Tried Apple lossless… my experience started positive but now I’m back to Tidal

[Grant Slack]

19 hours ago, Steffen said:

 

Thanks, fixed

 

 

That’s a technical limitation, and one I’m well aware of when watching movies with surround sound. But my point is, unlike those movies that been produced with surround sound from the outset, the spatial audio tracks I’ve been listening to never were. Many predate things like Atmos by many years. They’ve had the “spatial sauce” poured over them, and this is what results in an unnatural soundstage. This unnatural post processing is not going to be fixed by using a full complement of Atmos speakers, because it is just wrong to start with.

 

Sure, maybe. But you started with an evidence-based argument that was a few ingredients short of the full recipe  , and now you have flipped to a debatable theoretical one. After all, an unnatural soundstage is only one possible result of the stereo-to-Atmos treatment.

 

cheers

Grant

Edited July 24, 2021 by Grant Slack

[stereo coffee]

11 hours ago, Grant Slack said:

 

Sure, maybe. But you started with an evidence-based argument that was a few ingredients short of the full recipe  , and now you have flipped to a debatable theoretical one. After all, an unnatural soundstage is only one possible result of the stereo-to-Atmos treatment.

 

cheers

Grant

That's exactly it, it is the Atmos treatment... that does not match the original companding being used during recording, rather is  IMO an artificial addition. that is vaguely depressingly guessing, all of the critical  parameters needed.

 

The best product Dolby made IMO was Dolby A in 1966, everything after that was very marketing based, not necessarily dedicated to best listening experience. You can hear Dolby A on Jaco Pastorius Birthday Concert CD or LP  . Whereas DBX went on and on.... and on,   exploring every facet that companding could provide.... meanwhile Dolby headed to the cassette market with Dolby B, which if we view historically was a marketing exercise so the Dolby name was in implanted in everyone's mind.  At exactly the same time DBX was producing Type 1, that still beats the socks off anything available today, and very much why Vangelis chose it, partnering with Dolby A   

 

Repeating what we need is the original companding used during recording, being matched at playback. ... as difficult as that is,  it is where all arguments will end full stop... there would if that could occur,  be universal acclaim of everything being right.

 

Listen what this guy says about Dolby in the first few minutes:, he should have had available a type 1 DBX and connected his CD player just below his amp  to it.... but never the less his demonstration is interesting with cassette equipment.   If he also had a Dolby A it too,  might have matched what his other gear provides .

 

 

[sir sanders zingmore]

22 minutes ago, stereo coffee said:

That's exactly it, it is the Atmos treatment... that does not match the original companding being used during recording,

Atmos does something completely different, doesn’t it?

[stereo coffee]

2 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

Atmos does something completely different, doesn’t it?

Exactly,  and that is the problem, that is not matching if companding was used in recording,  the original technical parameters applied during that recording, that has enabled playback to occur correctly to match to restore the passion excitement presence... all of those words that make music exciting.

 

Rather Atmos  is highly likely IMO,  lightly applying certain criteria,  that is changing our association with  the natural sound of instruments.... and that is a concern.  as it has, if that is the case distanced itself from the recording event to be an addition that no longer has association.  I find Dolby's marketing quite bizarre, as it shows us, recording engineers producers and film actors, but not musicians. https://professional.dolby.com/

 

If we reflect on the best selling jazz record of all time; Kind of Blue by Miles Davis:   https://www.milesdavis.com/albums/kind-of-blue-deluxe-50th-anniversary-collectors-edition/  it has no companding, and has provide enormous enjoyment with reflection by those listening to hear every nuance that was recorded.

 

When we use companding in a recording we are applying the concept of Murray Crosby's principles of emphasis and deemphasis , which entails the recognition of the medium being used for recording, having certain defined limitation.  Companding compresses that audio and may also apply eq curve similar to RIAA to later correct.  At playback the compression applied at recording is expanded usually for best result to exactly the same ratio that compression occurred. In the process we experience the original dynamic range that the microphones were capable of.  The end result is the recording despite the limitations of the device recording,  has indeed faithfully preserved all of the performance.    

 

If we guess Dolby, has a suite in the back room *  of DBX gear, and has shaped certain criteria to provide a new marketing angle, I reckon we would be pretty close to the mark.  Your own piece of DBX gear shows some of the possibilities. I have also have used these with a DBX Quantum, but always come back to Type 1 as it is the most natural.  (  * Martin Logan,  were found to have a set of quad ESL57's in the back room to compare to )

 

We would in our ideal scenario see a CD player and streaming device recognize the type of companding used during recording, and apply the necessary same curve to expand at playback, and not have a lets say, a partial artificial semblance unrelated to the original event imposed on us.  .

 

This is a serious moment in audio, as we can choose one manufacturers outlook, not fully involved as I see, with musicians,  or  choose the harder path, to preserve, insisting on the recording parameters historically,  as it really occurred.

 

Can we find any musicians, ( not film actors )   espousing Dolby Atmos, as representing it being beneficial ?

Our association with our hearing and the natural sound of instruments is underlined.

 

I hark back to Vangelis and the Nemo studios, in comparison, as it uniquely examples,  a musician shaping his own compositions by firstly enjoying   listening, then extending from that listening,  his own ability in composition,  to the benefit DBX provided. 

http://www.nemostudios.co.uk/nemo/tour/recording/recording_br.htm 

 

To listen to Vangelis is an experience every time. the Nemo years saw Antartica , one of my many favorites. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sir sanders zingmore]

12 minutes ago, stereo coffee said:

Exactly,  and that is the problem, that is not matching if companding was used in recording, 

Given the dynamic range available these days I’m sure commanding isn’t necessary any more - is it used in modern recording/production?

 

in any event, this is not on topic and has nothing to do with the problem at hand. 
 

The problem as I see it, is that if the original recording was not done with atmos it won’t sound as good as if it was done with atmos 

 

Surely this isn’t even a problem, it’s just a statement. 

[stereo coffee]

2 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

Given the dynamic range available these days I’m sure commanding isn’t necessary any more - is it used in modern recording/production?

 

in any event, this is not on topic and has nothing to do with the problem at hand. 
 

The problem as I see it, is that if the original recording was not done with atmos it won’t sound as good as if it was done with atmos 

 

Surely this isn’t even a problem, it’s just a statement. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companding

 

 

[sir sanders zingmore]

3 minutes ago, stereo coffee said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companding

 

 

As I suspected, not at all relevant to this topic. Thanks for clarifying. 

[stereo coffee]

Just now, stereo coffee said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companding

 

 

& most certainly on topic, as a form of exactly the same principle, marketed nicely,   is what is being sold to consumers, so understanding it is critical, not to be dismissed off hand with deliberate* spelling mistakes (*The misspelling of the same word that you for some reason do not like,  is not the first time as we both know  )

[sir sanders zingmore]

7 minutes ago, stereo coffee said:

most certainly on topic, as a form of exactly the same principle, marketed nicely,

I’m pretty sure atmos has nothing to do with companding

 

Also…

23 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

is it used in modern recording/production?

 

[stereo coffee]

1 hour ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

Given the dynamic range available these days I’m sure commanding isn’t necessary any more - is it used in modern recording/production?

 

i

Yes its more than necessary, to prove this find me the dynamic range specification of your digital device in db , a helping hand is most CD players are 100db capable.  

 

In the mean time, while you are finding that,  we can see in the video how are dynamics achieved on a trumpet.   We see mixing desks shown in the Dolby video,  replaced so refreshingly, WOW,   by  true human involvement,  https://mysterytomastery.com/dynamics-and-range/

 

You would think given Dolbys endless budget they might have talked to some musicians.... but No ... so something, namely the real relationship to human involvement in sound,  is so obviously missing.

 

 

 

[sir sanders zingmore]

What was the topic again……?

[stereo coffee]

1 minute ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

What was the topic again……?

Good try, with the usual tactic of sweeping out the door what has just been said, you must be nearly at the drawer with your equipment specification with the broom in hand.  The topic is why an experience with one product is found to be better than another, specifically

"Tried Apple lossless… my experience started positive but now I’m back to Tidal"

 

No need to defend my posts, as  they disclose the history & inner workings of marketing machines which are currently battling to provide the consumer with ideas that all began here:  https://ethw.org/Murray_G._Crosby

 

[sir sanders zingmore]

5 minutes ago, stereo coffee said:

The topic is why an experience with one product is found to be better than another, specifically

"Tried Apple lossless… my experience started positive but now I’m back to Tidal"

So the relevance of companding is what? Does tidal use it…is that why it sounds better than iTunes (to the op)?

Edited July 25, 2021 by sir sanders zingmore
Corrected the spelling of the word that autocorrect always gets wrong and I get blamed for *misspelling

[Grant Slack]

Hi Chris,

 

while I am the first to cheer the general criticism of marketing machines, such as the one that feeds audio journalism itself, and so I have done my best to understand the issues you raise, I have thus far come away mainly with the impression that you have grasped the wrong end of the stick, both in relation to companding in the modern world, and Dolby’s status and focus in relation to the recording and playback of music today.

 

Object oriented audio, of which Dolby Atmos is but one example, has been the subject of an enormous amount of research and development, both academic and commercial, in relation to, not only movie soundtracks, but also the recording and playback of music.  For example www.dolby.com/music may be a marketing site, but makes clear that music is a clear and present focus of Dolby today. There is a lot to be excited about for the future of recorded music, for the audiophile who seeks and prioritises peak experiences that are clearly audible over peak purism about things that we can only hear as differences in our imaginations or in ‘edge case’ carefully controlled listening tests.

 

As for companding…. I have been well aware of it for decades, but, as far as I can deduce, it is an analog technology solution for analog audio problems (yes, I can remember dbx and Dolby competing in that field when it was relevevant, and disappearing from the home playback discussion without trace, when progress made it an anachronism). There is no connection between Dolby Atmos and the issue of companding, to my knowledge. Directing me to read articles about ancient Vangelis recording-tape issues with dynamics, and the existence of Vangelis tapes that have been “commed” but not “panded” (and nobody can find the machines to uncompress them), feels more than a little off-topic to a discussion about the pros and cons of object-oriented music streaming services.

 

cheers

Grant

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2021 by Grant Slack

[stereo coffee]

19 minutes ago, Grant Slack said:

Hi Chris,

 

while I am the first to cheer the general criticism of marketing machines, such as the one that feeds audio journalism itself, and so I have done my best to understand the issues you raise, I have thus far come away mainly with the impression that you have grasped the wrong end of the stick, both in relation to companding in the modern world, and Dolby’s status and focus in relation to the recording and playback of music today.

 

Object oriented audio, of which Dolby Atmos is but one example, has been the subject of an enormous amount of research and development, both academic and commercial, in relation to, not only movie soundtracks, but also the recording and playback of music.  For example www.dolby.com/music may be a marketing site, but makes clear that music is a clear and present focus of Dolby today. There is a lot to be excited about for the future of recorded music, for the audiophile who seeks and prioritises peak experiences that are clearly audible over peak purism about things that we can only hear as differences in our imaginations or in ‘edge case’ carefully controlled listening tests.

 

As for companding…. I have been well aware of it for decades, but, as far as I can deduce, it is an analog technology solution for analog audio problems (yes, I can remember dbx and Dolby competing in that field when it was relevevant, and disappearing from the home playback discussion without trace, when progress made it an anachronism). There is no connection between Dolby Atmos and the issue of companding, to my knowledge. Directing me to read articles about ancient Vangelis recording-tape issues with dynamics, and the existence of Vangelis tapes that have been “commed” but not “panded” (and nobody can find the machines to uncompress them), feels more than a little off-topic to a discussion about the pros and cons of object-oriented music streaming services.

 

cheers

Grant

 

 

 

Hi Grant

Not the wrong end of the stick at all, rather the whole stick is what needs to be held and viewed at all times.   History provides us the full length if we look , but following marketing only shows us one of the bristles.  

 

 

[betty boop]

have been checking out apple music since released... on both full atmos system and also 2ch and more recently through head fi rig thats  capable of lossless and also hi-res via apple music. 

 

I cancelled tidal... just too much cost and not enough music to justify it ...

 

im not finding any odd goings tech wise on via either 2ch through blue sound node 2i and via my hifi... or appleTV through marantz av processor for atmos. 

 

i will say though for tracks clearly not originally produced in atmos ... the new atmos mixes sound VERY contrived ! to point of ridiculous in some cases ... eg singer clearly either hanging like a bat off the ceiling or pulled up a chair down the back... half way through the song  in most cases auro3D in stead of atmos seems much more convincing as a more forward focussed sound stage...

 

there are tracks that do atmos well. but in most cases atmos with apple music is just gimmick in my opinion...

 

lossless on other hand ... very happy with either through hifi or head fi system.. am still enjoying multichannel through the apple TV and atmos ... just expect to be surprised in some cases of some whacky "upmixing"  

 

ps am not bothering with Qobuz or anything else apple music seems to be hitting that fix as i need for lossless music...

Edited July 25, 2021 by betty boop

[sir sanders zingmore]

5 minutes ago, stereo coffee said:

…..rather the whole stick is what needs to be held and viewed at all times.  

 

 

no it doesn’t need to be anything. Sometimes people just want to talk about their topic. 

[stereo coffee]

1 hour ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

So the relevance of companding is what? Does tidal use it…is that why it sounds better than iTunes (to the op)?

The relevance of companding is 99% of recordings used it, in either the form of Dolby or DBX. Tidal I suspect may be using mild amounts of expansion vs other platforms, so beginning to harness the ability of the companding within the recording, which  might explain their preference in the marketplace,   Each though are far more concerned with marketing against each other presently as I see. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ,

 

 

 

 

 

[sir sanders zingmore]

24 minutes ago, stereo coffee said:

The relevance of companding is 99% of recordings used

 

How is that relevant to a discussion about whether Tidal sounds better than Apple Music?

Also you say “Used”. Past tense. When did they stop?

[Steffen]

2 hours ago, betty boop said:

ps am not bothering with Qobuz or anything else apple music seems to be hitting that fix as i need for lossless music...

 

I’m in complete agreement with the rest of your post (deleted from the quote), and I’m almost in agreement here, too.

 

I would love not having to bother both Qobuz, being also an Apple Music subscriber. The problem is, the only player that can play Apple Music is Apple’s Music app. Unfortunately, that app cannot play certain other content I’ve got a lot of (purchased though other online music stores). Content that is encoded as FLAC or DSD (DSF). While I could convert all my FLAC tracks to ALAC (not sure of the upper bitrate limit – I’ve got FLAC tracks up to 384kbps), I can’t play my DSD content in Music at all.

 

On the flip side, players that allow me to play all my local content (incl. any bitrate FLAC or DSD, even DXD), such as Audirvana or Roon, don’t play Apple Music content at all. That’s why I have the need to subscribe to Qobuz in order to get a reasonable share of the streaming coverage of Apple Music, while at the same time being able to play all my purchased local content.

 

[stereo coffee]

1 hour ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

 

How is that relevant to a discussion about whether Tidal sounds better than Apple Music?

Also you say “Used”. Past tense. When did they stop?

Because they sell music files, and enjoy profits from sales of albums  that were recorded that way,  all the way back to 1966. But if each provider can match to the same method used for recording then we are much better off, as the music file we are provided with,  is then restored exactly as it was recorded.  But at the moment different regimes of standards are applied, unrelated, and being guessed at, as to what originally was recorded. 

 

Explaining "used" in your question,. Today's recordings are a mix of different companding rates, so getting hard to say one is directly DBX or Dolby, but there is vast catalogue of music that precedes todays offerings that were recorded using either one or the other, or occasionally both, that Tidal and apple are selling as downloads. 

 

Dolby were in a strange position in the 1970's as they ( exactly as they do today busily marketing ) were at that time instead of Atmos  busily marketing Dolby B for cassettes, but found themselves awkwardly  reliant on their 1966 design to carry themselves forward to maintain interest with recording studios. But they convinced a lot of studios to use Dolby A - I even have one. 

 

Todays recordings use companding in many different ways. Individual tracks of instruments receive various rates to preserve dynamics.

Early pioneers of this were Pink Floyd with their momentary lapse of Reason album, which IMO is their best recorded album.  it has fascinating layers, The drums and bass being recorded analog and the other instruments digitally. Such was the concern for getting this new technology right  they had Mitsubshi technicians flying over from Japan,  to set up their digital recording suite 

 

A very good overview giving the history of tape and revealing what the deficiencies of most digital recording can hide is here:   https://www.manualslib.com/manual/560757/Dbx-Type-Iv-Conversion-System.html    which relates directly to the product being provided by Tidal and Apple, as it is a very brief history of recording techniques, you might not have seen before. It also provides where the industry should be heading, which is NOT tinkering with different methods, vastly different to the originals.  MQA also included as tinkering.

[betty boop]

22 minutes ago, Steffen said:

 

I’m in complete agreement with the rest of your post (deleted from the quote), and I’m almost in agreement here, too.

 

I would love not having to bother both Qobuz, being also an Apple Music subscriber. The problem is, the only player that can play Apple Music is Apple’s Music app. Unfortunately, that app cannot play certain other content I’ve got a lot of (purchased though other online music stores). Content that is encoded as FLAC or DSD (DSF). While I could convert all my FLAC tracks to ALAC (not sure of the upper bitrate limit – I’ve got FLAC tracks up to 384kbps), I can’t play my DSD content in Music at all.

 

On the flip side, players that allow me to play all my local content (incl. any bitrate FLAC or DSD, even DXD), such as Audirvana or Roon, don’t play Apple Music content at all. That’s why I have the need to subscribe to Qobuz in order to get a reasonable share of the streaming coverage of Apple Music, while at the same time being able to play all my purchased local content.

 

 

hi Steffen, totally understand others connundrums and also preferences with music sources, devices platforms etc.

 

but i seem to be managing happily (perhaps blissfully) now days  with either apple or other downloaded/ripped sourced content via a few means.

 

I totally agree the appleTV 4k for instance is really a gate way to apple... and other stream services it can handle and it has its limitations ... but i only really use it for anything involving a screen or multichannel and for that seems to do well...eg us watching music videos, youtube. concerts ...lossless multichannel (eg their atmos apple music stuff) so not wanting much more from it ... because probably subconciously i take into account what its limitations are and work within

 

for 2ch I have a couple of routes

 

hifi 2ch - the blue-sound node 2i which is good enough for me for streaming means off my own ripped/downlaoded collection via usb SSD hard drive. and streaming off various web sources (as needed) and apple music. it is only lossless and i dont expect any more than CD quality to be honest via this means. others might expect more and be disappointed ...

 

head fi & hifi 2ch ? - the A&K SP2000 DAP. I found with an update yesterday also natively will access the apple music and including lossless and right upto 24/192 hi-res.

 

and it is to extreme high quality DAP. very high resolution dac as well on board so while covering the head-fi it can technically feed 2ch rig as well. and it has the lot tidal apple music, spotify etc. no idea on qobuz or any other on it as quite frankly no needed to look... am happily existing within bounds of what have i guess... but from my understanding given its android based and there are apps for Qobuz etc be no reason to not access those by that means ? and as a DAP it can literally play anything ? so that shouldn't be a boundary either ? so perhaps something like it is worth exploring ? it is NOT very cheap though  but they do have more affordable models...  

 

 

Edited July 25, 2021 by betty boop

[sir sanders zingmore]

6 minutes ago, stereo coffee said:

A very good overview giving the history of tape and revealing what the deficiencies of most digital recording can hide is here:   https://www.manualslib.com/manual/560757/Dbx-Type-Iv-Conversion-System.html    which relates directly to the product being provided by Tidal and Apple, as it is a very brief history of recording techniques, you might not have seen before. It also provides where the industry should be heading, which is NOT tinkering with different methods, vastly different to the originals.  MQA also included as tinkering.

 

Article is 20+ years old

summary: If you don't know how to use digital to record properly, analog clips nicer. And clever us we have a way to make magic 

"Without going into the confidential technical details, by using our proprietary analog and digital Type IV™ processing, we reclaim the original A/D noise level! So what you get is free headroom!"

 

And you complain about companies "marketing"

 

In any event,  if this is relevant to why Tidal sounds better than apple, it is relevant to just about every other topic on SNA. Maybe you should talk about it in all those topics too. Oh… hang on….

[stereo coffee]

21 minutes ago, Steffen said:

 

I’m in complete agreement with the rest of your post (deleted from the quote), and I’m almost in agreement here, too.

 

I would love not having to bother both Qobuz, being also an Apple Music subscriber. The problem is, the only player that can play Apple Music is Apple’s Music app. Unfortunately, that app cannot play certain other content I’ve got a lot of (purchased though other online music stores). Content that is encoded as FLAC or DSD (DSF). While I could convert all my FLAC tracks to ALAC (not sure of the upper bitrate limit – I’ve got FLAC tracks up to 384kbps), I can’t play my DSD content in Music at all.

 

On the flip side, players that allow me to play all my local content (incl. any bitrate FLAC or DSD, even DXD), such as Audirvana or Roon, don’t play Apple Music content at all. That’s why I have the need to subscribe to Qobuz in order to get a reasonable share of the streaming coverage of Apple Music, while at the same time being able to play all my purchased local content.

 

Cooperation of standards is present only with FLAC as it is open source ( different to free software ) 

 

Tidal as seen at their Wikipedia page use both proprietary and open source, but I am critical of their stance as they on one hand enjoy using FLAC, to sell music but do not cooperate with Linux with an application. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_(service)

 

The reason for this is they use Digital Rights management, which is a subject all in itself, as wrong and hurtful to consumers. 

[stereo coffee]

9 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

 

Article is 20+ years old

summary: If you don't know how to use digital to record properly, analog clips nicer. And clever us we have a way to make magic 

"Without going into the confidential technical details, by using our proprietary analog and digital Type IV™ processing, we reclaim the original A/D noise level! So what you get is free headroom!"

 

And you complain about companies "marketing"

 

In any event,  if this is relevant to why Tidal sounds better than apple, it is relevant to just about every other topic on SNA. Maybe you should talk about it in all those topics too. Oh… hang on….

20 years but relevant more than ever !  glad you have read it, and you now see where companding fits in with recording, what a relief !