Spotify Premium sound quality

[buggalugs]

Morning all,

I note with interest that spotify premium will stream Ogg Vorbis at 320kbps... has anyone tried this on a decent hifi setup? Obviously a lot of it is subjective but is it really as good as playing a CD?

Cheers

[telecat]

CD is well over 1000 KPBS so no.

[FlossyThePig]

buggalugs said:

Obviously a lot of it is subjective but is it really as good as playing a CD?

It really depends on the quipment and how you listen. I bet most people won't hear any difference!

telecat said:

CD is well over 1000 KPBS so no.

Never mind the quality count the kbps :P

[buggalugs]

I don't think I'd agree that kbps=quality, it kind of does soemtimes but I think there's a lot more to it than that. The difference between 128kbps MP3 and CD is quite noticable to me personaly, say if I play a real CD vs. playing a CD burned from MP3's. But I guess that 320 Ogg will be much better.

This all stemmed from thinking that if I had a lappy by the amp with Spotify on it then what would I ever need a CD for... but would I be forever fretting that I was missing out on that last bit of purity, that last bit of sweetness??

[telecat]

Given you will be running through a Hi-Fi Amp and speakers my experience suggests you would find the sound Boomy at the Bass end with little definition and rather thin and lacking air at the treble. Mid tends to be noticeable by it's absence. MP3 is usable for the majority of people on Portable devices and headphones. It's not a Hi-Fi format and was never designed to be one. If you do want to use your Laptop as a source then you need to use the Original WAV files or use FLAC compressed ones. MP3 will die as it will not be needed.

[tybalt]

I think at 320kbps very, very few people would be able to tell the difference in a blind test, with the caveat that to test this properly you'd need to use the same DAC for both. Optical out from the PC to a DAC, then try wav file and mp3/vorbis back to back (blind of course).

I work with a guy who has a really decent hi-fi (KEF reference speakers etc) and he reckons he can't tell the difference at that rate. We are a bunch of electronics/mechanical engineers and he's a (visiting) prof, so we are all on the geeky side.

[telecat]

tybalt said:

I think at 320kbps very, very few people would be able to tell the difference in a blind test, with the caveat that to test this properly you'd need to use the same DAC for both. Optical out from the PC to a DAC, then try wav file and mp3/vorbis back to back (blind of course).

I work with a guy who has a really decent hi-fi (KEF reference speakers etc) and he reckons he can't tell the difference at that rate. We are a bunch of electronics/mechanical engineers and he's a (visiting) prof, so we are all on the geeky side.

I can't even listen to MP3 in the car it's that bad!!! I used to think I had bad hearing until I came across so many people who claim MP3 at 320KPS is good. MP3 has a sound people associate with "Hi-Fi" that's until you hear real "Hi-Fi". It's a balanced almost atmospheric sound bereft of "Scratchy" highs and "Boom". Once you have it you stop changing Kit.

[tybalt]

telecat said:

tybalt said:

I think at 320kbps very, very few people would be able to tell the difference in a blind test, with the caveat that to test this properly you'd need to use the same DAC for both. Optical out from the PC to a DAC, then try wav file and mp3/vorbis back to back (blind of course).

I work with a guy who has a really decent hi-fi (KEF reference speakers etc) and he reckons he can't tell the difference at that rate. We are a bunch of electronics/mechanical engineers and he's a (visiting) prof, so we are all on the geeky side.

I can't even listen to MP3 in the car it's that bad!!! I used to think I had bad hearing until I came across so many people who claim MP3 at 320KPS is good. MP3 has a sound people associate with "Hi-Fi" that's until you hear real "Hi-Fi". It's a balanced almost atmospheric sound bereft of "Scratchy" highs and "Boom". Once you have it you stop changing Kit.

I've never tried testing it out myself. I only use a laptop and sound from that is st anyway. It does far worse things to a CD than anything MP3 compression ever inflicts. I've got a reasonably decent hi-fi (Cyrus stuff), but its performance is crippled by the room it's in and the expediencies of being a family man.

You are very unusual of you can tell the difference in a controlled test - most people can't.

e.g.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/mp3/review/2009/11/1...

You might also be interested in this thread:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?show...

Where someone with similar claims was brave enough to actually try some ABX testing, and they found it was a lot harder than they anticipated. Couldn't tell the difference in 5 samples, and had to really look for it when they identified a sample where they could spot the compression.

This is a pretty good discussion of the same subject too

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?show...

Based on the above, I find it hard to believe that you'd be able to tell the difference every time. From what I can understand it's only very occasionally possible to spot the difference (e.g. with a sample that's particularly testing for some reason), and then it needs a trained ear. Can you also hear the difference between interconnect cables by any chance?

Edited by tybalt on Sunday 13th December 01:22

[tybalt]

buggalugs said:

I don't think I'd agree that kbps=quality, it kind of does soemtimes but I think there's a lot more to it than that. The difference between 128kbps MP3 and CD is quite noticable to me personaly, say if I play a real CD vs. playing a CD burned from MP3's. But I guess that 320 Ogg will be much better.

This all stemmed from thinking that if I had a lappy by the amp with Spotify on it then what would I ever need a CD for... but would I be forever fretting that I was missing out on that last bit of purity, that last bit of sweetness??

For comparisons of quality between codecs, there's a good site here : http://www.soundexpert.info/