Blind Listening Tests are Flawed

[matt49]

That is kind of what I would expect for an experienced enthusiast with good equipment, by the way, were you listening for changes in the music or for 'artifacts'?

Well, before I started I thought I'd be listening for artefacts. But the kind of artefacts I thought I'd be able to hear weren't there on the music I chose. Perhaps if I'd chosen something with clean percussive detail I might have found the artefacts people say are in Ogg Vorbis files. In fact I thought I heard artefacts of a different kind: just a general impression of smudginess. Of course I may not have been hearing any such thing.

Which brings me on to the so far, unasked question, how good does your system have to be before Spotify's limitations start to become objectional, not barely detectable as discussed, but actually objectional enough to effect everyday listening?

So far I have come to the tentative conclusion that on most rock and popular music the limiting factor is most likely to be the recording, not the 'transmission' system but that said, I find I am playing less classical music than usual. My current system is pretty basic, so that is most probably the issue, but I can't help wondering if the sound quality 'losses' via Spotify might be partly to blame....... :?

If you put it like that then I'd speculate that you'd need at leat £10K's worth of kit before it would bother you, but I'd also guess that, given the same kit, it would bother some people more than others. (I know putting a monetary figure on it is crude and lazy.) BTW I did use rock/pop recordings for my ABX tests. And NB I chose to use headphones which make the system come in much lower than my notional £10K threshold, but then again the differences, assuming we accept there were any, were in the "barely detectable" rather than then "objectionable" range. (My reason for using headphones was to exclude background noise which might have masked the differences I was listening for.)

I understand enttrely why you made your point this way. It's a perfectly reasonable perspective. I look at it from a different angle. Whilst I do use Spotify premium a bit, I don't like its interface, at least in comparison with Sonos. And unlike you, I'm a "repeat listener". So whilst Spotify works out quite a bit cheaper, I still tend to buy and rip. I'm also now going to assume (though this could be wrong) that ripping to lossless does give me appreciably better results than Spotify premium. So for me it makes sense to continue to buy and rip.

EDIT spelling

 

[Alec]

If you have Spotify Premium, and you rip CDs, you don't need to "assume"...

 

[davedotco]

That is kind of what I would expect for an experienced enthusiast with good equipment, by the way, were you listening for changes in the music or for 'artifacts'?

Well, before I started I thought I'd be listening for artefacts. But the kind of artefacts I thought I'd be able to hear weren't there on the music I chose. Perhaps if I'd chosen something with clean percussive detail I might have found the artefacts people say are in Ogg Vorbis files. In fact I thought I heard artefacts of a different kind: just a general impression of smudginess. Of course I may not have been hearing any such thing.

Which brings me on to the so far, unasked question, how good does your system have to be before Spotify's limitations start to become objectional, not barely detectable as discussed, but actually objectional enough to effect everyday listening?

So far I have come to the tentative conclusion that on most rock and popular music the limiting factor is most likely to be the recording, not the 'transmission' system but that said, I find I am playing less classical music than usual. My current system is pretty basic, so that is most probably the issue, but I can't help wondering if the sound quality 'losses' via Spotify might be partly to blame....... :?

If you put it like that then I'd speculate that you'd need at leat £10K's worth of kit before it would bother you, but I'd also guess that, given the same kit, it would bother some people more than others. (I know putting a monetary figure on it is crude and lazy.) BTW I did use rock/pop recordings for my ABX tests. And NB I chose to use headphones which make the system come in much lower than my notional £10K threshold, but then again the differences, assuming we accept there were any, were in the "barely detectable" rather than then "objectionable" range. (My reason for using headphones was to exclude background noise which might have masked the differences I was listening for.)

I understand enttrely why you made your point this way. It's a perfectly reasonable perspective. I look at it from a different angle. Whilst I do use Spotify premium a bit, I don't like its interface, at least in comparison with Sonos. And unlike you, I'm a "repeat listener". So whilst Spotify works out quite a bit cheaper, I still tend to buy and rip. I'm also now going to assume (though this could be wrong) that ripping to lossless does give me appreciably better results than Spotify premium. So for me it makes sense to continue to buy and rip.

EDIT spelling

Spectacularly good headphones though, a match for many a £10k system, much better than mine.

The 'new music / repeat listen' issue is a big one for me, when i bought CDs most would get played, maybe, half a dozen times at most and then put away and only ever brought out if someone else asks. Very poor value compare to Spotify, for me at least.

In the last couple of weeks I have been playing 'Texas Country', country flavoured bar room rock and roll Texas style, using a customised Spotify Radio 'station'. Today, just to ring the changes, I'm into trance, some Armin Van Buuren playing at the moment.........

Now Oceanlab.......

I love Spotify.......

 

[matt49]

Sorry, Alec, you'll have to be a little less cryptic.

 

[Alec]

Sorry, Alec, you'll have to be a little less cryptic.

"I'm also now going to assume (though this could be wrong) that ripping to lossless does give me appreciably better results than Spotify premium."

 

[matt49]

Sorry, Alec, you'll have to be a little less cryptic.

"I'm also now going to assume (though this could be wrong) that ripping to lossless does give me appreciably better results than Spotify premium."

yes, it was clear to me which bit of my post you were alluding to. But I still don't get what your point is.

 

[Alec]

Don't assume. Compare. Though, of course, the numbers tell you that ripping to a loslless format is certainly better in theory.

 

[matt49]

Don't assume. Compare. Though, of course, the numbers tell you that ripping to a loslless format is certainly better in theory.

That's precisely what I've been doing, as reported earlier in this thread. But presumably you knew that already, as you've been reading the thread ...

:doh:

 

[Alec]

Don't assume. Compare. Though, of course, the numbers tell you that ripping to a loslless format is certainly better in theory.

That's precisely what I've been doing, as reported earlier in this thread. But presumably you knew that already, as you've been reading the thread ...

:doh:

OK. Then there was no need to say you're assuming.

 

[matt49]

Don't assume. Compare. Though, of course, the numbers tell you that ripping to a loslless format is certainly better in theory.

That's precisely what I've been doing, as reported earlier in this thread. But presumably you knew that already, as you've been reading the thread ...

:doh:

OK. Then there was no need to say you're assuming.

On the contrary, because I'd only done a couple of comparisons (2 x 10 ABX passes) and because the results seemed to me ambiguous, there was every reason to say that I was "assuming". But again, you've read all this already earlier in the thread, so I don't understand why I need to repeat myself.

 

[Alec]

[EDITED by MODS - personal insults are not necessary here thanks]

 

[matt49]

[UNPUBLISHED]

And I don't see why you have to be a prat over a simple and entirely correct point. You could simply have agreed with it. I'm out.

:O