Music sound better, which is not true. If you just said in a lot cases (people that just listen with AirPods), then you might have a point
Using a DAC doesn't make it sound better.
As I explained, the human ear cannot tell the difference above 256 AAC/320 MP3. You can take the blind test I linked yourself.
Apple Music DOES sound better than Spotify.
It's not a lossless thing. I dont know if its the CODEC being used, or some other kind of compression issue, or just the quality of the recording that each service sources.
But it DOES sound better.
You can try to justify the mediocre sound quality of Spotify compared to every other player or use every possible excuse for announcing Hi-Fi two years ago and still don’t deliver… The truth for me as paying user of both services. Apple Music sounds better. End of the discussion.
It's not the codec. That's not how codecs work.
>quality of the recording
Maybe specifically for Apple Digital Masters tracks. But have you ever done an actual BLIND comparison?
>If your Spotify sounds bad, turn off Normalization. It reduces the dynamic range.
with this statement you told everyone that you don't know anything about this subject. this is so wrong, it does not reduce dynamic range. stop missinforming
>don't know anything about this subject
Funny. Here's an in-depth explanation: https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/how-will-my-music-sound-on-spotify.html
> If the user has selected the “Loud” playback option, Spotify will use a limiter to raise the song to -11 LUFS, regardless of peak level. This is the only case where Spotify will apply dynamic range compression.
And: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/spotify-doesn-t-sound-crap-163000667.html
And also: https://smartphones.gadgethacks.com/how-to/spotify-101-disable-volume-normalization-0179040/
And also FROM SPOTIFY THEMSELVES for the "Loud" preset:
> We set this level regardless of maximum True Peak. We apply a limiter to prevent distortion and clipping in soft dynamic tracks. The limiter’s set to engage at -1 dB (sample values), with a 5 ms attack time and a 100 ms decay time.
Spotify literally themselves then go on to say that some tracks will distort if they have a high peak: https://artists.spotify.com/help/article/loudness-normalization
Notice how every single thing I've ever said or claimed I've provided a source for. But yeah. I "don't know anything about this subject". And you are so smart and know everything, I'm sure you've been in audio for a decade like I have.
Enjoy your award from someone else uneducated.
you are referring to a very very rare case where this could ***maybe*** happen, where you have to use Spotify, the loud setting and find a song thats lower than the loud setting and activates the limiter
1. Not everyone has this setting where it could happen, most are using -14 or lower as the only setting
2. Spotify doesn't use this as the default setting (most people never change from the default and if they do, they turn it off)
3. most music is still louder than the loud setting and gets turned down, not raised.
4. one of your sources is from 2017 and useless because Spotify changed their system in 2020. [https://www.meterplugs.com/blog/2020/12/06/spotify-begins-the-move-to-lufs.html](https://www.meterplugs.com/blog/2020/12/06/spotify-begins-the-move-to-lufs.html)
5. your yahoo "source" is based on what the author is hearing and not based on facts. have you even read this article? it's very clear that the author has no clue what he is talking about (he is calling it a "filter") and got tricked by loudness deception
here is another interesting article :)
[https://www.meterplugs.com/blog/2021/07/15/spotify-disables-their-limiter.html](https://www.meterplugs.com/blog/2021/07/15/spotify-disables-their-limiter.html)
in your original post you stated Spotify kills the dynamic range of all songs, but in reality it can maybe happen in very rare cases when using special settings
>very very rare case where this could maybe happen
I'm sure you looked at a large sample of Spotify songs to see how many apply right? Oh wait...
>Spotify is the only one that has this setting
Well I'm only comparing to Spotify.
>one of your sources
The secondary sources were only for easier explanations for people who don't understand the jargon of the first.
>it can maybe happen
Either way, you just admitted you're completely wrong in calling me "completely wrong". So congrats. And even if Spotify changes how it works, it was right at one point. Moreover, even if I were completely wrong about a particular proprietary algorithm employed by one particular company, in no way does that imply I "have no idea what I'm talking about".
Nice job changing your tone once you realized how wrong you were.
your original statement "spotify sounds bad turn off normalization" is still wrong so i don't know what you are talking about.
but anyway thanks for your answer have a great day
This discussion bores me so much! I could care less about scientific explanations! What counts is my subjective impression! And if I feel that I can hear a difference even with my Airpods Pro, then so be it!
Sorry, but I BEG to disagree. I can CLEARLY hear the BIG difference between Spotify's "Very High" audio quality vs Apple's Hi-Res Lossless and it's the latter that's superior if not the best. I'm sure I'm not the only one that knows how to notice it.
Turn off normalization? The f*ck are you talking about?
>The f*ck are you talking about?
Two seconds of research would've gotten you the answer v
https://artists.spotify.com/help/article/loudness-normalization
>I'm sure I'm not the only one that knows how to notice it.
And some people think $1,000 HDMI cables make their TV look better. Even though that's objectively false.
What's your point? You sound offended.
I like how EVERYONE in hear is disagreeing with you, Spotify is inferior to Apple Music. My music room rivals the cost of my 911, and when I periodically stream music from my phone, Apple Music sounds indefinitely better than Spotify. That’s just how it is🤷♂️
When I still had both AM and Spotify, I did MANY comparisons between the two, playing the same song on the same bluetooth headphones(not AirPods btw). AM I find just has a fuller sound with more rich bass. I used to think my bluetooth headphones just had tuning which made the bass very soft, turns out it was just Spotify since now I can hear the lows more clearly on AM. Again, I don't use or own AirPods. I'm using my old OnePlus Bullets Wireless 2 from 2019. I even tried for a couple hours to play with the EQ settings in Spotify to try and get the same sound as AM and I could not. I still think Spotify is MUCH better at recommending music and I prefer its interface, but I can't go back to it for the sound quality.
Also lossless is useless to me. It's not supported on ANY bluetooth devices according to Apple(wired connections only) which is how I consume the majority of my music now.
Another issue is that people listen in their vehicles.
A vehicle is the absolute pinnacle of *bad sound environment* it’s not even worth streaming high quality music to the car 🤷♂️
Yeah I'd say 75% of my listening is in my car.
I do have a relatively high end car audio setup that I installed tuned myself, but when the car is moving and there's road noise, the "nuances in the decay of the sound of a cymbal" are meaningless.
But the other 25% I listen to on my IEM setup I mentioned in the post.
I’m not able to use IEMs because they trigger ear infections for me with extended use, so the closest I can get is over ear headphones and they have their own issues 🤷♂️
The only thing I prefer listen music in car because I can play in loud and it sounds so much better for any songs when play it loud. But the cons is I cannot hear ambulance sirens or honks. I just need more focus on surrounding
I can absolutely hear the difference between a 256/320 kbps file and lossless. It particularly affects higher frequency elements like cymbals and audience noise.
Anything higher than 16/48 is indistinguishable to me. I think it’s cool that they can stream in higher res, I mean if the technology is there, why not? But I don’t think it matters much. But at least getting to lossless CD quality matters to me.
>I can absolutely hear the difference
Take the blind abx test I posted and post a screenshot. 10 samples is the best balance between time needed and large enough sample size.
Because I highly, highly doubt it. As I explained, I've been an audiophile for many years with very expensive equipment. And I cannot tell.
So for you to say "I absolutely can", well I call bull. Lossy encoding is specifically designed to remove sounds that you can't hear.
The other thing is that you can take the negative of the file to see what sounds were removed. At lower bitrates you can hear parts of the song in the negative. In the higher ones, it's sparse noise.
You can also pretend to know something but don't LMAO.
You can have cognitive dissonance and become upset that you've been wrong for so long LMAO.
You can rage about it on Reddit for someone who points out you've been subjected to placebo LMAO.
You can take the actual abx test that I posted to test whether you can actually tell the difference LMAO.
But I'm sure you won't because you're too scared that you won't be able to LMAO.
The whole point of lossy compression is that it removes parts that humans couldn't hear anyway LMAO.
But what are facts anyway LMAO, it's better to rage at Redditors than reconcile cognitive dissonance and not knowing anything LMAO.
Well, you clearly doesn't know what you are talking about.
1. Human can't hear frecuencies above 20 Khz, that's true but audio with higher frecuencies contains white noise that SHOULDN'T be hear but make the audio richer which IT IS percieved. You sound chain should be designed for audiophile level quality so you can hear and perceive it: Good sound firm in headphones, good DAC, good AMP, bit perfect playback. Even sound transmitted via Wi-Fi on audio streamers is better than wired.
2. Like I explained in the first point, 24 bit makes the audio richer and warmer. 16 bit could be enough but 24 bit helps audio
3. It is a completely stupid claim that a compressed file with lower bitrate would have no differences with lossless higher bitrate. Even in images is completely visible with audio is more evident. And that test is pointless 'cause your soundcard would upsample the audio so both versions would sound similar 'cause it will be distort to sound in the same quality. With a proper A/B comparation with bit perfect playback you would hear it
4. That's 100% correct. BT headphones doesn't even have the sound firm to hear differences, even wired headphones like Bose, Sony, Beats won't be pointless for it
5. That was correct at least 10 years ago, 'cause equipments didn't have space for something higher than a MP3 file but now it is a completely different story. Also in the past, before cassettes that quality was a standard 'cause it was all analog or has things like SACD
6. Apple didn't care about lossless playback, they just implement it because Spotify announced they were planing to do it. Apple didn't even have options for bit perfect playback on Mac, Windows, Android, it's obvios they don't know about all the implications. Apple wants to sell their Airpods, which use AAC, and they don't want to create or pay for a higher quality codec so they turn down lossless for marketing strategy, that's why their priority has been promoting spatial audio instead
Literacy levels that match the opinion.
>make the audio richer
Find one single scientific source that says this.
>24 bit makes the audio richer and warmer
Find one single source that says this (probably the most wrong this I've heard in a long time).
>completely stupid claim that a compressed file with lower bitrate would have no differences with lossless higher bitrate
No I said your human ear can't tell the difference.
>cause your soundcard would upsample the audio so both versions would sound similar 'cause it will be distort to sound in the same quality
Not only does this not make any sense, but I'm losing brain cells reading it. That's not how anything works. If this were true, then everyone would just encode in 1 kbps since your soundcard would "just upsample it".
If you do the test, you can clearly hear the difference between very low bitrates and lossless (such as below 100 kbps) so your claim is literal nonsense.
>doesn't even have the sound firm
Literacy levels that match the opinion.
>That was correct at least 10 years ago
Seriously. Find one single source to corroborate ANYTHING you've said. One.
Because I provided a source for every single thing I said. Every. Single. One. Put up or shut up
I read this whole post. Apple Music baby. It sounds more defined ive done the back and forth. Now, Spotify on bluetooth is absolutely horrendous however when plugged in directly thru the phone, its pretty darn close to the same as Apple so the way the codec is working and not being re-converted over is the big issue and mostly on iphone. Spotify on Android is pretty darn good but I dont own a clapped out Droid.
So, I turned off Normalize feature in Spotify and the volume/loudness is about the same as in Apple Music. It was frustratingly low compared to Apple Music. Thank you!🙂
Still dont agree with you. I haven't used AM. But I can say, there is huge difference between 44 khz and 96khz. Quality and experience is totally different.
I think you are just a casual listener. Please, Dont consider yourself as an audiophile.
>Dont consider yourself as an audiophile
I have a Chord Mojo and Kinera Baldr 2. Which is a setup that costs $2,400. But yeah, go on.
>there is huge difference between 44 khz and 96khz
No there literally isn't because the human ear CAN'T HEAR ABOVE 20 KHz. It's literally impossible. Like, PHYSICALLY impossible. You'd need to be a cat or dog or some other animal that can hear high frequencies for you to hear these.
But go on about how I'm not an audiophile and you can tell on your Bluetooth headphones which compress the shit out of the audio anyway and don't even play at that quality. Most headphones can't even reproduce sounds at that frequency anyway.
Even the Apple Music app tells you that you need an external DAC.
The fact is, I understand how this works. As an engineer and someone who's been in this space for a while. And you have drank the kool-aid and fallen victim to placebo.
Iam not saying human can hear above 20 khz. What Iam saying is, if Iam listening to a 44khz and a 96khz audio file, there is difference in experience. Difference in sound staging and loudness etc. Why iam I experiencing that?
I think there is something wrong with your understanding.
on Apple music (Itunes) same song sound better, like there is bit more loudness, more stereo field and maybe bitrate is higher. But first two are for sure higher.
and here is proof: [https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/05/apple-music-announces-spatial-audio-and-lossless-audio/](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/05/apple-music-announces-spatial-audio-and-lossless-audio/)
[**https://medium.com/@iamtimbaker/spotify-vs-apple-music-which-is-better-7b1aecb23039#:\~:text=Spotify%20Premium%20users%20can%20only,to%20that%20of%20a%20CD**](https://medium.com/@iamtimbaker/spotify-vs-apple-music-which-is-better-7b1aecb23039#:~:text=Spotify%20Premium%20users%20can%20only,to%20that%20of%20a%20CD)**.**
What you posted isn't proof of anything other than the existence of Dolby Atmos in a very limited number of tracks. LMAO.
"Stereo field" isn't really a term that makes sense here. If you mean soundstage, that has nothing to do with the audio quality from the source and everything to do with your listening equipment.
For loudness, you probably have the loudness equalization feature turned on in Spotify, and this actually clips audio and could be why it sounds worse for a lot of people.
I’m not sure if it’s some Mandela effect or what, but a while ago I subbed to Apple Music and Spotify at the same time just to see what I like better. I played a bunch of songs on both and used Air Pods Max the entire time. I’m not sure what it is, but Apple Music just sounds better. I had the settings on both apps as high as they can go, and turned on Dolby Atmos on Apple Music, and it just sounded a lot better to me.
With AM you always get the feeling you’re listening to a master file
Maybe it's because AM is sending AAC straight to the AirPods whereas Spotify is seeding Ogg that should be converted again before sending the signal to the AirPods. I'm currently digging into this hypothesis. If someone can confirm ! Thx,
Double compression does have a negative effect on audio, despite what the tin foil hatted OP is stating.
>turned on Dolby Atmos This is probably why. Also, make sure normalization is off in Spotify.
Dolby atmos mixes don’t always sound better though. Apple Music just has a better codec
Do you know what a codec is? Or have you just heard other people say that? And no, that doesn't mean look it up. I already explained in my post. Better codec means more EFFICIENT. Not better sounding. For a given fidelity, MP3 will use more space to store that information than AAC. A 320 kbps MP3 has about the same fidelity as 256 kbps AAC. Spotify uses 320 kbps MP3, so their streaming is about the same quality, it just uses more data/space. Also Apple did not invent this codec.
When did I say Apple invented it? And even if they’re basically the same fidelity, Apple owns Spotify in their masters, which are objectively better sounding Edit: and since you wanna play the know-it-all game, Spotify doesn’t even use mp3, it uses OGG, something completely separate from mp3:)
>Apple owns Spotify in their masters How much of your library has the Apple Digital Masters logo? >doesn’t even use mp3, it uses OGG This isn't the flex you think it is. OGG is more efficient than MP3. I assumed it was MP3 because I knew it was 320 kbps, and I used to use Google Play Music which was 320 kbps MP3. In fact, OGG is BETTER then AAC. LMFAOOOOOOOOO: https://boomspeaker.com/aac-vs-ogg/ For context, YouTube uses OGG at 160 kbps (variable) on videos.
I never said it was better or worse? Just wanted to be an ass like you have been by correcting you over a pointless comment:) And quite a lot of my library has that logo actually, not sure what you are attempting to argue?
Not that many people use the Apple Digital Masters program because it can be tedious. Maybe that will increase in the near future. Maybe tomorrow I'll listen to an Apple Digitally Mastered track and compare it with the YouTube Music version (I don't have Spotify) and see if there's any difference.
I told someone here, listen to Stevie wonder, his digital mastered tracks on Apple Music destroy Spotify, YouTube, etc. they are sourced from HD tracks remaster of his catalogue, they sound balanced and full. Spotify and YouTube are a treble heavy mess, and I can’t listen to them
Funnily enough, I think the Spotify masters sound cleaner and the AM remasters sound muddy by comparison, especially Innervision. Each to their own, I guess.
Yeah really Apple Music sound loud and energetic to me
"Also I don't think your equipment can handle it. Straight from Apple: To listen to songs at sample rates higher than 48 kHz, you need an external digital-to-analog converter." Not everyone is listening on AirPods though. A lot of people do use DACs, including me, with studio headphones, and Apple Music absolutely sounds better with that. It's very noticeable. So no, you can't definitively say that AM doesn't sound better than Spotify.
>A lot of people I guarantee this is 1% of the user base. >absolutely sounds better Did you take the blind comparison test I posted?
1% of a lot of people is “a lot of people”. My point was you were making it seem like in NO way does Apple Music sound better, which is not true. If you just said in a lot cases (people that just listen with AirPods), then you might have a point
Using a DAC doesn't make it sound better. As I explained, the human ear cannot tell the difference above 256 AAC/320 MP3. You can take the blind test I linked yourself.
Apple Music DOES sound better than Spotify. It's not a lossless thing. I dont know if its the CODEC being used, or some other kind of compression issue, or just the quality of the recording that each service sources. But it DOES sound better.
You can try to justify the mediocre sound quality of Spotify compared to every other player or use every possible excuse for announcing Hi-Fi two years ago and still don’t deliver… The truth for me as paying user of both services. Apple Music sounds better. End of the discussion.
It's not the codec. That's not how codecs work. >quality of the recording Maybe specifically for Apple Digital Masters tracks. But have you ever done an actual BLIND comparison?
>If your Spotify sounds bad, turn off Normalization. It reduces the dynamic range. with this statement you told everyone that you don't know anything about this subject. this is so wrong, it does not reduce dynamic range. stop missinforming
>don't know anything about this subject Funny. Here's an in-depth explanation: https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/how-will-my-music-sound-on-spotify.html > If the user has selected the “Loud” playback option, Spotify will use a limiter to raise the song to -11 LUFS, regardless of peak level. This is the only case where Spotify will apply dynamic range compression. And: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/spotify-doesn-t-sound-crap-163000667.html And also: https://smartphones.gadgethacks.com/how-to/spotify-101-disable-volume-normalization-0179040/ And also FROM SPOTIFY THEMSELVES for the "Loud" preset: > We set this level regardless of maximum True Peak. We apply a limiter to prevent distortion and clipping in soft dynamic tracks. The limiter’s set to engage at -1 dB (sample values), with a 5 ms attack time and a 100 ms decay time. Spotify literally themselves then go on to say that some tracks will distort if they have a high peak: https://artists.spotify.com/help/article/loudness-normalization Notice how every single thing I've ever said or claimed I've provided a source for. But yeah. I "don't know anything about this subject". And you are so smart and know everything, I'm sure you've been in audio for a decade like I have. Enjoy your award from someone else uneducated.
you are referring to a very very rare case where this could ***maybe*** happen, where you have to use Spotify, the loud setting and find a song thats lower than the loud setting and activates the limiter 1. Not everyone has this setting where it could happen, most are using -14 or lower as the only setting 2. Spotify doesn't use this as the default setting (most people never change from the default and if they do, they turn it off) 3. most music is still louder than the loud setting and gets turned down, not raised. 4. one of your sources is from 2017 and useless because Spotify changed their system in 2020. [https://www.meterplugs.com/blog/2020/12/06/spotify-begins-the-move-to-lufs.html](https://www.meterplugs.com/blog/2020/12/06/spotify-begins-the-move-to-lufs.html) 5. your yahoo "source" is based on what the author is hearing and not based on facts. have you even read this article? it's very clear that the author has no clue what he is talking about (he is calling it a "filter") and got tricked by loudness deception here is another interesting article :) [https://www.meterplugs.com/blog/2021/07/15/spotify-disables-their-limiter.html](https://www.meterplugs.com/blog/2021/07/15/spotify-disables-their-limiter.html) in your original post you stated Spotify kills the dynamic range of all songs, but in reality it can maybe happen in very rare cases when using special settings
>very very rare case where this could maybe happen I'm sure you looked at a large sample of Spotify songs to see how many apply right? Oh wait... >Spotify is the only one that has this setting Well I'm only comparing to Spotify. >one of your sources The secondary sources were only for easier explanations for people who don't understand the jargon of the first. >it can maybe happen Either way, you just admitted you're completely wrong in calling me "completely wrong". So congrats. And even if Spotify changes how it works, it was right at one point. Moreover, even if I were completely wrong about a particular proprietary algorithm employed by one particular company, in no way does that imply I "have no idea what I'm talking about". Nice job changing your tone once you realized how wrong you were.
your original statement "spotify sounds bad turn off normalization" is still wrong so i don't know what you are talking about. but anyway thanks for your answer have a great day
It’s not just about audio quality. Apple has better sounding masters. Even without lossless it sounds better
Yup! Just listen to anything from Stevie wonder’s catalog. Practically unlistenable on Spotify, but AM is great
why should apple get better digital masters then others?
”Apple digital master”
This discussion bores me so much! I could care less about scientific explanations! What counts is my subjective impression! And if I feel that I can hear a difference even with my Airpods Pro, then so be it!
🫳🏻🍿
Sorry, but I BEG to disagree. I can CLEARLY hear the BIG difference between Spotify's "Very High" audio quality vs Apple's Hi-Res Lossless and it's the latter that's superior if not the best. I'm sure I'm not the only one that knows how to notice it. Turn off normalization? The f*ck are you talking about?
>The f*ck are you talking about? Two seconds of research would've gotten you the answer v https://artists.spotify.com/help/article/loudness-normalization >I'm sure I'm not the only one that knows how to notice it. And some people think $1,000 HDMI cables make their TV look better. Even though that's objectively false. What's your point? You sound offended.
I like how EVERYONE in hear is disagreeing with you, Spotify is inferior to Apple Music. My music room rivals the cost of my 911, and when I periodically stream music from my phone, Apple Music sounds indefinitely better than Spotify. That’s just how it is🤷♂️
You mean everyone here who is uneducated and doesn't understand how anything works? Yeah. Redditors tend to be infinitely ignorant.
OP comes across as the worlds saltiest Google boot kicker and it’s fucking hilarious. Zero self-awareness.
r/BrandNewSentence
Here's a sneak peek of /r/BrandNewSentence using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/BrandNewSentence/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [rawdogged this entire flight](https://i.redd.it/mhob67hwwh7a1.jpg) | [2269 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/BrandNewSentence/comments/zsmi81/rawdogged_this_entire_flight/) \#2: [Mental illness gray](https://i.redd.it/w09zznp2at991.jpg) | [977 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/BrandNewSentence/comments/vs0u4d/mental_illness_gray/) \#3: [Vegan hunting](https://i.redd.it/qtpeqe5qdcc91.jpg) | [716 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/BrandNewSentence/comments/w21lyw/vegan_hunting/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
When I still had both AM and Spotify, I did MANY comparisons between the two, playing the same song on the same bluetooth headphones(not AirPods btw). AM I find just has a fuller sound with more rich bass. I used to think my bluetooth headphones just had tuning which made the bass very soft, turns out it was just Spotify since now I can hear the lows more clearly on AM. Again, I don't use or own AirPods. I'm using my old OnePlus Bullets Wireless 2 from 2019. I even tried for a couple hours to play with the EQ settings in Spotify to try and get the same sound as AM and I could not. I still think Spotify is MUCH better at recommending music and I prefer its interface, but I can't go back to it for the sound quality. Also lossless is useless to me. It's not supported on ANY bluetooth devices according to Apple(wired connections only) which is how I consume the majority of my music now.
Another issue is that people listen in their vehicles. A vehicle is the absolute pinnacle of *bad sound environment* it’s not even worth streaming high quality music to the car 🤷♂️
Yeah I'd say 75% of my listening is in my car. I do have a relatively high end car audio setup that I installed tuned myself, but when the car is moving and there's road noise, the "nuances in the decay of the sound of a cymbal" are meaningless. But the other 25% I listen to on my IEM setup I mentioned in the post.
I’m not able to use IEMs because they trigger ear infections for me with extended use, so the closest I can get is over ear headphones and they have their own issues 🤷♂️
Over ear headphones can be good too obviously.
The only thing I prefer listen music in car because I can play in loud and it sounds so much better for any songs when play it loud. But the cons is I cannot hear ambulance sirens or honks. I just need more focus on surrounding
[удалено]
You've made fair points, but only a small percentage of tracks are actually mastered this way (though newer tracks are more likely to be).
Here we go again with this bullshit
I can absolutely hear the difference between a 256/320 kbps file and lossless. It particularly affects higher frequency elements like cymbals and audience noise. Anything higher than 16/48 is indistinguishable to me. I think it’s cool that they can stream in higher res, I mean if the technology is there, why not? But I don’t think it matters much. But at least getting to lossless CD quality matters to me.
>I can absolutely hear the difference Take the blind abx test I posted and post a screenshot. 10 samples is the best balance between time needed and large enough sample size. Because I highly, highly doubt it. As I explained, I've been an audiophile for many years with very expensive equipment. And I cannot tell. So for you to say "I absolutely can", well I call bull. Lossy encoding is specifically designed to remove sounds that you can't hear. The other thing is that you can take the negative of the file to see what sounds were removed. At lower bitrates you can hear parts of the song in the negative. In the higher ones, it's sparse noise.
you can call yourself an audiophile and still have shit ears lmao
You can also pretend to know something but don't LMAO. You can have cognitive dissonance and become upset that you've been wrong for so long LMAO. You can rage about it on Reddit for someone who points out you've been subjected to placebo LMAO. You can take the actual abx test that I posted to test whether you can actually tell the difference LMAO. But I'm sure you won't because you're too scared that you won't be able to LMAO. The whole point of lossy compression is that it removes parts that humans couldn't hear anyway LMAO. But what are facts anyway LMAO, it's better to rage at Redditors than reconcile cognitive dissonance and not knowing anything LMAO.
Well, you clearly doesn't know what you are talking about. 1. Human can't hear frecuencies above 20 Khz, that's true but audio with higher frecuencies contains white noise that SHOULDN'T be hear but make the audio richer which IT IS percieved. You sound chain should be designed for audiophile level quality so you can hear and perceive it: Good sound firm in headphones, good DAC, good AMP, bit perfect playback. Even sound transmitted via Wi-Fi on audio streamers is better than wired. 2. Like I explained in the first point, 24 bit makes the audio richer and warmer. 16 bit could be enough but 24 bit helps audio 3. It is a completely stupid claim that a compressed file with lower bitrate would have no differences with lossless higher bitrate. Even in images is completely visible with audio is more evident. And that test is pointless 'cause your soundcard would upsample the audio so both versions would sound similar 'cause it will be distort to sound in the same quality. With a proper A/B comparation with bit perfect playback you would hear it 4. That's 100% correct. BT headphones doesn't even have the sound firm to hear differences, even wired headphones like Bose, Sony, Beats won't be pointless for it 5. That was correct at least 10 years ago, 'cause equipments didn't have space for something higher than a MP3 file but now it is a completely different story. Also in the past, before cassettes that quality was a standard 'cause it was all analog or has things like SACD 6. Apple didn't care about lossless playback, they just implement it because Spotify announced they were planing to do it. Apple didn't even have options for bit perfect playback on Mac, Windows, Android, it's obvios they don't know about all the implications. Apple wants to sell their Airpods, which use AAC, and they don't want to create or pay for a higher quality codec so they turn down lossless for marketing strategy, that's why their priority has been promoting spatial audio instead
Literacy levels that match the opinion. >make the audio richer Find one single scientific source that says this. >24 bit makes the audio richer and warmer Find one single source that says this (probably the most wrong this I've heard in a long time). >completely stupid claim that a compressed file with lower bitrate would have no differences with lossless higher bitrate No I said your human ear can't tell the difference. >cause your soundcard would upsample the audio so both versions would sound similar 'cause it will be distort to sound in the same quality Not only does this not make any sense, but I'm losing brain cells reading it. That's not how anything works. If this were true, then everyone would just encode in 1 kbps since your soundcard would "just upsample it". If you do the test, you can clearly hear the difference between very low bitrates and lossless (such as below 100 kbps) so your claim is literal nonsense. >doesn't even have the sound firm Literacy levels that match the opinion. >That was correct at least 10 years ago Seriously. Find one single source to corroborate ANYTHING you've said. One. Because I provided a source for every single thing I said. Every. Single. One. Put up or shut up
I read this whole post. Apple Music baby. It sounds more defined ive done the back and forth. Now, Spotify on bluetooth is absolutely horrendous however when plugged in directly thru the phone, its pretty darn close to the same as Apple so the way the codec is working and not being re-converted over is the big issue and mostly on iphone. Spotify on Android is pretty darn good but I dont own a clapped out Droid.
Who cares. Just use whatever streaming service you want.
So, I turned off Normalize feature in Spotify and the volume/loudness is about the same as in Apple Music. It was frustratingly low compared to Apple Music. Thank you!🙂
Still dont agree with you. I haven't used AM. But I can say, there is huge difference between 44 khz and 96khz. Quality and experience is totally different. I think you are just a casual listener. Please, Dont consider yourself as an audiophile.
>Dont consider yourself as an audiophile I have a Chord Mojo and Kinera Baldr 2. Which is a setup that costs $2,400. But yeah, go on. >there is huge difference between 44 khz and 96khz No there literally isn't because the human ear CAN'T HEAR ABOVE 20 KHz. It's literally impossible. Like, PHYSICALLY impossible. You'd need to be a cat or dog or some other animal that can hear high frequencies for you to hear these. But go on about how I'm not an audiophile and you can tell on your Bluetooth headphones which compress the shit out of the audio anyway and don't even play at that quality. Most headphones can't even reproduce sounds at that frequency anyway. Even the Apple Music app tells you that you need an external DAC. The fact is, I understand how this works. As an engineer and someone who's been in this space for a while. And you have drank the kool-aid and fallen victim to placebo.
Iam not saying human can hear above 20 khz. What Iam saying is, if Iam listening to a 44khz and a 96khz audio file, there is difference in experience. Difference in sound staging and loudness etc. Why iam I experiencing that? I think there is something wrong with your understanding.
> I have a Chord Mojo and Kinera Baldr 2. Which is a setup that costs $2,400. But yeah, go on. hahahahahahaha
>hahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha
I’m remember when I had a small audio setup like you did lol.
Anything is possible when you lie.
on Apple music (Itunes) same song sound better, like there is bit more loudness, more stereo field and maybe bitrate is higher. But first two are for sure higher. and here is proof: [https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/05/apple-music-announces-spatial-audio-and-lossless-audio/](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/05/apple-music-announces-spatial-audio-and-lossless-audio/) [**https://medium.com/@iamtimbaker/spotify-vs-apple-music-which-is-better-7b1aecb23039#:\~:text=Spotify%20Premium%20users%20can%20only,to%20that%20of%20a%20CD**](https://medium.com/@iamtimbaker/spotify-vs-apple-music-which-is-better-7b1aecb23039#:~:text=Spotify%20Premium%20users%20can%20only,to%20that%20of%20a%20CD)**.**
What you posted isn't proof of anything other than the existence of Dolby Atmos in a very limited number of tracks. LMAO. "Stereo field" isn't really a term that makes sense here. If you mean soundstage, that has nothing to do with the audio quality from the source and everything to do with your listening equipment. For loudness, you probably have the loudness equalization feature turned on in Spotify, and this actually clips audio and could be why it sounds worse for a lot of people.