If the source is bad, no amount of upsampling or remixing will help. If they are remastered, then it might be ok... like the 'Kind of Blue' by Miles Davis and Abba Gold albums. Hey, I've come this far, listening on a Dyanora 2-in-one cassette player and that 'chinna chinna aasai' sounded heavenly. The same song on AAC/Amazon/YouTube sounds hollow and thin. The source that they got may be a bad one.It’s useless upsampling originals that have low resolution. Even streamers/DACs do that, right? Doesn’t help much. Let’s hope most of their lossless content is from uncompressed (or analog) masters and the said album of Alisha is a rare exception.
Did too try comparing lossy and lossless versions of some well-recorded album - like say Dire Straits’ ‘Brothers in Arms’? Do you hear a step up in quality with the lossless?
Hi. So many years ago, much much before apple talked about lossless audio, I had read about the masters for iTunes program. What essentially was happening was, that apple was asking content providers to 24 bit 96k masters for processing. The reason for this was that the apple encoders can then produce the best “sounding” lossy output because it was more data to work with. This is probably why they can so easily give us lossless/ High res versions; they have collected most masters in hi res.It’s useless upsampling originals that have low resolution. Even streamers/DACs do that, right? Doesn’t help much. Let’s hope most of their lossless content is from uncompressed (or analog) masters and the said album of Alisha is a rare exception.
Did too try comparing lossy and lossless versions of some well-recorded album - like say Dire Straits’ ‘Brothers in Arms’? Do you hear a step up in quality with the lossless?
I'm grumpy too. We pay more than the US counterparts and yet we wait like 3rd class folks. Maybe we all should take to twitter... but heck, we have better things to do I guess. We never know if our lovely government has a hand in this (licensing, etc?).Hi. So many years ago, much much before apple talked about lossless audio, I had read about the masters for iTunes program. What essentially was happening was, that apple was asking content providers to 24 bit 96k masters for processing. The reason for this was that the apple encoders can then produce the best “sounding” lossy output because it was more data to work with. This is probably why they can so easily give us lossless/ High res versions; they have collected most masters in hi res.
however, what happens upstream, in the content provider studio in terms of mix bias and compression, was not and is not in apple’s control. Net net, a badly produced album on Apple Music will not miraculously sound better with high res. But we already know that, at Hifi vision in many many debates about hi res audio.
anyway I am feeling quite grumpy at apple. Till now the lossless option is not available to me. so I just have to listen to other people’s perceptions rather than try it out myself.
Do we? Apple music is dirt cheap in India for the library and features that it offers. I have the family plan which is 179 bucks whereas the same plan in the US is for 14.99USD which is Rs.1094.I'm grumpy too. We pay more than the US counterparts and yet we wait like 3rd class folks. Maybe we all should take to twitter... but heck, we have better things to do I guess. We never know if our lovely government has a hand in this (licensing, etc?).
Doesn’t it work as lossless if you use a VPN?Do we? Apple music is dirt cheap in India for the library and features that it offers. I have the family plan which is 179 bucks whereas the same plan in the US is for 14.99USD which is Rs.1094.
good question. Usually Apple's geofencing is VPN proof but let me check.Doesn’t it work as lossless if you use a VPN?
Are they? I imagine server space might be the only operating cost that goes up with size of files. That shouldn’t anyway be a major part of the cost structure (licensing fees and marketing probably costs much more).Generic question on streaming: why are larger files more expensive to stream for the music service provider?
Surely bandwidth can not be an issue with so much high definition video streaming already available?Are they? I imagine server space might be the only operating cost that goes up with size of files. That shouldn’t anyway be a major part of the cost structure (licensing fees and marketing probably costs much more).
I am wondering if the reason for delaying lossless service for India by all these players - Apple, Amazon, Tidal… might be the still poor bandwidth, especially mobile internet data which could potentially lead to frustrating experience for majority of customers if they tried playing lossless/spatial?
It might be, if we consider that most OTT video viewing happens in the living room, with broadband (also, you need a TV to truly enjoy HD video), but a large percentage of music listening happens outside - during travel, walks etc where you are at the mercy of mobile data. Mobile call quality and data speed is a sham in India - while the numbers preceding the letter G keep increasing, there’s nowhere a commensurate improvement in these parameters. I wonder if the operators over-utilise the infrastructure to keep the pricing low.Surely bandwidth can not be an issue with so much high definition video streaming already available?
while the numbers preceding the letter G keep increasing, there’s nowhere a commensurate improvement in these parameters. I wonder if the operators over-utilise the infrastructure to keep the pricing low.
Surely bandwidth can not be an issue with so much high definition video streaming already available?
I don’t think so. I think I understood him right.I think Analogous meant the bandwidth cost for the music provider
Service | Download speed required | Data usage | Hours to 1 GB |
Spotify (High audio setting) | 0.160 Mbps | 0.072 GB per hour | 13.9 hours |
Spotify (Very high audio setting) | 0.320 Mbps | 0.144 GB per hour | 6.94 hours |
Browsing Facebook | 1 Mbps | 0.09 GB per hour | 11.1 hours |
Deezer | 1.411 Mbps | 0.635 GB per hour | 1.57 hours |
TIDAL Masters | 3 Mbps | 1.35 GB per hour | 0.74 hours |
Netflix in HD | 5 Mbps | 3 GB per hour | 0.33 hours |
Apologies for my ambiguous comment. But honestly I found both your perspectives useful and relevant to this discussion. Let’s keep it going @haisaikat has shared some interesting data and even more interesting opinions (I never heard of google up or considered the possibility of downloading standalone files from Tidal. (I feel like an Eskimo trying out ice cream for the first time)View attachment 57919
@Analogous, you didn’t mean ‘the bandwidth cost for the music provider’ in the highlighted comment which @msankadi was pointing to.
Reason 2: Wouldn’t it apply as much for 256 kbps as for lossless? Surely Apple/Amazon can figure out those. If not, when Amazon can spend USD 9 bn to buy MGM for their content, it’d cost far less to acquire Saregama. In fact, the huge run up stocks of Saregama (500%) and Tips (700%) have seen in the past year suggests the market might be anticipating some action.I think delayed launch of such service can be due to one or more of the following:-
1. Localized / geographical proximity of servers, waiting for setup
2. Copyright issues, Indian vs Overseas rights and related monetary complications, if any
3. Piracy concerns, yes, Google Up, there seems to be ways to download (as standalone files, not offline listening) from services like TIDAL
4. Business Case for ROI, considering how many will pay for such services in India vs Investment Required
As for this, I reiterate the argument that while video is consumed mostly at home (where broadband is available), audio is largely consumed outside, especially during travel and waits which makes it vulnerable to poor mobile internet bandwidth.Folks, refer below table, taken from this source
ServiceDownload speed required Data usage Hours to 1 G
I suspect this album is poorly masterd in first place. My CD rip also sounds like 64kbps lossy mp3. Same story on Tidal HiFi.I played my test album -: Alisha Bombay girl which sounded horrible previously on. Apple Music and is not available in any platform in good quality. I played it again with lossless tag yesterday and it still sounds horrible like a 64kbps file. Apple simply added a lossless sticker to most albums !!
Reason 2: Wouldn’t it apply as much for 256 kbps as for lossless? Surely Apple/Amazon can figure out those. If not, when Amazon can spend USD 9 bn to buy MGM for their content, it’d cost far less to acquire Saregama. In fact, the huge run up stocks of Saregama (500%) and Tips (700%) have seen in the past year suggests the market might be anticipating some action.
True. Here in India presently I see there is abundance of sellers on whatsapp groups selling lossless to CD burnt copies with fake covers as original old items, these 2-3% are the ones to be aware of. But yes, they can also do through VPN, you are absolutely right and this problem will be is always there.Reason 3: Assuming 2-3 % users engage in piracy, they surely would have the intent and the resources to use VPN and access international streams.
Again this is my guess, I do not have supporting facts, but subscribers of lossless audio streaming may not be more on the go users who would be able to differentiate between 256 / 320 vs lossless audio with regular earplugs. They would be more static people even if listening on 4G but with more focus and dedicated setup no matter how minimal that it.Reason 4: India, while not being a high individual spend market, is voluminous enough to make consumer businesses with low variable costs interested and keen. We see that in OTT video, so why not in audio?
Thanks @haisaikat for the additional input on latency. It will affect the lag before the first song is played as well as when one changes album, playlist etc.
I never heard of google up