Lossy vs Lossless Audio Explained! 

I think it's harder to hear the difference between a good lossy file and a lossless file if you aren't familiar with the song, hence why I only get about 60% of the tests correct. However, when I test my favourite songs, which I know very well, I can easily tell the difference.

For me, I've known for about a year i can't really hear the difference, but it's more of an assurance thing, i know that even if i can't tell, I'm still getting the best experience, it also stops corruption and stuff which is great

I’m exactly the same, can’t hear a difference above 192kbps MP3. I stopped being an ‘audiophile’ once I realised that a pair of Grado SR80’s plugged into my phone listening to 192kbps MP3 or Spotify high quality was more than satisfactory. Better things to spend your money on than high end audio. Deposit for a house for instance!

i put just about my entire CD collection onto a 64gb card in AAC 320 KBPS close to 4000 songs , and i am very happy with the sound quality. and the convenience of it.

7:56 that's actually a good reason to have/stream lossless, because you'll still end up with better quality than transcoding an already lossy file

Just because we don’t hear 👂 a thing, doesn’t mean we cannot hear the same thing. Can we hear things on a subconscious level? Do people bodies, are parts of there bodies including things people wear interact with inaudible sound frequencies. Just because we don’t test for resonance, does not mean it’s existence is in question. There are other questions that need to be answered before arriving at your conclusion. Moreover, apart of the gift artist, musician, and sound engineers 🧑🏾‍💻 have given is being taken away without informed consent from the gifter and the gifted. Most gifts are useless, it is the spiritual connections which are formed, and the creation of relationships engaged in for a collective experience to come into enlightenment is what is important. What do they say, it is not the size that counts, for sex happens in the the mind of a person. Blessings and one love 🙏 Can you hear, taste , see, or breath love. Yet the whole world 🌎 believe in its existence!

It’s also possible that the reason why some people maintain that they can hear the difference is because there is a difference, but not because of the sample rate or bit depth, but because the track has been remixed with lossless in mind. If an audio engineeer is tasked with mixing a track or an album he knows is going to be heard on systems designed for it, it would make sense to mix it in such a way that substantially changes the sound. Apart from that, the fact that Apple are selling this feature for $0, if people want to use it and then play it via nice amps and speakers, then I’m happy for them to do so. I like nice things too.

When doing ABX tests before I could tell the difference up to 256 and sometimes 320kbps. In the test with The Killers' Flesh and Bone, I can particularly hear the compression in the cymbals, I'm a drummer so I pick up that part of the song more by default. This ignores the fact that when I listen to music, I do just that - I don't try and pick out detail. But storage is cheap and so I put 320kbps on my portable devices (modded iPod's are my poison of choice) which I transcode from my FLACs kept on my hard drive, I figure if I'm gonna spend the time tagging all my music, I may as well so it once and do it well! Great video as always, thanks!

And to add to the cake, there are the lesser known hybrid codecs eg. WavPack Hybrid, LossyWAV, OptimFROG Dualstream, mp3HD, MPEG-4 SLS (these last two are nearly impossible to come by nowadays). WavPack Hybrid is my favourite. Around 4bits / sample (~384kbps) it produces an excellent lossy base layer, but with the correction file you can restore the full lossless version. You can archive both, if you are in need of disk space you can delete the correction file and the lossy base functions alone. Very neat, and you have to only add metadata and covers once.

Refreshingly honest video, thank you. I too doubt anyone can hear a difference between lossless and 320Kb/s MP3 or Ogg Vorbif. If a difference can actually be heard there will be some other explanation such a different master, different volume or EQ and nothing to do with the format. I will try Spotify Hifi when available but I am not expecting any audible improvement.

In my opinion how a recoding is mastered and what hardware it’s playing it on are more important than if it’s a lossy or lossless format.

I have Spotify & did an a/b test with a free trial of Tidal HiFi. Tidal sounded better with more pristine highs & wider stereo separation, but I can't help but wonder if that was due to them tweaking the sound like a studio engineer.🤔

Bottom line, stream what you like.

I have done the abx test on an actual DJ set, and I did tell the difference immediately bwe6een 320kbps mp3 audio file, and a vinyl/CDs. therefore. I honesty believe that lossy audio is a backword format, like cassette tapes and vinyl but much worse, the consumer are just being robbed for buying into these crappy lossy formats. A 320kbps mp3 audio file has 78% compression, which means the listener is only getting 22% of its original quality and they are paying the full price for it.

I just came across your channel and man I've never been so wrong my whole life 😂 now I see why some of my mp3 and flac files sound exactly the same, but there are some songs in my library I've compared in different formats that are slightly louder/better in my ears than the lossy ones. Just want to know what's your input on that. BRB checking your other vids 👍🏻

To do this test, I really believe you still need to have a good DAC that can produce lossless because without it even the lossless its still going to be not producing the lossless file.

I’ve done a series of A/B/C tests, and confirmed I can sort of hear the difference. Still, the lossy files didn’t sound as bad as I was expecting them to do. My rule of thumb is to always go with lidless CD quality audio (16bit/44.1khz). That makes me sure that the format I am listening to has all the possible detail capable of being caught by the human ear.

*WAV = BEST AUDIO FILE, I AM GONNA USE IT EVERYTIME NO MATTER WHAT, I DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT DISK SPACE!* *WAV FILE ROCKS (no really bro/sis it is the best for audio, I mean you could use any other one but I am gonna stick with WAV)*

I’m using Apple Music and set the quality to hi res lossless on all scenarios. Even in car stereo with Bluetooth connection, when switched to lossless, I’m getting an improvement in loudness with an additional punch for beats when hi res lossless song is playing. Can’t hear much difference with with just lossless over Bluetooth.

I had big plans to use lossless compression when phones had enough storage then I found out Bluetooth can't play those files. Bluetooth won't be HiFi for many years if ever. At home I use an Apple Airport Express as a network attached DAC and play uncompressed .wav files from iTunes over AirPlay. That uses my network not Bluetooth so there is plenty enough bandwidth. I then use the iTunes "remote" app on my phone as a remote control for the laptop that's playing the files. It's a little trouble to set up but the sound really is CD quality and fantastic. The big down side to .wav is that you can't have album art but the quality is worth it when I'm at home and ready to just kick back and listen. It's a shame Apple doesn't sell the AirPort Express anymore it's an amazing product. You can use Apple TV to AirPlay but the new one only had digital out so you have to have an external DAC or playback system that can accept optical in or extract audio from HDMI.

In addition to the usual cut off above 20kH for mp3 and other lossy formats, you also don't hear the beefy details of the various instruments playing in a soundtrack. This is evident with Rock, Electronic and Trance music where a 256 or 320kbps file would just give you noise when the hi-hats and/or arps playing in the background along with the beat and guitar riffs.

Tidal doesn't even do lossless. MQA is not exactly what it originally promised.

I’ve watched two of your videos this afternoon. Both have put me at ease and made me very happy with the setup I already have. It’s very old, but it’s GOOD. I keep seeing videos about the new equipment, DACs, streamers, tube pre-amps, etc., and it makes me feel inferior with my home-brew decommissioned iPhone8 and iPad-based library and streaming. A good deal of my MP3 files actually DID come from Napster, and for most 1950-1985 popular and/or country music, 128kbps IS JUST FINE! Classical and jazz is better above 192, and I try to always rip at 320 if it’s the good stuff. Thank you!

I tried this the old fashioned way years ago, converting one FLAC file into a ton of bit rates and I couldn't tell the difference until I went from 192 to 128 as well. Lossy audio is some pretty amazing stuff, really. Keeping everybody but the super nerds happy until just recently is impressive. I archive in FLAC just in case one day I can hear the difference, since not long ago I couldn't hear the difference between FLAC and gravel, so poor was my setup. Still, I have a healthy scepticism of those who purport to hear the quality in FLAC; again, those who created these standards weren't fools by any means.

The reason lossy formats were introduced years ago was to reduce file sizes and thereby storage requirements. These days, gigabytes of storage is so cheap that the need for lossy formats has pretty much been removed. Given that CD standard is all our ears can appreciate ( Hi Res formats are just a scam to resell the same music in a different ‘wrapper’) there seems little reason not to just accept the 16/44 standard as the one to settle for. Sure, the differences between 16/44 and good quality lossy versions can be vanishingly small ( and much more important is the mastering etc) but why throw any data away if there is no need - esp. for those with good enough ears and systems that can appreciate the last degree in fidelity.

This video got me so excited to try it out and then it hit me i have yet to recieve a wired DAC to try flac

People get high with words, tend to believe that they are really having the experience as projected by the sound technicians, forgetting that the projection is based on theoretical results and has got nothing to do with real time listening.. I’m no exception, I love and defend flac, have all of my cd collection converted to flac and look for a flac format whenever possible, but I confess that I have not done the blind listening test. I’ve always thought and taken it for granted that flac is better than mp3 or aac. Thanks once again for the video.. I’m feeling an urgency to take the blind test.. ha ha 👍😄

There is an audio test on NPR. It provides several songs each encoded at 128K MP3, 320K MP3, and uncompressed WAV files. With my audio set up. I was able to reliably determine which track was the 128K MP3, but I could never determine the 320K MP3 and the WAV. It was always a guess.

High bitrate is useful in a mixing environment mostly for volume control. In certain situations. Let’s say you have an amplifier with no preamp, in that case, you are using the digital source as a volume control. If you are going to do that, your 16bit audio will be compressed in its dynamic range. If you are using a pc and it’s a 32bit desktop environment, you can control volume digitally with minimal degradation. If you have a full volume output and an analog preamp (proper system) then it doesn’t matter.

I spent a lot of time listening to Flac files, thinking that I could hear the difference. Tried the website you suggested, and I can’t hear it. I feel so bad right now hahaha

The biggest use of losless files is archiving and you can easylie reencode ito somthing lossy (i prefere ogg.). But I agree that lossy is a-okay for everyday use :) I still prefere losless, but thats just my justification for my (relativly) expensive setups. I have heard some difference in the past with some really complex music genres like classical and big band, but still no real justification :D Keep up the good work.

I actually have experience with sound back in the 2000s with radio. Heck in 1999, (yes, I am that young) we had a CRT TV. It sounded great! I’ve also listened to tapes. They sounded great as well. Then I listened to Apple Music lossless. I can not hear the difference. But like you and my mom said, it depends on the song. If they want all instruments to sound clear, well they will sound nice and clear. I originally thought that lossless audio made ALL songs high quality. But I was wrong I guess. PICKLES AND PRUN JUICE

Hi, I have a Yamaha RN803 Amp for my home audio where i stream music from apple music through airplay. It has a ESS Sabre DAC built in. I was thinking of buying a DDC for connecting it to my PC to to the Amp via the coaxial input in the amp for playing lossless audio. Do you think it will make any difference?

So… except for Apple and Amazon, the rest of the industry has been charging folks extras for something most people can’t tell??

This is a philosophical question really. Why "make do" with lossy when you can "reach for the stars" with a better digital representation of an analog sound which is what we are truly talking about? High-Fidelity has always strived for the nearest approximation to the analog. Why stifle innovation? Promoting High-Res and the likes (e.g. MQA) will encourage people to invest their mind space to inventing a breakthrough in the future. I am personally impressed with the sonic experience (not a purist) that I get from most recently recorded MQA stuff. However, I must admit, the older stuff can sometimes sound terrible. Eyes on the future...

I had the opposite experience back in probably 2005... I swore that high quality MP3's were just as good as the CDs I was ripping from. Ripped the same song as 320 and as WAV because FLAC was not much of a thing yet. On my humble Boston Acoustics computer speakers, the WAV was far better and I could hear it. Then it happened again with Tidal. I didn't expect any real difference, but did the trial which was all MQA at the time and got addicted. Odd twist is that sometimes, I've actually preferred the *lower* quality audio because the max quality sounded *too good!*

I would take OPUS over AAC - takes much less space, needs much less bitrate sounds as good as AAC... if we're going lossy route, otherwise - flac it is.

This is not right approach , Apple losses music files goes up to 24bit /192 Kz. … and then you can easy hear difference between Aac lossy file and 24 bit lossless file. This man compare AAc and CD quality what is 16 bit/44 Khz And yes … you don’t need “golden” ears, just hi-end dac, amp and hi-end spaakers.

could you maybe do an episode on how amplification (from underpowered amp to appropriately powered amp to overpowered amp) affects your speakers or headphones? i recently had an awful time finding out how my apparently insufficient amp was affecting my 600 ohm 990s and the stuff coming out of them

You didn’t touch how stereo image is lost in lossy formats. WAV forever! It’s good btw let’s fool the masses and keep share of pie for ourselves 😉

Most of what I listen to these days, only just recently came live on streaming services. I have figured a good way to buy HD digital tracks from Japan, so that's where I go. May not need the 192/24 files but since the price is the same if I pick that or CD quality... I just go for the higher quality files these days. And while I don't think I can tell a difference on all tracks, I can tell a difference on enough to really dislike most streaming services. If HD got us away from that terrible quality compression, at the same price, sounds good to me. Since Apple is offering this free as part of the service, here is hoping that other formats follow the leader. Of course, since I do RU-vid Music (free with the RU-vid Premium subscription I already pay for) and they've stated they give no craps about upgrading, guess I will continue to use my streaming to sample things I am debating on buying. Jriver Media Center offers the AB/X option now as well, which I've used to figure out I can't really tell much difference of the 192/256 lossy vs lossless FLAC. On MOST titles/tracks at least.

So, do external DACs matter to you, or are the DACs in the phone or computer good enough? Another question is, if convenience is more important at the moment, how do you rank the BlueTooth CODECs: -APTX HD - APTX - LDAC - SBC (Samsung) - LC3 (auracast)

I'm 99% sure I can't hear the difference between lossless and good quality lossy. I buy CDs and CD quality downloads because, just like you, I like to have a bit perfect copy of the music. I also play that music lossless on my DAP and via my PC in FLAC format simply because I have the space for it now that storage is much cheaper. Also simply the fact of playing bit perfect FLAC files just makes me happy even if I can't hear the difference. I'm also content with just streaming lossy music from services Another benefit of having lossless audio files is that you can convert them to any existing or future lossy or lossles format. If I were to convert a lossy file to another lossy format, the new format will have less of the audio information to create a good file with. I'm not sure how much of a difference this makes in practice, but I'd rather convert to lossy from lossless file.

I'm sorry, but the only way you're going to get the best out of your music is to listen to CD's and Albums from your home stereo system. That way you don't have to worry about any of this lossy/lossless nonsense. And by the way, have you guys ever heard of this crazy thing called RADIO??

320 mp3 is as good as any flac or wav I've ever listened to. I was Flac guy for years but now it's all 320 mp3. I have a fantastic system with very hi end speakers in a sound treated room specifically for deep listening. I have ABX on many many songs and can't tell the difference. If I guess correct it's because it's a guess, not because I can hear a difference. Yes you can visually see what’s been removed in all these wav comparison audio programs to “show” you what you’re missing, but can you hear it ? not likely. It broke my heart to have to go to 320mp3 but totally worth it after months of re ripping all cds to 320mp3. Don't ever let any audio snob, as I once was, tell you differently or make you feel small for not hearing a difference. The man behind the curtain lies. Trust your ears and not some audio snobs delusional dream of self importance.

This appears to be an endless rabbit hole the Industry is going down to have people buying gear and music that they can't even hear or tell the difference. Although science may have to continue to pursue perfection in audio I think there's a point where it's meaningless .

I'm old guy so I prefer enjoying music on my old cd player than modern streaming way.

Excellent science and explanation thank you. I must ask though, not being an audiophile, why all the fancy amp, DACs, and headphones then? I can't even make use of the higher quality music with my air pods pro or Sony wh-1000mx3s, as they're stuck with lossy Bluetooth. But if a person can't tell the difference, why the expensive equipment?

My choice: For Archive 》Flac For portable listening 》Aac/m4a

Lossless audio is great for audiophiles... Who can really tell the difference and want to experience their music in its purest form. Casual listeners who play their music while doing other stuff will probably be fine with mp3 quantity audio. It's good for when you don't have an unlimited data plan.

How do lossy formats usually play back? Is 128kpbs still in a 16 bit format? Would 128 be the final bitrate, or in a decoded state is it effectively more? If sections have been removed, how is it sent out so that the timing isn’t off?

I honestly can't tell the difference between apple music, tidal and yt music even after using a dac and sony's headphones

Really enjoy your presentation. Very clear, full of useful info. 2 thumbs up!!

Just an hour or two ago I listen to go slowly on both Apple Music and title. I purposely try to listen to specific effects to see if they were different on one from another. The title was richer with more produced affects than the Apple Music so there is a difference but if you’re not looking for it so what, I am peace

Can I tell the difference between hi-res and lossy files? Sometimes. The issue is I'm no longer listening to the music for enjoyment and now trying to analyze the song which defeats the purpose of listening to music in the first place.

I kept getting 60%. I was using sony wh1000xm2 headphones plugged into a macbook pro. The first song had a lot of busy noise going on and for a song like that it's hard to tell. With less busy music with real instruments and vocals that are clear, I think it's easier to tell the difference especially if the original recording is high quality.

For me its all situational, I went between apple music and amazon the other night through my dac and hd 650. I was completely shocked about the difference. I felt like I'd been listening to mud for ages. Through speakers through hifi though or in the car not a chance I'm telling the difference though. So its defiantly situational for me. I've done the test a while ago. I could tell the difference between AAC and CD but after that nothing. To me there is a weird distortion I get through compression which only listening through headphones shows up.

I accept a lot of what you are saying but, of course, it depends upon how the MP3 was recorded (I have a lot at 128). Now, I still will never accept that FLAC is not better than MP3 when I am listening on my Arcam system.

I probably can’t tell the difference but why not use lossless with storage being so inexpensive?

Isn't the Sony ldac codec lossless? I'm fine with aptx though. The real kicker is how muddy the headphones sound, which I despise. I can recommend the edifier tws1 pro for the absolute best bang 4 buck quality. Paying more is a waste.

Buying a CD feels good to me, because it is collectible. I could buy a cheaper MP3 music that pressed on CD than expensive audio CD instead!

wait, what's the difference between soft/hard sounds compared to quiet/loud sounds???

Cassettes had better sound quality than MP3s because they recorded directly from CDs. And I only use wired headphones so far. 🙂

Apple lossless is good but the codec and the hardware which is non existent in the iPhone is an absolute shame. And yes lossless audio matters to anyone who can hear a difference.

If you are listening to music through speakers the thing that makes the most difference is the room. I have a KEF LS 50 wireless system that I have tuned to my room. I've heard the same system in showrooms and in other people's houses at they all sound different.

Thanks for the great explanation. I have been telling others they will almost certainly not hear any difference between Apple lossy and the new lossless. I think Apple do such a good job of their lossy codec, but it will be good if only psychologically to know you are getting the full lossless information. I am using Apple Music on the iPad to airplay to my 3rd gen Apple TV box using its optical output into my Cyrus amp which has a great built in DAC. I’m not sure if I can get lossless via that set up. I think from my understanding I should be able to, at CD quality, not high res, but whether I can or not I’m not sure as yet. I don’t know any other way to get it into my amp, at least not without hard wiring the iPad to the amp some way. Maybe just maybe Apple will make a dedicated streamer we can use for this.

This is the best video I have seen regarding the high quality music

Bluetooth audio is not lossless? Do you hear about Aptx(Aptx-HD, Aptx adaptive) and about LDAC. But, mostly, video is very informative. Thank you.

Of course lossless is better than lossy, it goes without saying but if you can't hear it, then don't worry about it.

Excellent review, just come across your channel so going through the various vids. The differentiator then above 44.1/48khz at 16 bit mainly is the quality of the recording and the mastering and its distribution via a streaming service or a download retail outlet. If i listen to the same album on say Apple lossless and Amazon hires at the same sample and bitrate they do not sound the same quite often and i have abx’d this. This implies either the master they receive isn’t the same of something else maybe the player itself is different. With Apple trying to rapidly build such a large library of lossless music I do wonder what QA they have in place for the masters they receive and their ingestion. One of the things with MQA which apparently has been discredited although I’m unsure that it is was the control over the masters quality was it not?

I tried that abx test and the sample songs were terrible. Tons of dynamic compression and distortion just from the mastering.

Thanks, that was really very informative. Loved the presentation too 👍

The only reason I rip to lossless these days is I have no reason not to, and see zero reason to use uncompressed in a world where lossless exists.

very clear explanation. thank you for this

sony LDAC can send lossless bluetooth audio

Ohh I can't wait, this comment section will be interesting

now I understand Lossy and Lossless different .thank you.

This is an excellent review and lesson on lossless music. Thanks

I have done my own tests before and came to the same results, likewise found mqa to be no better when you compensated for the placebo from the louder volume (though mqa is not lossless). I do notice a difference in the car between Spotify from my phone over Bluetooth compared to my iPod plugged directly in, it sounds clearer even with engine and road noise. The music on the iPod is in V0 MP3. Thanks for the video, really enjoyed it.

Hello audiophiles, of course all will disagree.

Gotta do the ABX test on a proper FOH PA system, there the difference should be audible.

Great video! What might the explanation be for my lossless songs on Apple Music being louder and more “crisp” sounding than non-lossless songs? Those normal songs often sound quieter at the same volume level and I can’t make out subtle sounds as easily.

I really appreciate you going into the science behind this stuff. Very easy to understand from that perspective

with my testing, I could encode a 192kbps MP3 file using Razorlame with -no filtering and 'forced joint stereo' which made it impossible to distinguish from a lossless file regardless of system. I've heard one guy can distinguish in 9 out of 10 on his 10k worth system, but I have my doubts ;)

Hires Trick Marketing only

not worth it. end of story.

this'll be helpful!

An MP3 at 256 kBit/s retains all the frequencies like the WAVs. So the "very high frequencies" are >20 kHz > Ultra sonic.

192kbps is not enough for me, because sometimes the cymbals sound "floaty" to me, but 256 works pretty well.

Audiophile simple rules. • speakers • setup (where in the room you place speakers and seat) • amp • dac • room format • the less important: AUDIO FORMAT

Lossless, uncompressed audio will ALWAYS be preferable to compressed garbage but fill your ears with whatever you want to fill them with.

Totally correct! MOST Audiophiles LIKE to CLAIM they can distinguish between mp3 - 192, 224 and even 320, flac, wav. However, it's just their ego at play! How "great" they are! Like wine tasters, when presented with a truly blind test they're embarrassed when they pick $40 over a $400 bottle. The "I'm just that great" comes out in audiophiles be- cause they like to think, they "breath" good music and can't be fooled! Such sad children! Still living with parents!

An interesting and informative video, and I agree wholeheartedly in your description of the sounds the human ear can perceive, however...the reason the majority of people are unable to discriminate between lossless and lossy music is due to their equipment not their hearing abilities. All home loudspeakers/hi-fi and audiophile systems alike, irrespective of the cost of your investment, 'colour' the sound. They are designed to 'improve the sound quality' of any and all music formats played. Lossless music is the default of recording studios for a reason--the same reason adding extra salt to a renowned chef's signature dish may well induce a pulmonary embolism in said chef--the sound an artist and their engineers produce is the sound they want you to hear, not a 'coloured' version. It's true the sensitivity of the human ear is limited to sounds (vibrations) in the range of 20Hz to 20kHz, and whilst it is indeed the primary organ for sound detection and location, it is not the only sound (vibration) receptor in the body. For example, Meissner corpuscles in the skin detect vibrations as low as 5Hz. The human body, as a whole, is capable of detecting vibrations (sound) in the range of 1-100kHz, far exceeding the range of our ears. The combination of these other receptors are the reason people with profound hearing loss may still enjoy music, the reason we feel bass notes deep in our gut and high pitched sounds in our skull. The online tests/home tests to discriminate between Lossless and lossy music are fundamentally floored. If I served up two similar dishes, then poured gravy over both, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to distinguish between them--your loudspeakers are the gravy, they colour the sound. If you want to enjoy lossless music, the true nuances of the recording sessions, you need to rethink the way you reproduce the sound: Replace 'audiophile' speakers with a pair of high quality powered studio monitors and sub (these will not 'colour' the sound) position the main monitors to form an equilateral triangle with your listening position. Connect your speakers to a 'stand alone' digital audio player (with balanced leads) and do NOT use any eq or effects. The position of your setup within a room will have a marked effect on the sound, change its position, change rooms--but do NOT add eq/effects. Recording studios are acoustically balanced, so if you don't wish/can't afford to spend mega bucks on balancing your room, you will have to find a room/position that is the best compromise. With this setup not only is the difference between lossless and lossy acutely apparent, the latter becomes painful to listen to. I have carried out several 'double blind tests' with the above setup and, with the exception of one young lady (who is no longer on my Christmas card list) everyone, without fail, chose lossless as the 'best quality sound'.

There is another consideration that can be easily confused with the final music delivery formats like FLAC or CD or MP3. It is the quality of the source recording. We all get exited about new HIFI gear like DACs, Headphones, Amps and speaker. However IMO we don't know much about the quality of the music source material - master tapes/recording/mixing. Looks to me that there are music industry dirty secrets about the original master recording of the artist and how they are used and preserved. For example how many of you know that a fire has destroyed 118,000 to 175,000 audio master tapes belonging to Universal Music Group (UMG). (according to Wikipedia)? We don't know what was lost (artists, albums). What backups did they have , if any? So it is possible that we are listening to a copy of a copy of a copy of an analog tape from 1970s digitized to CD quality or better, with HiFI Music golden logo through the streaming service. On the other hand I found many recordings from 1980s or later with excellent quality in CD format. My bottom line : to achieve high quality of the music experience the entire chain of the master recording/mixing -> media production-> distribution,->delivery to users in different formats -> user consumption must be consistent on high level of quality.

Thank you for saving me money as I was contemplating subscribing to Tidal. Listening to music on my Bluetooth headphone, I am just wasting my money on Tidal.👍

Fundamentally how are lossless formats compressed? Does flac just cut it in half? What about MLP/TrueHD for 2 channel, or even ALAC? I get it’s complex, but like video is complex it can be oversimplified in a way I want to understand.

I was one of those Napster users 😆 majority of the Mp3 were at 128kbps! They tend to sound like there is a towel covering the speakers?! It’s good to know 192kbps is indistinguishable from lossless audio, I always rip my cd’s on that bit rate.

I can sure hear the difference! That website test doesn’t really play Hi-Rez audio, the WAV file on a CD 💿 is compressed to make the music fit on to the disc. You have to listen to songs recorded in 24 bit/192 KHz at the minimum, the best source would be the highest bitrate DSD your DAC can decode! DSD64 is 64 times the bitrate of CD 💿, and DSD goes beyond 512 times the bitrate of CD 💿! It’s like going from 1080P to 4K, with the proper equipment you should be able to hear the difference.

thanks for this

Your ears may not hear the difference but your mind does. This is why you feel tired after listening to mp3. The mind must decode noise instead of enjoying sound. Sure you cannot tell the difference after few 30 second clips but when you start to listen to cd quality music over cable system you will feel more energy instead of less. Go, try it yourself and listen to CD from your hifi instead of mp3.