Spotify - normalization vs dynamic range compression

[fr0g]

Most people like me who are OCD about sound quality will buy the CD of Amazon and rip it themselves anyway.

I doubt you'd abx that either.

To be honest I have pretty much stopped buying CDs anyway. I get a lot of stuff from BoomKat, Linn and Bleep. Usually FLAC which I then convert to MP3 for general use.

FLAC and MP3 at high bitrate sound identical anyway.

FLAC is good for archiving and possible future transcoding.

Also, it's a shame you default to Amazon :/ When I do buy CDs I try to get them from the source if possible and from local channels otherwise. Amazon is a last resort.

 

[steve_1979]

Also, it's a shame you default to Amazon :/ When I do buy CDs I try to get them from the source if possible and from local channels otherwise. Amazon is a last resort.

I only use Amazon because I'm too lazy to look elsewhere and their prices seem good.

 

[rchinn]

Shout out to Boomkat. My favourite of music stores. Although I buy vinyl not FLAC.

 

[SteveR750]

Steve your detective work with Spotify is to be applauded, but don't ever lose sight of the fact that Spotify is first and foremost a consumer-grade streaming service with no pretentions of super high fidelity. When its developers ****-about with the settings and codecs behind the scenes, someone like you (or collectively us) couldn't be more distant from their thoughts. Digital streaming services like Spotify only sound as good as they do because with digital audio you really have to try incredibily hard to fcuk it up to the point of it becoming unlistenable. The acceptable quality they achieve is a happy accidental consequence of modern digital file-compression and distribution. They don't have to try very hard to get the SQ acceptably right, and there's no audiophile in the back office QA'ing their streams through range-topping amps and speakers that cost as much as a Ferrari.

Thanks.

The sound quality of Spotify is bloody good both subjectively and objectively. The way they do things is probably as good as it will ever need to be (try ripping a lossless WAV into 320kbps ogg vorbis then ABX it using Foobar if you dare). The new version of the Spotify player doesn't seem to be compressing the DR and the 320kbps that they use is a sensible and managable file size for streaming with really good sound quality. IMO the only way they could make any real improvment in sound quality would be to offer more of the older and better mastered versions of albums rather than the new and usually worse 'remastered' versions which they tend to go for.

As far as these tests go it's worth bearing in mind that I'm only a keen amateur who enjoys fiddling around to satisfy a curiosity as to how things work. This includes looking at Spotify and trying to work out what processing they use. I just like to fiddle around with stuff and post my thoughts as I do it... a sort of 'thinking out loud on a public forum' to see where it takes me and to see what other people think of it. Hopefully it might even be useful to a few people too who might be wondering the same sort of things.

At the end of the day Spotify is just a casual yet very good quality streaming service. Most people like me who are OCD about sound quality will buy the CD off Amazon and rip it themselves anyway.

I do and think the same. I suspect that the sonic benefits of CD are mostly in my head, as Spotify Extreme is extremely good - speakers or by phones.

 

[MajorFubar]

My OSX desktop client updated yesterday and the checkbox has gone.

No sign of mine pestering for an update just yet, I'm sure it'll come at some point.

 

[steve_1979]

I just backgraded to an earlier version again , I have the 'set the same volume' option again, but now i dont know if it sounds better again , maybe its pyscological knowing the frequency range *might* be back up to 20k how do I know? *scratch_one-s_head*

I think the old version of that track with the cut off at 17kHz was probably saved to the Spotify cache during a 160kbps stream when I was using Spotify Open rather than Spotify Premium. Disregard the results from yesterday they're not relevant as it was a different file being compared. Sorry.

 

[steve_1979]

Steve your detective work with Spotify is to be applauded, but don't ever lose sight of the fact that Spotify is first and foremost a consumer-grade streaming service with no pretentions of super high fidelity. When its developers ****-about with the settings and codecs behind the scenes, someone like you (or collectively us) couldn't be more distant from their thoughts. Digital streaming services like Spotify only sound as good as they do because with digital audio you really have to try incredibily hard to fcuk it up to the point of it becoming unlistenable. The acceptable quality they achieve is a happy accidental consequence of modern digital file-compression and distribution. They don't have to try very hard to get the SQ acceptably right, and there's no audiophile in the back office QA'ing their streams through range-topping amps and speakers that cost as much as a Ferrari.

Thanks Fubar and boggit.

The sound quality of Spotify is bloody good both subjectively and objectively. The way they do things is probably as good as it will ever need to be (try ripping a lossless WAV into 320kbps ogg vorbis then ABX it using Foobar if you dare). The new version of the Spotify player doesn't seem to be compressing the DR and the 320kbps that they use is a sensible and managable file size for streaming with really good sound quality. IMO the only way they could make any real improvment in sound quality would be to offer more of the older and better mastered versions of albums rather than the new and usually worse 'remastered' versions which they tend to go for.

As far as these tests go it's worth bearing in mind that I'm only a keen amateur who enjoys fiddling around to satisfy a curiosity as to how things work. This includes looking at Spotify and trying to work out what processing they use. I just like to fiddle around with stuff and post my thoughts as I do it... a sort of 'thinking out loud on a public forum' to see where it takes me and to see what other people think of it. Hopefully it might even be useful to a few people too who might be wondering the same sort of things.

At the end of the day Spotify is just a casual yet very good quality streaming service. Most people like me who are OCD about sound quality will buy the CD off Amazon and rip it themselves anyway.

 

[steve_1979]

maybe an email to spotify to ask why they have reduced the qaulity, and show them your results, wonder what their excuse will be, another here considering leaving now, I 'upgraded' to the latest version and though it sounded a touch grainier and slighty less 'air' now I know why,

They're already aware of it.

https://community.spotify.com/t5/Spotify-Ideas/Desktop-Bring-back-volume-normalization-toggle/idi-p/1040449

There's a lot of hate for the new Spotify update on their forums at the moment. The removal off the option that allows you to turn off the 'Set the same volume level for all tracks' is just one the reasons.

 

[steve_1979]

OK I think I've sussed it now. The track 'Radio Protector' that was stored in the Spotify cache on my old computer is indeed different to the version that Spotify are currently streaming now. I don't use that computer very often so the track in the Spotify cache is probably several months old and seems to be a different version with lower volume and more dynamic range than the new one so the comparison that I made yesterday is irrelivent as far as comparing the versions of Spotify are concerned. Sorry my bad. I should have deleted the cache first to make sure that both versions of Spotify were using the same file.

I've now compared a few other tracks in both the old and new versions of Spotify (after deleting the cache this time) and it seems that the new version isn't forcing us to listen with the dynamic range compression switched on. Great news!

However both the old and new versions of Spotify do always seems to have very slightly different results but they are always very close. I'm not sure why they are different but my guess is that there is some sort of processing still being applied and they have now tweaked this processing. For a better explanation of what I mean read the section half way down in this link here where it explains about Inter-sample decoding peaks: http://productionadvice.co.uk/wrong-about-spotify/

QUOTE

"Spotify’s options clearly allow you to enable or disable “Volume Normalisation”. I wrongly assumed that Spotify disabled all processing when normalisation was off.

Big mistake.

As I described in the original post, Spotify has a limiter which stops quieter, more dynamic tracks being distorted when their volume is boosted by the normalisation feature. What I didn’t realise is that this limiter is always on - even when “Volume Normalisation” is off.

At first sight this may sound bizarre – why would you need a limiter, if you aren’t changing the level of any songs ? And even if it’s on, why would it be doing anything to audio whose level hasn’t been changed ? The answer is the final factor I failed to take account of:

Inter-sample decoding peaks

There’s a reason Spotify’s limiter is enabled all the time – that’s because most CDs recorded today, when decoded from mp3, AAC or Ogg Vorbis files – as in Spotify’s case – contain inter-sample peaks. There’s not enough space here to discuss them in detail, but the short version is – most CDs mastered in the last few years will be going “into the red” when they are decoded.

So, a player like Spotify needs to make a decision – should the resulting audio just be allowed to clip, should it be turned down, or should it be limited, in an attempt to minimise the distortion ?"

 

[fr0g]

Shout out to Boomkat. My favourite of music stores. Although I buy vinyl not FLAC.

Do you get a free (superior quality even at 128K MP3) download as part of the deal with those?

 

[peterpiper]

just been listening to roxy musics avalon album on spotify, love this album, not heard it an ages, I used to have the vinyl version in the late eighties, always sounded very good, now on spotify its sounds a bit flat and lifeless with not as much attack and depth as I remember it on vinyl, could be both the remastering and spotify compression at work, saying that its still not bad

 

[davedotco]

just been listening to roxy musics avalon album on spotify, love this album, not heard it an ages, I used to have the vinyl version in the late eighties, always sounded very good, now on spotify its sounds a bit flat and lifeless with not as much attack and depth as I remember it on vinyl, could be both the remastering and spotify compression at work, saying that its still not bad

Re my earlier post, this is the issue I have been talking about, nothing really bad, just a 'feeling' that things are not quite as good as they could be. (Could be the 'rose tinted glasses' effect though)

I found a slight treble lift made all the difference, I use the EQ in Spotify iOS and raise just the highest frequencies. Not sure if the EQ is available to you in your configuration but if not, try a slight uplift on your Marantz, not too much though as this will lift the high mid too, making the balance too bright.

Really needs to be the highest frequencies only if possible, I usually stream from my MBP but I have been using the iPad, with the EQ as described, not sure I can go back to the MBP without the EQ though.

 

[iQ Speakers]

I have to say Steve my hat is off to you for providing some brilliant information, wish I understood it all! I have tried Tidal and Qobuz I wish I could say they sound better, they don't hit me instantly as sounding better. The biggest issue is the albums for me are just not there unlike on Spotify.

I have always found Spotify to be very slightly dull, possibly something to do with the way it is streamed which seems way more complex than I can understand.

I really discovered this when comparing to uncompressed Qobus, which sounded slightly more 'focused' and precise. A tiny touch of treble lift in the Spotify eq seemed to make all the difference, just a touch mind, the 'Treble lift' preset is far to much.

Slightly dull, yes im with you on that, though through my new amp and speakers not really missing the CA SM 6. As soon as Cambridge release the CXN ill be buying it, it gave Spotify a huge lift and was miles better than Qobuz or Tidal through the ZP80. As well as a colour screen the CXN has a slightly improved output stage and with all the upsampling tech of the SM6 should sound superb it was easliy better than the Linn Majik DS. Roll on launch date.

 

[chebby]

Also, it's a shame you default to Amazon :/ When I do buy CDs I try to get them from the source if possible and from local channels otherwise. Amazon is a last resort.

Agreed. Amazon is a 'break glass in an emergency' service for me. The order is BBC shop, local HMV branch, HMV online, iTunes (in 'album' quality if available) then, lastly, CDs ordered from Amazon. (AudioGo 256K downloads used to be in that list until they went bust sadly and, worse, Amazon's 'Audible' took over.)

If the content I wanted was only available from 'Audible' on Amazon, then I would do without rather than use it. The quality for 'spoken word'/full-cast drama/comedies/documentaries etc. is dire and stupidly expensive. I tried it once and the bit rates were sub 56k.

I am used to CDs ripped @ 320K AAC VBR and (at worst) iTunes 'album quality' BBC/AudioGo downloads @ 256K AAC. (Not their 'Audiobook' quality which is only 64K and not indexed with episodes either.)

The BBC take a lot care - especially when recording premium drama content with expensive casts - and that care is wasted if someone is selling low-grade downloads (and often charging more than for the CD versions in Amazon's case).

Luckily the BBC have a new Audio CD partner to replace the defunct AudioGo (BBC Physical Audio a partnership of Random House/Penguin). Hpoefully, one-day, they'll have a 'high fat' (at least 256K) download portal.

 

[peterpiper]

I didnt know spotify had eq. settings tbh , the only sound qaulity setting I can see on the spotify site is to turn off/on the bitrate speed. (high qulity streaming)

I can listen two ways, via the mcr610 or through an external cambridge dacmagic from my laptop into the rotel amp. which sounds rather decent actually. I mostly use the marantz for spotify and internet radio when in the study , tried lifting the treble to +2 db on the marantz tone control and it does seem better with some tracks but bright with others , so I normally just have it at 0db

 

[davedotco]

I didnt know spotify had eq. settings tbh , the only sound qaulity setting I can see on the spotify site is to turn off/on the bitrate speed. (high qulity streaming)

I can listen two ways, via the mcr610 or through an external cambridge dacmagic from my laptop into the rotel amp. which sounds rather decent actually. I mostly use the marantz for spotify and internet radio when in the study , tried lifting the treble to +2 db on the marantz tone control and it does seem better with some tracks but bright with others , so I normally just have it at 0db

Maybe not on the MCR610, I have no experience how that works with Spotify, and definitely not on the OSX client.

The iOS (and I believe the android) apps have EQ in 'Settings', loads of presets, most of which are too gross to use but you can set it flat and just move any of the 6 (?) bands, I find just lifting the highest band a little gives the desired effect, if you have Spotify on a mobile just make sure it is up to date and it will be there.

The Marantz tone controls, like most hi-fi, are too broard for this application, you need to leave it flat to about 5k or higher, then just a little lift, otherwise as you discovered some tracks will sound over bright.

 

[steve_1979]

The newest update of Spotify has brought back the option to turn off the volume equalisation function that reduces the dynamic range.

Thank you Spotify.

 

[SteveR750]

The newest update of Spotify has brought back the option to turn off the volume equalisation function that reduces the dynamic range.

Thank you Spotify.

I didn't think it was that obtrusive. I've just unchecked it...and....wait for it....

 

[steve_1979]

The newest update of Spotify has brought back the option to turn off the volume equalisation function that reduces the dynamic range.

Thank you Spotify.

I didn't think it was that obtrusive. I've just unchecked it...and....wait for it....

It more noticable with some tracks than others. High dynamic range classical music for example.

To be fair to Spotify though, their algorithm for the volume equalisation on their most recent couple of updates is very effective at balancing the volume levels without changing the dynamic range too much. It works much better than it did on the older versions of Spotify.

 

[SteveR750]

Given it's only a modest bit rate streaming service, I'd prefer the levelling on. I don't use it one J River, mostly because I play a complete album, rather than playlists.

 

[shakudu]

Out of curiosity, how do you measure DR on tracks from Spotify?

 

[TrevC]

Another golden oldie resurrected. Never measured it , but I think the volume level thing works pretty well. It's a heck of a lot better than Classic FM.

 

[steve_1979]

Out of curiosity, how do you measure DR on tracks from Spotify?

You record them then measure the recording.

 

[steve_1979]

Another golden oldie resurrected. Never measured it , but I think the volume level thing works pretty well. It's a heck of a lot better than Classic FM.

It works very well but still reduces the dynamic range a bit on some tracks but AFAICT there seems to be some very clever software algorithms working in the background to keep this to a minium. It works very effectively.

They've also replaced the option to switch off the automatic volume leveling again which leaves the full dynamic range intact at all times.