Liste des Groupes | Revenir à col advocacy |
Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>On 2024-05-24 3:00 a.m., RonB wrote:>On 2024-05-24, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
<brevsnip>
>>>Probably because some people think that Apple Music also requires Apple
hardware. Even without Apple hardware, the sound quality is superior as
is the selection.
You would have better ears than I have to tell the difference.
The ears are one thing, but even if you only know about the
specifications, you would know that what Spotify offers can't compete.
Apple's lossy codec is the best there is, so a song encoded at 256kbps
using it will sound magnificent no matter what kind of speakers you use.
If that is not sufficient for you, it also offers lossless at no extra
charge. Meanwhile, the default for Spotify is AAC at 128kbps, using an
inferior codec that is probably the one offered by Nero. High quality
there is 256kbps, more or less on par with what Apple Music offers at
the low end but, again, with a worse encoder. There is no lossless option.
But is the "loss" noticeable to human ears?
>
And if so, does it matter? I enjoy a tune the same whether I listen to it
through earbuds, $15 logitech speakers, whether in quiet or a bit of
background noise. Most of musical information is low frequency (under 5 kHz),
though the harmonics increase that up to maybe 16 kHz.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.