Liste des Groupes | Revenir à col advocacy |
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>Andrzej Matuch wrote:>>>
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?
Especially for us old folks. Most the "savings" in lossy compression
is a reduction in high frequencies. I'm more concerned with audio
quality than most people are, and I think that Spotify's sound quality
is quite good. But then, I'm old.
>
I think that I can still tell that my CD's are better, if they are
mastered well. OTOH, some of my old rock CD's have terrible mastering
(very little bass) and I find Spotify's mastering to be much better!
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.