d6jg wrote:
> Thats just LMS transcoding 320kbps Ogg Vorbis to PCM for your
> particular player. Not High Res at all Im afraid
>
Note the smiley :-D
...pablo
Server: Win10 and LMS 8.2.0
System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval
Copper XLR->- NAD M22 Power Amp
pablolie wrote:
> 36883
>
> My LMS shows high rez with Spotty, too... :-D
Thats just LMS transcoding 320kbps Ogg Vorbis to PCM for your
particular player. Not High Res at all Im afraid
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jim
https://jukeradio.double6.net
VB2.4[/B] STORAGE *QNAP TS419P
36883
My LMS shows high rez with Spotty, too... :-D
+---+
|Filename: slim spotify.png |
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=36883|
mherger wrote:
> Once it's really available. Right now we have nothing but the
> announcement of a plan.
And now we have a new status for Spotify HiFi of "Under Consideration":
"... we dont have timing details to share yet."
slartibartfast wrote:
> I see. It wasn't April 1st was it? [emoji1787]. I wonder why Spotify
> would stream PCM rather than FLAC.
>
> Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
Haha! Maybe it was. Looks like the post is two weeks late in that case.
SB Touch optical to Hegel H90, Speakers Larsen
bernt wrote:
> This is from a Facebook group. You need to be a member I think.
>
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/846387368736533/permalink/5351118688263356/
>
> 34194I see. It wasn't April 1st was it? [emoji1787]. I wonder why Spotify
would stream PCM rather than FLAC.
Sent from my Pixel
slartibartfast wrote:
> Thanks. Interesting thread (Google translate worked perfectly [emoji3]).
> The only evidence there appears to be that someone downloaded some files
> from Spotify and Qobuz etc and they appeared to be the same. Nobody
> actually saw the information on their DAC as far as
bernt wrote:
> https://www.faktiskt.io/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9=71930Thanks. Interesting
> thread (Google translate worked perfectly [emoji3]).
The only evidence there appears to be that someone downloaded some files
from Spotify and Qobuz etc and they appeared to be the same. Nobody
actually
slartibartfast wrote:
> Do you have a link to the thread? I can try Google translate [emoji3]
>
> Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
https://www.faktiskt.io/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9=71930
SB Touch optical to Hegel H90, Speakers Larsen 4.2
Spare SB3
AirPlay Bridge to Audio Pro A10
bernt wrote:
> It shows in the Dac display. Some say it sound better, some have
> captured the stream and compared it with Tidal and so on.Do you have a link
> to the thread? I can try Google translate [emoji3]
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
slartibartfast wrote:
> Maybe Spotify are testing lossless streaming in Sweden. Don't the
> discussions say how they know the bitrate?
>
> Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
It shows in the Dac display. Some say it sound better, some have
captured the stream and compared it with Tidal and
bernt wrote:
> Dont know. Its a discussion about it on two different swedish hifi
> forums right now.
>
>
> Skickat från min iPhone med TapatalkMaybe Spotify are testing lossless
> streaming in Sweden. Don't the
discussions say how they know the bitrate?
Sent from my Pixel 3a using
slartibartfast wrote:
> Ah OK. Which DACs display bitrate then? Most just display sample rate.
>
> Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
Dont know. Its a discussion about it on two different swedish hifi
forums right now.
Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk
SB Touch optical to Hegel
bernt wrote:
> Yes, but this is from people that dont use LMS.
>
>
> Skickat från min iPhone med TapatalkAh OK. Which DACs display bitrate then?
> Most just display sample rate.
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
slartibartfast wrote:
> Spotify tracks are transcoded to PCM or FLAC by LMS. Yours must be set
> to PCM.
>
> Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
Yes, but this is from people that dont use LMS.
Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk
SB Touch optical to Hegel H90, Speakers Larsen 4.2
Spare
bernt wrote:
> I've seen people reporting that they get 1411 kbps in there DAC:s then
> streaming from Spotify (Connect?).
>
> Anyone else noticing it?Spotify tracks are transcoded to PCM or FLAC by LMS.
> Yours must be set
to PCM.
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
I've seen people reporting that they get 1411 kbps in there DAC:s then
streaming from Spotify (Connect?).
Anyone else noticing it?
SB Touch optical to Hegel H90, Speakers Larsen 4.2
Spare SB3
AirPlay Bridge to Audio Pro A10
Squeezelite-x connected to home LMS with ZeroTier One.
SB Radio
pablolie wrote:
> Amen, btw.
LMS on a dedicated server (FitPC3)
Transporter (Ethernet) - main listening, Onkyo receiver, Paradigm
speakers
Touch (WiFi) - home theater 5.1, Sony receiver, Energy speakers
Boom 1 (WiFi) - work-space
Boom 2 (WiFi) - various (deck, garage, etc.)
Radio (WiFi) -
garym wrote:
> No shouting on this forum. My favorite forum for getting along with
> everyone! Regarding transparency of different codecs, In the distant
> past, I did some ABX (double blind) tests of lossless vs various flavors
> of mp3 (320kbps down to 64kbps I recall). I found most things
philippe_44 wrote:
> I
> Again, everybody is perfectly entitled to have fun building or buying
> complex and expensive gears. But itÂs about aesthetic and hobbies, what
> is incorrect is to claim it is better from a signal theoryÂs point if
> view.
Perfectly put.
The valid analogy is not a
mcduman wrote:
> actually, everything about cd format was kind of arbitrary in order to
> fit Beethoven's 9th in one single portable cd.
> (https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/why-is-a-cd-74-minutes/). it
> could have been 14 or 20 bits depending on how much fit in one cd. i am
> sure all
Since it seems Kees Schouhamer himself answered some points :-D just
briefly:
The bit depth and sampling rate for the CD format were never a
compromise. You can mathematically prove you can *perfectly* reconfigure
any analog signal if you sample it at twice the frequency. And the best
golden
philchillbill wrote:
> They only went on to do SACD for marketing reasons, not technical. If
> people will buy bottled leprechaun pee then some entrepreneur will
> bottle it because there are buyers for it.
>
> I never understood the fascination with vinyl over CD. Dont people hear
> the
d6jg wrote:
> Careful.
> We will all end up downstairs with the audiofools if we are not careful!
Amen!
*Home:* Pi4B-8GB/pCP7.x/4TB>LMS 8.1.x>Transporter, Touch, Boom, Radio
(all ethernet)
*Cottage:* rPi4B-4GB/pCP7.x/4TB>LMS 8.1.x>Touch>Benchmark DAC I, Boom,
Radio w/Battery (Radio WIFI)
philchillbill wrote:
> They only went on to do SACD for marketing reasons, not technical. If
> people will buy bottled leprechaun pee then some entrepreneur will
> bottle it because there are buyers for it.
>
> I never understood the fascination with vinyl over CD. Dont people hear
> the
toby10 wrote:
> Bigger / newer / faster / more
isnt always better.
>
> You can grow a bigger tomato, but that doesnt make it a better tomato.
> You can use a newer and technologically advanced HD TV antenna, but
> you wont get a better HD TV picture than your grand parents 1948 TV
>
mcduman wrote:
> hi philchillbill,
>
> i remember that even sony and philips recognized the shortcomings of
> the cd format and went on to introduce the sacd. why do you think that
> happened?
>
> anyways, i do not need to mention that i will upgrade to spotify hi-fi
> when it is available.
PS and it would be much more fun in a Ferrari
VB2.4[/B] STORAGE *QNAP TS419P (NFS)
[B]Living Room* Joggler & Pi4/Khadas -> Onkyo TXNR686 -> Celestion F20s
*Office* Joggler & Pi3 -> Denon RCD N8 -> Celestion F10s
*Dining Room* SB Boom
*Kitchen* UE Radio (upgraded to SB Radio)
*Bedroom
d6jg wrote:
> Sorry to be pendantic but you would get there marginally faster in a
> Ferrari due to its faster acceleration from 0-60 and better brakes
> assuming that both vehicles travel at the maximum permitted speed limit.
>
> Each time there was a speed limit change the Ferrari would gain
toby10 wrote:
>
> You can buy a 200 mph Ferrari, but you wont get from London to Paris
> any faster than a Honda Civic.
>
Sorry to be pendantic but you would get there marginally faster in a
Ferrari due to its faster acceleration from 0-60 and better brakes
assuming that both vehicles travel
philchillbill wrote:
> I worked as an engineer at Philips CD Lab from 1985-1990 and I can
> reassure you that the 74 minutes requirement only directed the choice
> for the diameter of the disc (otherwise it would have been a bit smaller
> to only handle 60mins of audio like a C60 cassette tape).
slartibartfast wrote:
> Your link is more about the physical size of the CD to achieve 74
> minutes than the resolution or sampling frequency.
>
> Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
sorry. 14 -16 bit discussion is in this link.
Falling down from 3rd floor on head comment [emoji23] maybe bit harsh as
one cannot ever perceive other person experiences as we are all limited
by our own senses.. (BTW That's why you get so many freaks in talent
shows..)
Anyway even when I can get around 70-80% of ab blind tests correctly I
mcduman wrote:
> .. more of every thing in technology from cpu power to screen
> resolution is good, whether you need it or not. but when it comes to
> audio resolution, less is good. how can this be true?
Bigger / newer / faster / more
isnt always better.
You can grow a bigger
mcduman wrote:
> actually, everything about cd format was kind of arbitrary in order to
> fit Beethoven's 9th in one single portable cd.
> (https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/why-is-a-cd-74-minutes/). it
> could have been 14 or 20 bits depending on how much fit in one cd. i am
> sure all
mcduman wrote:
> actually, everything about cd format was kind of arbitrary in order to
> fit Beethoven's 9th in one single portable cd.
> (https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/why-is-a-cd-74-minutes/). it
> could have been 14 or 20 bits depending on how much fit in one cd. i am
> sure all
actually, everything about cd format was kind of arbitrary in order to
fit Beethoven's 9th in one single portable cd.
(https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/why-is-a-cd-74-minutes/). it
could have been 14 or 20 bits depending on how much fit in one cd. i am
sure all the engineers from sony
pablolie wrote:
>
> 320k is awesome sound quality.
I agree with all of this, and I shall be resisting the temptation to
fork out more each month for lossless streaming. I suspect Spotify know
all this too, and have previously resisted the move to lossless not
because of the technical
mcduman wrote:
> when the cd was invented in the 80s it offered a resolution of 1411
> kbps. when you bought a computer at that time it came with a 320x240
> screen.
> fast forward to today, and the most popular streaming service offers 320
> kbps. when you buy a high end computer it comes
mcduman wrote:
> when the cd was invented in the 80s it offered a resolution of 1411
> kbps. when you bought a computer at that time it came with a 320x240
> screen.
> fast forward to today, and the most popular streaming service offers 320
> kbps. when you buy a high end computer it comes
pablolie wrote:
> So sue me but I am perfectly happy with the SQ of the current 320k
> stream. Plenty of listening tests out there show how hard it is to tell
> the difference between 320k/CD quality/HighRez. There are preciously few
> albums that are recorded with the required resolution, and
Likewise I expect there will be a clamour to get Spotify lossless on
board but as far as I am concerned they have missed the boat. Unless
its massively cheaper (unlikely) and fully supported here (as you say
down to Michael) why would I want the hassle of transferring my library
from one to
+1 as well
But I pity Michael for having to deal with the likely oncoming demands
for what may be a Herculean task. As much credit as Michael gets here,
it still is not enough imo.
TomAmes's Profile:
garym wrote:
> No shouting on this forum. My favorite forum for getting along with
> everyone! Regarding transparency of different codecs, In the distant
> past, I did some ABX (double blind) tests of lossless vs various flavors
> of mp3 (320kbps down to 64kbps I recall). I found most things
>
d6jg wrote:
> Generally I am also +1
> But, dont shout at me, I listen a lot using my iPhone, an Audioquest
> Dragonfly and a pair of B P7s. I can tell a 320kbps mp3 from a FLAC
> and very occasionally I can detect a HiRes FLAC.
> However I am not going to replace all my ripped CDs with 24bit
> kidstypike;1011916
Generally I am also +1
But, dont shout at me, I listen a lot using my iPhone, an Audioquest
Dragonfly and a pair of B P7s. I can tell a 320kbps mp3 from a FLAC
and very occasionally I can detect a HiRes FLAC.
However I am not going to replace all my ripped CDs with 24bit
garym wrote:
> I couldnt agree more.
*Server - LMS 8.2.0 *Pi4B 4GB/Argon one case/pCP v7.0.1 - 75K library,
playlists & LMS cache on SSD (ntfs)
*Study -* Pi3B/pCP 7.0.1/pi screen/Hifiberry DAC HAT Ruark MR1 Mk2
*Lounge* - Pi2/pCP 6.0.0 > HiFiBerry DIGI+ > AudioEngine DAC1 > AVI DM5
*Garage*
pablolie wrote:
> So sue me but I am perfectly happy with the SQ of the current 320k
> stream. Plenty of listening tests out there show how hard it is to tell
> the difference between 320k/CD quality/HighRez. There are preciously few
> albums that are recorded with the required resolution, and
So sue me but I am perfectly happy with the SQ of the current 320k
stream. Plenty of listening tests out there show how hard it is to tell
the difference between 320k/CD quality/HighRez. There are preciously few
albums that are recorded with the required resolution, and even when
you're very
garym wrote:
> wasn't the original RadioParadise flac stream actually an Ogg/FLAC
> stream? (whether that matters, I have no idea)
My (currently on pause) radio station had an Ogg/FLAC stream with
metadata. It wasnt difficult to put together. The technical issue was
with the player software
d6jg wrote:
> Ogg/FLAC? Given that they are not (apparently) considering HD might be
> doable at 16/44.1 on existing hardware.
> Chromecast, Airplay etc devices are all capable enough.
wasn't the original RadioParadise flac stream actually an Ogg/FLAC
stream? (whether that matters, I have no
mherger wrote:
> > Spotify claims it will be compatible with existing Connect speakers,
> so
> > if we're lucky Spotty will just work ;)
>
> I seriously doubt it. Their current streams are Ogg. I would be
> surprised if _any_ Connect speaker would work without a firmware update.
Ogg/FLAC?
Spotify claims it will be compatible with existing Connect speakers, so
if we're lucky Spotty will just work ;)
I seriously doubt it. Their current streams are Ogg. I would be
surprised if _any_ Connect speaker would work without a firmware update.
mherger wrote:
> I'll repeat what I just wrote in another thread, to hopefully continue
> the discussion here.
>
> Whether Spotify HiFi will ever work with Spotty, I can't say. When that
>
> would be even less so. It will certainly not be available when HiFi
> starts. As Spotty is using an
I'll repeat what I just wrote in another thread, to hopefully continue
the discussion here.
Whether Spotify HiFi will ever work with Spotty, I can't say. When that
would be even less so. It will certainly not be available when HiFi
starts. As Spotty is using an open source implementation of a
garym wrote:
> I haven't seen this posted anywhere on this forum. Interesting
> development.
> https://9to5google.com/2021/02/22/spotify-hifi-lossless-audio/
Beat me to it :cool:
2 x Touch
2 x Radio
2 x Boom
1 x Intel-NUC server/squeezelite running LMS 7.92 (from nightlies) on
Windows 10
I agree that it will be a real plus for the largest streaming service to
finally offer CD quality at least as lossless downloads . Spotify has
enough of a lead in this market to withstand the troubled economic times
we find ourselves in . This will mean as stated above that should one of
the
d6jg wrote:
> Too late I feel. My Qobuz library is already 500+ albums. Am I really
> going to switch back to Spotify?
Probably not (I wouldn't). But I do think it is good news (for lossless
streaming) that Spotify will be in that space. I forget the percentages,
but Qobuz and Tidal are very
Too late I feel. My Qobuz library is already 500+ albums. Am I really
going to switch back to Spotify?
VB2.4[/B] STORAGE *QNAP TS419P (NFS)
[B]Living Room* Joggler & Pi4/Khadas -> Onkyo TXNR686 -> Celestion F20s
*Office* Joggler & Pi3 -> Denon RCD N8 -> Celestion F10s
*Dining Room* SB Boom
Great news! I hope it will be available in Canada and for only a few
dollars more for lossless streaming like Amazon Music HD. I have tried
Tidal (too expensive) and AM HD (reasonably priced), but have always
reverted back to Spotify because it is best at personalizing playlist.
I haven't seen this posted anywhere on this forum. Interesting
development.
https://9to5google.com/2021/02/22/spotify-hifi-lossless-audio/
*Home:* Pi4B-8GB/pCP7.x/4TB>LMS 8.1.x>Transporter, Touch, Boom, Radio
(all ethernet)
*Cottage:* rPi4B-4GB/pCP7.x/4TB>LMS 8.1.x>Touch>Benchmark DAC I,
61 matches
Mail list logo
