3 ms·

>> Young, a long-time proponent of high-resolution music files, also wrote that "many other platforms, Amazon, Apple, and Qobuz, to name a few, present my music

>> Young, a long-time proponent of high-resolution music files, also wrote that "many other platforms, Amazon, Apple, and Qobuz, to name a few, present my music today in all its High-Resolution glory—the way it is intended to be heard, while unfortunately Spotify continues to peddle the lowest quality in music reproduction. So much for art." It is interesting how Young will stand up against spreading misinformation, and continue to make blatantly untrue statements such as this. I wonder if he somehow isn't up to date with the technology, science and research in this field after being involved in it for so long, or if it is a branding decision and some persona to be kept as a public entertainer.

jakub_g 5y ago
Do you mean that Spotify has same quality, or that there's no perceived difference between Spotify vs other higher bitrate? (Any links to validate?) Spotify has quality setting in app but from what I've heard it's still lower bitrate than Tidal for example and apparently the diff can be heard. (Although I saw some blog a while ago claiming that quality distortion on Spotify is a side-effect of some DRM/watermarking they do).
- rdlw 5y ago
  Apparently Spotify's 'Very High' means 320 kbps[1]. Tidal uses FLAC, which uses as high a bitrate as is necessary; I've seen flac bitrate as high as 1800 kbps. There is an eternal debate among audiophiles as to whether FLAC makes a difference, and because the debate is about sensory quality, it seems unlikely to ever be settled: even if you say that the variations between the two are below any perceivable threshold, people will say that it causes distortions that are perceivable. As far as I know, there is no one who can reliably tell apart 320kbps mp3 and FLAC, and I'm CERTAIN that I can't. Here's a website that let's you try: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html fair warning: it's very tedious and it takes a long time. [1] https://support.spotify.com/us/article/audio-quality/ https://support.spotify.com/us/article/audio-quality/
  - ovao 5y ago
    > As far as I know, there is no one who can reliably tell apart 320kbps mp3 and FLAC, and I'm CERTAIN that I can't. ‘Reliably’, no, it’s accurate to say it’s not possible. It’s occasionally possible given certain samples, though typically only to a fairly well-trained ear. I’ve personally failed double-blind tests against lossless at bitrates as low as 80 kbps (modern encoders are very good). That says also nothing about which sounds better, which is its own subject altogether. I think it’s fine to advocate for more of a cushion when it comes to encoding and bit rates, even if it’s just a “feel good” thing. Sure, lossless streaming: why not. But Young’s beliefs about digital audio simply don’t jive with reality.
    - iggldiggl 5y ago
      > It’s occasionally possible given certain samples MP3 in particular has some fundamental problems (even at maximum bitrate) when dealing with short sharp sounds (e.g. castanets), which have been fixed in the subsequent generations of audio codecs such as AAC, Vorbis or Opus.
classichasclass 5y ago
He also has lots to say about GMO. https://www.thedailybeast.com/neil-youngs-long-record-of-spreading-scientific-misinformation https://www.thedailybeast.com/neil-youngs-long-record-of-spr... Now, he's free to have his own opinions, but he hasn't exactly been a defender of science in the past. I agree with his vaccination position here, obviously, but that doesn't mean Spotify erred in their judgment either.
seattle_spring 5y ago
He claimed in 2015 that AM radio and cassettes were higher fidelity than the best streaming.

jakub_g 5y ago

Do you mean that Spotify has same quality, or that there's no perceived difference between Spotify vs other higher bitrate? (Any links to validate?) Spotify has quality setting in app but from what I've heard it's still lower bitrate than Tidal for example and apparently the diff can be heard. (Although I saw some blog a while ago claiming that quality distortion on Spotify is a side-effect of some DRM/watermarking they do).

rdlw 5y ago
Apparently Spotify's 'Very High' means 320 kbps[1]. Tidal uses FLAC, which uses as high a bitrate as is necessary; I've seen flac bitrate as high as 1800 kbps. There is an eternal debate among audiophiles as to whether FLAC makes a difference, and because the debate is about sensory quality, it seems unlikely to ever be settled: even if you say that the variations between the two are below any perceivable threshold, people will say that it causes distortions that are perceivable. As far as I know, there is no one who can reliably tell apart 320kbps mp3 and FLAC, and I'm CERTAIN that I can't. Here's a website that let's you try: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html fair warning: it's very tedious and it takes a long time. [1] https://support.spotify.com/us/article/audio-quality/ https://support.spotify.com/us/article/audio-quality/
- ovao 5y ago
  > As far as I know, there is no one who can reliably tell apart 320kbps mp3 and FLAC, and I'm CERTAIN that I can't. ‘Reliably’, no, it’s accurate to say it’s not possible. It’s occasionally possible given certain samples, though typically only to a fairly well-trained ear. I’ve personally failed double-blind tests against lossless at bitrates as low as 80 kbps (modern encoders are very good). That says also nothing about which sounds better, which is its own subject altogether. I think it’s fine to advocate for more of a cushion when it comes to encoding and bit rates, even if it’s just a “feel good” thing. Sure, lossless streaming: why not. But Young’s beliefs about digital audio simply don’t jive with reality.
  - iggldiggl 5y ago
    > It’s occasionally possible given certain samples MP3 in particular has some fundamental problems (even at maximum bitrate) when dealing with short sharp sounds (e.g. castanets), which have been fixed in the subsequent generations of audio codecs such as AAC, Vorbis or Opus.

classichasclass 5y ago

He also has lots to say about GMO. https://www.thedailybeast.com/neil-youngs-long-record-of-spreading-scientific-misinformation https://www.thedailybeast.com/neil-youngs-long-record-of-spr... Now, he's free to have his own opinions, but he hasn't exactly been a defender of science in the past. I agree with his vaccination position here, obviously, but that doesn't mean Spotify erred in their judgment either.

seattle_spring 5y ago

He claimed in 2015 that AM radio and cassettes were higher fidelity than the best streaming.