|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Nov 8, 2019 16:24:19 GMT -5
Wondering if Amazon's entry in lossless and high rez streaming had anything to do with this?  |
|
|
|
Post by jamco on Nov 8, 2019 16:49:24 GMT -5
Thanks for posting.
I tried qobuz when it was first released in the US, but the music selection was limited for me. It’s time to try them again.
BTW, this offer is limited.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,342
|
Post by DYohn on Nov 8, 2019 17:37:55 GMT -5
FYI, if you are a current subscriber you can get the lower price just log into your account for options.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 20:14:24 GMT -5
I'm hoping Amazon gets Lossless out soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by repeetavx on Nov 9, 2019 11:56:47 GMT -5
I'm hoping Amazon gets Lossless out soon. From the Amazon site: |
|
|
|
Post by SteveH on Nov 9, 2019 15:54:37 GMT -5
Thank you for the tip. I just signed up. I have been using Tidal and I really enjoy it, but the music library with Tidal is virtual, so if I ever drop the subscription my library is gone. At least with Qobuz, I also get the option to purchase the music and download it to my NAS library for eternity.
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Nov 9, 2019 19:23:58 GMT -5
I'm hoping Amazon gets Lossless out soon. I was going to find the Amazon HD thread and post this info, but this thread will probably have some crossover. I’ve been trying the Amazon HD free trial, I’ve enjoyed the music and the sound; if you’re a Prime member and pay annually it gets down to about $10.75 a month. However there’s a slight issue with the ‘bit perfect’ nature of the current Amazon Music HD desktop client for either macOS or Windows. Namely that the App does not allow you to select the output (USB, Optical, HDMI, etc), which means the output is sent to the current ‘system’ output, at the current bitrate and depth. So if say you have it set to 192/28 (what Amazon recommends), then the lesser bitrate files (like 96/24) will be upsampled. The common wisdom seems to be to set it to CD 44/16 (what Amazon calls HD), as that’s most likely the format of most material. This means however that higher bitrates like 96,192/24 (what Amazon calls UHD) will be downsampled. The Amazon HD desktop thread has a lot of dissatisfaction about this, but who knows if they’re listening, hopefully they’ll want to be competitive and fix it. I’ve read that those with Denon HEOS and possibly some Bluesound products can play all the files properly, I imagine some Fire products too maybe, but Windows and Mac would seem to be a big chunk to fix. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Nov 10, 2019 13:52:15 GMT -5
I've tried Amazon; not as good as Tidal on my rather resolving system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2019 16:26:42 GMT -5
DTS Play-Fi will stream Amazon HD.
Anthem will play anything DTS Play-Fi, but needs usb DTS Play-Fi module to stream. Sony UBP-X800 Bluray does not stream DTS Play-Fi. So I'm out of luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Nov 10, 2019 18:30:27 GMT -5
I've tried Amazon; not as good as Tidal on my rather resolving system. What would you attribute this to Bill? Possibly the issue I raised above? I would assume the Tidal and Qubuz clients don’t have this limitation, what platform do you run your’s on? |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Nov 10, 2019 18:42:05 GMT -5
Tidal app on a mac mini, set to Master resolution, then into a PS Audio Directstream dac running Windom, into a CJ et5 preamp, on to two CJ Premier 140s running as monoblocks for 280 watts per side driving either Maggie 3.6/r or PBN Montana speakers.
Is that what you were looking for?
The Tidal app allows exclusive mode where my dac controls settings.
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Nov 11, 2019 3:11:32 GMT -5
Tidal app on a mac mini, set to Master resolution, then into a PS Audio Directstream dac running Windom, into a CJ et5 preamp, on to two CJ Premier 140s running as monoblocks for 280 watts per side driving either Maggie 3.6/r or PBN Montana speakers. Is that what you were looking for? Thanks, Thanks, It’s a start. macOS tells us the Amazon App was not necessarily following the file’s native resolution and was playing/resampling at however your MIDI was set, which may or may not have corresponded to whatever you listened to. It sounds like ‘Master resolution’ is taking care of this issue for Tidal as I assume that means ‘play the same resolution (bitrate/depth) as the master’. The ability of your system to ‘resolve’ the difference between Tidal and Amazon meant there was something to resolve (a difference), that’s what I’m looking for. What made you prefer Tidal? So what are the possibilities? * If Tidal and Amazon both have a ‘CD’ quality copy of a given song (including it’s remastering version) are the files the same? (could they have different sources) * Is there something in the streaming process between the Tidal or Amazon servers and their respective clients that could alter the file, or put another way, if you downloaded a file to play locally would it be the same as the original? * Is the client altering the file as it redirects it to the designated output of your device (Mac mini)? In the case of Amazon, if your Midi settings didn’t match the music, then it was being resampled, this seems the most likely cause. * Are there other possible ways the music could be different, altered, or corrupted? I’m not expecting an answer to all of these questions, but if a difference can be heard in a digital streaming service, then I’d think it’s measurable (identifiable) and maybe it can be fixed or improved. Many are trying to get Amazon to fix (or refine) their HD client, it would seem if they’re going to the trouble of streaming 192/24 (in some cases) they’d be interested in getting it through your system properly, but that remains to be seen. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Nov 11, 2019 10:51:06 GMT -5
Your thoughts make me think the fewer digital transformations the better, staying close to analog that is, after all the sound of music. There are no digital musical instruments, except those that are synthesized.
Also, given the overwhelming convenience and variety of streaming, a high-end dac with sophisticated conversions and high quality power supplies and analog output stages seems reasonable, if not essential to truly high quality music reproduction.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 9,929
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 11, 2019 11:22:31 GMT -5
A bit about Amazon Streaming....
I'll start by saying that "Amazon Music HD" is currently my favorite streaming service overall- and I have signed up for a personal subscription. I find the quality to be better than Spotify... and the selection to be better than QoBuz or Tidal.
In Windows the Amazon App goes through the standard system sound API - sometimes called "kernel Mode" or "DS mode". This mode IS passed through "the Windows mixer" (otherwise you wouldn't be able to control the Volume in the Amazon app). Therefore, by definition, it should not be considered to be "bit perfect", and will be resampled if necessary to produce "the system default sample rate" at the output.
(If you want bit-prefect audio in Windows you use WASAPI mode.) (It's also somewhat ingenuous to refer to 16/44 as "HD" rather than simply as "CD quality".)
There are also a few other issues with the current Amazon clients..... - So far, other than the Windows and Apple computer clients, there seem to be no Apps for other devices (some have suggested that Amazon wants to reserve this for various "Alexa devices".) - I've noticed that, at least on Windows 7, their computer app doesn't always play well with others (it sometimes seems to conflict with Firefox and other software - nothing major - but annoying at times).
However, bear in mind that "CD resolution" doesn't tell you anywhere near everything there is to know about what you're listening to. For one thing, "CD quality" really specifies "16 bit 44k lossless content" - which is the format used on CDs. It does NOT specify that you are receiving a bit-perfect copy of what's on a particular CD... For starters, it does NOT specify that some sort of processing, like volume leveling, or even MQA "remastering" hasn't been applied...
And, of course, many albums have been re-issued and re-mastered many times, so many exist in several different actual CD versions. (I don't recall Amazon, Tidal, or QoBuz telling me which CD, and which version, on which label, was being streamed to me either.)
HOWEVER, all that said, so far I am very pleased with both the selection and the sound quality of the Amazon service.
I've had QoBuz for some time, and I've listened to Tidal off and on as well... To be honest, although I've never done a bit-compare, I've often noticed that, on "non-MQA CD quality content", Tidal seemed to sound different than a CD that I own (and not always for the better)... And, while they might have a different CD source than I do, I've sometimes wondered if they were deliberately modifying the content, rather than delivering a bit-perfect stream.
(I seem to recall that Tidal uses MQA as a transport mechanism.... and the MQA encoder has the ability to alter content, even when it's not being played through an MQA encoder, in an attempt to "improve" it.)
I'll have to admit that, when it comes to bit-perfect content, I'm inclined to believe that files I've securely ripped from CDs myself are bit perfect, and to be rather less trusting of ANY streaming service.... However, it would be quite interesting if someone was enterprising enough to capture content from several streaming services, and actually do a bit-compare. That way we could know, once and for all, if ANY of them is able and willing to deliver bit-perfect content.
Note that I make the distinction between "bit-perfect" and "not-bit-perfect" rather than any claim about "quality". If something was sourced from a CD then I want it EXACTLY as it is on the CD. I do NOT want it "just as good but different" and I do NOT want it "improved" (according to someone's opinion)
(This is becoming a more vague distinction as some modern content has bypassed the disc stage entirely.)
I ALSO HAVE A WORD OF WARNING ABOUT AMAZON (this may eventually change but is true for now - as of early November 2019).
While listening to CD quality of HD quality music on Amazon's streaming service you may be offered the opportunity to "Purchase the album for download". On the two occasions that I have done so, I have ended up with AN MP3 VERSION OF THE ALBUM, EVEN THOUGH I WAS STREAMING A CD QUALITY VERSION. (After some initial confusion about the situation from Customer Service they cheerfully refunded my money.)
(On the Amazon Storefront you can only purchase albums for download in MP3 quality - and they clearly state that you are purchasing an MP3 album.
However, when you click the "Buy" button from the streaming client, while listening to CD quality, you are not warned that you are purchasing a file at lower quality than the one you are listening to. This may be mentioned somewhere else but, if so, I failed to notice it.)
Tidal app on a mac mini, set to Master resolution, then into a PS Audio Directstream dac running Windom, into a CJ et5 preamp, on to two CJ Premier 140s running as monoblocks for 280 watts per side driving either Maggie 3.6/r or PBN Montana speakers. Is that what you were looking for? Thanks, Thanks, It’s a start. macOS tells us the Amazon App was not necessarily following the file’s native resolution and was playing/resampling at however your MIDI was set, which may or may not have corresponded to whatever you listened to. It sounds like ‘Master resolution’ is taking care of this issue for Tidal as I assume that means ‘play the same resolution (bitrate/depth) as the master’. The ability of your system to ‘resolve’ the difference between Tidal and Amazon meant there was something to resolve (a difference), that’s what I’m looking for. What made you prefer Tidal? So what are the possibilities? * If Tidal and Amazon both have a ‘CD’ quality copy of a given song (including it’s remastering version) are the files the same? (could they have different sources) * Is there something in the streaming process between the Tidal or Amazon servers and their respective clients that could alter the file, or put another way, if you downloaded a file to play locally would it be the same as the original? * Is the client altering the file as it redirects it to the designated output of your device (Mac mini)? In the case of Amazon, if your Midi settings didn’t match the music, then it was being resampled, this seems the most likely cause. * Are there other possible ways the music could be different, altered, or corrupted? I’m not expecting an answer to all of these questions, but if a difference can be heard in a digital streaming service, then I’d think it’s measurable (identifiable) and maybe it can be fixed or improved. Many are trying to get Amazon to fix (or refine) their HD client, it would seem if they’re going to the trouble of streaming 192/24 (in some cases) they’d be interested in getting it through your system properly, but that remains to be seen. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Nov 11, 2019 13:02:09 GMT -5
Lots of info, I just trust my ears and musical sense.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,929
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 11, 2019 15:53:19 GMT -5
The streaming market has become quite interesting...
On the one hand, there are now several services competing for customers...
On the other hand, none of them seems to be actually making a profit... At the moment, anyone who can show they are actively increasing their subscriber base can get financing to cover those losses. (Investors assume that "if you have enough customers there must be some way to make money off of them"... but "flat rate service" probably isn;t it.)
Therefore, obviously, something is going to have to change.
I personally suspect that you'll start seeing genre-specific service options.
(Which is what we have now with cable TV.)
If you like sports you pay extra for the Sports Channel... If not, then you don't... And, if your kids like Disney movies... You buy the Disney package...
Nobody gets ALL the cable packages and channels (unless they're a millionaire).
Yet, at the moment, when you buy a streaming service, you're getting, and paying for, exactly that: "all the channels"... And the owners of all that music expect a cut... including the owners of music you or I wouldn't ever listen to.
How about we follow the cable model instead....? I'll give you $10 a month for "the rock and pop package".... And, if I ever have the urge to listen to a polka album, or the latest rap music epic, I'll buy it on pay-per-listen for $3.
Wondering if Amazon's entry in lossless and high rez streaming had anything to do with this? |
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Nov 11, 2019 16:39:35 GMT -5
The streaming market has become quite interesting...
On the one hand, there are now several services competing for customers...
On the other hand, none of them seems to be actually making a profit... At the moment, anyone who can show they are actively increasing their subscriber base can get financing to cover those losses. (Investors assume that "if you have enough customers there must be some way to make money off of them"... but "flat rate service" probably isn;t it.)
Therefore, obviously, something is going to have to change.
I personally suspect that you'll start seeing genre-specific service options.
(Which is what we have now with cable TV.)
If you like sports you pay extra for the Sports Channel... If not, then you don't... And, if your kids like Disney movies... You buy the Disney package...
Nobody gets ALL the cable packages and channels (unless they're a millionaire).
Yet, at the moment, when you buy a streaming service, you're getting, and paying for, exactly that: "all the channels"... And the owners of all that music expect a cut... including the owners of music you or I wouldn't ever listen to.
How about we follow the cable model instead....? I'll give you $10 a month for "the rock and pop package".... And, if I ever have the urge to listen to a polka album, or the latest rap music epic, I'll buy it on pay-per-listen for $3.
Wondering if Amazon's entry in lossless and high rez streaming had anything to do with this? In the case of streaming music, you don't really pay for the music you don't listen to. The artist (via labels) get paid based on a per download (stream) count. Some higher profile ones do get a lump sum for offering their catalogs on a specific service, but by and large they only get payed if their music gets streamed. Its why the catalogs can be so big. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Nov 11, 2019 16:49:45 GMT -5
Your thoughts make me think the fewer digital transformations the better, staying close to analog that is, after all the sound of music. There are no digital musical instruments, except those that are synthesized. Also, given the overwhelming convenience and variety of streaming, a high-end dac with sophisticated conversions and high quality power supplies and analog output stages seems reasonable, if not essential to truly high quality music reproduction. Yes, hopefully pass the digital file to the DAC as unaltered / upmixed / downmixed / remixed as possible. Currently it seems the Tidal client has an advantage over Amazon in regard to playing a variety of resolutions. Since this thread is about Qobuz hopefully someone can comment on its ability to follow the native bitrate. As for the quality of the DAC with streaming, I’d say that it’s no different than when you’re playing from you local digital library, or playing a CD, SACD, DVD, Blu-ray, or any other digital source — you want a good one. I think it’s safe to say Amazon’s pricing has put pressure on the others. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Nov 11, 2019 16:54:49 GMT -5
Note, veterans receive 40% off Tidal's "HiFi" rate of $20 per month.
So, I pay $11.99 per month, a great Veteran's benefit!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Nov 11, 2019 16:56:56 GMT -5
Note, veterans receive 40% off Tidal's "HiFi" rate of $20 per month. So, I pay $11.99 per month, a great Veteran's benefit!!! Is that new (possibly today), or has it always been that way? Very nice benefit. |
|
