Streaming services. Can you actually hear a difference? What do you listen for?

[Todd Anderson]

Spotify. Apple Music. TIDAL. Qobuz... XM. Here's a look at how they compare in terms of max streaming quality (as compiled by chatGPT):

• Qobuz: 24-bit/192kHz
• Tidal: 24-bit/192kHz
• Apple Music: 24-bit/192kHz
• Spotify: 320kbps (possibly 24/96; lossy)
• Pandora (Premium): 192kbps (no kHz; lossy)
• Pandora (Free): 64kbps (no kHz; lossy)
• SiriusXM: 128kbps (no kHz; lossy)
• Amazon Music Unlimited: Offers lossless High Definition (HD) and Ultra High Definition (Ultra HD) tracks:
  • HD: 16-bit audio with a minimum sample rate of 44.1 kHz and an average bitrate of 850 kbps
  • Ultra HD: 24-bit audio with sample rates ranging from 44.1 kHz up to 192 kHz and an average bitrate of 3730 kbps
  • Streaming quality: Automatically plays the highest quality available based on network conditions, device capability, and user settings
• Amazon Music Prime: Offers a 256Kbps bit rate
  • Spatial Audio: Available on Android, iOS, Fire Tablet, Fire TV, smart TVs, smart speakers, and home theater receivers
  • Dolby Atmos and 360 Reality Audio: Available on some songs, and you can switch between Atmos/360 and stereo
• Deezer: 16-bit, 1,411 Kbps
• YouTube Music:
  
  • Low: 48kbps AAC and OPUS
  • Normal: 128kbps AAC and OPUS (default settings)
  • High: 256kbps AAC and OPUS (high sound quality)

We have Sirius XM for cars because my wife likes access to a few of the exclusive channels. But when it comes to sound, XM sounds compressed to me and I can hear it in the high frequencies. They have a rough egde, almost like a micro pixelation if we're thinking about visuals. For me, it's tough to listen to.

Pandora free is slightly better. I *think* I could pick it out of a blind listening session. But, for my ears, Spotify and beyond are pretty much impossible to tell apart. We have subscriptions to Spotify and Apple... with the Apple subscription soley for access to Atmos tracks.

In your experience, can you hear a difference? And, if you can... what are you listening for? Do you have a streaming service preference?

 

[JStewart]

We have Sirius XM for cars because my wife likes access to a few of the exclusive channels. But when it comes to sound, XM sounds compressed to me and I can hear it in the high frequencies. They have a rough egde, almost like a micro pixelation if we're thinking about visuals. For me, it's tough to listen to.

I agree with your assessment of XM. It’s also overpriced. But it has programming my wife likes, so it stays.

I’ve never been able to tell any sound quality differences between Qobuz, Tidal, and Amazon. I keep Qobuz for entirely different reasons. They are one of two streaming services that integrate with Roon and they have been a sponsor of the Florida Audio Expo.

 

[Todd Anderson]

Ah… we share the XM struggle!

I like the reasoning behind Qobuz. It makes sense to me. It seems that streaming service choice should take aim at convenience for the end user. If Roon is important, Qobuz it is.

In my house, Spotify is the preferred platform largely because my now grown daughters made and shared playlists with friends through middle/high school and college. It’s stayed because all of us have built up playlists and favorites.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Yep... we succumb to the wives, although I have to say, mine is getting better about listening to USB in the car. However, it's too easy at home to listen to Spectrum or Classic Rock on XM through our whole-house HEOS system. It's low volume, so quality is not a big deal. As for the vehicle systems, it's pretty easy to hear how much better USB recordings are over XM.

For better quality listening, when I am more serious about how it sounds, it's always Qobuz and Tidal via Roon. It sounds a lot better than XM in most all cases. I haven't done much with the others.

 

[greybeard]

I have tried most of the hi-res sites, and for me, -and my ears, Qobuz has always sounded better. ( I know they should sound the same!)

 

[martinlogan]

I use the TIDAL i the High resolution and for me it is the best option used with Onkyo TX-RZ50 with Dirac And for iPad and iPhone with high res. Dac to headphone Stax sigMa , Sr-007 mk Ii and Quad ERA headphone

 

[Simango4]

Spotify. Apple Music. TIDAL. Qobuz... XM. Here's a look at how they compare in terms of max streaming quality (as compiled by chatGPT):

• Qobuz: 24-bit/192kHz
• Tidal: 24-bit/192kHz
• Apple Music: 24-bit/192kHz
• Spotify: 320kbps (possibly 24/96; lossy)
• Pandora (Premium): 192kbps (no kHz; lossy)
• Pandora (Free): 64kbps (no kHz; lossy)
• SiriusXM: 128kbps (no kHz; lossy)

We have Sirius XM for cars because my wife likes access to a few of the exclusive channels. But when it comes to sound, XM sounds compressed to me and I can hear it in the high frequencies. They have a rough egde, almost like a micro pixelation if we're thinking about visuals. For me, it's tough to listen to.

Pandora free is slightly better. I *think* I could pick it out of a blind listening session. But, for my ears, Spotify and beyond are pretty much impossible to tell apart. We have subscriptions to Spotify and Apple... with the Apple subscription soley for access to Atmos tracks.

In your experience, can you hear a difference? And, if you can... what are you listening for? Do you have a streaming service preference?

I can hear the difference very well, it's usually the sharp rising edge percussion instruments as well as intentionally added distortion that's usually easy to tell the difference, basically some tracks highlights a night and day difference whereas some tracks are almost impossible to spot any...so it heavily depends on the tracks in addition to the playback system...with that said...

I can easily tell the difference between Spotify/Tidal/Apple Music/Deezer and i subscribed to all these at one point or another...Spotify was my 1st subscription, it was audibly better than a lot of my MP3's, AAC, OGG etc. database because i had a lot ripped way back as 128/160/192/320kbps due to limited HDD space at the time. Then i tried Tidal while subscribed to Spotify, i was amazed at the massive difference, i never looked back despite Spotify's better algorithm and app user friendliness...it sounded almost like a system upgrade, rising edges that sounded blunt were sharpened and weightier...then i tried Deezer while subscribed to Tidal, despite Tidal having Hi-Res. Audio, Deezer smoked it with just 16bit 1411kbps Flac...if you wan't to try out for yourself, try Jay-Z - A Dream ft. BIG, this track has complex details due to the intentionally added distortion, Tidal attempts to mask or smooth out the micro-edges such that the hard hitting sharp edged beats has a slightly smoothed out attack and reduced weight compared to Deezer's playback, Deezer serves it in it's more sharpened state, unsmoothed out, basically, my sharp rising edged percusion tracks sounds even sharper on Deezer compared to Tidal. I like Tidal app over Deezer so much i actually went back and forth between Deezer and Tidal subscriptions, but i just can't let the better sound quality from Deezer go in the name of App user-friendliness...so i kept returning to Deezer over three times...

I'm now subscribed to Apple Music in addition to Deezer because some tracks that i cannot find on Deezer happen to be on Apple Music's database, especially those for playback during gatherings...but sound quality wise, Apple music is just not at Deezer's level of quality, sharp rising edges are blunt, i've never had the opportunity to compare Apple Music with Tidal since they both do not compare well to Deezer, it smokes both of them despite being unpopular, so for better sound quality on a dedicated stereo system, Deezer it is, for in-car or portable audio or gatherings, both Deezer & Apple Music does the job...

 

[capoalex]

Hello to everybody, streaming is quite a complex topic since there are several factors to consider:
- the quality of the streaming (standard CD quality or HIGHRES ) depending on the provider (best are TIDAL and QOBUZ)
- the speed of the network compared to what you receive in streaming
- the quality of your streamer/DAC
I use TIDAL (but QOBUZ is the same), which is able to stream HIGHRES (but not with all titles unfortunately) and use a CAMBRIDGE AUDIO 851n streamer with good results: I do not hear difference compared to downloaded files of the same resolution.
The problems I see with streaming technology are the following:
- many titles are available only with standard CD resolution allthough the original source was HIGHRES
- there is no reasonable HW solution for DOLBY ATMOS/DOLBY 5.1 streaming (which is available i.e. in TIDAL) ractically no multi-channel streamer exists, I have and OPPO BDP105 multi-channel but could not find a way to stream TIDAL/QOBUZ!
- and finally the quantity of titles available can be overwelming for a serious listener (i.e. in classical music too many different versions of the same title , in pop/jazz too many new releases)
Hopefully the future will give us more opportunity since the thrend is clearly towards streaming .
Best regards to all

Capoalex from Italy

 

[zl167]

Great discussion. One point we need to keep in mind. The Sirius/XM streams are not the same between using an internet connection and the satellite. I worked in this industry and can tell you what you are listening to in your vehicle from their satellite / terrestrial network is a 28kps stream (highly compressed) vs what you are listening to over the internet at 128kps. So, yes it is easily discernible in a new vehicle that has a decent audio solution vs. playback from a USB with say MP3 at 256kps or higher files.

 

[rahmanoff]

I have Spotify as main source for listen on the go and Apple to play with Atmos, as I can use Sonos Arc with Sub and Era 300 as surrounds

 

[fastleo63]

Some time ago I compared with DeltaWave software several FLAC tracks (HiRes and CD quality) coming from Qobuz and TIDAL, and they were the same (a.k.a. bit-perfect, at 16 or 24 bit resolution).
Same results with Deezer (obviously compared with non-HiRes, 16bit/44.1ksps quality TIDAL and/or Qobuz files).
I think that all of them were provided, by music labels, with the same file (the CRC differences are probably due to different internal taggings).
My ears occasionally perceive a little difference between Spotify lossy tracks and their lossless equivalent of the above streaming platforms.
IMHO, if listening the same track with the same audio chain, any eventual hearing difference (between lossless music providers) are to be considered only as a sort of a placebo effect.
My tastes currently seem to prefer TIDAL algorithms.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Great discussion. One point we need to keep in mind. The Sirius/XM streams are not the same between using an internet connection and the satellite. I worked in this industry and can tell you what you are listening to in your vehicle from their satellite / terrestrial network is a 28kps stream (highly compressed) vs what you are listening to over the internet at 128kps. So, yes it is easily discernible in a new vehicle that has a decent audio solution vs. playback from a USB with say MP3 at 256kps or higher files.

I did not know this, but I will say that XM in the vehicle is about the worst quality I've ever heard. It's probably why I can tell such a vast difference between XM and mere MP3 files on USB.

 

[greg90]

I am building a two channel set up next year. If I run Apple Music on my Apple 4K through my av receiver I don’t mind it. I just got a wiim ultra and have that running into my receiver and use tidal on it. Some tracks on tidal sound really good through the wiim. Some aren’t anything great. I tried tidal on the Apple 4K and was disappointed. But am going to take the wiim off the avr and use it as my source in the 2 channel set up and I think I’ll be able
To give a fair answer then

 

[Sonnie Parker]

I am building a two channel set up next year. If I run Apple Music on my Apple 4K through my av receiver I don’t mind it. I just got a wiim ultra and have that running into my receiver and use tidal on it. Some tracks on tidal sound really good through the wiim. Some aren’t anything great. I tried tidal on the Apple 4K and was disappointed. But am going to take the wiim off the avr and use it as my source in the 2 channel set up and I think I’ll be able
To give a fair answer then

I have grown fond of our Wiim Ultra... that little box is loaded with goodies.

 

[catmorry]

I can get amazon unlimited through wife's account for free, but prefer to pay for Qobuz as there is just something that makes it sound better to my untrained ears

 

[jasn]

Great discussion. One point we need to keep in mind. The Sirius/XM streams are not the same between using an internet connection and the satellite. I worked in this industry and can tell you what you are listening to in your vehicle from their satellite / terrestrial network is a 28kps stream (highly compressed) vs what you are listening to over the internet at 128kps. So, yes it is easily discernible in a new vehicle that has a decent audio solution vs. playback from a USB with say MP3 at 256kps or higher files.

That's a question I've had about OTA Siruis/XM vs streaming from the app on my phone and connecting via Android Auto. I prefer my phone. (The Loft on Ch 710 is excellent, BTW)

I'm an Apple Music user, as it still syncs with my iTunes for Windows account. It sounds pretty good in my car and around the house (not much time spent with sit down, serious listening), but honestly since they've adopted Spacial Audio through some weird manipulation I think they've ruined some good tunes. Even if I turn it off I don't think they switch to a 2 Ch version, it just doesn't play in multichannel.

 

[MeJ]

I spent years as a totally-not-famous but competent mix engineer. At 73 my HF response rolls off sharply above 12 kHz, but when CD quality became available and I still had 20 kHz available I was almost instantly convinced this was an unbeatable format for consumption, even with dodgy companding DACs. Nothing since has changed that view, unless you want more channels of course.

I have never seen evidence that - as a distrbution format - there is any audible benefit at all to deeper sample depth or higher sample rate. Multiple blind tests I have knowledge of, all showed zero statistical significance in selection choices in A:B between CD quality and 24 bit 96 kHz or above.

I use 48kHz as my recording sample rate nowadays for practical reasons, and accept there MAY be some theoretical benefit to slower roll off in the filters, but I have never heard it.

For recording there are similarly arguments put forward for higher sampe rates, and I always use 32 bit floating-point.

As far as lossy formats are concerned, my favourite is Ogg Vorbis variable for sound quality, but hardly anyone uses that. They are all more or less bad, but in a noisy environment like a car or train or plane it's irrelevant IMHO.

The power of the human brain to imagine differences is overwhelming, speaking as a psychology graduate for a moment. Most imagined differences disappear on more exacting examination. Remember, there's no sound transmitted between the ear and the brain.The experience of sound is all synthesised (somehow!) in the brain, where beliefs can have a major effect. Like vision!

 

[mollie]

I can't afford to stream hi-res files, so i am using Spotify "320" streams at home for "easy" listening.
I prefer to listen to higher bit rates and hear easely the difference. Most listening is done via hires "rips" at 192/24 which i prefer for all kind of different reasons.
Most music is played over Audirvana legacy player ver. 3.5.0 and/or sometimes via the still growing Foobar 2000 player.
Happy listening for you all in future!!!

 

[sigotnin]

All formats presented are beyond the limits of human hearing.
Any reports of being able to distinguish are false.
A common mistake is not adjusting the volume correctly.
Any non-blind listening tests are useless.
A proper explanation of listening tests can be found in this video.

 

[Sal1950]

In your experience, can you hear a difference? And, if you can... what are you listening for? Do you have a streaming service preference?

Not sure I can hear any differences, but then I'm old. LOL
Anywho, I know it's a fact that the lossy compression used by Spotify is subtlety audible with some material under controlled conditions.
I was a Spotify user for many years, even after the others started streaming in lossless for the same or less money because I loved
their UI, I still consider it the best out there.
BUT when Apple brought multich and Atmos to the table for even less money than Spotty, the switch was a no-brainer.
Now there's a difference-improvement you REALLY CAN hear!
It took me about 5 minutes to find and order my Apple TV 4k box (A2169 build, it's best) on ebay.
Bye Bye Spotty, hello Apple. My first and only piece of the Apple dictatorship puzzle.

 

[ddude003]

Something to consider is that each streaming service suggests mastering to their own standards of Peak and LUFS (Loudness Units Full Scale) levels which do vary among the various streaming platforms. Also streaming music service compression codexes vary... All of this will affect the sound...

 

[w_sizer]

I spent years as a totally-not-famous but competent mix engineer. At 73 my HF response rolls off sharply above 12 kHz, but when CD quality became available and I still had 20 kHz available I was almost instantly convinced this was an unbeatable format for consumption, even with dodgy companding DACs. Nothing since has changed that view, unless you want more channels of course.

I have never seen evidence that - as a distrbution format - there is any audible benefit at all to deeper sample depth or higher sample rate. Multiple blind tests I have knowledge of, all showed zero statistical significance in selection choices in A:B between CD quality and 24 bit 96 kHz or above.

I use 48kHz as my recording sample rate nowadays for practical reasons, and accept there MAY be some theoretical benefit to slower roll off in the filters, but I have never heard it.

For recording there are similarly arguments put forward for higher sampe rates, and I always use 32 bit floating-point.

As far as lossy formats are concerned, my favourite is Ogg Vorbis variable for sound quality, but hardly anyone uses that. They are all more or less bad, but in a noisy environment like a car or train or plane it's irrelevant IMHO.

The power of the human brain to imagine differences is overwhelming, speaking as a psychology graduate for a moment. Most imagined differences disappear on more exacting examination. Remember, there's no sound transmitted between the ear and the brain.The experience of sound is all synthesised (somehow!) in the brain, where beliefs can have a major effect. Like vision!

Here’s a video that expands on your response and provides a really useful explanation of bit depth and sample rate as they relate to human hearing. It even includes a link to test your own hearing acuity.

 

[Head_Unit]

SiriusXM: 128kbps (no kHz; lossy)...We have Sirius XM for cars because my wife likes access to a few of the exclusive channels. But when it comes to sound, XM sounds compressed to me and I can hear it in the high frequencies. They have a rough egde, almost like a micro pixelation if we're thinking about visuals. For me, it's tough to listen to...
In your experience, can you hear a difference?

Sirius and XM started off with different but very very heavy compression schemes, and different but heavy processing to try and "fix" that. Once upon a time when they had 3 stations running I was on a BMW test drive for Sirius. It was SO cool listening to the same station the entire way! And it sounded GREAT! Until they went live and now there are by my count 3.62 billion station live all eating up bandwidth.
- I run only from the streaming app now. Yes, out of cell coverage, nothing, which rather contradicts one of the beauties of the system (on another test drive we were way the heck up in Utah mountains, still listening fine). But the antenna sound to me is just too awful, certainly for music.

As far as "telling the difference" between any other services, I just use Apple now because back when there was no Spotify CarPlay app yet. And no scientific conclusion could be drawn anyway since you just don't know what mastering version those services are using, never mind the bit rate.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

I have never seen evidence that - as a distrbution format - there is any audible benefit at all to deeper sample depth or higher sample rate. Multiple blind tests I have knowledge of, all showed zero statistical significance in selection choices in A:B between CD quality and 24 bit 96 kHz or above.

The power of the human brain to imagine differences is overwhelming, speaking as a psychology graduate for a moment. Most imagined differences disappear on more exacting examination. Remember, there's no sound transmitted between the ear and the brain.The experience of sound is all synthesised (somehow!) in the brain, where beliefs can have a major effect. Like vision!

I with you all the way on this.

 

[Todd Anderson]

I can hear the difference very well, it's usually the sharp rising edge percussion instruments as well as intentionally added distortion that's usually easy to tell the difference, basically some tracks highlights a night and day difference whereas some tracks are almost impossible to spot any...so it heavily depends on the tracks in addition to the playback system...with that said...

I can easily tell the difference between Spotify/Tidal/Apple Music/Deezer and i subscribed to all these at one point or another...Spotify was my 1st subscription, it was audibly better than a lot of my MP3's, AAC, OGG etc. database because i had a lot ripped way back as 128/160/192/320kbps due to limited HDD space at the time. Then i tried Tidal while subscribed to Spotify, i was amazed at the massive difference, i never looked back despite Spotify's better algorithm and app user friendliness...it sounded almost like a system upgrade, rising edges that sounded blunt were sharpened and weightier...then i tried Deezer while subscribed to Tidal, despite Tidal having Hi-Res. Audio, Deezer smoked it with just 16bit 1411kbps Flac...if you wan't to try out for yourself, try Jay-Z - A Dream ft. BIG, this track has complex details due to the intentionally added distortion, Tidal attempts to mask or smooth out the micro-edges such that the hard hitting sharp edged beats has a slightly smoothed out attack and reduced weight compared to Deezer's playback, Deezer serves it in it's more sharpened state, unsmoothed out, basically, my sharp rising edged percusion tracks sounds even sharper on Deezer compared to Tidal. I like Tidal app over Deezer so much i actually went back and forth between Deezer and Tidal subscriptions, but i just can't let the better sound quality from Deezer go in the name of App user-friendliness...so i kept returning to Deezer over three times...

I'm now subscribed to Apple Music in addition to Deezer because some tracks that i cannot find on Deezer happen to be on Apple Music's database, especially those for playback during gatherings...but sound quality wise, Apple music is just not at Deezer's level of quality, sharp rising edges are blunt, i've never had the opportunity to compare Apple Music with Tidal since they both do not compare well to Deezer, it smokes both of them despite being unpopular, so for better sound quality on a dedicated stereo system, Deezer it is, for in-car or portable audio or gatherings, both Deezer & Apple Music does the job...

Great detail - I'm now super curious to try out the Deezer comparison!